Dali Lama rejects reincarnation.

[Anomalocaris]

You are full of shit. There are a lot of Buddhists in China, but by no means close to the majority. There are numerous other co petting traditions from folk religion to daooist. The influence of Buddhist religion, or any religion, in modern China is very slim, slimmer than the influence of Christianity in the most secular of any western states. In China it is and always had been the state that ruled. Religion and law were and are servants of the state, and the state keeps its servants in their place and serving the interest of the state by making sure there are many of them, they remain individually weak, and they don't ever get a chance to cooperate to undermine the state, and most citizens are skeptical of their values as substitutes for the earthly state. In China the state, whether in its daoist imperial guise, or the modern secular socialist pseudo-communist guise, was and is able to crush any religion stupid enough to seriously cross the state.

This struggle involving the Dali lama is the battle between:

1. a modern largely secular socialist Chinese state that wishes to strengthen a tradition of suzerainty, establish by it daoist imperial ancester, over a culturally distinct theocracy on a strategically important border, to the point of hegemony and eventual total assimilation.

2. A very backwards tibetian theocracy which had in the past been vassel to the daoist imperial china in name, but more or less independent in fact, struggling against the efforts of a reinvigorated and modernized secular socialist china to completely replace the religious and theocratic institutions in Tibet with a modern secular institutions as a step towards eventual total assimilation.

[Brian37]

You are full of shit. There are a lot of Buddhists in China, but by no means close to the majority. There are numerous other co petting traditions from folk religion to daooist. The influence of Buddhist religion, or any religion, in modern China is very slim, slimmer than the influence of Christianity in the most secular of any western states. In China it is and always had been the state that ruled. Religion and law were and are servants of the state, and the state keeps its servants in their place and serving the interest of the state by making sure there are many of them, they remain individually weak, and they don't ever get a chance to cooperate to undermine the state, and most citizens are skeptical of their values as substitutes for the earthly state. In China the state, whether in its daoist imperial guise, or the modern secular socialist pseudo-communist guise, was and is able to crush any religion stupid enough to seriously cross the state.

This struggle involving the Dali lama is the battle between:

1. a modern largely secular socialist Chinese state that wishes to strengthen a tradition of suzerainty, establish by it daoist imperial ancester, over a culturally distinct theocracy on a strategically important border, to the point of hegemony and eventual total assimilation.

2. A very backwards tibetian theocracy which had in the past been vassel to the daoist imperial china in name, but more or less independent in fact, struggling against the efforts of a reinvigorated and modernized secular socialist china to completely replace the religious and theocratic institutions in Tibet with a modern secular institutions as a step towards eventual total assimilation.

I never said China was monochromatic religion wise. I said it was anti competition to the state. Just like Iran is monocrhomatic and Saudi Arabia is monochromatic when it comes to state rule.

But you said it, the concept in rule is hegemony. It is sectarian, not secular. It is giving special treatment to a segment of a population, in the case of China the worship is of a political SECT, in the case of Saudi Arabia and Iran, it is worship of a religious sect. But it still amounts to lack of diverse representation.

If you skip all religious labels, all economic views and business models and look at our species entire history, it amounts to the same damned thing. Justifying group think in order to gain an advantage. Western society simply does a better job of allowing the venting and pluralism. Certainly not a perfect job considering the amount of theist trying to turn back the clock.

[Anomalocaris]

No, it is a secular, explicitly atheist state, not a sectarian state. It tolerates minor expressions of religious practice and belief as a beneficial vent for any stress built up in daily life. It certainly does not tolerate any real sectarianism. Except for a few state approved religious leaders kept like monkeys on chains as mocking tokens to religious freedom, Any one in China who take his faith seriously enough to be seen as a sectarian has crossed an invisible line drawn by the state delimiting how seriously one could take one's faith without repercussion.

[Brian37]

UGGGGGG

No it was not an atheist state. It was anti competition to the state. The Asian religions never left the state.

Again the only thing China did or Stalin did for that matter was replace worship of a religion to worship of a political party.

Secular to the founders did not mean ban anything. I it merely meant not playing favorites. Setting up a litmus test based on politics or religion is SECTARIAN because it advocates special treatment to one segment of society. There is no difference to me between the monochromatic attitude of a one party state and a one religion state. Secular is the not one rule, it is the attitude of neutrality. China is as sectarian as Iran and Saudi Arabia. The only difference is one is state worship and one party rule and the other is one religion rule controlling the state.

[Minimalist]

The only reason the world kisses this guy's ass is because the Red Chinese don't like him. Now that China is maturing the DL is finding lots of doors closed to him.

Really, he's no more important than any other holy joe and just as full of shit.

[Brian37]

The only reason the world kisses this guy's ass is because the Red Chinese don't like him. Now that China is maturing the DL is finding lots of doors closed to him.

Really, he's no more important than any other holy joe and just as full of shit.

That does not make China's political process any better. Western atheists are not monochromatic for the most part.

---

The Dali Lama's religious views or political views doesn't make China a utopia.

[Clueless Morgan]

Off topic, but I was on a road trip with a Chinese citizen and a pretty extreme liberal woman and I made the mistake of asking what all that free Tibet stuff was about.

Boy did that open a can of worms.

:p

[Minimalist]

The only reason the world kisses this guy's ass is because the Red Chinese don't like him. Now that China is maturing the DL is finding lots of doors closed to him.

Really, he's no more important than any other holy joe and just as full of shit.

That does not make China's political process any better. Western atheists are not monochromatic for the most part.

---

The Dali Lama's religious views or political views doesn't make China a utopia.

Irrelevant. It is not 1962 any more and China is far more important on the world stage than this guy.

[Brian37]

Off topic, but I was on a road trip with a Chinese citizen and a pretty extreme liberal woman and I made the mistake of asking what all that free Tibet stuff was about.

Boy did that open a can of worms.

:p

Thats it right there. I am a flaming social liberal but am no fan of political correctness. I am sure she had the empathy but Tibet was still her enemy.

[Anomalocaris]

UGGGGGG

No it was not an atheist state. It was anti competition to the state. The Asian religions never left the state.

Again the only thing China did or Stalin did for that matter was replace worship of a religion to worship of a political party.

Secular to the founders did not mean ban anything. I it merely meant not playing favorites. Setting up a litmus test based on politics or religion is SECTARIAN because it advocates special treatment to one segment of society. There is no difference to me between the monochromatic attitude of a one party state and a one religion state. Secular is the not one rule, it is the attitude of neutrality. China is as sectarian as Iran and Saudi Arabia. The only difference is one is state worship and one party rule and the other is one religion rule controlling the state.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Asian religion is explicitly not part of the state. State merely tolerates it on a small scale in people outside the apparatus of the state, and those inside the apparatus of the state had better not let it be known they take any religion, Asian or otherwise, with anything but contempt in their personal lives.

Your definition of sectarian would include any meritocracy. Meritocracy means litmus test on issues regarded as demonstrative of the desired merit. Any state that desire to function efficiently would therefore by your definition be sectarian. The modern Chinese state, especially after 1979, is in most way quite meritocratic. It's definition of merit is in many ways different from ours, which is why we often fail to appreciate just how substantially more meritocratic it actually is compare to many of the governments we might like or respect more. In particular, Chinese concept of merit is accepts highly effective rule through law, and does not value the western concept of the effective rule of the law.

The merits the Chinese government demands from its apparatchiks are:

1. Ability to deliver demonstrable high rate of economic growth

2. Ability to maintain social stability