Tibetan monks lose their TVs as China's censors raid monasteries It’s been a tough year for Tibetan monks and things have just gotten tougher after Chinese authorities confiscated TVs in 300 monasteries and wrecked satellite gear that Beijing claimed was broadcasting "anti-China" content. An article from the state-run Qinghai news agency spotted by Reuters claimed that the local government …
I kind of hate this popularised mythology of Tibetan bhuddism.
Just because of all the idiots "on the drugs" in the 60's decided to follow the band and go to India and Tibet etc., and talk to swamis etc., it somehow makes "them" and what they bought back OK.... and we are all supposed to unilaterally go along with it.
I mean there is lots of really good things about everything, as well as bad things.
While I do not approve of most of the methods of squashing religions, and while some of the losses of rituals and profound insights, when it comes down to it, most of the bhuddist teachings and the Tibetan Book of the Dead, are just hocus pocus bullshit and they should be eliminated.
While Mao Dze Tung, was quite capable in some ways, in others he was a complete dick head.
But I do agree with him, "Religion is poison."
There is no such thing as christian, jew or moslem, it's almost all bullshit that is made up by people as they went along, to suit themselves and their agendas.
Joeseph Goerbels - that mincing nazi shit head, has everything in common with the writers and plagarists who wrote the old testament, than he has in differences with them.
Religion is bullshit.
While I do not like the chinese methods of eliminating it, and nor do I like governments much anyway, I think religions should ALL be eliminated by right thinking people.
The problem with eliminating religion:
What do you replace it with ? Religion is inherently all about mind and behavior "control".
Because of "fear" of the unknown man will accept to believe in anything that "promises" to eliminate this fear, hence the rise of religion. BUT religion was what put most of that fear there in the first place.........Thou shall go to hell etc.....
Catch 22 all round , man in general refuses rational thought and prefers the premashed religious offering... pathetic really
The problem with eliminating religion:What do you replace it with?
Do what those cats in the bowling alley did, create your own version of Discordianism. Better to believe and follow a religion that makes sense to yourself than to blindly follow something that someone else made up previously.
Religion for the modern age? It's Android/Apple/Samsung/PS3/XBox. The old gods (not to be confused with the Ancient Ones) have been forsaken to be replaced by shiny shiny. Or by Kim Kardashian and Lindsey Lohan, if your not of a technical leaning.
And, despite what Charlton Heston said, I think this is a good thing. Why not put your faith in idols of the modern age that at least have some relevance to our lives? Why live your life according to rules created by prophets and priests many hundreds of years ago who couldn't tell an evil Nexus 7 from a divine iPad Mini?
"The problem with eliminating religion:" - you missed the point.
You replace it with "Верой в светлое коммунистическое будующее" Тranslation: belief into the bright future under communism). That is the first approximation.
That is usually not good enough so it morphs into: "Вера в светлое коммунистическое будующее под мудрым руководством товарища Сталина/Мао Тзе Дуна/Ким Ир Сена (ненужное зачекрнуть)". Translation: belief into the bright future under communism under the wise guidance of comrade Stalin/Mao Tse Dun/Kim Ir Sen (scratch out the unnecessary).
While the Manifesto and the first volume of Das Capital kinda make sense, there is no way you can follow the drivel in volume 2 or 3 or Lenin's mad syphilitic interpretation of it unless you believe in it. With fervor.
This is something which most people in the west fail to understand in their perception of communism. It is a _THEOCRACY_. It's sole reason to persecute religions is that it perceives them as _COMPETITION_ (and rightfully so). This is what all of this is about.
Transitioning from Religion to Communism would be extraneous as they share some common points
* It requires faith to beleive that either holds any true advantage.
* Both require the adherence to dogma which have been predesignated by others.
* Personal thought or critiscm is usually punishable.
* You give up your rights for those that are "required" in order that the regime succeed....
* Only the governing bodies can determine the path forward.
I woud rather advocate "critical thinking" where each man is taught how to think for himself rather than be spoonfed the "common ideas".
Ayn Rand was probably closer to the ideal than Lenin or Mao.
To quote one of the worlds grand masters Mr Frank zappa
"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff"
And another I like about religion ( George Bernard Shaw)
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.
Moral and compassion?
I have no religion - but I try to do no harm, to help others and to be a good member of society.
Or are You saying the only reason You have to not kill people is hell?
My reason to try to be a better person is EXACTLY because I think there is only one life, and no afterlife. No second chances, I better get this right now.
@ac 12:15
No, not create another religion but simply to educate people to think for themselves.. We will never completely remove "ignorance" but we can reduce it.
Religion requires people to have "faith". Faith could easilly be considerd as being the opposite of knowledge, it is the blind belief in what the holy "men" teach - "The concept of God " requires that man remains ignorant.
Men that are educated do not need "faith" because they have something much more powerfull, they have knowledge.
"Religion requires people to have "faith". Faith could easilly be considerd as being the opposite of knowledge, it is the blind belief in what the holy "men" teach - "The concept of God " requires that man remains ignorant.
Men that are educated do not need "faith" because they have something much more powerfull, they have knowledge."
Faith could be considered as being the antithesis of knowledge, but that would be wrong. Additionally, the concept of a god, or gods, along with faith in any such concept in no way precludes knowledge by default.
Faith does not have to be taught nor does it need to be indoctrinated.
The suggestion that faith precludes knowledge is patently absurd. If you don't believe me then just check out the number of scientists (both present and historical) who have had no problem in reconciling faith, religion and 'knowledge'.
What does impede is the way that religion has been (and continues to be) hijacked, raped and pillaged by individuals and organisations with their own agenda, often one of power and wealth.
For the record, I am in no way religious and follow no faith.
<quote>Faith does not have to be taught nor does it need to be indoctrinated.</quote>
If such were the case, the the Bible ( Catholic and protestant), Torah, Mormon book thing and other religious writing would never need to have existed. Churches and church leaders would also have no point in existing.
I do agree with the comment "hijacked, raped and pillaged by individuals and organisations " but I also believe that it was they who created religion in the first place. They are, afterall, the same indivuduals that operate using any means of control.
Modern day religions only date back a few thousand years. ( were the older religions wrong) Before them there were other religions and beliefs and no doubt tommorrow new ones will come to light. Religion is progressive in it's nature because controlling "La Peuple" required constat effort and new ideas upon which they can be "gathered" up and herded.
Can "Faith" exist without indoctrination ( I don't think so - )
Oxford Dictionary - Faith:
1 : Complete trust or confidence in someone or something: this restores one’s faith in politicians
2 : strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof:
Oxford Dictionary - Dogma:
1 : A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true:
"If such were the case, the the Bible ( Catholic and protestant), Torah, Mormon book thing and other religious writing would never need to have existed. Churches and church leaders would also have no point in existing."
Personally, I see a vast difference between organised religion and religion on a more personal level. I am quite sure there are numerous cases of individuals suffering bereavement (for example) who search for answers in some form of spirituality or faith. Both of which some will find without recourse to established churches, temples etc or printed literature. But that's not necessarily hard fact that holds everywhere, just what I have seen personally over the decades. But as for Churches and church leaders. Would the world be better off without them? In some respects, yes.
As for faith without indoctrination, personally I would hesitate to back any opinion by recourse to a simple sentence in a dictionary. A short bibliographic definition will always struggle to define the intricacies of subjective life experience and any faith that may arise as a result.
But that's just my opinion, and is in no way stated as fact.
Have a good New Year everyone... Time for the burlesque fuelled boys night out that's on the way for some :))
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
@AC 19:41
What pisses me of are the lies and deceipt that are employed in order that those in power can remain in power.
Any man that truly needs to believe in something will find no less truth in a single grain of sand than he will in a Bible, he just hasn't been taught to think that way.
This post has been deleted by its author
<quote>What is your problem, have you been forced to believe in every word in the (will not use that word) Bible by some bully. If so, welcome into the world of those who are cured and not deeply injured.</quote>
Lol, quite the opposite actually, I have been fortunate enough to having lived and worked in several different countries with several different religious groups.
I have no religious beliefs other than that of beleiving in oneself.( not a religion more of a survival thing really - could be a little akin to Budhism though). In each of the countries in which I lived I was the "outsider", and as such I have no more sympathy for those of the Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Orthodox or Mormon faiths. ( I havent had the opportunity to visit India, China or Japan yet so I cant comment on Hindus,Taoist or Maoist) .
I discovered quite quickly the patterns and arguements that each of these faiths shared and hold and realised that none of them held any more truth, reason or validity than any of the others. It always felt as though the people were simply regurgitating someone elses words, there was always a common element though, they did believe in the need to believe that God exists.
The reasons for needing a God ( or religion) always appear to be for the wrong reasons, I have yet to hear a valid argument other than the usual "apologies". I speak/read several languages, English, French, Hebrew and a few words or Arabic, and can therefore eliminate interpretation as a problem in my understanding.
If I appear, to you, to have a problem then I will put that down as a lack of understanding on your behalf.
This post has been deleted by its author
@Khaptain,
"No, not create another religion but simply to educate people to think for themselves.. We will never completely remove "ignorance" but we can reduce it."
Unfortunately, it's much easier to get the public to echo your views than to actually think for themselves. Consider the number of people who believe that science disproves religion, and consider Stephen Jay Gould's idea of "non-overlapping magisteria". It doesn't matter how much we intend to teach by logic and reason, most people who believe us are convinced purely by the presumed "authority" of the speaker, secular or religious.
Buddhism is a little different to most religions though, in that historical Buddhism as taught by the Buddha was actually no more than a simple set of practical steps of a more psychological than spiritual nature.
There are an awful lot of cultural accretions over the years (Tibetan, Mahayana, Thai Forest etc) but at it's core Buddhism is not really a religion at all and requires no belief in reincarnation, gods, afterlife, prayer wheels, intercession, karma or pretty much any of the rest of it.
Being an ex-Christian I'd agree with you on the elimination of actual religions, including Tibetan Buddhism (and other religious streams) but would not consider the core practical Buddhist teachings (4 noble truths, 8-fold path) in the same breath as the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad Ghita, Book of Mormon or other such fairy tales (though obviously stuff like the Tipitaka is dodgy). That's not to say the core Buddhist stuff is true, merely that it is not 'religion' in the same way.
Religion itself is rarely the problem:- more of a problem is Organised religion.
In (too) many cases, the religious authorities have become every bit as megalomanic, venal and hypocritical as the secular authorities - and frequently in cahoots with them - preservation of self and self's status being their primary concern, usually achieved through the subjugation of their adherents or followers.
Looking at religion itself, a doctrine which basically exhorts care for your fellow man and praises lack of selfishness does not seem to deserve the diatribes of invective heaped upon it by many of the anti-God brigade. Certainly, complaint against the entrenched organisations is both acceptable and unfortunately, frequently valid. I still cannot see why some commenters are so violent in both their manner of speech and their suggested eradication of what to many, is a deeply personal, private and even altruistic way of life.
If you don't believe, fine: that's your choice. Is it really necessary though to insult and denigrate those who do believe, but do not encroach upon you in any way?
With organised religion someone is in charge. And at some point there will be some one else who wants to be in charge (like the Chinese in this case) or religions split from the inside. How many different types of Christians are there now? How many different versions of the Bible (if it's the word of god only one can be right) Who is it trying to blow up all the Shia Muslims of late? Oh right, other Muslims. The Troubles ran along religious lines but was really about who was in charge.
"If you don't believe, fine: that's your choice. Is it really necessary though to insult and denigrate those who do believe, but do not encroach upon you in any way?"
Well that would be fine but it only ever happens for religions that are in the minority. You have people who say the US is a christian state, or Egypt is a muslim state, and they VERY MUCH want to encroach upon everyone. Just look at birth control laws or dress code laws for examples, or worse blasphemy laws.
"...the US is a christian state, or Egypt is a muslim state, and they VERY MUCH want to encroach upon everyone..."
As I said earlier, that's the ORGANISED religious authorities - who all too frequently have about as much to do with true religion as Blair & Mandelson & Co. have to do with socialism.
I am no adherent to any specific creed - neither could I claim in all honesty to be a follower of any of the three main parties in our parliament.
I can't really think offhand of any authoritative body - in almost any field - which hasn't become self-serving and corrupt.
Just the sort of world view one needs to feel good about a job in the 'ministry of love'.
I don't think religion is true either, but were I to go around punishing people for doing it, then I wonder how that would make me better than the next freak who likes to impose their will on the next guy.
There must be only one channel more boring than the CCTV channels fro BeiJing and that is the Singapore government news channel.
Most of all the news in China emanates in the BeiJing studios although certain (politically reliable) provinces do get to add their local diatribe to that from the Big Cheeses. There are some light entertainment programmes although I don't think the monks will be in to it much.
Visitors to China will notice the paucity of antennae of any type, except on government buildings. There are a few satellite dish users but these require permits and involve regular visits from police armed with compasses to ensure that they are directed at the right satellite.
Hard to hide satellite dishes and easy to spot from an aircraft.
Easy to hide satellite dish. A friend of mine spent quite a lot of the late 80's installing them all over latin america.
All you need is a pond or a pool. Drain it, put you dish in it, put a tarp over it. God know how many tarp covered unfinished 'construction projects' there are all over China....
Tibet has an Interesting history, and the argument of whether Tibet should be part of China is a complex one, but their invasion is no less legal than the US invasion of Iraq... It was just for different purposes...
I understand why the PRC is doing this, it needs to control the media to avoid uprising and more death, strange as it might sound, this action will save lives, it is all about control and reduction in crime.
In the UK, we have idiots trying to split up our nation into even smaller insignificant parts...
We have devolution, which has ruined our country, we should have evolved our government, not devolved it...
Devolution is a step backwards, with inconsistant treatment of each part of this once great nation
"And we could try paying the price for that in the shops."
No problem. We print the money to fund our trade deficits with China as it is, and pay the former production workers to sit around idle (or in pretend jobs/education). If buying from home at a higher cost then you simply print more money (or put an extra zero on the banknotes each year).
As things are, China's effective exchange rate is undervalued by 30%. When they have to correct that, then they export a huge inflation shock to the rest of the world (a bit like the Arabs did in 1974).
It'll all end in tears, I'm sure.
We print the money to fund our trade deficits with China as it is, and pay the former production workers to sit around idle (or in pretend jobs/education). If buying from home at a higher cost then you simply print more money (or put an extra zero on the banknotes each year).
Brilliant! After all, that worked out so well for Zimbabwe!
The only thing printing more money does is make it worth less (space optional).
If you can figure out where the money will come from to invest in building the infrastructure for that type of manufacture including tax breaks for the companies you want to entice to this country to kick start it all off, please let the government know.
Our country has travelled too far down the path of destroying our manufacturing industries to the point of it being too expensive to our debt ridden economy to re-start it. We dropped the ball so hard it bounced so high and landed in someone else's garden, namely china's. The US has helped the the situation by importing so much from China now it's solidified their standing as a manufacturing and export country. Economies are the most powerful weapon any country can posses and by current standings China is a superpower that puts the players from the cold war to shame. I wouldn't be surprised that if in a few years time it's GDP will increase to rival or surpass the US giving it the official No.1 spot, especially relevant given the 'fiscal cliff' the US is hanging off.
Well, if they were an enlightened western government, they would naturally immediately ban the sale and transport of all incendiary materials.
Being Evil Communist Running Dog Imperial Lackeys I expect they'll probably just buy a few more fire extinguishers and wait for the problem to burn itself out...
Gotten is not an Americanism; the word has merely fallen out of use in Great Britain.
"USAGE As past participles of get, the words got and gotten both date back to Middle English. In North American English, got and gotten are not identical in use. Gotten usually implies the process of obtaining something ( : he has gotten two tickets for the show, while got implies the state of possession or ownership ( : he hasn’t got any money)."
Please...can you try to use English, not Americanisms such as 'gotten'.
What are you complaining about? You gave it to us to begin with, then forked the language. Now you are complaining that we are running on an open source... er... Sorry, wrong diatribe. Thought for a moment we were talking about Linux distros.
Perhaps in a show of good faith, we could agree to do away with gotten in exchange for removal of the extra syllable in the element AL?
This post has been deleted by its author
1. Don't you realise that Americans post here too? They are entitled to do so in American English.
2. "Gotten" is a rather beautiful form, which, as pointed out by another, is just as English as it American, except it has almost fallen out of use in British English.
Now go and consider your ill-gotten gains
Lets rant against the horrors of the marketing departments and the management consultants, not against the true language as spoken either side of the Atlantic.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
