Quantcast

Dalai Lama Calls Himself a Marxist: Acceptable or Absurd?

News 2011/06/13 17:54:28
You!
Add Photos & Videos
The Dalai Lama is sometimes seen as the embodiment of peace and kindness, but CNN reports that even his followers had to take a step back when he told a Minnesota audience recently that he's a Marxist.

"But not a Leninist," he added.

The Tibetan leader answered that Marx was not against religion or religious philosophy per se but against religious institutions that were allied, during Marx’s time, with the European ruling class. He also provided an interesting anecdote about his experience with Mao. He said that Mao had felt that the Dalai Lama’s mind was very logical, implying that Buddhist education and training help sharpen the mind.

CNN stresses that, traditionally, the Dalai Lama has actually been a "symbol of opposition to Chinese rule in Tibet," which would seem to Western audiences to go against Marxist views.

Read More: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/11/dalai-lam...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Grandbrother 2011/06/13 19:28:12 (edited)
    Acceptable
    Grandbrother
    +19
    His comments must be taken in context of his interpretation of Marxism and how it's been applied historically, his Buddhist beliefs, and his overall thoughts on the subject. Here's the text of the Dalai Lama's full answer on the question of his support for Marxist theory:

    "Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes--that is, the majority--as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently read an article in a paper where His Holiness the Pope also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism.

    As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the former USSR, or China, or even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes, for they were far more concerned with their narrow national interests than with the Workers' International; this is why there were conflicts, for example, between C...




    His comments must be taken in context of his interpretation of Marxism and how it's been applied historically, his Buddhist beliefs, and his overall thoughts on the subject. Here's the text of the Dalai Lama's full answer on the question of his support for Marxist theory:

    "Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes--that is, the majority--as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently read an article in a paper where His Holiness the Pope also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism.

    As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the former USSR, or China, or even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes, for they were far more concerned with their narrow national interests than with the Workers' International; this is why there were conflicts, for example, between China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have occurred.

    I think the major flaw of the Marxist regimes is that they have placed too much emphasis on the need to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and this causes them to encourage hatred and to neglect compassion. Although their initial aim might have been to serve the cause of the majority, when they try to implement it all their energy is deflected into destructive activities. Once the revolution is over and the ruling class is destroyed, there is not much left to offer the people; at this point the entire country is impoverished and unfortunately it is almost as if the initial aim were to become poor. I think that this is due to the lack of human solidarity and compassion. The principal disadvantage of such a regime is the insistence placed on hatred to the detriment of compassion.

    The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist."
    - Dalai Lama
    http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hh...
    (more)

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Spooner 2011/12/01 23:23:22
    Acceptable
    Spooner
    What he said is totally reasonable but he did NOT call himself a "Marxist", but perhaps that distinction is too subtle for some to understand.

    "...the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability..." He is fundamentally correct, but that does not mean that the results are better, just that he understands the philosophical foundations of the two systems.
  • marc 2011/09/21 19:28:09
    Acceptable
    marc
    he is a puppet.. anything he says,believes is not surprising.
  • bruce banner 2011/07/08 23:33:13
    Absurd
    bruce banner
    WHO THE HELL CARES
  • Sherlock Dog BL - a Gazillion 2011/06/20 19:32:35
  • PatrickJLoveless 2011/06/20 01:12:11
    Acceptable
    PatrickJLoveless
    I guess he is not much of a political student. Marx says there must be a violent uprising, and I do not believe violence is acceptable most of the time in Buddhism, is it? Ah, well. I used to be a Marxist, too.

    Now I am a distributist - like Marxism, but instead of a class struggle, the plebians just rely on each other and snip the cord between them and big government and big business. After that, each local community governs itself. No big governments. Big business is done in just, equal guilds; not corporations. Both employer and employee cooperate rather than compete.

    The Church - dispenser not of politics nor economics, but morality - is the only central authority. It receives no stipends or financial aide (except the usual generosity that men have with each other). The Church does not have political power. But it does dictate what is right and wrong, good and evil. And it is completely unbiased by money or power.

    This is my dream. I hope someday it will be this man's, too.
  • Emanon Patrick... 2011/06/20 07:15:09 (edited)
    Emanon
    While I applaud your having a viewpoint, as per the church. If it deems something immoral, would society then make it illegal? If it does than how is that any different than us living under a theocracy?

    What if a person believes in a different set of religious doctrines and therefore not the church? Are they to be subjugated to the wills of the church?

    As an atheist I would be quite worrisome if a society is basing all of their morality on the church...which then may change drastically depending upon if you go to more of a conservative teachings of the scripture or liberal reading of it. Of the Conservative that these words are exact and must be followed to the exact letters of the law...or the more liberal following of..pretty much just following the golden rule of the faith.

    As I said, I applaud your having a view point, and while you do say the church will not be the governing body or having that much influence in the political arena, if they will be the moral authority of the society that makes them very powerful already. For the hold the keys to the "rights" and "wrongs" of a society. You claim it would have little power yet you would allow it to dictate morality..

    What is moral for a majority...does not make it right.

    I did not mean to be so long winded. I just enjoy hear...
    While I applaud your having a viewpoint, as per the church. If it deems something immoral, would society then make it illegal? If it does than how is that any different than us living under a theocracy?

    What if a person believes in a different set of religious doctrines and therefore not the church? Are they to be subjugated to the wills of the church?

    As an atheist I would be quite worrisome if a society is basing all of their morality on the church...which then may change drastically depending upon if you go to more of a conservative teachings of the scripture or liberal reading of it. Of the Conservative that these words are exact and must be followed to the exact letters of the law...or the more liberal following of..pretty much just following the golden rule of the faith.

    As I said, I applaud your having a view point, and while you do say the church will not be the governing body or having that much influence in the political arena, if they will be the moral authority of the society that makes them very powerful already. For the hold the keys to the "rights" and "wrongs" of a society. You claim it would have little power yet you would allow it to dictate morality..

    What is moral for a majority...does not make it right.

    I did not mean to be so long winded. I just enjoy hearing the views of others, so figured I would ask, given they will be the "moral police" of your ideal, just was wondering exactly how much power that they will have.
    (more)
  • Patrick... Emanon 2011/06/21 00:15:44
    PatrickJLoveless
    The Church would state moral truth, and the local governments would decide how to react to the Church's teaching, I imagine. Since each town would be run by a democratic republic (a town, county, or city council, I suppose), it would be up to them the degree of subsidy or punishment for virtues and vices.

    In a devoutly Catholic town, for example, the Church would declare murder a moral sin. The town council could then decide the degree of punishment or rehabilitation a murderer would have to go through (if any). In one town, murder might be condemned with imprisonment for x number of years. In another it may be condemned with execution. In still another, he may be stripped of rights to own or carry any weapons ever again. Or he may simply be shunned by the community until he makes peace with the Church, the family he affected, and his own immortal soul. (That is something the Amish do with their criminals and heretics.) A final (and admittedly screwy) Catholic village may simply tell the murderer not to do it again and then release him onto the streets.

    In other words, the Church says "x is wrong". The small government then says, "We will punish or make right x by requiring z, if we do anything at all."
  • Emanon Patrick... 2011/06/21 00:22:56
    Emanon
    That is what I am asking, what "moral truths". There are plenty of things the church says is immoral that I do not find to be immoral that I am sure many who follow that belief does.

    So it would be strictly democratic? As our founding father said

    “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
    -Thomas Jefferson



    Going under your premise, if the church declares, as it has, that homosexuality is wrong, would you then be imprisoning people and in the more literal reading killing all homosexuals?
  • Patrick... Emanon 2011/06/21 00:44:30
    PatrickJLoveless
    As I say, it would be up to the people. It would be a democratic republic. Like America, it would start with some set rules (a constitution) of its own devising, or a very, very basic template. In either case, law would be expounded on on a case-to-case basis.

    As for homosexuality, here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about it:

    2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

    2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity....





    As I say, it would be up to the people. It would be a democratic republic. Like America, it would start with some set rules (a constitution) of its own devising, or a very, very basic template. In either case, law would be expounded on on a case-to-case basis.

    As for homosexuality, here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about it:

    2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

    2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

    2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

    Devout, educated Catholics are not Bible-only fundamentalists like Billy Graham or what have you. Any devout Catholic body of government would have to be educated in Church teaching, including stuff like this. Homosexuals would not be gassed like Jews in a concentration camp because while homosexuality is disordered, it is not a sin in and of itself. It is the act, and the thought of the act (fornication and voluntary lust) that is sinful.

    And it would be up to each township to decide how to treat a sin or reward a virtue. And I trust most people would not support executing someone because he read a Playboy magazine. I believe in people's mercifulness toward sin, especially if he is a moderate non-partisan, which most people are at heart.
    (more)
  • Emanon Patrick... 2011/06/21 00:52:26 (edited)
    Emanon
    If it will be "like America" we do not allow Religion to dictate our morality and we allow the freedom for other religions without either having such an amount of power that your ideal would allow.

    I am well aware what the catholic Church says about homosexuality. Yet since we are speaking of your ideal, I am just wondering what would happen to the minority groups that happen to not believe in the teachings of the church, or any religion, or that follows a different belief completely contradictory to the church.

    Would your society protect the minorities against the church as well?

    Maybe, but then what if a township did say it was okay to kill them, would you then subjugate the power of that church?

    We are not speaking literal since as you said, that is just your dream. I am just wondering with the church getting so much power in your dream... will there be anyone there to stop them if they started doing things that were detrimental to the society? Even if they got a majority on it?
  • Patrick... Emanon 2011/06/21 02:05:28
    PatrickJLoveless
    I have been misunderstood. When I said, like America, I only meant insomuch as they had a constitution. I did NOT mean a distributist constitution would have American-like laws. It would probably have quite different laws than the American constitution, and possibly fewer, intially. It is debatable whether America is religious or irreligious. But that is not the point of what I have said.

    The church would only decide whether something was right or not. Truthfully, any sin is damnable if it is unrepented. But in a temporal, Earthly government like this, it would be up to each man to decide what wrongs are worst.

    Religious freedom is a human right; no man ought to be coerced into Christianity. (Paul VI talks about this in "Humanae Vitae".) However, if one wishes to be part of the community, one must follow the laws. No doubt the degrees of religious freedom (as with everything) would vary, but I think personally if a family wishes to practise something essential to their non-Catholic religion, they can let the town council know of their need. In my book, they would be allowed. But only if it is essential to their religion. Public and private practise of religion would probably be permitted.

    Atheists and pagans would, as law and government abiding citizens, be compelled to ...

    I have been misunderstood. When I said, like America, I only meant insomuch as they had a constitution. I did NOT mean a distributist constitution would have American-like laws. It would probably have quite different laws than the American constitution, and possibly fewer, intially. It is debatable whether America is religious or irreligious. But that is not the point of what I have said.

    The church would only decide whether something was right or not. Truthfully, any sin is damnable if it is unrepented. But in a temporal, Earthly government like this, it would be up to each man to decide what wrongs are worst.

    Religious freedom is a human right; no man ought to be coerced into Christianity. (Paul VI talks about this in "Humanae Vitae".) However, if one wishes to be part of the community, one must follow the laws. No doubt the degrees of religious freedom (as with everything) would vary, but I think personally if a family wishes to practise something essential to their non-Catholic religion, they can let the town council know of their need. In my book, they would be allowed. But only if it is essential to their religion. Public and private practise of religion would probably be permitted.

    Atheists and pagans would, as law and government abiding citizens, be compelled to follow the law. If something conscientiously bothered them in the law, they could bring it up at a council or town meeting, like anyone else.

    The Church's morality is not utilitarian. But without direct political or economic power, it would have no reason to be against Truth or Righteousness. Indeed, the "bad Popes" of history didn't care about making doctrines or dogmas or finding the truth in the Church; there was no money nor power in it. Or if there was, there were obviously easier, less dogmatic ways to get women, riches, and the illusion of power. And as I said, it will be up to each community of people to decide how strongly a moral truth is enforced. The Church has no say in the degree or kind of punishments to be inflicted on an offending party. All the Church can do is tell us what is right and what is wrong; it is up to us, the citizens, to accept or dismiss its claims, village to village, town to town.
    (more)
  • Emanon Patrick... 2011/06/21 02:23:01
    Emanon
    I understand what you are saying. I am just asking of your previous statement of the church dictating morality and your other statement of .. if it says this is wrong then the people may choose the penalty.

    As well as, with I am sure as you know depending on if they take a more liberal or conservative read of the bible and their personal views... a crime could result in death.

    I am just asking, at what point would your "dream" stop the church from using all of this power your society would give to it?

    If we are quoting the bible there is the old biblical adage of render unto Caesar ... in which Christians are to adhere to a secular authority that may not fit exactly with biblical authority.

    Yet, in your society the church is the authority, I understand you say they will not have political power... but what could be more politically powerful than having the power to say what is legal and illegal.


    I agree on the first part of "if one wishes to be part of the community, one must follow the laws" But disagre where the laws may subjugate humans based upon belief.

    let us look at what you said, they would be "compelled to folllow the law"compel... to be forced or obliged to do something.

    How can any society that claims to respect human rights ...force a group to submit to a law that says e...














    I understand what you are saying. I am just asking of your previous statement of the church dictating morality and your other statement of .. if it says this is wrong then the people may choose the penalty.

    As well as, with I am sure as you know depending on if they take a more liberal or conservative read of the bible and their personal views... a crime could result in death.

    I am just asking, at what point would your "dream" stop the church from using all of this power your society would give to it?

    If we are quoting the bible there is the old biblical adage of render unto Caesar ... in which Christians are to adhere to a secular authority that may not fit exactly with biblical authority.

    Yet, in your society the church is the authority, I understand you say they will not have political power... but what could be more politically powerful than having the power to say what is legal and illegal.


    I agree on the first part of "if one wishes to be part of the community, one must follow the laws" But disagre where the laws may subjugate humans based upon belief.

    let us look at what you said, they would be "compelled to folllow the law"compel... to be forced or obliged to do something.

    How can any society that claims to respect human rights ...force a group to submit to a law that says everything they believe is wrong...and if they do not submit to the law they shall be punished.

    I am sorry, sir, yet that sounds like a theocracy... a either you submit to the religious rules that we set forth or ... be punished.

    I mean with all due respect sir, is that not the exact thing that made our forefathers leave and fight against the tyranny of Britain? To freely practice their religion without fear of being arrested, in some cases tortured.


    Can one dare to be called righteous that would deny the very rights to another that society allows them?

    But it is more power to be able to say what is right or wrong..than the simply saying what the punishment is. Allowing the people to say what the punishment is seems to be a thin veil to allow them to think they have power where they do not. If the church can change its mind on a whim, if they will say what is the right and wrongs of a society than it is clear who holds the power.

    As another of our founding fathers said
    "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself. ~Thomas Paine


    We cannot start saying be like us or be damned. What other rules would the church pass if not biblical? If we are run by the faith we shall surely be in chaos by the fight of liberty against the faithful tyranny of a theocracy.
    (more)
  • Patrick... Emanon 2011/06/21 03:45:16
    PatrickJLoveless
    First of all, I will not lie. I am a poltical amateur. And often i do not know when I am speaking about things I do not understand. The issue of the Church's authority on morals is one of these things. I am not saying that villages, towns, and cities could not choose to defy the Church's moral teaching. You could have communities that follow Jewish, Moslem, or possibly even secular authorities on moral truth. The Church may have a completely different role from the one I have described. But, for Catholics at least, the Church must be a centralised authority, not a decentralised one. Morals, for Catholics, are different from governmental laws. So in a Catholic distributist city state, I imagine these concepts would apply. But I could be wrong. And they may not apply to an atheist or non-Catholic distributist system, either.

    All I am sure about in general distributism is that the government and the businesses are for the most part small and local, and whatever isn't is in a guild. As distributism is originally a Catholic idea come up with by two fellows named Hillaire Belloc and GK Chesterton, and based on two Papal encyclicals, it seemed appropriate the Church be included. I just don't know how without it sounding like a theocracy. Which I wouldn't mind much, but I realise it...



    First of all, I will not lie. I am a poltical amateur. And often i do not know when I am speaking about things I do not understand. The issue of the Church's authority on morals is one of these things. I am not saying that villages, towns, and cities could not choose to defy the Church's moral teaching. You could have communities that follow Jewish, Moslem, or possibly even secular authorities on moral truth. The Church may have a completely different role from the one I have described. But, for Catholics at least, the Church must be a centralised authority, not a decentralised one. Morals, for Catholics, are different from governmental laws. So in a Catholic distributist city state, I imagine these concepts would apply. But I could be wrong. And they may not apply to an atheist or non-Catholic distributist system, either.

    All I am sure about in general distributism is that the government and the businesses are for the most part small and local, and whatever isn't is in a guild. As distributism is originally a Catholic idea come up with by two fellows named Hillaire Belloc and GK Chesterton, and based on two Papal encyclicals, it seemed appropriate the Church be included. I just don't know how without it sounding like a theocracy. Which I wouldn't mind much, but I realise it's not for everyone. Especially those who distrust or don't care about the Church. It's kinda like trying to feed a child his vegetables, which he sees has awful things.

    The very least I can otherwise tell you is that every person in a distributist community must have some kind of skill - as an artisan, as an artist, as a worker, or as a farmer, or something to make a living off of. No wage slaves working for McDonald's! And the family, not the individual, is the nucleus of society on which all else is built. Families, not individuals usually, would be the chief owners of property.

    However, where I fail, the Distributist Review might be able to help. Google them. Anything I cannot answer they surely can.
    (more)
  • Emanon Patrick... 2011/06/21 04:15:05
    Emanon
    Depending where your ideal society will be… it will either have a majority Christian or Islamic make up since they are the two largest religions on earth with the next largest religion having less than 1% of the smaller of the two.

    That is what I am asking of, this need for religion to be the central authority. If we have seen anything with the fledgling theocracies of the places where religious law is in control, it is very rarely known for its advancement and self sufficient behavior nor societal human rights. Rights are suppressed by the rule of law, and the rule of law is dictated by the book of whatever the religion happens to be.

    I have no problem with your want for small government and business influence… yet then to go straight to theocratic wants of religious dominion over the people.

    … what if one has an issue, say a mental issue where they cannot work and thus have no skills, what is to be done with them?

    To be quite honest sir, I am well versed in distributism, at its very core is basically universal socialism, yet where as socialism is a mere economic process, distrubutism, is theocratic politically, yet universal socialistic economically and societally. Where as socialism in general does not hold much voice in the politics, nor the dictating of religious beliefs … ...

    Depending where your ideal society will be… it will either have a majority Christian or Islamic make up since they are the two largest religions on earth with the next largest religion having less than 1% of the smaller of the two.

    That is what I am asking of, this need for religion to be the central authority. If we have seen anything with the fledgling theocracies of the places where religious law is in control, it is very rarely known for its advancement and self sufficient behavior nor societal human rights. Rights are suppressed by the rule of law, and the rule of law is dictated by the book of whatever the religion happens to be.

    I have no problem with your want for small government and business influence… yet then to go straight to theocratic wants of religious dominion over the people.

    … what if one has an issue, say a mental issue where they cannot work and thus have no skills, what is to be done with them?

    To be quite honest sir, I am well versed in distributism, at its very core is basically universal socialism, yet where as socialism is a mere economic process, distrubutism, is theocratic politically, yet universal socialistic economically and societally. Where as socialism in general does not hold much voice in the politics, nor the dictating of religious beliefs … distrubutism supplements this taking no stand of religious or political dominion over the masses and places Catholicism as the rules that is to govern the society.

    Which, if everyone is a catholic, that may sound great, amazing… yet I am deeply bothered for the minorities under such system, those that do not happen to be catholic, those that may do things that Catholicism says is immoral, such as my mentioning of homosexuality; if we cannot protect the minority than we have no business worrying of the majority.
    (more)
  • Patrick... Emanon 2011/06/21 07:17:54
    PatrickJLoveless
    I strongly disagree. Sometimes the minority is also WRONG. And societally counterproductive. Criminals are a minority. Bums and tramps are, too. But they are not usually given a voice for a good reason. They don't contribute to society economically or attack authority and the law.
    --------------------
    Homosexual intercourse contributes nothing sexually or in terms for population. It also helps spread promiscuity and disease (not that all homosexuals are promiscuous, but some are, and their lack of commitment doesn't help them truth be told). But gay marriage's benefits are not worth the economic costs. It is expensive to pay for the Social Security of a married couple, for health insurance, life insurance, etc. The government is making an investment when it legally marries someone. It is not only giving the couple an advantage.

    The trouble with homosexual couples is they produce no children and have no chance of producing any, and even if they adopt, scientific studies lean towards indicating that a male and female role model are necessary in the household. And this makes sense. After all, the family is a miniature world unto itself. What kind of a model is it if it is missing a sex? Not that it is impossible to develop functionally well, but it is not ideal.

    And while i...



    I strongly disagree. Sometimes the minority is also WRONG. And societally counterproductive. Criminals are a minority. Bums and tramps are, too. But they are not usually given a voice for a good reason. They don't contribute to society economically or attack authority and the law.
    --------------------
    Homosexual intercourse contributes nothing sexually or in terms for population. It also helps spread promiscuity and disease (not that all homosexuals are promiscuous, but some are, and their lack of commitment doesn't help them truth be told). But gay marriage's benefits are not worth the economic costs. It is expensive to pay for the Social Security of a married couple, for health insurance, life insurance, etc. The government is making an investment when it legally marries someone. It is not only giving the couple an advantage.

    The trouble with homosexual couples is they produce no children and have no chance of producing any, and even if they adopt, scientific studies lean towards indicating that a male and female role model are necessary in the household. And this makes sense. After all, the family is a miniature world unto itself. What kind of a model is it if it is missing a sex? Not that it is impossible to develop functionally well, but it is not ideal.

    And while it is not for the same reasons, other people are prohibited from marrying each other for equally valid reasons. Brothers and sisters cannot marry each other in the US. And no one can have more than one spouse. African Americans used to not be able to marry whites, but that was for completely non-sexual reasons. The above are for very good sexual and behavioural reasons. Genetic defects are more common with incest. And as in homosexuality, polygamy can confuse children about the nature of the world.

    And while on the subject of cost and benefit, consider heterosexual couples who marry and cannot have kids. Fertility testing is costly and... invasive. Furthermore, you cannot read someone's mind as to whether they plan to have children. But these childless or adopting couples are the exception, not the rule. Among homosexuals, there is a 0% chance of the two creating a child, much less two or more. The rule, by and far for homosexuals, is that they can never bear children. As for artificial insemination? Why bother with that nonsense when a heterosexual couple can make love for free?

    Consider that these arguments are not Catholic, nor even necessarily Christian, arguments. These are secular, non-theistic arguments against gay marriage, if not for gay chastity and celibacy. And believe it or not, there are atheists who actually believe this stuff. They are called "conservative atheists".
    (more)
  • Emanon Patrick... 2011/06/21 14:55:59 (edited)
    Emanon
    Yes, the minority can be wrong, but wrong by whose standards? If you wish for your religion to dictate the morality of a society I am asking you what protection would you offer the minorities who have different religions or whose morality may not be biblically based? Would you temper the power of the church to protect this minority?

    I have asked this several times, and with all due respect, in your society the power of the church seems rather absolute simply because they are the ones who are making the rules of what is right and what is wrong.

    With heterosexual couples having a divorce rate of 54% ... I am sure straight people also cheat so why would you only focus on the homosexuals?

    Your argument is faulty..saying but some are... some straight are as well so why would your society only focus on homosexuals?

    Judging by your words, it is quite clear that homosexuals will not have equal treatment in your society... so I do not see how you can claim your society would respect human rights... sorry but my idea of human rights is not one group being singled out because it is easy to get more people to go with it.

    "the trouble with homosexual couples..."... So your society would also dictate family roles?

    prohibited where? In America if you are male and female and consenting adults yo...
























    Yes, the minority can be wrong, but wrong by whose standards? If you wish for your religion to dictate the morality of a society I am asking you what protection would you offer the minorities who have different religions or whose morality may not be biblically based? Would you temper the power of the church to protect this minority?

    I have asked this several times, and with all due respect, in your society the power of the church seems rather absolute simply because they are the ones who are making the rules of what is right and what is wrong.

    With heterosexual couples having a divorce rate of 54% ... I am sure straight people also cheat so why would you only focus on the homosexuals?

    Your argument is faulty..saying but some are... some straight are as well so why would your society only focus on homosexuals?

    Judging by your words, it is quite clear that homosexuals will not have equal treatment in your society... so I do not see how you can claim your society would respect human rights... sorry but my idea of human rights is not one group being singled out because it is easy to get more people to go with it.

    "the trouble with homosexual couples..."... So your society would also dictate family roles?

    prohibited where? In America if you are male and female and consenting adults you may marry. In your ideal homosexual would not be able to marry...

    As well as you are speaking a falsehood when you say homosexuality confuses children. Many scientist including the american psychological association have done studies into homosexual parenting and it shows that the number of homosexual children that come from homosexual couples are in fact equal to the number of children who become homosexual when being raised by heterosexual couples.

    Yet, fertility tests are not covered by medical coverage and it is their money, so who are we to dictate what they can do with it?

    Who are you to dictate the family of another, sir?

    With all due respect, after reading your response it is this exact tyrannical theocracy that my original comment worried about. You subjugate the people for your ideal, you take away their rights because it does not fit with your religion.

    It is the EXACT religious tyranny that our founding fathers escaped and fought against.... your society, subjugating those at your whim is in no way a respecter of human rights, it is in no way an ideal of freedom nor is it morally or economically sound to take away and give based on sexuality and ability to reproduce.

    ... I weep for a word where the intolerant believe that their way is tolerance, where mistreatment is allowed because it is socially acceptable

    I did not think it would take this long to see the shortcomings of distributism, and theocracies in general.

    In closing sir, humans have rights that transcend your bible. The humans have an ideal that transcends your theocratic dreams. What dreams become of man that are not soiled with our own shortcomings as man.. an ideal should be greater than the man, an ideal should uplift all people, not denigrate and subjugate them because they do not fit into your religious teachings.

    I wish you find peace in your society, but if your society, your dream ever comes to be, just remember that the minorities are people too... The atheists, the homosexuals, the muslims, the jews are people...and should not be subjugated simply because they are in a minority.

    Freedom is a greater testament to man's compassion than the subjugation for our own selfish wants.

    Your society will certainly be secure... but as Benjamin Franklin once said...
    "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

    Good day, sir.
    (more)
  • Patrick... Emanon 2011/06/21 17:02:56
  • Emanon Patrick... 2011/06/21 17:41:38
    Emanon
    Actually I understand what distributism is, we studied it in high school as a part of political studies, and it is but a subdivision socialism and pretty much falls as followed… Socialism > Religious Based Socialism > Christian Socialism > distributism.

    While Christian socialism generally implements religious teachings for their law, they do not generally take such a hard line on its implementation and carrying out as the much stricter version of distributists.

    Where socialism generally takes no stand as far as religious implementation upon its citizens to dictate the laws, religious based socialism allows for the religious teachings as the law of the society… but with that we must also see what comes with that, particularly the subjugation of people that may not fit into that particular group. Your use of the word distributist is actually what brought my eyes to your comment. I had not thought much about it since high school so was a bit surprised to see someone who even knew what it was enough to mention it.

    Yes, you have made yourself quite clear, yet I asked what would your ideal to temper the power of the extremists? I said what if a town says homosexuality is illegal punishable by death. You claimed that your society respects human rights, so I asked would you then step in ...

















    Actually I understand what distributism is, we studied it in high school as a part of political studies, and it is but a subdivision socialism and pretty much falls as followed… Socialism > Religious Based Socialism > Christian Socialism > distributism.

    While Christian socialism generally implements religious teachings for their law, they do not generally take such a hard line on its implementation and carrying out as the much stricter version of distributists.

    Where socialism generally takes no stand as far as religious implementation upon its citizens to dictate the laws, religious based socialism allows for the religious teachings as the law of the society… but with that we must also see what comes with that, particularly the subjugation of people that may not fit into that particular group. Your use of the word distributist is actually what brought my eyes to your comment. I had not thought much about it since high school so was a bit surprised to see someone who even knew what it was enough to mention it.

    Yes, you have made yourself quite clear, yet I asked what would your ideal to temper the power of the extremists? I said what if a town says homosexuality is illegal punishable by death. You claimed that your society respects human rights, so I asked would you then step in and fight that town on that.

    No, people can think independently from their faith but can the powerful think independently from their power? You grant the church the power to dictate [your word, not mine] what is right and wrong in a society. Religion is a powerful tool to rally the masses. What is to stop them from, since they dictate the law, to say that their power is absolute, that their word is absolute; since in your society, that have the power …and opposition to that power could very well be seen as treason.

    As I said, my problem is not with those who view a more liberal teaching of the scripture, yet when it comes to religion, Catholicism tends to be very conservative in its reading of the scripture. We must not forget the current popes views on homosexuality and the bigotry he spewed about it just last year. It is what his religion says, so I understand, yet granted this power to this group…

    You can choose whether or not to follow the church, yet the church, in your ideal is also law. We can also choose whether or not we follow the law… yet considering your previous paragraph, particularly regarding homosexuality it does not seem being homosexual in that society would be deemed safe for them.

    Sir, your ad hominem of “wasting your breath on a liberal…” just reinforces my issue. I have not made a personal attack against you, I am discussing your idea, I allowed you to explain it and then critiqued it, that is what a debate is. I am trying to understand, and I think I do understand. Yet must we result to such ad hominems? Though I do find the usual mentioning of bestiality whenever I speak of homosexuality to someone who opposes it to be rather funny, outdated and all in all tired.

    Sorry sir, I cannot, after allowing you to explain your society I see it Is not a beacon of freedom. It is a theocracy that prefers order over freedoms. That would allow a simple majority to subjugate those that are within the collective minorities that do not fit into that religious idea.

    Liberal nonsense, hm, liberalism, the understanding that liberty and EQUAL rights are important in any free society. Liberalism, the allowing of one to practice his own religion without being subjugated to the religion of another. Liberalism, to have free and fair elections, to truly allow the people a voice in their ruling. Liberalism, it is what you claimed to espouse it is about human rights.

    If you wish to be a saint sir, start by helping those that does not share your view. If a world of saints is only the looking out for ones own type than sir… we are already within your ideal.

    Be the saint that teaches about loving even what would condemn you. Be that saint that understands that god is worshiped in many ways by many people, it does not make them wrong by the theist standard, it makes your god all that more complex by theirs. Be the saint that practices humility along with humanity.

    But okay, sir, if you have nothing further then I will bid thee farewell.
    (more)
  • Patrick... Emanon 2011/06/21 02:05:46
    PatrickJLoveless
    be back; tornado's hit in my part of the world.
  • Nancy 2011/06/18 01:32:35
    Absurd
    Nancy
    wrong vote! I meant to vote Acceptable!
  • Commrade#371 2011/06/15 14:01:01
    Acceptable
    Commrade#371
    +1
    Thumbs up! Comrades forever!
  • Mike 2011/06/14 16:43:51
    Acceptable
    Mike
    +1
    It's his right to.
  • Therinion 2011/06/14 14:35:41
    Acceptable
    Therinion
    +1
    Absolutely 100% accetable
  • Account Closed 2011/06/14 14:12:10
    Acceptable
    Account Closed
    +1
    I honestly don't care, he can himself mustard as far as I'm concerned.
  • freebirdie 2011/06/14 14:09:03
    Absurd
    freebirdie
    Pay no attention to my "Absurd" choice. I have no other acceptable choice. Am I being asked if I think it's acceptable to be a Marxist? Or that I think it's absurd that he could be considered a marxist? I'm a little confused. Wish there was a 'none of the above' choice.
    It's funny that he would call himself a marxist yet agree that capitalism brought new freedoms to China. Sounds like he is trying to get back in a different way.
  • Tuna 2011/06/14 13:53:50
    Acceptable
    Tuna
    Tibet doesn't have 300 million people; doesn't even have an economy does it? except for the hashish and opium. not much to redistribute there. tibet 300 people economy hashish opium redistribute bong hits
  • JoeBtfsplk 2011/06/14 13:48:17
    Absurd
    JoeBtfsplk
    +1
    Sounds more like Obama !

    "Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production."
  • PeterHenderson 2011/06/14 13:48:01
    Acceptable
    PeterHenderson
    While his Marxism seems 'moderate' the key fact is that the Dalai Lama has seen his country overrun by the Chinese Communists, monasteries all burned to the ground, etc. Indeed, he is lucky to have escaped arrest or assassination. Naturally the US won't lift a finger to help Tibet - it's only the middle east we care about now. He is obviously trying to gain the tolerance of the Chinese Communist rulers and has my sympathy, even though I detest Marxism in general.
  • gray ghost 2011/06/14 12:44:19
    Acceptable
    gray ghost
    Why should I care what he professes to be? I'm more concerned with the sad shape of the country.
  • PeterHe... gray ghost 2011/06/14 13:50:31
    PeterHenderson
    +1
    Ours or his!?
  • Euphonious Munk 2011/06/14 12:20:50
    Absurd
    Euphonious Munk
    +1
    I thought the Dalai Lama must be a Muslim by default?
  • PeterHe... Euphoni... 2011/06/14 13:44:23
    PeterHenderson
    +1
    No he's a Buddhist by default. Buddhism and Islam are distinctly different religions.
  • Euphoni... PeterHe... 2011/06/15 01:45:55
    Euphonious Munk
    Go pray to Mecca, Imam Peter.
  • Spooner Euphoni... 2011/12/01 23:36:54
    Spooner
    Muslims, Jews and Christians are all part of the Abrahmic tradition. Tibetan Buddism is from the Bon and Vedic traditions. very different sources
  • John® 2011/06/14 12:15:09
    Absurd
    John®
    He is certainly not the saint he claims to be. He is just a politician.
  • bags John® 2011/06/14 13:43:38
  • John® bags 2011/06/14 15:37:18
    John®
    Sorry to disappoint you but I think the Dalai Lama is overrated. He doesn't say anything wrong, but what he says is a bit shallow.
  • bags John® 2011/06/14 16:31:23
    bags
    We're all entitled to our opinion. However, even though you feel he is 'over rated', you must admit that he is a great deal more than a simple politician.
  • John® bags 2011/06/14 16:41:01
    John®
    Sure he is man with a high profile, but I've never heard anything earth shattering from him. Basically he is like the Pope.
  • bags John® 2011/06/14 16:52:56
    bags
    +3
    No one thinks the Dalai Lama is Buddha's sole messenger on Earth. Not even all Buddhists follow the Gelug form of Buddhism. He maintains a high profile on the world theater because of China's 'annexation' of Tibet and the fact that Tibet views him as their titular religious leader. The interesting fact is that between sometime in the 17th century and more modern times the (then) Dalai Lamas did sometimes direct the government of Tibet from Lhasa - however it was/is not the central 'responsibility' for him. The Pope retains FAR more control of the RCC than The Dalai Lama does Buddhism.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/28 10:23:07

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals