|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 2:49 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I remember when the statues were blown up, and I didn't like seeing that at all. Not that I knew they existed (all I knew about Afghanistan was that they kicked the U.S.S.R.'s ass when they invaded) but seeing anything historical being destroyed like that isn't really my cup of tea. Then they interviewed a Buddhist monk on what he thought, and he replied that the origin of suffering is attachment and that everything has an end, including the statues. IOW, whatever.
Oh yeah. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 2:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
BTW, I understand the point of the first post, though I should point out that the 'liberals' described are usually opposed to anything bible-beltish, that is, American-style Christianity. Were some story of desecration to be heard about a Coptic or Orthodox Greek church in Europe or the middle east, they wouldn't be so quick to priase it.
I remember when the pope died, American Atheists tried to start a campaign to get George Bush to raise funds from private donations to go to the funeral instead of using state money, as he (the pope) was a religious leader and church and state laws were being violated according to them. What a dumbass idea for a campaign that was.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
matthewwoodford
Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Location: Location, location, location.
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 3:27 am Post subject: Re: A timeline of desecration |
|
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
| 2001 Despite international outcry, Afghani Muslims destroy what were the tallest standing Buddhas in the world, believed to have been carved in the third century. |
That was international outcry *from liberals* and anyone concerned at seeing art, history, culture, and religion all blown up in one fell swoop. So that goes against what you were saying, doesn't it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You claimed right here that those statues weren't being used by Buddhists for religious purposes at the time they were destroyed. How on earth would you - someone with a limited knowledge of Buddhism, know that? Buddhists all over the world were aware that this statue existed. It's not surprising considering it was perhaps the biggest statue of their figurehead in the world. They could identify its significance, its size, its durability, and conjore up its image. Buddhists all over the world believed it could make miracles, that it could heal. They believed in prayer that this statue's image could spiritually enpower them. |
Here is the Dalai Lama's statement on the statues' destruction:
| Quote: |
I am deeply concerned about the possible destruction of the Bamiyan statues
of the Buddha in Afghanistan at a time when there is closer understanding
and better harmony among the different religious traditions of the world.
Even though the destruction fothe statues may be for religious reason, I
believe these are historical importance and not only to the people of
Afghanistan but for the world at large. Finally, as a Buddhist I feel it is
unfortunate that these objects of worship are targets of destruction.
The Dalai Lama
March 2, 2001
|
Obviously, he wasn't happy about the statues being blown up. But he seems at least as much concerned about their historical significance for Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike as he did about their importance for Buddhism. And he doesn't say anything about them making miracles or healing the sick.
On the other hand, if you forced a Catholic at gunpoint to watch as you desecrated a communion chalice with consecrated wine, I think his response would be something a bit stronger, and more personal, then "I am concerned about your disregard for the historical significance of the eucharist and its value in bringing the people of the world together". Same for desecrating a Muslim's Koran.
And no, I don't doubt for a second that the Taliban would do far more offensive things to any Buddhists they happened to come accross. But isn't it kind of sad, Gwangjuboy, that your defense of the American military has come down to: "well hey, they're no worse than the Taliban". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You claimed right here that those statues weren't being used by Buddhists for religious purposes at the time they were destroyed. How on earth would you - someone with a limited knowledge of Buddhism, know that? Buddhists all over the world were aware that this statue existed. It's not surprising considering it was perhaps the biggest statue of their figurehead in the world. They could identify its significance, its size, its durability, and conjore up its image. Buddhists all over the world believed it could make miracles, that it could heal. They believed in prayer that this statue's image could spiritually enpower them. |
Here is the Dalai Lama's statement on the statues' destruction:
| Quote: |
I am deeply concerned about the possible destruction of the Bamiyan statues
of the Buddha in Afghanistan at a time when there is closer understanding
and better harmony among the different religious traditions of the world.
Even though the destruction fothe statues may be for religious reason, I
believe these are historical importance and not only to the people of
Afghanistan but for the world at large. Finally, as a Buddhist I feel it is
unfortunate that these objects of worship are targets of destruction.
The Dalai Lama
March 2, 2001
|
Obviously, he wasn't happy about the statues being blown up. But he seems at least as much concerned about their historical significance for Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike as he did about their importance for Buddhism. And he doesn't say anything about them making miracles or healing the sick.
On the other hand, if you forced a Catholic at gunpoint to watch as you desecrated a communion chalice with consecrated wine, I think his response would be something a bit stronger, and more personal, than "I am concerned about your disregard for the historical significance of the eucharist and its value in bringing the people of the world together. Oh, and as a Catholic I don't like it either". Same for desecrating a Muslim's Koran.
And no, I don't doubt for a second that the Taliban would do far more offensive things to any Buddhists they happened to come across. But isn't it kind of sad, Gwangjuboy, that your defense of the American military has come down to: "well hey, they're no worse than the Taliban".
Last edited by On the other hand on Thu Jun 02, 2005 7:07 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Liberals: "Brialliant" "Illuminating" "A triumph of free expression."
"Stop whining, Christains."
|
flakfizer:
Could you provide some sources for this claim? What I remember is only the defense of free expression, not the praising of the works as 'art' of any kind. I admit I don't read much art criticism--so call me a philistine if you want. But I'm interested in reading an evaluation by someone who liked these works. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 6:42 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
To begin with, Chris Ofili is not a "she".
He actually describes himself as a Catholic.
If people want to suspend images of Christ in their own urine, that's fine with me. They can also do so with Mohammed.
I have no opinion.
If anyone wants to kill anyone because of it, I'd say that's wrong.
However, it doesn't make every single person of any faith wrong.
While I'm an atheist, which makes me a very bad boy in terms of many a faith, I don't endorse the destruction of anything.
Of course, you're mixing destruction and desecration together.
Desecration, in the religious sense, is something I don't recognize.
Human rights are what's holy.
I am curious flak. What do you support?
Ofili and Serrano being allowed freedom, or censorship? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 7:01 am Post subject: Re: A timeline of desecration |
|
|
| matthewwoodford wrote: |
| flakfizer wrote: |
| 2001 Despite international outcry, Afghani Muslims destroy what were the tallest standing Buddhas in the world, believed to have been carved in the third century. |
That was international outcry *from liberals* and anyone concerned at seeing art, history, culture, and religion all blown up in one fell swoop. So that goes against what you were saying, doesn't it? |
The proper response to this thread, finally arrived, and thank you sir. Note that in the OP flakfizer gave characterizations of the "liberal response" to all of the other "desecrations" except this one, and if he had been a little more inclusive with his evidence he would have noted clearly that liberals decried the Taliban's use of explosives on that day louder than anyone else.
Gwangjuboy worte :
| Quote: |
| How stupendously ignorant and pig headed. You are so self absorbed that you completely forgot what those satues mean to Buddhists around the world. Buddhists believe that images can heal or produce miracles. You are so thick headed that you didn't realise this did you? Or maybe you were just misleading the board. Irrespective of which scenario is applicable you have displayed remarkable ignorance. |
But fortunately mithridates has more sense and honesty :
| Quote: |
| Then they interviewed a Buddhist monk on what he thought, and he replied that the origin of suffering is attachment and that everything has an end, including the statues. IOW, whatever. |
Some people actually know something about Buddhist religious thought and teachings and others merely claims to know - still others make absurd claims about it in order to advance a dogmatic approach that has no basis in reality.
Travel around Korea, Thailand, other areas that have been subjugated by conquering armies who were themselves Buddhist - and what do you get to take pictures of? Statues of the Beggar Prince Guatama with the head missing, or with the head glued back with the line of incision clearly showing that it had been desecrated in the past - by other Buddhists. It was seen as a way of demoralizing the subject peoples and breaking the lines of spiritual energy that are part of the magical thinking in many of the premodern societies in this part of the world.
Guidebooks for tourists visiting the ruined temples at Ayuthaya just outside of Bangkok specifically mention to people that it is bad form and might cause offense to Thai people to stand behind one of the headless Buddha statues with your face poised over the headless neck of the Buddha in order to have your picture taken with your thumbs planted in your ears and your tongue sticking out saying wugga-wugga to the folks back home giggling at their computer screens while sipping from their can of Coors ... unfortunately, some people nbeed to told such things explicitly.
But as mith conveys, the philosphy behind Buddism seeks to eschew attachments to things in this world, so there is not quite the same sense of outrage and American liberals felt at the actions of the Taliban, or "Piss Christ," or that muslims who rioted a few weeks ago feel about stories of the Koran being flushed, or the outrage that Christians expressed at Scorcese's Last Temptation, or the nervousness that American Jewry expressed at Mel Gibson's The Passion ...
It was a bad thing for the Taliban to do, but liberals decried it at the time - flakfizer likely knows it - and had already decried worse from them, such as their refusal to educate young girls past the age of seven. Gwangjuboy and flakfizer both fail to mention that the US govt supported the Taliban in words and contiunues to praise them even during the Clinton years due to their efforts to curtail the production of opium poppies ... and for only that reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 4:46 pm Post subject: Re: A timeline of desecration |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| But fortunately mithridates has more sense and honesty : |
Some anecdotal evidence about one monk with no link and you get all hot and bothered.
| Quote: |
| Some people actually know something about Buddhist religious thought and teachings and others merely claims to know - |
From that post Mith didn't reveal anything that demonstrated significant knowledge of Buddhism(he might but I couldn't tell from his post), and there was absolutely nothing absurd about my remark that Buddhists worship symbols.
| Quote: |
| But as mith conveys, the philosphy behind Buddism seeks to eschew attachments to things in this world, so there is not quite the same sense of outrage and American liberals felt at the actions of the Taliban |
Yeah, these Buddhists don't gove a damn either. Hell, just blow the thing up.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1214456.stm
Last edited by Gwangjuboy on Thu Jun 02, 2005 5:26 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 4:48 pm Post subject: Re: A timeline of desecration |
|
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
1987. Andres Serrano exhibits "Piss Christ," a photo of a crucifix submerged in his own urine.
conservatives, especially Christians: "Disgusting" "Blasphemous" "purely for shock value" "Insulting"
Liberals: "Brialliant" "Illuminating" "A triumph of free expression."
"Stop whining, Christains."
1996. Chris Ofili exhibits "The Holy Virgin Mary," cleverly incorporating elephant dung into her Mary collage.
conservatives, especially Catholics: "disgusting." "Blasphemous." "Purely for shock value." Insulting."
Liberals: "Brilliant." "Illuminating." "A triumph of free expression."
"Stop whining, Catholics." |
Speaking as a liberal, I didn't think much of either of those works, nor do I think much of most modern art anymore.
Those "quotes" you wrote, saying that liberals said that Piss Christ and The Holy Virgin Mary were "brilliant", "illuminating" and "a triumph of free expression".
Source? Quote your source.
None available. You made them up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So Buddhism is now the village bicycle? Let's all have a ride on her? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Here is the Dalai Lama's statement on the statues' destruction: |
| Quote: |
I am deeply concerned about the possible destruction of the Bamiyan statues of the Buddha in Afghanistan at a time when there is closer understanding and better harmony among the different religious traditions of the world. Even though the destruction fothe statues may be for religious reason, I believe these are historical importance and not only to the people of Afghanistan but for the world at large. Finally, as a Buddhist I feel it is unfortunate that these objects of worship are targets of destruction.
The Dalai Lama
March 2, 2001
|
Yep, a diplomatic stance from the Dalai Lama (would be a rarity from a Muslim leader if something as old, sacred, and important to muslims as that was destroyed) What's your point? Does this mean that Buddhists don't worship symbols anymore?
| Quote: |
| And he doesn't say anything about them making miracles or healing the sick. |
So in a single paragraph you cut and pasted there is no reference symbolism(although they were refered to as places of worship) in Buddhism and this is suddenly the holy grail of evidence?What on earth were these Buddhists annoyed about then?
ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1214456.stm
| Quote: |
| But isn't it kind of sad, Gwangjuboy, that your defense of the American military has come down to: "well hey, they're no worse than the Taliban |
No, I don't think the US is anywhere near as bad as the Taliban was. If the US government ordered the deliberate destruction of the Al-Hakim Mosque then it might be analogous to the destruction of the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan. Thus far all you've coughed up (on the other thread*) is a report that cites three occasions (out of a bazillion times when it would be handled by US soldiers) when the Koran was deliberately mishandled. How was it mishandled? You don't know that it was being used at the time do you? Was it thrown? Was it kicked? Your "a select few people mishandled the Korean but I don't know how exactly" is simply not analogous to the government sponsored destruction of irreplacable, ancient religous monuments.
*In three cases, the mishandling of the Koran appears to have been deliberate, and in two it was accidental or unintentional, the commander said, adding that four cases involved guards, and one an interrogator. Two service members have been punished for their conduct, one recently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 8:46 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
I am curious flak. What do you support?
Ofili and Serrano being allowed freedom, or censorship? |
I am completely for freedom of expression. This is not the topic, but I will digress a bit. If people want to burn the flag or put a crucifix in urine or whatever, that's fine. The Constitution does not, however, guarantee that the government will fund your expression with tax dollars.
As to some of the other issues people have brought up.
The quotes of liberals saying various things are obviously meant to summarize a feeling. Is it possible to use exact quotes on an entire group? Of course not. It was just a generalization.
As for those who point out that it was liberals who spoke out against the destruction of the statues...One, I'm sure they did and I seriously doubt they were alone in that. Two, so what? That wouldn't change the point of the post which is to show that some religions and their icons are considered worthy of respect by liberals, while one is not. (hint: Buddhism is not the one).
Of course, not all liberal feel that way and I exaggerated a bit in a cartoonish way to make the point that the Koran desecration story is ironic in two ways.
One, that Afghani Muslims were so upset about the treatment of a readily replaceable copy of the Koran (on the other side othe world, no less) while just a few years ago two irreplaceable Buddhist statues were destroyed by Muslims in their own country.
And two, when a Christian icon is "desecrated," and Christians or other conservatives complain, they are disregarded and given the "first ammendment" lecture. When the Koran was mistreated and people rioted to the point of causing seceral deaths, we get the "respect other people's ways" lecture, instead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The quotes of liberals saying various things are obviously meant to summarize a feeling. Is it possible to use exact quotes on an entire group? Of course not. It was just a generalization.
|
No. Sorry. That is not acceptable. You cannot call a deliberate distortion a generalization. It is simply unacceptable to lie about what someone said and then condemn them for it. It is not acceptable when Fox News does it and it is not acceptable here on this forum.
You are trying to play the victim card. That's fine, but you have to blame the guilty. And only the guilty. To do anything else means you have become the victimizer. It's too bad you got your feelings hurt, but that does not entitle you to lash out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
The quotes of liberals saying various things are obviously meant to summarize a feeling. Is it possible to use exact quotes on an entire group? Of course not. It was just a generalization.
|
No. Sorry. That is not acceptable. You cannot call a deliberate distortion a generalization. It is simply unacceptable to lie about what someone said and then condemn them for it. It is not acceptable when Fox News does it and it is not acceptable here on this forum.
You are trying to play the victim card. That's fine, but you have to blame the guilty. And only the guilty. To do anything else means you have become the victimizer. It's too bad you got your feelings hurt, but that does not entitle you to lash out. |
1. Deliberate distortion? Generalizing that liberals reacted differently to the aforementioned events is a distortion? Whatever.
2. It is not your job to tell me or anyone else what is or isn't acceptable on this forum. (which is good because you're obviously not very good at deciding that kind of stuff).
3. Victim card? What in tarnation are you talking about? Where did I claim to be a victim or that my feelings were hurt?
4. Lash out? Geezaloo. That was a lash out? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
