Religion 10 - Dual Relationship

Recently, I have been examining the question of religious relationship.  Is it acceptable for us to follow more than one belief, for example, both Christianity and Buddhism?  Are the two mutually exclusive?  

I have written before, in answer to those who describe themselves as religiously atheist (Religion 2 - Are You Religious?  August, 2011) and, while it did not appear to cause much controversy, hopefully, it may have caused some thought.  Note;  You may wish to search by using the Question field at the top of this page.

I have been known to describe myself as a Buddhist Christian, a believer of selective composite thoughts from the words of both Jesus and the Buddha.

Following confirmation in the Anglican church, I became a member of the High Anglican community (A composite of both Catholic and Protestant  religions, in other words, Catholic with divorce).  After some time, this became too complicated for me and I began to seek something that suited my twenty-first century mind.

Firstly, the trilogy of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost was difficult to accept, because who or what is the Father, an old man with a grey beard?  Jesus as the Son, a known sentient being, is acceptable, but the Holy Ghost may sound frightening to some.  The Buddha was a sentient being (The son of a rich Indian leader) but not a god in a religious sense, albeit, highly revered.  From Buddha we have a trilogy of the Power, the Buddha, and the Qi (soul), although these are not specifically of Buddhist ideology, and may cause emotion, please do not accuse me of blasphemy. 

I should be happy with this subject as long as there are comments.

“You will not be punished for your anger.

You will be punished by your anger”

Buddha

POLL - (Not Religion or Politics) Facebook?

Dear Friends;  unfortunately, the last Poll added to this Blog appears to indicate a reluctance to discuss either religion or politics.  Sadly, asking Friends if they Like (To use Facebook terms) any particular subject, using little detail, seems to cause a misunderstanding.

Way back, in the age of dragons (it seems) I explained that it is my view that every subject can not escape being associated with either religion or politics.  Thus, my last Poll not only mentioned "religion" but also implied politics.  Wow, wash your keyboards!

Therefore, now, I must struggle with an explanation.  Obviously, it is not sufficient to state that everything relates to these two taboo subjects, but sustained discussion needs some controversy.  Permit me to give some examples:

• Inoffensive Question 1 - Should Pets Be Allowed Within The Home?  Do we not create laws that require dogs to be licensed, and laws banning the possession of wild animals?  Could that be discussed without becoming political?
• Inoffensive Question 2 - Is Yoga And Meditation Useful For Health?  Will someone mention the spiritual aspects of these two innocuous pastimes, and introduce religious comments?

I wonder if it is probable that some of you prefer to keep your controversial views to yourselves.  To that, I can only remind you, once again, that you may make comments anonymously (Concealed from everyone, including myself). 

Please look at the right sidebar for the new POLL ... and, also, comment below, if you wish.

9,000 Views

It’s always exciting when the Pageviews Total has three zeros at the end of it, especially, I should point out, that my own page views are not computed.

This time, reflects a busy month.

Browsers:  Chrome 23%.  Firefox 18%.  Safari 7%.

Operating Systems:  Mac 53%.  Windows 22%.  Linux 16%.

Viewers:  1st Canada.  2nd U.S.  3rd Russia.  With interestingly lone viewers in Poland and China.

Titles:  Religion 8 - Religion or Cult.

         Immigration 4 - Assimilation.

         Aerospace 11 - Great News.

Of Note;  Percentage Formula has, finally, lost its popularity.

Religion 9 - Religion or Cult?

Like, so many people, I have been involved in private conversations regarding the question of fundamental Islam.  While conversation can be interesting, it is limiting in individual scope, such that I felt the need to expand the specific subject of cultism to an Internet discussion amongst my circle of friends, et al.

Thus, this Blog discussion desires your participation.

Obviously, there was, initially, a conversation regarding the development of ‘Daesh’ (A derogative term for the illegitimate organization called ISIL), that changed its focus into the question defining a cult.

One friend introduced a suggestion that the numbers of asylum seekers from the Middle East into Canada should be reduced to 10,000 per year and, then, balanced by increasing the numbers of Asians (Specifically from India and China) on the basis that Asian people had a historic antipathy towards Muslims.  India’s democratic government allows Islam to flourish ... for the moment.  China’s Marxist (Communist) government, otherwise described as “democratic with Chinese characteristics”, seems able ... at the moment, to avoid fundamental Islamic problems.  In fact, in my opinion, there is no fundamental Islamic problem in China.  The whole Muslim culture is a problem according to the government.  It seems that many countries believe that China is correct on this question.

The subject became one of cultism by suggesting that China itself was a cult society.  I had to disagree with this misrepresentation.  China, as a Communist country, bans all forms of religion (Other than that mismanaged by the CCP) and this creates a belief, to the outsider, that religion thrives underground in small groups resembling cults.  In my experience, most Chinese people are very spiritual, almost naive (As may be observed at any Buddhist temple) but not religious in a Christian sense.

Thus, there was a statement that Islam is a cult, to which I disagree.  ‘Daesh’ on the other hand, could be described as a cult, because of its religious veneration, sinister practices, misplaced admiration for a particular person, and being fashionable among a particular section of society.

Now, therefore, the question extends to Christianity, is it also a cult?  I believe that, even though there are small cults within Christianity, it is a religion ... Islam too.  On the other hand, Buddhism would, more accurately, be defined a cult (It does not believe in superhuman controlling powers).

Should cults be banned?  Are we all religious in one way or another, or simply spiritual?  Is it a matter of defining terms?

Please join the conversation.

8,000 Pageviews

We're at 8,000 page views, with a few changes to show.

Firefox leads the browsers, followed by Google Chrome, and then Microsoft Explorer.

Operating systems were lead by Linux, followed by Macintosh, and then other Linux systems.

Canadian, US, and UK viewers were most common, with an interesting number from Australia and France.  Not to mention a couple of agents from Poland and Ukraine.

Titles that gained the most 'hits' since my last report were:

• World Domination - An Essay (June, 2015)
• Aerospace 10 - Bombardier CS300 (February, 2015)
• Bottles Of Water (June, 2015)
• Religion 2 - Are You Religious? (August, 2011)

Comments were concentrated at:  

• Politics 2 - Multiculturalism (August, 2011)
• Politics 8 - Percentage Formula (August, 2013)
• Education 10 - A Ticking Time Bomb (November 2014)
• Politics 10 - Vladimir Putin, A Question (January, 2015)
• 
  

I have a feeling that 'Percentage Formula' has an irresistible title ... and may be relegated to the penalty box next time.

Politics 14 - Pork on the School Menu

The following story was sent to me by a very good friend in South Africa (Yes!).  I feel obligated to copy it here:

MAYOR REFUSES TO REMOVE PORK FROM SCHOOL CANTEEN MENU ... EXPLAINS WHY

Muslim parents demanded the abolition of pork in all the school canteens of a Montreal suburb.  The mayor of the Montreal suburb of Dorval, has refused, and the town clerk sent a note to all parents to explain why.

“Muslims must understand that they have to adapt to Canada and Quebec, its customs, its traditions, its way of life, because that's where they chose to emigrate.  They must understand that they have to integrate and learn to live in Quebec.  They must understand that it is for them to change their lifestyle, not the Canadians who so generously welcomed them.

They must understand that Canadians are neither racist nor xenophobic, they accepted many immigrants before Muslims (whereas the reverse is not true, in that Muslim states do not accept non-Muslim immigrants).

That, no more than other nations, Canadians are not willing to give up their identity, or their culture.

And if Canada is a land of welcome, it's not the Mayor of Dorval who welcomes foreigners, but the Canadian-Quebecois people as a whole.

Finally, they must understand that in Canada (Quebec) with its Judeo-Christian roots, Christmas trees, churches and religious festivals, religion must remain in the private domain.

The municipality of Dorval was right to refuse any concessions to Islam and Sharia.  For Muslims who disagree with secularism and do not feel comfortable in Canada, there are 57 beautiful Muslim countries in the world, most of them under-populated and ready to receive them with open arms in accordance with Shariah.

If you left your country for Canada, and not for other Muslim countries, It is because you have considered that life is better in Canada than elsewhere.

Ask yourself the question, just once, “Why is it better here in Canada than where you come from?”

A canteen with pork is part of the answer.”

Politics 8 - Refugees

When one feels like discussing something interesting, it often becomes a debate. Then, we are told never to introduce those two dangerous subjects, Politics and Religion. But, try to discuss immigration and avoid an insulting argument, because immigration combines both politics and religion.

I wrote the following, as a comment, in a newspaper this morning.  Then, realized that I had a Blog, a worthy stage for my act.

Enter, stage right (or left).  No one political party in the world can design an equitable immigration policy, and those religions that preach 'Peace on Earth to all men', seem to forget those words when they leave the church or mosque.

Personally, I like to teach many people the difference between an 'immigrant' and a 'refugee'. In the 'ideal' world, immigrants should not cause major problems, but that assumes that immigration departments adhere to the regulations, i.e., no person (s) should be coming into a country without sufficient funds to support themselves for a defined period of time, or be sponsored by a business (or another individual) for a specific period of time, e.g., three years. After three years, they should qualify for resident or even citizen status.

But a refugee usually has no choice. They come, for various reasons, for fear of their lives. Once their case is proven, I am sure that most of us would be sympathetic to their situation. We may say, 'There, but for the grace of God, go I.' Nevertheless, I need to mention a rarely spoken, controversial point; If, and when, the fearful reason for their acceptance as refugees has passed, they must be encouraged to return to their safe country of origin ... and, from there, apply for immigration. A precedent exists, e.g., a tourist arrives in a country, loves it so much, decides to stay, but must return to their country of origin to apply at the embassy ... and prove educational skills, financial sufficiency, and criminal record, etc.

That is not discrimination.

Religion 4 - The Global Blasphemy Law

As a keen reader of international media, I thought that I was aware of most things, but the following article, when it appeared in Forbes Magazine caught me on the hop.  It describes an attempt to create a global blasphemy law applicable to every nation.

US Supports UN Anti-Free Speech Measure 

While you were out scavenging the Walmart super sales or trying on trinkets at Tiffany or Cartier, your government has been quietly wrapping up a Christmas gift of its own: adoption of UN resolution 16/18. An initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Organization of Islamic Conferences), the confederacy of 56 Islamic states, Resolution 16/18 seeks to limit speech that is viewed as “discriminatory” or which involves the “defamation of religion” – specifically that which can be viewed as “incitement to imminent violence.”  Whatever that means. 

Initially proposed in response to alleged discrimination against Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11 and in an effort to clamp down on anti-Muslim attacks in non-Muslim countries, Resolution 16/18 has been through a number of revisions over the years in order to make it palatable to American representatives concerned about U.S. Constitutional guarantees of free speech. Previous versions of the Resolution, which sought to criminalize blasphemous speech and the “defamation of religion,” were regularly rejected by the American delegation and by the US State Department, which insisted that limitations on speech – even speech deemed to be racist or blasphemous – were at odds with the Constitution. But this latest version, which includes the “incitement to imminent violence” phrase – that is, which criminalizes speech which incites violence against others on the basis of religion, race, or national origin – has succeeded in winning US approval – despite the fact that it (indirectly) places limitations as well on speech considered “blasphemous.” 

The background to all of this, unsurprisingly, is an effort on the part of Muslim countries to limit what they consider to be defamatory and blasphemous speech: criticism of Islam, say, or insulting the prophet Mohammed – which, as we’ve learned, can mean anything from drawing a cartoon or making a joke in a comedy sketch to burning a Koran. Such acts – according to some readings of the Koran and, indeed, according to law in some OIC countries – are punishable by death. Hence the riots that met the publication of the so-called “Danish cartoons,” the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the murder of Theo van Gogh, and on and on. 

Deception.   Here’s where Resolution 16/18 gets tricky.  Because who, exactly, arbitrates what is “incitement to imminent violence”? Violence by whom? If drawing a caricature of the Prophet incites violence by Islamic radicals to the tune of riots, arson, and murder, all sanctioned by the IOC itself – then drawing such a caricature (or writing a book like the Satanic Verses) will now constitute a criminal act. And that is exactly what the OIC was aiming for. It is also in direct violation of the principles of Western democracy – and the First Amendment. (Though it is crucial to note that any resolution passed by the General Assembly remains non-binding, which makes you sort of wonder what the point of all this is, anyway.) 

Moreover, since many would claim that the persecution of blasphemers is mandated by their religion, conflicts emerge between guarantees of free expression and the guarantee of freedom of religion and the practice of one’s faith. In other words: your free speech allows you to insult my prophet: my freedom of religion compels me to kill you for it. 

What about “incitement to violence”?  Whose violence? 

This is how the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation plays “Gotcha. 

This is how the American government, however unwittingly, subsumes its own Constitution in deference to the demands of the Islamic state.  It’s a dangerous game. 

Yet in all of this, America has stood strong in its defense of free speech – even blasphemous, hateful, racist, sexist, Pentecostal, homophobic, and ignorant speech. We must continue to do so, no matter what pressures we may face. Because in the end, limiting our rights to self-expression and – above all – the questioning of religious beliefs – will never help to make the world more peaceful – or more free.

Abigail R. Esman

Politics 4 - A Palestinian State

I do not think that there is one subject to be discussed that avoids politics.  Even religion cannot be discussed without involving politics.  One of my posts discussed tipping in restaurants in which I avoided the possibility of a government ban on the subject.  Could we discuss organic foods without the Ministry of Food applying some regulations?  Could I spank my child’s bottom without the police knocking on my door?  Could I walk my dog in the park without a regulatory-designed leash ... well, probably, that will be next.

Could a tiger nurse orphaned piglets?  Could a polar bear play harmlessly with tethered husky dogs?  Could a lion hug and lick a woman who had cared for it earlier?  I am sure that some of you have seen these videos, but I digress ... could humans live together in peace?

Time and time again the U.N. has asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and, constantly, they refuse.  Iran has signed, has permitted inspections, yet we demand that only Iran provide discrete details, because Israel says that it “knows” that Iran poses a nuclear threat.  Israel bombed a nuclear power station in Iraq where, later, international experts could find no evidence of a clandestine weapons factory in the ruins.  Later, the U.N. released the Goldstone Report, a scathing report which accused Israel of 37 specific war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza earlier this year. Israel has denounced the report as "Anti-Semitic (even though Judge Goldstone is himself Jewish).  Declassified documents from the former South African regime prove not only that Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades, but has tried to sell them to other countries!

Finally, let us diligently read UN General Assembly Resolution 3376 (one of many) that states:  "Reiterates all relevant United Nations resolutions which emphasize that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible under the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law and that Israel must withdraw unconditionally from all the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem"

Now, today, a slight, usually quiet man, President Mahmoud Abbas, stood in front of the U.N. General Assembly to cheers and almost tumultuous applause, to say that he believed that it was time for Palestinian statehood ... and I am one person who believes that this day has been a long time coming.

I wonder if you agree with me?

Politics 3 - Jerusalem

I wonder if the name Jerusalem is a religious or political thought in your mind.  Certainly, it is a city of religious significance, but today, politics overshadows almost all forms of religion there.  Of course, some choose to bring religion to the fore, specifically, Judaism and Islam, and one is bound to question the position of Christianity in all of this.

In this discussion, I wish to focus on the political aspect of Jerusalem.  What is Jerusalem — is it Jewish, Islamic, Christian, or all the above?  In my view it is all the above, in which case, for either one of the two present antagonists to decide its future without consultation with the others is doomed to failure.

Therefore, what is the answer?

In my opinion, there is only one answer, and I have never seen it mentioned before ... division.  At least, I have not seen it mentioned in the following way.

Now, before you look for the Comment button, please continue.

Presently, the Israelis declare, without any consultation, that Jerusalem will always be the capital of Israel.  At the same time, the Palestinians say that it should be the capital of Palestine (There shall be a Palestinian State).  It seems that the Christians will have no say in the matter.  Therefore, the situation may be described as a solid stalemate.

The answer can be seen by using the Vatican City as a model — a city state within a state.  It works perfectly.

Jerusalem must become a city state, bordered by Israel and Palestine, but governed by neither of them.  The city could be controlled (governed) by a representative group of all three religions within the population and, citizenship and security (for example) for residents could be equally state controlled within the city.  There may be a request for U.N. Peacekeepers initially because, as a religious city, citizens will not be permitted to carry arms ... amongst other things.

Finally, the capital of Israel would be Tel-Aviv and the capital of Palestine could be Ramallah, regardless of the agreed borders of the two countries.  The latter requires a separate discussion.


I wonder what you think of this idea?