sexual_chocolate

I think Shintoism was transformed into a bit of an amalgam when Buddhism showed up, incorporating aspects into its systems of thought and ritual, similar as to what happened in Tibet. I'm not sure what percentage adhere to Shintoism; is it the national religion? I do know that there are various sects of Buddhism in Japan, such as Zen Buddhism, Buddhism adhering to Hinayana doctrines, Buddhism adhering to Mahayana doctrines, etc..

Hey, no harm in being called a lefty, or a communist. I have much more sympathy for an intelligent socialist approach to governance than I do for run-away capitalism!

Hey Fairweather, why do you think Daniel Ortega's government was evil?

Hey you barmy lefty, Sartre was a Communist!

But, I do agree that Buddhists tend to be the least aggressive of the religious bunch. I think it may simply be because Buddhism is rather entirely based on the Buddha's teachings, and his teachings are ENTIRELY non-violent. Also, the teachings have passed down through the ages quite intact, escaping distortion, except in just a few cases, such as the Japanese Samurai distortion (where killing was justified). [ 11-24-2002, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: sexual chocolate ]

Actually, fairweather, most imperialists are quite pro-business. And as far as JGowan's observations of Bush's imperialist agenda goes, he hardly needs a US citizenship to state it. Chretien's assistant didn't need one to quite correctly observe that Bush is a moron, although morons MIGHT be insulted. "Christians are not currently trying to convert the world through force/violence." Abortion clinic bombings in the US? Mosque bombings in Africa and India? Plus, the christians that we get news of generally seem to enjoy a status which negates the need to wage holy wars. We waged them already, and won. And, the Buddhists are hardly guiltless. I know there are other examples, but the imperialist tendencies of Japan had a rather strange relationship to certain aspects of the Buddha's teachings on dhyana; you know- the myth of the Zen warrior? Anyways, no harm. Just continuing a pleasant conversation!

Hey Jake, let's not continue to perpetuate myths, ok? Myth #1."he kicked out weapons inspectors in '98". Maybe you really didn't know, but Iraq DIDN'T kick out the weapons inspectors. The US forced a pull-out. Granted, Iraq was less than an amicable host, but it's pretty well accepted as fact that the US had planted spies in the weapons inspection team (both US inspector Ritter has spoken of this, along with Hans Blix, head weapons inspector, among others). Myth #2: "...Saddam used chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers during the Iraq-Iran War and also on his own Iraqi Kurds." Ok, not really a myth, but its manipulation has elevated it to near-myth status. Iraq used gas on Iranians with full US knowledge. As a matter of fact, I believe it was Rumsfeld who was in Iraq, shaking hands with Saddam during some of the gassings. But in our zeal to contain Iran, US looked the other way, as not to offend Saddam. During this time, we were also supplying him with arms and various other needs. Only once he invaded Kuwait did our song change. And as far as the Kurds go, I'd liken his treatment of them to our treatment of Native Americans, who we attacked with biological weapons. Myth #3: "What needs to be realized is that as the premier economic and military power in the world, it is the US's job to lead. Otherwise, another country, possibly one that is not particulary friedly to the US, may try to take charge in world affairs." Simply because we are the premier economic and military power in the world does not automatically elevate us into a leadership position; leadership positions need to be earned with the qualities of honesty, integrity, just action, openness, and a willingness to acknowledge past sins, none of which the US possesses at this time, at least regarding foreign policy. Remember, bullies were rarely regarded as leaders, at least where I grew up. Maybe the bully had the idea he was a leader, but whoever he intimidated had no respect for him, and would turn on him as soon as was safe.

Late seventies, I think you meant to say. I'd personally say they missed (ignored) the signs as soon as they chose to begin work in ousting a democratically elected leader. The Shah was a ruthless dictator, whose creation necessarily entailed the type of blowback we came to see in the revolution of the late seventies. The ends do NOT justify the means, in my humble opinion. Any religion can lend itself to violence. Of this, plenty of current examples exist. To call Islam a violent religion is to call all religions violent, since every religion has, and continues, to be used as justification for said violence. Personally, I tend to see the current Islamic violence in more secular terms. The reaction to the types of injustices we see globally don't need the banner of Islam for violence to occur; the injustices themselves serve as catalysts quite effectively. I think if one furthers the perception of this situation as one of religion, one misses the underlying secular causes, helping to narrow the parameters of analysis, which will distract from the real causes, inevitably promoting misunderstanding and fueling the resultant violence. [ 11-24-2002, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: sexual chocolate ]

quote: Originally posted by mikeadam: Kill these savages with prejudice...Crusade. Isn't this formally known as an "oxymoron"? (Besides also being known as a "bad troll"?)

Hey! They ALWAYS sold Toblerone!

quote: Originally posted by z: http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/11/21/kuwait.soldiers.shot/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/africa/11/21/nigeria.missworld.ap/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/11/22/missionary.remembered.ap/index.html Just a few of the more recent events. Yep. Welcome to the new world order. And the problem is that we all have to prepare for ever more violence, as the most powerful country leads the way. Real people really dying because of really really bad foreign policy.

That's funny! He's been spotted quite a bit lately, starting to make his way around the talk shows. Wants to see how the masses respond to his visage after being gone for a couple of years. I guess he'll check the ratings, check the results from some focus groups, and then announce his intentions early next year, huh? (I bet he runs....)

Sheesh. You don't think she really wrote that pap, do you? Oh wait...She did write Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and ....

Hey, and just cuz they're big don't mean they're bad. A while back I had a ten dollar bottle of their pinot gris I think it was, and it rocked! Too bad I quit drinking....

Ahh jeesus, Nietzsche's rolling in his grave right now. BTW, the new beaujolais is out, and word is that it's great. "Zee gwapes haf fantasteek concentwation", says Georges Duboeuf, owner of the largest boujolais producer in the world. Bottoms up!

I wanted to be the first to congratulate you, so here goes: Ummm, get a life. Nah, just kidding! Now explain Logarithms and their history, please.

Pope did it three years ago.

I have sort of been enlightened as to the nuances of "chatting". Thanks, Law Goddess.

Busted. It's him.

HI DFA! Are we chatting yet? Oh heaven help me, the edge is so close....

DFA, I'm going for the on-sight. The pressure's on.

Thanks for the clarification, Judge Judy. I'm a little disappointed though; I thought I was chatting. But I gotta say, I thought THIS place was for people without lives!

Are we "chatting" yet?

I just Trasked you, and you didn't even know it. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

No. Yes. Well, let me think about it for a sec. Yes, he might be. It might be the same Erik Wolfe. But I wouldn't bet my last copy of Royal Robbins' Rockcraft on it, if I were you. Tortoise, hummingbird. Damn.