Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Buddha, we won't spare the time...

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
02 December 2007
IT BEGAN with Buddhism but quickly descended into a barney.
Christians and political correctness enthusiasts are locked in a furious, public row after a trio of Conservative councillors decided their future wasn't orange and 'boycotted' Buddhist prayers at a Scots council.

An outraged Labour councillor im
mediately accused the Tories of bigotry and contacted the national watchdog which regulates town hall standards. The Conservative councillors angrily counter-attacked, claiming their religious freedom was under assault.

The dispute started at the Dumfries and Galloway Council headquarters and has dragged in national church groups, academics and the Buddhists themselves, who last night remained resolutely calm.

Following the case of the British teacher jailed in Sudan for letting children name a teddy bear Mohammad, this row has again focused attention on how to balance freedom of expression and cultural sensitivity.

Dumfries and Galloway usually invites a local Christian cleric to lead prayers at its monthly full council meeting. But to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the oldest Buddhist monastery in the UK, the Kagyu Samye Ling Monastery in Eskdalemuir, the council broke with tradition and invited a non-Christian cleric to lead prayers.

Buddhist nun Ani Tsultrim Zangmo chanted for approximately 30 seconds before delivering a short homily on the importance of being in harmony with nature and the elements.

Tory councillors and practising Christians Denis Male, Gail MacGregor and Roberta Tuckfield stayed away until the prayers were over.

Labour councillor Ted Brown was outraged, telling his local newspaper: "Councillors swear an oath upon taking office to represent their constituents irrespective of race, colour or creed and I cannot see how these three individuals can square that with the bigoted stance they have taken."

Brown also contacted the Standards Commission but has decided not to take the matter further.

The targets of Brown's attack are unlikely to let the matter drop. Denis Male, who runs a ceramics business, said: "I'm writing to the Standards Commission.

"The issue is that I have been criticised publicly and mention has been made of the Standards Commission. I'm not prepared to accept that."

He added: "There's a difference between listening to a presentation about the work of an organisation, and me allowing them to lead me in my prayers. I felt that as a Christian it would be wrong for me to be led in non-Christian prayers.

"I work with the monastery on a range of issues and projects, but the Bible says 'thou shalt have no other gods before me.' We had a Kirking, a church service, for the council a few weeks ago and some of the councillors were not there. I did not object to that. Is it okay not to be at Christian prayers but not okay to stay away from non-Christian prayers?"

Roberta Tuckfield, who works in tourism, said: "I don't believe anyone was offended. We made a point of coming in discreetly through the side door.

"If we had all walked out and made a show of it that would be one thing but the fact is that people often come into meetings late and no one notices."

The Rev Alistair Donald of Forward Together, a group of evangelical ministers in the Church of Scotland, defended the Tory councillors.

"The decision on whether or not to engage in joint worship must surely be left to an individual's conscience," he said.

Richard Cook, of the Campaign Against Political Correctness, said: "It just shows the absurdity of this whole business of taking offence at things.

"If Christians want to stay away, then fair enough, just like anyone can stay away from church services." And Perry Schmidt-Leukel, professor of religious studies at Glasgow University, said: "For many Christians, Buddhism... is the hardest to find common ground with... because it doesn't acknowledge a creator."

Ani Lhamo, the Buddhist abbot's secretary, said: "We have no problem with people not wanting to take part. People have the right to follow their own beliefs and stay outside if they want."

But Brown is not without support. Margo Moffat, a Lockerbie businesswoman, said: "They should have gone because this was all about showing respect and tolerance, not about taking part.

"If you are elected then you are a public figure and you are often going to be invited to events and you have a responsibility to show a commitment to equality and to tolerance."

Victor Spence, general secretary of the Edinburgh inter-faith council, said: "Public figures have a responsibility to all their constituents, of all faiths. Going along to something does not mean you are taking part."

Brown told Scotland on Sunday: "I spoke to the Standards Commissioner and have decided not to take the matter any further. I don't think the public interest is served by me saying anything else."



The full article contains 802 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

,

02/12/2007 01:36:09
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

,

02/12/2007 02:10:09
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

AndyBhoy,

Vancouver 02/12/2007 02:58:55

If an RC priest attends do these same councillors make themselves scarce ? Would it still be a Kirking or would it be called a Chapelling ?

4

brian mcc,

the arctic 02/12/2007 04:27:35

A Buddhist service consists mostly of silence, and meditation. Western christianity could benefit greatly with the practice of silence and meditation. Does this seem cruel: @ 5 am services, a Zen Master corrects you with a stick, 'Sit up straight, your posture is unacceptable...'silence broken like thunder. The last christian I know who wakes @ 4 am for prayers and meditation was crucified 2007 years ago.

5

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 02/12/2007 05:34:00

Hello All,

Well, well, well, here we go again.

The intolerance of those spouting "Tolerance" is underwhelming as usual. The fascism from the Left, the Politically Correct Crowd, in this instance is plain to see: they KNOW that orthodox Jews and Christians CANNOT by doctrines of Faith, follow in prayers to any other religion.

Doing so knowingly is in direct contradiction to core foundational concepts of both Judaism and Christianity.

The reason I include Jews in this instance, despite none of the Councillors being Jews, is that were any of them Orthodox Jews, the PC Crowd would be tip-toeing around the issue like bugs on hot water!

Christians are the last PC acceptable target to be denigrated, maligned, oppressed, and targeted for verbal and political assault, at the drop of the proverbial hat.

Were this reversed, with a Christian Cleric giving prayer invocation, and 3 Muslim Councillors walking out because of Christian prayers, the PC Crowd would be wringing their hands, whining about the 'intolerance' of Christians, and accusing Christians of purposefully intending to insult the Muslims and Islam.

This is the road down which Political Correctness and its loony adherents have lead us: where Imams, Mullahs, and Ayatollahs, can spout all sorts of hatred against non-Muslims, going so far as to call for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews and Christians, but nary a word is raised within the PC Crowd of loons.

We're asked to be 'understanding' and 'tolerant' about such speeches, because 'they really didn't mean it' or that such words of hate really weren't hateful, because the Islamic clerics MUST have been either 'misquoted' or 'misunderstood'.

In otherwords, PC Loons are more than willing to bend over backwards to make every excuse possible for hatred against Jews and Christians by about anyone, just so long as the targets are Christians and Jews; but one must tread MUCH lighter when insult

6

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 02/12/2007 05:54:31

Hello Brian MCC,

Re your number 6, my dear fellow, though I am not Roman Catholic (in fact I am a Born Evangelical Fundy Christian, in direct opposition to RC Marian Theology, and many of the contra-biblical doctrines and dogmas), I know for a FACT, that many various orders (Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits) within the RC STILL have many enclaves where the faithful (both men and women respectively) get up with the owls to practice their faith and worship God.

You my good man, are merely displaying your anti-Christian bigotry and a goodly amount of ignorance, in actually looking at FACTS, rather than letting your emotions lead you around by the nose!!!!

Protestant groups have tens of thousands of faithful clergy who also get up with the owls to worship God and prepare for ministering to the needs of people during the coming day.

Lay members of BOTH the RC and Protestant Churches, get up with the owls as well, doing their best as Prayer Intercessors for millions of people worldwide.

But you wouldn't know that would you? You COULD know that, were you actually interested in the truth of the matter at hand, but truth, facts, and honest inquiry do not seem to be part of your forte'!

I've studied Buddhism (not an indepth study, but I've taken University level Comparative Religions instruction), Shinto, Hinduism, and a number of others, but have done an indepth study of Islam for the last 6 years.

Why?

You see, there was this fellow by the name of Saul, who became known as Paul, after a little trip to Damascus, that opened his eyes to the bigoted error of his ways.

He enjoined members of the Body of Christ to QUESTION EVERYTHING of a Spiritual Nature, going so far as to say that if a Supernatural Being quite literally appeared before one of us, telling us this, that, or the other thing, we were to compare what we were told with the Word of God (the OT and NT), and if what we had been told by the 'angel' didn't jive wi

7

whitegold,

Shire 02/12/2007 06:42:52

#3 Chairman Gordon wrote:
>>Why should being tolerant and respectful of other religions involve HAVING to attend religious services run by them?
The only public apology warranted is from the Labour half wit who wasted public time and money complaining about other people exercising freedom of choice. Can't have individualism, folk might start voting for parties other than Labour next, you see...<<

Spot on. This Labour councillor is the one who is an intolerant little bigot.

8

M77,

02/12/2007 07:47:39

Can someone report Cllr Brown to the Standards Commission please for being disrespectful to his colleagues?

9

Dave Scott,

sanctified common sense 02/12/2007 08:45:22

Surely freedom of conscience takes precedence over enforced 'respect'. As far as I know the Christian councillors didn't abuse that freedom to malign Buddha, Buddhism or the Buddhists.
Freedom of conscience is what allows unenforced church attendance. I believe that the Buddhists acccepted the basic human right of the non-attendees to absent themselves, so if no offence was taken why should it be imputed?

11. On "all forms of Buddhism are trying to do more good than harm" - that may be so, but it is also possible that Buddhism's fundamental axioms, and therefore destination, are wrong despite the kind manners of its adherents. You are treading on intolerant waters if you accuse the Christians of being "bigoted" and yet are ignoring core aspects of intimacy in Christian prayer, which cannot (de facto) exist in Buddhism. Until proven otherwise you must, unless you are a bigot in reverse, accept that the three Christians were not willing to exchange an intimate action for a public display.

10

Garry Otton,

RELIGION IS THE PROBLEM 02/12/2007 08:47:11

Well, I’m glad that the idea of 54-year-old teacher facing 40 lashes for naming a teddy bear Mohammed, shocks most people today. Don’t forget the Blasphemy Act of 1697 (the common law measure akin to the charge of heresy; once punishable by death and last used in Scotland in 1843 when a Scottish bookseller was imprisoned for 15 months for selling blasphemous books) is still on the statute books! In 1977, Gay News and its late editor, Denis Lemon were prosecuted for blasphemous libel following the publication of a silly poem by Professor James Kirkup about a centurion’s love for Christ at the Crucifixion. There were several appeals - one in the House of Lords - but with the UK the only western democracy handing out seats in its Parliament to unelected religionists, it came as no surprise the Lords upheld the judgement. Now, in 2007, after an orchestrated bombardment of complaints to the BBC following the broadcast of Jerry Springer: The Opera, the strident, Stephen Green of the militant Christian Voice is applying for permission in the High Court to bring a case of blasphemy against BBC director-general, Mark Thompson and the show’s producer, Jon Thoday. I’m sure, that in the name of free speech, there is now a sufficient common accord to drive a stake through the heart of this anachronistic law once and for all. Sufficient, I suspect, but for the siren voices of a small, vociferous minority of militant religionists whose demands for everything from so-called ‘faith schools’ to special privileges and rights are now growing ever more shrill.

11

yockel,

On the Edge 02/12/2007 09:43:53

Poor wee bigot didna realise Buddhism isn't a religion and went off geetin tae Mammy. Get a life Labour, not everyone believes in faries.

12

whitegold,

Shire 02/12/2007 09:49:50

#11 Peter wrote:
>>Buddhism has as much or as little to do with God in any form as you want to make it.

The main purpose of the Buddhist way is to meditate and consider how to live your life to do the maximum good and the minimum harm.
<<

Thanks for telling us your beliefs Peter. However it is still a religious belief - and it is intolerance to expect people to participate in it - as this Labour idiot thinks.

As Gordon wrote:
'Why should being tolerant and respectful of other religions involve HAVING to attend religious services run by them?'

We can all respect others for having their religious beliefs - but that shouldn't compel people to participate in a religious activity - here prayers.

I'm very disturbed that any councillor should expect attendance at prayers to be compulsory. This is meant to be Scotland, not the Sudan.

13

yockel,

On the Edge 02/12/2007 09:58:44

#16 With respect whitegold, you can't make Buddhism a religion just because you want it to be. At the core of the philosophy there is diety no received wisdom or laid down rules you have to follow.

14

UserNameTaken,

Hiding behind the settee 02/12/2007 10:06:34

I don't think they're too bright down there. Imagine naming the council website Dum Gal - I hope all the lady cooncillors realise this and get up a petition. That'll show that webmaster fella, eh.

15

Selgovae,

Scottish Borders 02/12/2007 10:12:47

Colourful stuff today.

#14 "there is now a sufficient common accord to drive a stake through the heart of this anachronistic law"

What sect are you in? Some of us would settle for the normal method of repeal.

#6 brian mcc

"A Buddhist service consists mostly of silence"

You've been brainwashed by those Zen zealots. I know for a FACT (Copyright of Neanderthal75), that some sects chant rather loudly for the duration of their devotions. And if you say they're wrong, they'll come round and burn your temple down.

By the way, what's a Kirking?

16

Boy Wonder,

02/12/2007 10:19:00

The answer is simple ... take all the mystical nonsense out of the Council chambers! It has no place in politics!

Are we a secular society or are we to be ruled by the religious?

Be careful what you wish for ...

17

yockel,

On the Edge 02/12/2007 10:26:54

#19 "devotions" No such thing as a devout buddhist. There is nothing to devote to. Chanting is simply a tool, even if an irritating one. As for Zen zealots, brainwashing, ha, ha, ha, that's an Abrahamic one, ho, ho,ho.

18

yockel,

On the Edge 02/12/2007 10:28:15

#20 on the nail Boy Wonder and I suspect the Buddhists would agree with you.

19

Selgovae,

Scottish Borders 02/12/2007 10:28:53

#20 BW

"take all the mystical nonsense out of the Council chambers"

Would that include those starnge incantations for improving local services too?

20

yockel,

On the Edge 02/12/2007 10:34:46

#23 We are all in agreement then?

21

Selgovae,

Scottish Borders 02/12/2007 10:35:42

#21 yockel

I'm glad the Zen zealots made you laugh. (It was meant to be funny.)

More seriously, about "devout Buddhists, I disagee. Most sects of Buddhism stress practice over belief. And whether those practices stress meditation or chanting, there are many followers who are devout in carrying them out. Of course, you could argue that those people are not "real" Buddhists, but then we'd be going down the intolerance road again.

22

jowa,

Sussex 02/12/2007 10:37:08

Quote: "11. On "all forms of Buddhism are trying to do more good than harm" - that may be so, but it is also possible that Buddhism's fundamental axioms, and therefore destination, are wrong despite the kind manners of its adherents."

These ideas of 'axioms' and 'destination' are concepts of theistic religious belief systems. This demonstrates an ignorance of Buddhism which, as another poster points out, is not a religion or faith. Buddhism doesn't depend on 'axioms' in the way that religions do - taking 'axioms' to mean articles of faith, or beliefs which define one as an adherent ot that 'faith'. The Buddha observed that human beings suffer, that suffering arises from deluded clinging to 'me' and 'mine' and that by seeing through ths clinging, suffering (i.e. what we may call psychological suffering as distinct from physical pain) can be brought to an end, and 'selfless' love and compassion realised. Buddhist practice is based on training in 'skilful' or ethical action and in direct experiential 'observation' of the nature of the mind - which includes 'meditation' practices. The 'result' of such practice is seen directly, here and now, in this life. Nothing has to be 'believed' and, incidentally, 'taking offense', involving as it does elements of hatred or anger plus self-aggrandisement is seen by Buddhists as a very 'unskilful', i.e. unethical mental state, to be avoided at all costs. This would, of course, include people who get very, very upset about the names of teddy bears, as well as ones whose rigid religious beliefs prevent them from participating in acts of simple human solidarity and friendliness.

23

yockel,

On the Edge 02/12/2007 10:45:34

# 26 jowa - more eloquent than I

24

keithlj,

Conservative in Communist Seattle 02/12/2007 10:53:00

I had a nice girlfriend until I found out she was a Buddhist and a Conservative Episcopalian. That is what she said. She also said that God told her to break up with me. The problem is I wonder which religion and which one of the thousands of gods she was referring to.
I say keep up with the fight. The Christian God will be jealous and the Hindu gods will become restless. Do good to them. They will come to you for help and religious guidance sooner than you think.
A U.S. prophet Kim Clement said that God said Tony Blair had to leave before something could happen. Still waiting for something to happen. Also, the next U.S. President will be filled with God's spirit and the oval office will be filled with God's presence. Soon. Soon. Soon. Soon. Soon. Soon. Soon. Present them with love so they will be accepting and run to God when he shows His "face".

25

yockel,

Over the Edge 02/12/2007 11:02:07

#28 had a girl friend once .... So it goes

26

Guga II,

Rockall 02/12/2007 11:46:46

What it boils down to is that there is no place in public life for mythology. Religion should be kept out of schools, councils and government. If people want to believe in mythology, or practice some other form of black art, they should do so in the confines of their own homes, or in their own temples/churches/chapels/covens; not in public places.

27

whitegold,

Shire 02/12/2007 12:28:10

To all those loudly (and incomprehensibly) claiming that buddhism isn't religious:

1) It reminds me of a phone in I once heard. Mike Dickin was talking about religion & a woman phoned in. She was critical of religion, and then surprised Dickin when she proceeded to talk about her fervent belief in reincarnation. She was adamant that her belief in reincarnation wasn't religious or even a belief but some form of philosophical fact. Her delusion that her beliefs weren't beliefs was very amusing.

2) Even if buddhism isn't a religion. So what? Does that mean attendance at buddhist prayers should be compulsory 'because it isn't religious'. Wow that sounds logical!!!!!

BTW none of this is meant to be in any way derogatory to buddhism or buddhist beliefs.

But lets get this straight once and for all:

'Why should being tolerant and respectful of other religions involve HAVING to attend religious services run by them?'

We can all respect others for having their religious beliefs - but that shouldn't compel people to participate in a religious activity; - here prayers.

I'm very disturbed that any councillor should expect attendance at prayers to be compulsory. This is meant to be Scotland, not the Sudan.

If people here are willing to think of buddhism as more philosophical then fine; - you are free to define your beliefs as you wish.

But if people are trying to tell me that there should be criticism of these councillors because they didn't want to attend these prayers - then quite frankly these people are every bit of bigotted and intolerant as those in Sudan. Belief is a matter of free choice - anyone who says otherwise is very dangerous.

28

Klaus Dubois,

Edinburgh 02/12/2007 12:31:27

Not a very harmonious approach. Typical political opportunist jumping on nearest PC bandwagon, desperate to be outraged on behalf of potential voters.

I can't see how you can respect all faiths & religions as many are contradictory (even having divisions within their own 'walls'). Some are openly xenophobic, mysognistic, homophobic, etc... but we have to bend over backward to accomodate such ? We used to burn witches; religion can modernise too.

29

Odin,

Scotland 02/12/2007 13:01:05

Postings #7 & #8

Neanderthal75

Your posts are the most reasoned I have seen from a follower of the intolerant Asian God on the cross.

I hope you extend your reason to those who would like to exercise their intellectual right right to subject the theology of the Holocaust to critical and analytic examination without being incarserated.

I would also, respectfully, like to draw your attention to the fact that the universally aspired to gifts of Democracy, the concept of free speech, intellectual enquiry and religous tolerance were products of Pagan Europe.

Pagan Rome, for instance tolerated all religions. It was only when Peter and Paul manifested their Asian intolerance by basically denigrating other religions through their teaching that all religions except the worship of the Asian God on the cross were "poofy" that they came into conflict with the Roman Authorities.

30

El Capitano,

Mexico 02/12/2007 13:05:31

# 8
Very eloquent, but gonnae please stop saying "Owls"

31

yockel,

Beyond Reason 02/12/2007 13:16:17

#39 that would be "owls" of laughter then, would it? Opps sorry didn't mean to be disrespectful...

32

Kobi,

02/12/2007 13:51:17

In the days when the council in Edinburgh had prayers (from a variety of different denominations, not just Christian) before the start of the full Council meeting, around half the Labour councillors would stay outside the room until after the prayers were over, and then go to their seats.

Ted Brown is a bampot.

33

bus user,

edinburgh 02/12/2007 14:07:23

#8 - I was with you until you invoked Saul/Paul who imposed Pauline theology on the other proto-Christian sects at the time and gave us the mess we have today.
On the story, of course, Labour voters in the West (and South West) of Scotland really do have to think about where they put that 'X' in future.

34

Douglas Eckhart,

Edinburgh 02/12/2007 14:23:05

'and has dragged in national church groups, academics and the Buddhists themselves, who last night remained resolutely calm'

I like the line above... typical buddhists!

35

Mythril,

West Lothian 02/12/2007 14:52:56

One must look to why the Buddhists were calm in this situation. It is because the statement that was made by the councillors that left , was a religious one, when the beliefs of the Buddhists are of morals not of religion.

36

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Ontario 02/12/2007 14:55:55

jennifer

DARLING! What ARE you on today? Your posting was certainly "singular".

From the timing of your posting the sun is not yet over the yardarm and you MAY be celebrating the Sun God with liquid refreshment, no?

Or maybe you are just "high on life".

As a matter of respect, I think those councillors should have been present in the chamber or are they so self-opinionated and inflexible that they will disgrace themselves by acting in this narrow-minded way?

37

Mart on Skye,

02/12/2007 16:42:48

This situation is about political posturing and trying to score points against political opponents nothing else.

The Labour member is clearly out of order and should be the one to apologise for implying that the other councillors were bigoted for following their conscience in a matter of religious belief.

Perhaps the PC brigade need to realise that tolerance cuts both ways and show a little tolerance.

38

Spalding Excrementio,

02/12/2007 17:20:47

I see the issue here as part of a wider assault on our traditions.

Whether you're a Christian or not, our country is Christian by tradition, as are our laws and institutions, but many people feel they have to defer to and accommodate the ethics and ideas of other faiths, particularly Islam, even when they conflict with Christianity as part of the secularist drive to end privilege of one religion over another.

And what's the aim of secularism? Is it REALLY the end of religious privilege and making all faiths equal? Many of our most prominent secularists are also rather militant atheists, who would like to end all faith, so I think ending faith is actually the true aim.

It won't happen! You'll simply end up with the situation we're already journeying to - a disparate mess where people believe what they want - a paradise for extremists because nobody ever stands up and tells them their beliefs are wrong.

I'm sorry that Buddhism - a faith which is quite compatible with Christianity in many ways - has got embroiled in something which essentially involves a conflict between our Christian tradition and some of the more newsworthy elements of Islam.

It's a symptom of the fact that many feel our traditions are under assault from Islamo-fascists who have found an unlikely ally in leftist secularists.

39

Selgovae,

Scottish Borders 02/12/2007 19:15:19

#47 Spalding

"our country is Christian by tradition, as are our laws and institutions"

I disgree. Our arts, our science, our legal system, our education system and all their benefits are founded more on the ideas of Greece and Rome than Christianity. To a large extent, we are a secular country which is why we have developed as we have.

But religion, in the form of the church has never been far away. When people were still attending church, a careful and delicate relationship was developed between the secular and religious institutions. Except for times of civil war, alternating massacres of Catholics and Protestants, witch burning and various attitudes towards Jews, this relationship somehow managed to hold. But over a long period, the established Christian churches had to trim their texts to maintain their position. Creation in six days, Noah's Ark and many miracles were reduced to allegory and not fact. By the end of the 19th century, it wasn't clear what exactly they believed in, and church leaders were arguing amongst themselves whether this or that event actually occurred.

Now we have a situation where the majority don't attend church and don't hold strong beliefs. Believers tend to be of the more fundamental kind and there are fewer of the "social" chuchgoers of yesteryear. Yet our political leaders still feel it necessary to pay homage to religious groups. And fairness forces them to extend this to other religions.

It would serve our traditions better if our political leaders paid more attention to the secular side of our history and affirmed that we are indeed a secular country. The need not to upset the church and other religions has long passed.

40

tsar,

dumfries 02/12/2007 20:16:45

No 2 Proud Doonhamer. Just exactly what have these 3 Councillors done before to embarrass themselves and their Community..? A cheap swipe I think!

41

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 02/12/2007 20:24:13

Odin,

My dear Pagan fellow, Paul and Peter were very clear about the issue of 'tolerance' of other's religions, Paul understanding very clearly the Roman concept of religious tolerance; he being a Roman citizen.

However, you're doing a bit of whitewashing when it comes to Roman tolerance of other religions: polytheists had no problem with worshiping other gods, but monotheists have a serious problem with that concept.

Particulary when Augustus was elevated to a deity, as were later Caesars! Romans REQUIRED that those Caesars so elevated be WORSHIPED or at a minimum ACKNOWLEDGED as being deities, and to a Jew or a Christian, this was altogether repugnant and not allowed.

So why you are correct about Caesarian pre-deification period, you are only half correct in post-deification period.

More later, as I've got to take a friend and neighbor to town (40 miles South)

Cheers from the Rockies

PS. Thanks for the amicable nature of the exchange, I have a number of Pagan friends, and have studied modern Wicca (yes, I know that's just one sect under the umbrella of Paganism), from Crowley and Gardner to the New Age variants.

It's all very interesting.

42

Ross Fyffe,

Scotland 02/12/2007 21:10:57

Labour councillor Ted Brown was outraged, telling his local newspaper: "Councillors swear an oath upon taking office to represent their constituents irrespective of race, colour or creed and I cannot see how these three individuals can square that with the bigoted stance they have taken."

Yes so does he expect all councillors to partake in child molestation because some of the constituents are peados???

43

Pilrig,

Livingston 02/12/2007 22:11:53

Neanderthal - Crowley was a waste of a good mountaineer, just a failed occult dilletante. He never had the stamina to complete the rituals he took part in.
Great Beast 666 - don't make me laugh, Aleister !
I felt sorry for the poor goat !

44

Pilrig,

Livingston 02/12/2007 22:14:41

34 - "religion can modernise too"
Prof Dawkins ( a breath of fresh air on the subject) would beg to differ.

45

,

02/12/2007 23:05:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
46

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 03/12/2007 06:39:43

Hello Bus User,

Allow me to point out that Paul taught TOLERANCE of other people and their religions: one can read this words concerning this aspect of Pauline doctrine quite readily.

Secondly, allow me to point out I and II Peter, which clearly state that Paul WAS speaking and writing with the Power and Authority of the Holy Spirit.

Peter recognized Paul as a fellow Apostle and of course, a Brother in Christ, who DID have the authority to teach and preach doctrine.

You may not personally like what Paul taught, but your dislike has no impact on the veracity of his teachings: no less and authority than the Apostle Peter confirmed Paul's authority and teachings.

This aside, I would note that Political Correctness is killing both America and Great Britain, with far too many Scottish Bureaucrats and Politicians touting the PC line, as if from God Himself.

The hypocrisy from the Left is overwhelming on this issue and unfortunately for all of us, it's going to get a lot of people killed (and many of those are going to be people we love and family members, statistically speaking).

The problem is that far too many of the average folks don't see a need to take a stand on most of it. Look at how many Imams are spewing hatred from pulpits in mosques. Look at how many journalists in Moscow seem to up and die without any reason.

Look at Iran's statements about non-Muslims and the Official State Goal of constituting the Khaliphate from the Atlantic to the Pacific and people just chuckle. When it comes to Iran's Grand Ayatollah, Khameini, stating that Israel must be wiped off the map of the Earth, people just roll their eyes and go on their merry ways.

Bus, we're back in the 30's, but this time there are MILLIONS of Neville Chamberlains in both America, Great Britain, and Europe.

We know how all that turned out don't we?

Get ready, because this time around, those of us whom survive, are going to wish that ONLY th

47

jowa,

03/12/2007 10:02:02

Quote: "To all those loudly (and incomprehensibly) claiming that buddhism isn't religious"
Well, this exactly demonstrates my point that you don't have the foggiest what Buddhism is about! As a Buddhist, I don't take on any beliefs that are unverifiable. As regards 'reincarnation' a) it is not a Buddhist teaching (Buddhism generally teaches 're-becoming', which is a significantly different thing) and b) I personally can only take an agnostic position with regard to re-becoming, because I have no way of knowing, right now. I certainly don't think anyone should be obliged to attend anything they don't want to - my point in this case is that what seemed to be disinclining attendance at the event in question was unexamined beliefs and ignorance of what Buddhism actually is.

48

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 03/12/2007 11:13:57

58 jowa wrote:
"Buddhism generally teaches 're-becoming'"

I think you have shown us why most people consider buddhism to be classed as a religious belief.

'Re-becoming' is a form of religious belief - it isn't science.

49

Matt Sitter,

Bury, Manchester 03/12/2007 20:14:58

There seems to be a lot of discussion to what "is" or "isn't" a religion here. Buddhism does not require belief, but based on valid obsevations of what we do works, we can then allow ourselves to "believe" that things that take longer will also happen, in due course. So yes, there may be belief, based on experience, but it is absoultely not required. Unlike any other "belief" systems there is no judgement taking place either now, or when we die. Buddhists do no believe that a creator will judge our actions. So - no Creator, no Judgement, no Belief - is this a religion, or more accurately actions performed religiously ?

50

tsar,

Dumfries 04/12/2007 09:39:04

55 Proud Doonhamer, there lies the problem you have made this as much about politics as the Labour Councillor involved.....

I don't think there political orientation has any significance.....

I doubt they intended to offend.....

They were exercising a right & a freedom of choice.....

The Buddhists don't seem to mind.....

They were elected to represent and many share their views without being bigotted.....

NEED I GO ON!

51

Neil Thomas,

04/12/2007 10:11:25

Keep religion out of politics.

52

Kobi,

05/12/2007 16:25:29

Keep intolerant fools like Ted Brown and a proud doonhamer out of politics.

53

LCD,

05/12/2007 16:37:41

#6
A christian, 2007 years ago.
It may escape your intelligence that there wasn't Christians 2007 years ago.
I would mabye see that labour have a point excluding the fact that people do not attend some of the Chrsitian prayers, or did they just not notice every single time?
How can they make such a big deal out of this when the same thing was happening with the Christians and incase the labour etc. are forgetting that nun Ani Tsultrim Zangmo is against their complaints.
And I am not a tory or labour.

54

LCD,

05/12/2007 16:41:04

#62
Keep religion out of politics?
This whole idea of equality of all was actually said by, just to name one time, by Jesus. But not just Christianity that believes this most religions do, meanwhile plitics is just getting used to this compared.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.