The Dalai Lama

[fear_and_greed]

The Dalai Lama was in Vancouver today and speaking at GM place to a packed house. Two significant items were announced. First, he was granted honorary Canadian citizenship.I have read that this really angered China. Kudos to our normallly spineless government to not bow to external pressure. Only two others people have had this bestowed on them, Nelson Mandela and Raoul Wallenberg.

Second, was the announcenment of the building of the Dalai Lama Centre for peace and education. That he selected Vancouver as the first and only location is an honour indeed.

It was a pleasure to be in the presence of a true world leader.

[Fairweather]

So you wouldn't mind a rebirth of Tibetan theocracy were the communist tyrants presently occupying it rightfully ousted?

[Billygoat]

Yeah, why not. They weren't hurting anyone. Plus, there's no oil there anyways. It's always easier to deal with a theocratic supreme head than a democratically elected body, right FW

[chris]

Actually, even when the Dalai Lama advocated independence, he also spoke about changing the Tibetan government into a democratic constitutional theocracy, where the executive would remain the providence of the re-incarnated lamas, but the legislature would be ellected and the judicial would be appointed by the executive and the legislature. This isn't unlike the democratic constitutional monarchies of the world.

His Holiness has changed his message too - he now advocates autonomy and self-governance for Tibet, allowing for a return of the exiled government, instead of a fully independent nation.

[billcoe]

As someone who has just gotten Visa approval from the Chinese govermnet to travel to China, (the country formerly known as Tibet) in 2 weeks.

 

I feel it is my duty as an honest and free citizen to refrain from commenting on the "Tibet" situation: saying for now only that the glories of Communisim are now being freely shared with our brothers in that area of China now no longer refered to as Tibet or called Tibet except by a few reactionary capitolist running dogs.

 

I have been told that it is illegal to bring in, own, or posess a picture of the Dali Lama in Tib..err....china.

 

However, the brothers in that country formerly known as Tibet now have the glories of communisim, so why would they need a picture?

[Fairweather]

Yeh, I agree that the guy seems to have good intentions, but I am slightly amused when I hear self-proclaimed liberal secularists refer to the man as 'His Holiness'. Huh? I will say that virtually any form of government that a one-day independent Tibet established would be better than the oppression it currently endures.

 

http://www.friendsoftibet.org/global/whytibet/

[olyclimber]

it is universally fun to scoff at those you believe to be less intelligent or genuine than you are. It feels good!

 

 

even the dolly llama does it.

[murraysovereign]

...I am slightly amused when I hear self-proclaimed liberal secularists refer to the man as 'His Holiness'. Huh?

 

I don't think most "self-proclaimed liberal secularists" would have any problem addressing the Dalai Lama as "His Holiness", nor the Pope, nor the Archbishop of Canterbury. Being a "liberal secularist" doesn't mean you renounce all forms of religious or spiritual belief - it just means you try to treat them all with equal respect, rather than giving preference to one above all the others. So there's no inconsistency in showing respect and deference to the spiritual head of any particular religious group. I come from a Christian background - two ministers in the family at present, and my grandfather was a Bishop - and I consider myself a "liberal secularist", and if the Dalai Lama walked into the room right now I would have no hesitation in addressing him as "Your Holiness". And I would show equal respect to the the Rabbi and the Imam and the Cardinal who accompanied him. On the other hand, if a "self-proclaimed atheist" referred to any of the above as "His Holiness" then you might have cause for scepticism.

[Mr_Phil]

You Canadians still ass kissing the Queen of England?

[cj001f]

You Canadians still ass kissing the Queen of England?

They kiss the ass of the Queen of Canada, fuckwit.

[lizard_brain]

What I hate is when those war-mongering budhists hijack and blow up airplanes.

[G-spotter]

You mean like in Sri Lanka?

[dan_forester]

[Fairweather]

...I am slightly amused when I hear self-proclaimed liberal secularists refer to the man as 'His Holiness'. Huh?

 

I don't think most "self-proclaimed liberal secularists" would have any problem addressing the Dalai Lama as "His Holiness", nor the Pope, nor the Archbishop of Canterbury. Being a "liberal secularist" doesn't mean you renounce all forms of religious or spiritual belief - it just means you try to treat them all with equal respect.....

 

I think you are mistaken. The utter contempt for religion shown here is primarily focused on Christianity and, to a lesser degree, Judaism. As a secular conservative, I believe this is because some here feel they live under threat from these groups or sub-sects therein. Maybe they're right, but I still think the whole 'holiness' thing wreaks of political correctness - and you can't be serious when you say that all religions are treated with equal respect here. For the record, I wouldn't refer to The Dalai Lama, The Pope, or Buddah himself as 'His Holiness'. They are/were, after all, just men.

[murraysovereign]

you can't be serious when you say that all religions are treated with equal respect here.

 

I didn't say "all religions are treated with equal respect here". You knocked that straw man down without even setting it up first.

 

And I think it's worth pointing out that treating all religions with "equal respect" is not at all the same as treating them all with "reverence". In fact, it could manifest itself as treating them all with undisguised contempt (as is often the case here), as long as you're even-handed about it

[archenemy]

...I am slightly amused when I hear self-proclaimed liberal secularists refer to the man as 'His Holiness'. Huh?

 

I don't think most "self-proclaimed liberal secularists" would have any problem addressing the Dalai Lama as "His Holiness", nor the Pope, nor the Archbishop of Canterbury. Being a "liberal secularist" doesn't mean you renounce all forms of religious or spiritual belief - it just means you try to treat them all with equal respect, rather than giving preference to one above all the others. So there's no inconsistency in showing respect and deference to the spiritual head of any particular religious group. I come from a Christian background - two ministers in the family at present, and my grandfather was a Bishop - and I consider myself a "liberal secularist", and if the Dalai Lama walked into the room right now I would have no hesitation in addressing him as "Your Holiness". And I would show equal respect to the the Rabbi and the Imam and the Cardinal who accompanied him. On the other hand, if a "self-proclaimed atheist" referred to any of the above as "His Holiness" then you might have cause for scepticism.

Well said.

[cj001f]

For the record, I wouldn't refer to The Dalai Lama, The Pope, or Buddah himself as 'His Holiness'. They are/were, after all, just men.

 

So you don't bother with "Mr. President" "your honour" "the honourable" either? Or are those assholes more deserving of respect?

[kevbone]

The Dalai Lama was in Vancouver today

 

The dalai lama was in the couv today? WA? Dude you need to specifi what state/country.

[tivoli_mike]

The Dalai Lama was in Vancouver today

 

The dalai lama was in the couv today? WA? Dude you need to specifi what state/country.

 

Yeah, he is going to be in vancouver , wa on his way to Camas to bless the Paper Mill

[fear_and_greed]

I think it unlikely that he would construct a centre for peace in the USA, a country that since 1947 has engaged in 158 acts of invasion, military action, election finance, economic coersion, sanctions, covert action, assasination, political coersion, bombing or military aid in other countries.

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa02.html

[archenemy]

So we're an active group.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I think it unlikely that he would construct a centre for peace in the USA, a country that since 1947 has engaged in 158 acts of invasion, military action, election finance, economic coersion, sanctions, covert action, assasination, political coersion, bombing and military aid in other countries.

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa02.html

 

To sanctimonious Canuck-fucktards:

[JayB]

I think it unlikely that he would construct a centre for peace in the USA, a country that since 1947 has engaged in 158 acts of invasion, military action, election finance, economic coersion, sanctions, covert action, assasination, political coersion, bombing and military aid in other countries.

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa02.html

 

I heard they're going to build a center for the tendentious, acontextual, recitation of random facts in service of febrile arguments by citizens of geopolitical nonentities there as well. Should be a good fit.

[cj001f]

I heard they're going to build a center for the tendentious, acontextual, recitation of random facts in service of febrile arguments by citizens of geopolitical nonentities there as well. Should be a good fit.

 

It'll look alot like this I imagine:

[fear_and_greed]

I think it unlikely that he would construct a centre for peace in the USA, a country that since 1947 has engaged in 158 acts of invasion, military action, election finance, economic coersion, sanctions, covert action, assasination, political coersion, bombing and military aid in other countries.

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa02.html

 

I heard they're going to build a center for the tendentious, acontextual, recitation of random facts in service of febrile arguments by citizens of geopolitical nonentities there as well. Should be a good fit.

 

Those are such massively big and impressive words, you are obviously in the group of 1 in a 100 amerikans who actually read books. Most can only recite who hit the most home runs with the bases loaded in the 1972 world series, off left handed pitchers.

You don't bore people at partys with that act though, do you?

Actually I had a good chuckle a few weeks back when you referred to Canada as a geopolitical nullity. Spot on description.