RESPECT as the Highest Form of Love and how that is relevant to the situation in France
Nirvana
aka BUBBA ` ` South Carolina, USA Veteran
Swami Vivekananda often used to preach that tolerance for other religions was not enough; that the duty of anyone believing in the brotherhood and sisterhood of all beings was positively to bow down before the faiths of others.
True enough, the Latins are a very passionate people. However, I don't see a categorical difference between their en masse protests of "Je suis Charlie [Hebdo]" and those of other nationals in Islamic countries marching under banners of "Death to America" and the like. In the case of both Western and Islamic nationals, more moderate and wiser voices are buried by the tumult of the masses when tempers flare.
To keep this Opening Post short, let me sum up:
MY HERITAGE is not worth two cents if it does not respect the vital values of other peoples. As the Prayer Book sayeth in the Collect for Quinquagesima: All our doings without charity are nothing worth.
Comments
Furthermore, any Right to Free Expression of anything one wants to express at any time without regard to the rights or well-being of others is completely unfounded. That won't pass any pragmatic test at the workplace, school, or home. It simply won't pass muster.
Freedom of speech is the basic freedom that helps us establish who we are and what constitutes our happiness and what we will not allow to stand unjustly before us. But that freedom does not encompass the freedom to lie or to incite others to acts of violence or hatred. It is merely the right to Speak Truth from our Hearts -- to speak OUR truths. Freedom of the Press is an extension of this basic right of free speech and its conscience should be bound by serving Truth, Justice, and whatever other subject touches upon these.
Freedom of expression is NOT an Islamic value and neither should it be.
Also, "politically correct" is an American invention, certainly not French.
I'm reading a book called Kindly Inquisitors by Jonathan Rauch that is completely apropos to the world's current situation.
Bravo @Nirvana
I have compassion for the intolerant, 'the only good atheist/nazi/Greek/Buddhist/etc is a dread [sic] one'
I am a lax dervish Moslem and cult excluded Buddhist, living in a press freedom terrorist targeted city. Yesterday I saw the Queen was protected by two men on horseback with swords and a British Bobby with a machine gun. That and the tourists taking holiday pics of the horse guards.
On reaching the 'British' Museum I was delighted to see the Buddhas stolen from many cultures and Islamic artefacts donated by well wishers.
I enclose two pics. One is a very early representation of the Buddha from an early Pakistani Dharma civilisation. The Buddha at that time was a tree and a pair of feet. The other is a ceremonial dervish mace.
. . . and now back to the higher form . . .
http://www.chishti.ru/stages_of_love.htm
^ smiles, @lobster!
But the Chishti Stages of Love link is Sublime! Thanks!
http://www.chishti.ru/stages_of_love.htm. Towards the Higher Forms...
In another thread, @Chaz has supplied a link which really adds more flesh to the argument I have put forward here. See http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/a_message_from_the_dispossessed_20150111
From page 1 of the article in truthdig:
"The cartoons of the Prophet in the Paris-based satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo are offensive and juvenile. None of them are funny. And they expose a grotesque double standard when it comes to Muslims. In France a Holocaust denier, or someone who denies the Armenian genocide, can be imprisoned for a year and forced to pay a $60,000 fine. It is a criminal act in France to mock the Holocaust the way Charlie Hebdo mocked Islam. French high school students must be taught about the Nazi persecution of the Jews, but these same students read almost nothing in their textbooks about the widespread French atrocities, including a death toll among Algerians that some sources set at more than 1 million, in the Algerian war for independence against colonial France. French law bans the public wearing of the burqa, a body covering for women that includes a mesh over the face, as well as the niqab, a full veil that has a small slit for the eyes. Women who wear these in public can be arrested, fined the equivalent of about $200 and forced to carry out community service. France banned rallies in support of the Palestinians last summer when Israel was carrying out daily airstrikes in Gaza that resulted in hundreds of civilian deaths. The message to Muslims is clear: Your traditions, history and suffering do not matter. Your story will not be heard. Joe Sacco had the courage to make this point in panels he drew for the Guardian newspaper. And as Sacco pointed out, if we cannot hear these stories we will endlessly trade state terror for terror..."
"It is a sad state of affairs when Liberty means the freedom to insult, demean and mock people’s most sacred concepts,” the Islamic scholar Hamza Yusuf, an American who lives in California, told me in an email. “In some Latin countries people are acquitted for murders where the defendant’s mother was slandered by the one he murdered. I saw this in Spain many years ago. It’s no excuse for murder, but it explains things in terms of honor, which no longer means anything in the West. Ireland is a western country that still retains some of that, and it was the Irish dueling laws that were used in Kentucky, the last State in the Union to make dueling outlawed. Dueling was once very prominent in the West when honor meant something deep in the soul of men. Now we are not allowed to feel insulted by anything other than a racial slur, which means less to a deeply religious person than an attack on his or her religion. Muslim countries are still governed, as you well know, by shame and honor codes. Religion is the big one. I was saddened by the ‘I’m Charlie’ tweets and posters, because while I’m definitely not in sympathy with those misguided fools [the gunmen who invaded the newspaper], I have no feeling of solidarity with mockers.”
And yet the Charlie Hebdo folks continue, bolder and (THEY think) bigger. Too bad that bad manners are so much in style. We don't put up with them in my family, because we are bigger and better than that.
One is celebrating freedom, the other killing. So there appears to be a difference.
And free speech is not the same as Right Speech.
Vive la liberte.
Not a valid comparison. Many French Jews were sent to the gas ovens by the Nazis and there is, rightly, a great national sensitivity on the issue. Though ironically there has been a rise in anti-Semitism, drummed up by right-wing groups and ( you guessed it ) Islamic fundamentalists.
France is a secular republic which highly values free speech, and Charlie Hebdo isn't selective with it's satire. If they mocked the Buddha, would you grab and AK and murder them all? Of course you wouldn't, that's the point.
So true.
Right speech has layers. The most simple enforced by our beloved resident dharma police (@federica and co) is courtesy and diplomacy.
Then we have kindness and compassionate empathy.
We move into resolving speech, speech that improves or pacifies our more monkey minded madmen.
Right speech might eventually involve introducing or returning people to the path.
Right speech might involve Noble Silence [Mr Cushion is saying nothing].
Once we reach the far shore and build a raft with supplies, suttras and straggler support . . . who knows what we are likely to say . . .
wink, wink, say no more 
http://www.quietspaces.com/poemHanh.html
Call Me by My True Names
Do not say that I'll depart tomorrow
because even today I still arrive.
Look deeply: I arrive in every second
to be a bud on a spring branch,
to be a tiny bird, with wings still fragile,
learning to sing in my new nest,
to be a caterpillar in the heart of a flower,
to be a jewel hiding itself in a stone.
I still arrive, in order to laugh and to cry,
in order to fear and to hope.
The rhythm of my heart is the birth and
death of all that are alive.
I am the mayfly metamorphosing on the surface of the river,
and I am the bird which, when spring comes, arrives in time
to eat the mayfly.
I am the frog swimming happily in the clear pond,
and I am also the grass-snake who, approaching in silence,
feeds itself on the frog.
I am the child in Uganda, all skin and bones,
my legs as thin as bamboo sticks,
and I am the arms merchant, selling deadly weapons to
Uganda.
I am the twelve-year-old girl, refugee on a small boat,
who throws herself into the ocean after being raped by a sea
pirate,
and I am the pirate, my heart not yet capable of seeing and
loving.
I am a member of the politburo, with plenty of power in my
hands,
and I am the man who has to pay his "debt of blood" to, my
people,
dying slowly in a forced labor camp.
My joy is like spring, so warm it makes flowers bloom in all
walks of life.
My pain if like a river of tears, so full it fills the four oceans.
Please call me by my true names,
so I can hear all my cries and laughs at once,
so I can see that my joy and pain are one.
Please call me by my true names,
so I can wake up,
and so the door of my heart can be left open,
the door of compassion.
Thich Nhat Hanh
The Koran states:
-- 2.190
-- 8.39
-- 8.45
--33.48
I will find it easier to respect Muslim terrorists when they abide by their own doctrine.
Inspiring, but I cannot match TNH's sentiment. I feel much more compassion for victims than perpetrators.
Freedom of expression should be a human value, one that religions should not have the right to steal.
m m m . . .
Don't you oppress me . . .
and now for something completely different?
“My eyes sleep but my heart does not sleep” (Sahih Bukhari, 3.32.230).
WHOA, @SpinyNorman! There was no celebration of killing in Iranian streets when they bandied these signs. No Americans had been killed. It wasn't "Death to Americans," (i.e., people) but the end of American influence and ideologies that they had in mind. While bandying those signs they do show contempt; but rightly so, as they have been badly used. To wit, the American propping up of the evil Shah of Iran for decades.
Nor, in the above cited piece (post #7), was the issue of mocking the Holocaust an invalid comparison, as you call it, but just one of the many ways in which the French continually remind the Muslims of their second- or third-class citizenship. The writer goes on to talk about penalties for the wearing of the burqa and the niqab and banning protests when Gaza was being bombed daily last summer.
And, to add insult to injury, these mocking, schoolyard-humor cartoons also appear.
My concern is one of decency and humanity. Of course, it goes without saying that the acts of brigands and killers are unsupportable. And no one here is "supporting or respecting 'Muslim Terrorists,' " either. I really think that everything is blown out of proportion when it is made an "either-or" proposition as to which "side" is right. Dammit, neither is right! The militant folks who use an Islamic banner for their cause have indeed gone off the deep end, but that is no reason to insult some of the highest ideals of their religion and civilization. Having loose cannons on both sides will achieve nothing but further escalation of violence and harboring of ill-will. The cartoonists were not particularly engaged in noble undertakings in drawing out their childish, prankish cartoons.
RESTRAINT is what makes civilized people civilized. And restraint is what we teach our children; they must learn self-control if they are to succeed in life. Manners count. In order for any freedom of expression to be of any value in a civilized society, it has to be concerned with depth of feeling and shy away from the shallow. ANYONE can be shallow, but only a person of universal goodwill and friendliness can be deep enough to see the things that really matter. Only a fool expresses every whim and fancy and only a psychopath engages in behaviors that demean others. These two may indeed have the ability to express themselves freely, but no one would really accuse them of being of sound mind, I think.
A blanket freedom of expression? Show me where that's written in any extant Bill of Rights!
Where I come from, failing to give people their due respect is considered a grave personal failing and failing to see that this matters is revelatory of sheer hubris.
Free speech is NOT right speech. It is just an idea.
On the topic of restraint:
well said @pegembara,
We assume everyone thinks the way we do or should if they were right thinking. Taking refuge in the traditional words of dharma is in Islam the path of Allah Din
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dīn
The social reformers such as the Mahayana, Sufis, Rabbi Jesus and his merry men and the people of good will and intent, are the companions of the prophets and Buddhas (PBUH). The atheists such as Richard Dawkins (may his noodliness be rewarded with extra sauce), Stephen Fry and Sam Harris who educate the ignorant are companions in this debate also.
Us and them, divide and conquer is an old game. Now we need people able to think independently of their dangly bits, independently of their cultural norms or preferences. Fewer fuelled by their Inner Charley. As always we need those on the far shore, coming back, supporting, innovating, adding, removing, educating as required - to the best of their being. Peace and Blessings Upon Them as we Buddhist heretics say . . .
If we want to find the 100th name of Allah or the nature of the Buddha, or the [insert symbol of choice] then as always the path is open . . .
Here is a book I started and others have kindly contributed to . . . apparently it has issues . . .
http://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Sufism
The rose is a Sufi symbol, in Arabic it can mean Heart/Rose/Concentration, symbolising both essence and unfolding . . .
. . . and now back to the 100th name of the Tathagata . . .
Well, a principle actually and one that the French take seriously, being that they are a secular republic. So should we Buddhists be telling the French what values to adopt, how they should speak, what they mustn't say? Oh wait, that would make us sound a bit like Islamic fundamentalists, wouldn't it?
The topic being the development of some kind of bodhicitta, maybe? Maybe our "neighborhoods" are too "gated" with our own prejudices and likes and dislikes?
Anyhow, here's a medieval Christian contemplative, St Bernard, on the subject of enlightenment and compassion:
"First let Truth itself teach you that you should seek it in your neighbours before seeking it in its own nature. Later you will see why you should seek it in yourself before seeking it in your neighbours. For in the list of Beatitudes which He [Jesus] distinguished in his sermon, He placed the merciful before the pure in heart. The merciful quickly grasp truth in their neighbours, extending their own feelings to them and conforming themselves to them through love, so that they feel their joys or troubles as their own. They are weak with the weak; they burn with the offended. [2 COR 11:29] They rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep. [ROM 12:15] After the spiritual vision has been purified by this brotherly love, they enjoy the contemplation of truth in its own nature, and then bear others’ ills for love of it. But those who do not unite themselves with their brethren in this way, but on the contrary either revile those who weep or disparage those who do rejoice, not feeling in themselves that which is in others, because they are not similarly affected— how can they grasp truth in their neighbours? For the popular proverb well applies to them: The healthy do not know how the sick feel, nor the full how the hungry suffer. But sick sympathize with sick, and hungry with hungry, the more closely the more they are alike. For just as pure truth is seen only with a pure heart, so a brother’s misery is truly felt with a miserable heart. But in order to have a miserable heart because of another’s misery, you must first know your own; so that you may find your neighbour’s mind in your own and know from yourself how to help him, by the example of our Saviour, who willed His passion in order to learn compassion; his misery, to learn commiseration. [HEB 5:8].... (3.6)
"Observe what you are, that you are wretched indeed, and so learn to be merciful, a thing you cannot know in any other way. For if you regard your neighbour’s faults but do not observe your own, you are likely to be moved not to ruth but to wrath, not to condole but to condemn, not to restore in the spirit of meekness [GAL 6:1]... by considering yourself... how easily tempted, how liable to sin... you grow meek, and thus you come to succour others in the spirit of meekness... He, therefore, who wants to know truth in himself fully must first get rid of the beam of pride, which prevents him from seeing the light, and then erect a way of ascent in the heart by which to seek himself in himself. (4.13-15)
"Those whom truth has caused to know, and so contemn themselves... aspire to what they are not and have no hope of becoming through themselves... But when they see that they are not sufficient for this (for when they have done all those things which are commanded them, they say, We are unprofitable servants [LUKE 17:10] ), they flee from justice to mercy... they follow the precept of Truth: Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy [MATT 5:7]. And this is the second step of truth, when they seek it in their neighbours, when they learn others’ wants from their own, when they know from their own miseries how to commiserate with others who are miserable. (5.18)
"Those who persevere, therefore, in these three things, the remorse of repentance, desire of justice, and works of mercy, may then pass through contemplation to the third step, having purged the spiritual vision of the three obstacles arising from ignorance and weakness and willfulness... Otherwise, if they do not know truth needy, naked, and weak as it is now, they may shamefacedly recognize it too late when it comes with great power and strength, terrifying and accusing, and may in vain answer tremblingly, “When saw we thee in need and did not minister unto thee?” [MATT 25:44]. The Lord shall be known when he executeth judgments [PS 9:17], if he is not known now when he seeketh mercy... the eye of the heart is purified by weeping, hungering for justice, and devotion to works of mercy. To such a heart Truth promises to appear in his splendour: Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God [MATT 5:8].
"Since there are therefore three steps or states of truth, we ascend to the first by the toil of humility, to the second by the emotion of compassion, to the third by the ecstasy of contemplation. In the first, truth is found harsh; in the second, loving; in the third, pure. Reason, by which we examine ourselves, leads us to the first; love, by which we sympathize with others, entices us to the second; purity, by which we are lifted to invisible heights, snatches us up to the third... (6.19)
"Both faculties, reason and will, the one taught by the Word of Truth, the other inspired with the Spirit of Truth, the former sprinkled with the hyssop of humility, the latter kindled with the fire of love, now form a finally perfected soul, flawless through humility and unruffled through love [EPH 5:27], since neither the will resists reason, nor does reason dissemble truth. The Father unites this soul to himself as a glorious bride, so that neither the reason can think of itself nor the will of its neighbour, but that blessed soul delights only in saying, The King hath brought me into his chamber [SONG 1:3]. And it is worthy, coming from the school of humility, where it first learned from the Son’s teaching to enter into itself, taking heed of the warning, If thou know not thyself, go feed thy kinds [SONG 1:7]. It is worthy to be led by the Holy Ghost from that school of humility and brought by affection into the storerooms of love, by which are meant the hearts of its neighbours. Thence, stayed with flagons and comforted with apples, namely good habits and holy virtues, it is finally admitted to the chamber of the King, of love for whom it is sick [SONG 2:5]...
"There is then a way down and a way up, a way to the good and a way to evil. ...David seems to have offered you two ways, but you know there is only one. Yet it is distinguished from itself and is called by different names, either the way of lying [PS 24:8] for those going down, or the way of truth [PS 118:29ƒ] for those going up. The same steps lead up to the throne and down; the same road leads to the city and from it; one door is in the entrance of the house and the exit; Jacob saw the angels ascending and descending on the same ladder... If you desire to return to truth, you do not have to seek a new way which you know not, but the known way by which you descended. Retracing your own path, you may ascend in humility by the same steps which you descended in pride. (So, Curiosity, Frivolity, Foolish Mirth, Boastfulness, Singularity, Conceit, Audacity, Excusing Sins, Hypocritical Confession, Defiance, Freedom to Sin, Habitual Sin.) (9.27)
"I who know more about going down than going up did not think it would be proper for me to describe the way up... I have nothing to tell you about except the order of my own descent. Yet if this is carefully examined, the way up may be found in it. For if when going to Rome you should meet a man coming from there and ask him the way, what way could he tell better than that by which he had come. In naming the castles, towns and cities, rivers and mountains, along which he had passed, he describes his own road and prescribes yours, so that you may recognize the same places in going which he has passed along in coming. Similarly in this descent of mine you will find, perhaps, the steps leading up, and ascending will read them in your own heart better than in my book." (12.27).
--St. Bernard Clairvaux's ON THE STEPS OF HUMILITY AND PRIDE
A blanket freedom of expression? Show me where that's written in any extant Bill of Rights!
I'm afraid this is another straw-man. Of course there are always limits to free-speech, and those are politically and culturally determined. But you would rather have ISIL's version of "free speech"? The real problem here is the over-sensitivity of Islamic fundamentalists to any form of criticism. But of course that's what fascists are like, "Disagree with me and I'll shoot you".
Nobody here is telling the French How to behave. I am registering my displeasure with people "in the business" that the Bill Mahers and Charlie Hebdos are in -- and more generally the culture that seems to revel in putting people down.
That's no straw man. People in the West have been pushing the limits on the Right of free expression for years. From displaying in art galleries representations of Chicago's first Mayor Daley depicted in women's lingerie (40 yrs ago) to crucifixes soaking in urine-filled vases. The courts have not had time or occasion to clarify. However, the almighty dollar/euro/pound is all that the powers-that-be seem to care about anymore --certainly not integrity and justice.
Look, there was a shooting of lots of people. That was bad. However, if there is a single, unique "real problem," it's probably not confined to the minds of Islamic fundamentalists. A more plausible candidate for "the real problem," I think, would be the closed-down channels of communication caused by insensitivities and arrogance. These latter two things, I think, lie squarely on the shoulders of the West. I believe that people who have no scruples making caricatures of others probably don't do much self-reflection. BTW, that's code for "insensitive to others and arrogant."
Genuine question: do you think sharia law should be imposed world-wide?
I prefer the prophet's words:
-- 2.148
-- 5.48
Race to do good ... Wholesome view, intention, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness and concentration sounds a good summary to me. Return to God? Find nirvana? Is there any real difference?
No.
I feel that Buddhism as it is developing in the West will enable critical and objective thinking and the compassion and other emotional healthy options to become mainstream. Hopefully this will increasingly combine with ideas and research in psychology and find correspondences in Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Chritianity and Islam) and others.
One of the important ideas from the dharmic religions is neti-neti, it means 'not this, not this'. In essence not believing in our arrogance that we have objectivity.
Broadly speaking Buddhism is head based and Islamic mysticism is heart based. That is why they are good complementary to each other. But they are also complete ways in their own right. We can combine yoga and Buddhism or [insert wisdom additions] if required.
When bullying ignorant hateful people murder or provoke nut jobs by calling their flying speghetti monster a casserole, we have to return to the ingredients and recipe book.
Be kind, be loving, be wise . . . the usual good stuff . . . that is the best suggestion I know of. You have said much the same.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/16/europe/europe-terrorism-threat/index.html
Um wtf @Nirvana how is mocking Jews, who Muslims detest, "reminding Muslims of their second or third class citizenship"? If you think there is in ANY way genuine attacking of Muslims via anti Semitism then you are just as deluded as the Muslims who play the victim card anytime anyone disagrees with them.
When was the last time a Jew or Christian or any other theist in France shot up an office or supermarket because Charlie Hebdo ran a cartoon they didn't like? THAT'S the real issue here. No one else has had a violent hissyfit en masse like the Muslims. You might not like to hear it said that way but shit happens and that's the truth of it.
In Australia we had a HUGE protest by violent Muslims, mostly Australian born and bred, because a Coptic Christian EGYPTIAN released a YouTube movie about their prophet. They attacked the American Embassy and Israeli Embassy when it had NOTHING to do with either country. Perhaps this is why people are fed up with their shit?..........
As @SpinyNorman said on a previous thread, and I reiterate it here as my own personal standpoint - I will not be an apologist for Islamic terrorism. Because my friend this is EXACTLY what it is. Truth hurts.
He said there is 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, if the majority promoted terrorism most of us would be dead.
We've seen what 4 people can do...
Muslim, Christian, black, white. These are just labels.
Non of us were ever born any of the above. We are all fundamentally the same.
It's just Ego vs Ego.
Nobody here is an apologist for Islamic terrorism. I am simply an apologist for Restraint, good manners, and r-e-s-p-e-c-t. Actually, what you have snipped above is a bit inaccurate, in that it does not Italicize the word "comparison," as I had it. I was responding to SN's post suggesting that when some Muslims overseas carried "Death to America" banners, they were referring to killing —rather than to stopping American hegemony in their lands. The bit about denial of the Holocaust was also in response to SN's comments on an article linked to in this thread. Look up 11 posts from your post.
But if there are laws in France outlawing mocking the Holocaust, then there should be some civil restraint on mocking the Prophet of a minority, making lewd cartoons of him and such (especially considering their anti-iconic religion). I cannot make any sense out of your initial paragraph above, though. I can only imagine that you meant:
I do not think any motive for attacking people based on religion is genuine, but is derived from something else. Again, I cannot understand what your initial paragraph is getting at precisely, but let me try to dissuade you from this line of thinking about my position. Of course the terrorists and would-be terrorists are deluded, but so is most of the world. Most of us live along De Nile river.
My prayer is that people will get off this "merry"-go-round of hate —and hop on the peace train. Actually, when such evil things occur we All bear some responsibility, since when the perpetrators were in prison we did not visit, when they were hungry we did not feed them, and when they cried out, our pride shuttered up our ears. Are our eyes shut tight, too, to the beauty in everyone (no matter how small)?
A great Teacher once said "You cannot fight hate with hate."
Perhaps, but the problem is that way that people identify with their labels. Looking back over the last 2000 years, I still think that there is an underlying intolerance ( arrogance? ) about the Abrahamic faiths, which makes them particularly prone to fundamentalism, extremism and violence.
Not a valid comparison. Many French Jews were sent to the gas ovens by the Nazis and there is, rightly, a great national sensitivity on the issue. Though ironically there has been a rise in anti-Semitism, drummed up by right-wing groups and ( you guessed it ) Islamic fundamentalists.
France is a secular republic which highly values free speech, and trying to impose our values of right speech on them is missing the point. The underlying problem here is religious over-sensitivity by a faith still stuck in medievalism.
If satirists mocked the Buddha, would you grab and AK and murder them all? Of course you wouldn't, that's the whole point.
Just been reading the news
There are reasons. Understood. Terrible.
People killed, stabbed, in Israel by Palestinian.
I want radicalised Muslims and Palestinians, radicalised in the solution aspects of Islam - Peace, love, friendship, respect. Just as I want more radicalised Jews finding the same Heart of their religion - Compassion, respect, love etc. Christian? Feel free to join in too, Buddhists welcome (no Hinayanists) . . .
http://www.theonion.com/articles/buddhist-extremist-cell-vows-to-unleash-tranquilit,34623/
It's Carl Sagan in a 3 minute clip. So relevant to what's going in the world right now.
He talks about earth compared to the universe, how this is the only world humans have ever known. And how we treat each other
m.youtube.com/watch?v=923jxZY2NPI
I would go as far as to say it's the human race that's prone to extremism, violence and fundamentalism.
We've had wars for as long as we know. They won't ever end until people stop blaming others. Turn the finger inwards, everybody. And we might have peace.
Because only then do you realise we are all (mostly) completely delusional.
from 5 posts above:
But if there are laws in France outlawing mocking the Holocaust, then there should be some civil restraint on mocking the Prophet of a minority, making lewd cartoons of him and such (especially considering their anti-iconic religion).
@SpinyNorman responded, repeating almost verbatim the ninth post in this thread (his):
@ME: I was responding to dhammachick and do not think this particular point has to be re-made by the same person, @SpinyNorman. If you read the third-from-the-last post in your thread, maybe you'll get my point: http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/22286/a-prayer-for-paris#latest
The whole point of the op cit article from the seventh post of this thread (mine) was:
“The message to Muslims is clear: Your traditions, history and suffering do not matter. Your story will not be heard. Joe Sacco had the courage to make this point in panels he drew for the Guardian newspaper. And as Sacco pointed out, if we cannot hear these stories we will endlessly trade state terror for terror..." See page one of http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/a_message_from_the_dispossessed_20150111
Or rather, re-read the link and TRY to think that maybe, just maybe, it's not about comparison*, but about understanding. "Understanding" is "standing under" and trying to imagine becoming the object of your study. Understanding people is trying to walk a mile in their shoes.
*@SpinyNorman, Oh _How Many Times_ do I have to italicize YOUR term of comparison. I tried to dispatch with that in Post #16 and further alluded to it in my first paragraph to @dhammachick seven posts above this one. The thing is, in order to be fair to all, one must try to see the situation in some other light than just an emotional one. I think they call that contrast, or maybe even reason.
If only (magari, as the Italians say ...)
Please do not presume anything I mean. Ask for clarification instead. And I'm sorry but your presentation of RESPECT here in this thread is more akin to that of passive acceptance of another's views/actions without objection. And if/when you do object you're wrong. And that doesn't fly with me.
Well why didn't you just say so?
Peace? Good plan?
Most think so.
. . . however how difficult it is when we come across the unforgivable pedophile, rapist, terrorist, cyber zombie, alien monster, crazed murderous drugee etc . . .
How difficult? You know how difficult. Of course blowing up aliens and zombies is just entertainment . . . not real is it . . .
In metta bhavna practice, we start with ourself, family and friends and eventually send metta to the accursed hellish types.
I would kindly suggest we are what we eat, we are what we think and we are what we love.
If we can not with training develop bigger hearts - who else is gonna do it?
Really. No matter what they do?
Please clarify.
Is it wrong to kill a bully?
In a school yard it's called a tragedy and on the battlefield it's called justice.
We adults never seem to practice what we preach. (Well, terrorists seem to, eh? Maybe we could even take a lesson)
We can't just keep perpetuating the cycle of hate because that is precisely what creates terrorists. We have to call out the bullies without calling out whatever group they try to blend in with.
If the problem is religion then we must call out religion, not just Islam.
That said, sometimes the most compassionate choice for the whole is to put the abuser down with a heavy heart. Taking any joy from killing will only create more hearts of terror.
MY HERITAGE is not worth two cents if it does not respect the vital values of other peoples.
Full Stop.
I think that's clear enough. People's vital values, or perhaps better, core values and beliefs do Not include actions done out of reaction or hatred. I think Chris Hedges's words in the piece first cited above in Post 7 speak volumes on how dissing other people's heritage is beyond the pale:
"It is a sad state of affairs when Liberty means the freedom to insult, demean and mock people’s most sacred concepts,” the Islamic scholar Hamza Yusuf, an American who lives in California, told me in an email. “In some Latin countries people are acquitted for murders where the defendant’s mother was slandered by the one he murdered. I saw this in Spain many years ago. It’s no excuse for murder, but it explains things in terms of honor, which no longer means anything in the West. Ireland is a western country that still retains some of that, and it was the Irish dueling laws that were used in Kentucky, the last State in the Union to make dueling outlawed. Dueling was once very prominent in the West when honor meant something deep in the soul of men. Now we are not allowed to feel insulted by anything other than a racial slur, which means less to a deeply religious person than an attack on his or her religion. Muslim countries are still governed, as you well know, by shame and honor codes. Religion is the big one. I was saddened by the ‘I’m Charlie’ tweets and posters, because while I’m definitely not in sympathy with those misguided fools [the gunmen who invaded the newspaper], I have no feeling of solidarity with mockers.”
http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/a_message_from_the_dispossessed_20150111
"Now we are not allowed to feel insulted by anything other than a racial slur," is an overstatement, but one gets the drift. I trust.
Look if you wanna feel that you have the right to disrespect others, go right on ahead and let that be on you. But as was said above, everybody deserves to be treated with some modicum of r-e-s-p-e-c-t, even those who would call you their enemy (Especially Those who would call you Enemy and wish to do you harm). The Lord Jesus admonished his disciples on the Mount even to pray for those who would treat them with spite and persecute them [Matt 5]. It makes no sense not to respect those who would pit themselves against you. How then could you help but underestimate their strength?
But at the deeper level we must Respect the “who” that resides within their Heart. It is embryonic Bodhicitta. It doth not lie on the shoulders of those who either are oppressed or, arguably only feel oppressed, to bear the burden of being builders of peace; rather, one would think that task best falls into the court of the stronger brothers and sisters. It is my heartfelt prayer that the ball will be sent fairly out of that court with kindly gesture.
A primary definition of respect is: "a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements."
I'm sorry, Nirvana, but I do not respect Boku Haram.
I do not respect ISIL.
And I am surprised that you admire them.
Respect is more basically showing consideration for people and avoiding intruding upon or interfering with their affairs, if you want to find the more rudimentary (basic) dictionary definition. Geesh! But the H___ with the dictionary meaning; I am (and the Thread is titled as such) speaking of Respect as the Highest form of Love when it dives Deep. This I have found in my own personal experience of the Divine.
I will not have my freedom of speech infringed upon to the point that I am censured for using certain words --especially ones that in a cultural context are never considered to be in any way off-color.
Just look at the Teaching of Swami Vivekananda I alluded to in the Very OPening line of the OP! That is what I mean by Respect. You don't have compassion for a religion.
Furthermore, this thread is filed under the Comparing Religions banner --not General Banter. What I am seeking to address here is harmony and I have nowhere defended the actions or the mentality of any combatants, whether Islamic militias or militia-minded or simply the militant-minded.
From 16 posts above:
And it's not about comparison of hurts inflicted it's about the CONTRAST (Stop worrying so much about the Clashing aspect of contrast, such as with certain colors) between the mindsets. Perhaps a bit more awareness, or even mindfulness is more on order than the mocking cartoons?
You continue using the word "respect" throughout the thread.
If you want to use the word "compassion", well, at least I can understand that.
Must I make a televised appearance before the whole Western World to rebut your false accusation? I say that because I don't know how many times I have to say that such people are lawless and their acts inexcusable. I only admire nice, reasonable people who wish all other people well (or at least leave the people they dislike alone).
Just because I am speaking out about elements in contemporary Western culture that make it fashionable to diss Traditional Cultures does not mean that I support the extreme elements of those who cling to those Traditional cultures.
Well, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your words when you just said, "everybody deserves to be treated with some modicum of r-e-s-p-e-c-t".
Not even some modicum?
No Comment.
I have been talking about Respect for the individual and for his or her core values. I have been referring to it as the Highest form of Love, since it re-presents Love in its highest manifestation: that is, a love that does not seek ownership or control, but wishes to set the creature or person free. It is, I think, an important component of Agape that is the theolgian's understanding of God's love for humankind and of a person's love for God. It beholds what it beholds and sees perfection or its seeds already there. Therefore it supplies only nourishment and the moisture of tears and understanding to bring forth good fruits. It is certainly an important aspect of Bodhicitta.
Perhaps all this is too esoteric for some here. But let me tell you something: The sort of greatness exemplified by a medieval St. Bernard* puts us moderns to shame. They had leisure to be deep. I am afraid that all our machines and waaaayy too many communications are making us so very much more shallow than our forebears were capable of being.
Some sweet people might be shallow and some mean people very deep; however I doubt that anyone who feels that he has a right to insult a people's highest standards is anything but shallow. And as was quoted above, we're in a sad state of affairs when people think they can do that with impunity.
Why should we expect that no Muslim or even someone who brands himself as such should demonize people who aim so much vitriol at their beliefs? That, my friend, in a world of billions, would be an unreasonable expectation. The decency card has to be dealt from all sides.
I agree that it was disrespectful to print the images that they had. I see it as no different than burning a bible on youtube or yanking a monks robes off in public. It's a shame that the other side reacted the way that they did though also. The world is a crazy place.
Does “respect” conflict with “freedom of expression”?
I work across the mosque and I am happy to hear the adhan being called from the speaker on the minaret every day. I do not feel offended as an atheist.
Also I feel it is perfectly okay to make a cartoon of Muhammad. We make cartoons of every religious authority, every political authority, and of everyone else who is publically known. We make fun of everything.
I love both; the deep respect for religious (and other) values and the disrespect towards them. Freedom is when there is room for both.
The real meaning of respect – I think- is tolerance. It’s okay if a Christian doesn’t want to work on Sunday. He can stay at home. No problem. The mosque is decorated with mosaics only. Cool. Don’t want to drink alcohol, fine then have a soda.
Respect does not require that I live by everyone else’s standards. It requires that I give them the space to live by their own standards.
Freedom is the other side of the coin; I can live by my standards. And of course that’s not an absolute freedom.
But I think it’s quite important to see that a Muhammad-cartoon is “disrespectful” in the sense that it mocks Islamic values. That’s what cartoons are for. But the cartoon is respectful in the sense that it totally accepts that people live by their own standards (although not absolutely so). If there were no silly people (religiously or otherwise) there would be nothing to make a cartoon about; that would be horrible.
In fact I thought the cartoon of a weeping and forgiving Muhammad was very good and deeply touching.
We must keep taking the space to mock all kinds of silliness. (and not forget our own)
Charlie must live on.