Hot Button Buddhist Issues

[Sky Dancer]

Sex

Abortion

Sexism

Environment

Economic policies

Separation of church and state

Controversial Issues and Buddhism - A Buddhist View of Today's Hot Topics

Pick one and let's debate.

 

[amrchaos]

Oh come on, skydancer--you have to pick the topic and welcome debate with those who are interested!

Your way of doing things is too general and allows for too much jumping from topic to topic!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Sex

Abortion

Sexism

Environment

Economic policies

Separation of church and state

Controversial Issues and Buddhism - A Buddhist View of Today's Hot Topics

Pick one and let's debate.

What exactly is the Buddhist view of economic policy? I'm not convinced that religious and economic views are necessarily interdependent.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Sex

Abortion

Sexism

Environment

Economic policies

Separation of church and state

Controversial Issues and Buddhism - A Buddhist View of Today's Hot Topics

Pick one and let's debate.

What exactly is the Buddhist view of economic policy? I'm not convinced that religious and economic views are necessarily interdependent.

Buddhism teaches to avoid extreme views and find a middle way. That's what needs to be done with the economy. Enough regulation to provide oversight to ensure financial stability yet not so much that free enterprise is choked off.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Sex

Abortion

Sexism

Environment

Economic policies

Separation of church and state

Controversial Issues and Buddhism - A Buddhist View of Today's Hot Topics

Pick one and let's debate.

What exactly is the Buddhist view of economic policy? I'm not convinced that religious and economic views are necessarily interdependent.

Buddhism teaches to avoid extreme views and find a middle way. That's what needs to be done with the economy. Enough regulation to provide oversight to ensure financial stability yet not so much that free enterprise is choked off.

But "extreme" and "middle way" are entirely subjective terms, and I'm sure there are Buddhists who believe in the free market and no regulations.

 

[Sky Dancer]

What exactly is the Buddhist view of economic policy? I'm not convinced that religious and economic views are necessarily interdependent.

Buddhism teaches to avoid extreme views and find a middle way. That's what needs to be done with the economy. Enough regulation to provide oversight to ensure financial stability yet not so much that free enterprise is choked off.

But "extreme" and "middle way" are entirely subjective terms, and I'm sure there are Buddhists who believe in the free market and no regulations.

Are you someone who is a free market, no regulation extremist?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Buddhism teaches to avoid extreme views and find a middle way. That's what needs to be done with the economy. Enough regulation to provide oversight to ensure financial stability yet not so much that free enterprise is choked off.

But "extreme" and "middle way" are entirely subjective terms, and I'm sure there are Buddhists who believe in the free market and no regulations.

Are you someone who is a free market, no regulation extremist?

Yes, but, like I said, extremist is a subjective term. I don't see it as being extreme, whereas government interference in the market strikes me as being very extreme.

I would also like to point out that part of Buddhism is the Noble Eightfold Path, and part of that is the idea of "Right Speech." Referring to someone as an "extremist" doesn't strike me as being "Right Speech."

 

[Sky Dancer]

But "extreme" and "middle way" are entirely subjective terms, and I'm sure there are Buddhists who believe in the free market and no regulations.

Are you someone who is a free market, no regulation extremist?

Yes, but, like I said, extremist is a subjective term. I don't see it as being extreme, whereas government interference in the market strikes me as being very extreme.

I would also like to point out that part of Buddhism is the Noble Eightfold Path, and part of that is the idea of "Right Speech." Referring to someone as an "extremist" doesn't strike me as being "Right Speech."

You are wrong about your interpretation of "right speech" as meaning never use the term "extremism" or never call anyone "extremist".

Most non-buddhists, knowing nothing of buddhism, presume that buddhism means "always be nice".

I consider it an extremist idea to eliminate all government except for the military and the police.

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association radio program says otherwise.

His views are extremist. He proposes that the only people who should be able to get contraception in the US would be married couples.

Martin Ssempa is a Christian minister who drafted the "kill gays" legislation in Uganda. I call him extremist.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Are you someone who is a free market, no regulation extremist?

Yes, but, like I said, extremist is a subjective term. I don't see it as being extreme, whereas government interference in the market strikes me as being very extreme.

I would also like to point out that part of Buddhism is the Noble Eightfold Path, and part of that is the idea of "Right Speech." Referring to someone as an "extremist" doesn't strike me as being "Right Speech."

You are wrong about your interpretation of "right speech" as meaning never use the term "extremism" or never call anyone "extremist".

Most non-buddhists, knowing nothing of buddhism, presume that buddhism means "always be nice".

I consider it an extremist idea to eliminate all government except for the military and the police.

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association radio program says otherwise.

His views are extremist. He proposes that the only people who should be able to get contraception in the US would be married couples.

Martin Ssempa is a Christian minister who drafted the "kill gays" legislation in Uganda. I call him extremist.

I know a little more than nothing about Buddhism, and, in my opinion, referring to someone as an "extremist" is definitely not in keeping with "Right Speech." I'd certainly be interested in why you think it's acceptable, but in my view it's little more than name calling.

As for the term "extremism," my complaint isn't necessarily about its context in the idea of "Right Speech," but that there's no objective measure of what is or isn't "extreme."

And we've yet to adequately address my original point, which could be summed up as there is no "Buddhist position" on economic policy. You'll have communist Buddhists and free market Buddhists.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Yes, but, like I said, extremist is a subjective term. I don't see it as being extreme, whereas government interference in the market strikes me as being very extreme.

I would also like to point out that part of Buddhism is the Noble Eightfold Path, and part of that is the idea of "Right Speech." Referring to someone as an "extremist" doesn't strike me as being "Right Speech."

You are wrong about your interpretation of "right speech" as meaning never use the term "extremism" or never call anyone "extremist".

Most non-buddhists, knowing nothing of buddhism, presume that buddhism means "always be nice".

I consider it an extremist idea to eliminate all government except for the military and the police.

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association radio program says otherwise.

His views are extremist. He proposes that the only people who should be able to get contraception in the US would be married couples.

Martin Ssempa is a Christian minister who drafted the "kill gays" legislation in Uganda. I call him extremist.

I know a little more than nothing about Buddhism, and, in my opinion, referring to someone as an "extremist" is definitely not in keeping with "Right Speech." I'd certainly be interested in why you think it's acceptable, but in my view it's little more than name calling.

As for the term "extremism," my complaint isn't necessarily about its context in the idea of "Right Speech," but that there's no objective measure of what is or isn't "extreme."

And we've yet to adequately address my original point, which could be summed up as there is no "Buddhist position" on economic policy. You'll have communist Buddhists and free market Buddhists.

The term "extremist" is accurate when someone has extreme views. Extremism is not valued in Buddhism.

We practice the "middle way".

What it sounds like you are doing is overlaying a Judeo Christian judgment into Buddhism. Seeing that if there is "Right Speech" there must be "Wrong Speech".

There are many different teachings about how to speak skillfully. What you're trying to do is kind of scold Buddhists if they don't hold to your idea of what Right Speech is.

That would be as bad as me telling you how you should be acting if you are a "good Christian".

 

[Peach]

The bit of clarification on Buddhism and war was helpful, I would like to learn more.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The Dalai Lama is a good resource on Buddhism and non-violence, Peach. He also wrote a book connecting the teachings of Jesus with Buddhism and finding common ground. It's called THE GOOD HEART.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You are wrong about your interpretation of "right speech" as meaning never use the term "extremism" or never call anyone "extremist".

Most non-buddhists, knowing nothing of buddhism, presume that buddhism means "always be nice".

I consider it an extremist idea to eliminate all government except for the military and the police.

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association radio program says otherwise.

His views are extremist. He proposes that the only people who should be able to get contraception in the US would be married couples.

Martin Ssempa is a Christian minister who drafted the "kill gays" legislation in Uganda. I call him extremist.

I know a little more than nothing about Buddhism, and, in my opinion, referring to someone as an "extremist" is definitely not in keeping with "Right Speech." I'd certainly be interested in why you think it's acceptable, but in my view it's little more than name calling.

As for the term "extremism," my complaint isn't necessarily about its context in the idea of "Right Speech," but that there's no objective measure of what is or isn't "extreme."

And we've yet to adequately address my original point, which could be summed up as there is no "Buddhist position" on economic policy. You'll have communist Buddhists and free market Buddhists.

The term "extremist" is accurate when someone has extreme views. Extremism is not valued in Buddhism.

We practice the "middle way".

What it sounds like you are doing is overlaying a Judeo Christian judgment into Buddhism. Seeing that if there is "Right Speech" there must be "Wrong Speech".

There are many different teachings about how to speak skillfully. What you're trying to do is kind of scold Buddhists if they don't hold to your idea of what Right Speech is.

That would be as bad as me telling you how you should be acting if you are a "good Christian".

So who in Buddhism gets to decide what is or is not extreme? You keep using the word "extreme" as if it's axiomatic, but refuse to address the fact that "extreme" is merely a subjective adjective. You also tried to define the word "extreme" by using the word "extreme" in the definition, which makes no sense.

And of course there's "Wrong Speech."

"Sometimes we speak clumsily and create internal knots in others. Then we say, 'I was just telling the truth.' It may be the truth, but if our way of speaking causes unnecessary suffering, it is not Right Speech." - Thich Nhat Hanh

If something isn't "Right Speech," then it must, by definition, be "Wrong Speech." That quote can also tie into the things you said about Bryan Fischer and the others in one of your previous posts. You were "just telling the truth," as you saw it, about them, but you called them names.

Thich Nhat Hanh describes one aspect of "Right Speech" as "Not speaking cruelly. We don't shout, slander, curse, encourage suffering, or create hatred." Calling someone an "extremist" is a way of slandering them, and creating hatred.

I'm not scolding Buddhists in any way shape or form, I'm scolding you for calling names and not adhering to a Buddhist principle. As for telling me how to act like a "good Christian," feel free. I'm not a "good" Christian, or a Christian of any sort so it makes no difference to me.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I know a little more than nothing about Buddhism, and, in my opinion, referring to someone as an "extremist" is definitely not in keeping with "Right Speech." I'd certainly be interested in why you think it's acceptable, but in my view it's little more than name calling.

As for the term "extremism," my complaint isn't necessarily about its context in the idea of "Right Speech," but that there's no objective measure of what is or isn't "extreme."

And we've yet to adequately address my original point, which could be summed up as there is no "Buddhist position" on economic policy. You'll have communist Buddhists and free market Buddhists.

The term "extremist" is accurate when someone has extreme views. Extremism is not valued in Buddhism.

We practice the "middle way".

What it sounds like you are doing is overlaying a Judeo Christian judgment into Buddhism. Seeing that if there is "Right Speech" there must be "Wrong Speech".

There are many different teachings about how to speak skillfully. What you're trying to do is kind of scold Buddhists if they don't hold to your idea of what Right Speech is.

That would be as bad as me telling you how you should be acting if you are a "good Christian".

So who in Buddhism gets to decide what is or is not extreme? You keep using the word "extreme" as if it's axiomatic, but refuse to address the fact that "extreme" is merely a subjective adjective. You also tried to define the word "extreme" by using the word "extreme" in the definition, which makes no sense.

And of course there's "Wrong Speech."

"Sometimes we speak clumsily and create internal knots in others. Then we say, 'I was just telling the truth.' It may be the truth, but if our way of speaking causes unnecessary suffering, it is not Right Speech." - Thich Nhat Hanh

If something isn't "Right Speech," then it must, by definition, be "Wrong Speech." That quote can also tie into the things you said about Bryan Fischer and the others in one of your previous posts. You were "just telling the truth," as you saw it, about them, but you called them names.

Thich Nhat Hanh describes one aspect of "Right Speech" as "Not speaking cruelly. We don't shout, slander, curse, encourage suffering, or create hatred." Calling someone an "extremist" is a way of slandering them, and creating hatred.

I'm not scolding Buddhists in any way shape or form, I'm scolding you for calling names and not adhering to a Buddhist principle. As for telling me how to act like a "good Christian," feel free. I'm not a "good" Christian, or a Christian of any sort so it makes no difference to me.

Well, I don't need your scolding. I'm a grown up.

Tim McVeigh was an extremist. Fred Phelps is an extremist. Osama Bin Laden was an extremist. Bryan Fischer is an extremist.

It is not slander to tell the truth. It is not creating hatred to tell the truth. It is not creating suffering to oppose extremism.

It is quite the opposite and fully in accord with Buddhist principles to oppose extremism non-violently.

 

[Sunni Man]

Tim McVeigh was an extremist. Fred Phelps is an extremist. Osama Bin Laden was an extremist. Bryan Fischer is an extremist.

It is not slander to tell the truth. It is not creating hatred to tell the truth. It is not creating suffering to oppose extremism.

It is quite the opposite and fully in accord with Buddhist principles to oppose extremism non-violently.

And this is where your whole Buddhist/extremist argument goes in the toilet.

Because, "You" Sky Dancer are subjectively deciding who, and who's not, an extremest.

Tim McVeigh, Fred Phelps, Osama bin Laden, and Bryan Fisher, are just people.

Their way might be considered the "Middle Way" by those who agree with them.

And their "Truth" might be "The Truth"

 

[Sky Dancer]

Tim McVeigh was an extremist. Fred Phelps is an extremist. Osama Bin Laden was an extremist. Bryan Fischer is an extremist.

It is not slander to tell the truth. It is not creating hatred to tell the truth. It is not creating suffering to oppose extremism.

It is quite the opposite and fully in accord with Buddhist principles to oppose extremism non-violently.

And this is where your whole Buddhist/extremist argument goes in the toilet.

Because, "You" Sky Dancer are subjectively deciding who, and who's not, an extremest.

Tim McVeigh, Fred Phelps, Osama bin Laden, and Bryan Fisher, are just people.

And their way might be considered the "Middle Way" by those who agree with them.[/QUOTE]




You're right about that. You may not consider Bin Laden an extremist, but many people do.

If you think Al Qaeda is the "middle way", then I would have to disagree with you.

 

[Sunni Man]

So the "Middle Way" is like a popularity contest?

And the "Middle Way" is subject to a vote?

 

[Peach]

The Dalai Lama is a good resource on Buddhism and non-violence, Peach. He also wrote a book connecting the teachings of Jesus with Buddhism and finding common ground. It's called THE GOOD HEART.

Thank you for the reference; I have read much on Ghandi, and still need to learn more. I do see truth in the concept of unavoidable wrongs.

 

[Sky Dancer]

So the "Middle Way" is like a popularity contest?

And the "Middle Way" is subject to a vote?

You're silly.

We try and avoid the four extreme views. Nihilism, eternalism, both and neither.

When you meditate, you don't want to be too tight or too loose in your attention. The middle way would be likened to tuning a string instrument for it's best pitch.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The Dalai Lama is a good resource on Buddhism and non-violence, Peach. He also wrote a book connecting the teachings of Jesus with Buddhism and finding common ground. It's called THE GOOD HEART.

Thank you for the reference; I have read much on Ghandi, and still need to learn more. I do see truth in the concept of unavoidable wrongs.

Gandhi is one of my heroes too. I consider him a Hindu saint.

Can you say more about your understanding of "unavoidable wrongs"?

I think of it, as the complete inability of human beings to avoid killing even when we try.

You can't drive your car anywhere without killing insects. Even vegetarians share the karma of the harvesting of vegetables and grains and the enormous number of beings who are killed during harvest.