Today we are all Chinese.
Re:All?
jdavidb on 2003-10-15T14:30:29
Well, I figured if people could say it about America, we could say it about China. I didn't mean I condone the People's Republic of China. In fact, I don't even condone the forcible confiscation of wealth to fund space exploration (the way it was done over here, too). But I am happy that mankind has made another stride into space.
I won't let this good act be overshadowed by other evil actions. I'm sure the Chinese scientists involved in this launch are quite worthy of respect.
Re:All?
rafael on 2003-10-15T21:21:32
And indeed I thought it was amusing (as in "funny", "laugh") that I read you writing this just a few hours after being reminded of the existence of somebody who fights since dozens of years to not be a Chinese. No trolling was intended.FWIW I'm happy also that new steps are made in space exploration. And I don't see why the Dalai Lama wouldn't be too. As you say the people responsible for the oppression of his nation are surely not involved at all in the Chinese space program, and vice versa.
Re:All?
jdavidb on 2003-10-16T13:49:27
And indeed I thought it was amusing (as in "funny", "laugh") that I read you writing this just a few hours after being reminded of the existence of somebody who fights since dozens of years to not be a Chinese. No trolling was intended.
I understand. I knew there'd be political issues in my statement, but was actually thinking more about offending Taiwanese and their friends than Tibetans and theirs. Also thought about offending conservatives (of which I am one) by the play on the phrase from September 11 that "today we are all Americans," but it expressed how I felt quite well.
I'm happy for this advancement for humanity.
Re:All?
jordan on 2003-10-15T15:19:19
The Dalai Lama in Paris? Were there demonstrations, calls for the removal of his travel documents and immediate expulsion?
I know some people in France consider religion an "Unnecessary Evil".
...Or maybe it's just the Christian religion? That must be it. No one would dare apply the term "Evil" to any religion except for Christianity, certainly not Buddhism, certainly not Islam. No, that would be considered insensitive.
Re:All?
rafael on 2003-10-15T15:38:49
Firstly, the Dalai Lama is considered here more as a political authority (the lead of the resistance against the Chinese assimilation and colonization of Tibet) than an religious one. In spite of their colorful folklore, there are very few Tibetan Buddhists on the planet currently.Secondly, your assertion that atheism or agnosticism may lead to religious intolerance is just pure FUD. If you want to find a country were the Dalai Lama would be unwelcome on the sole basis of his religious opinions, you'd better look in the direction of theocracies like Iran, where religious freedom is unconstitutional.
Re:All?
jordan on 2003-10-15T16:06:24
- Firstly, the Dalai Lama is considered here more as a political authority (the lead of the resistance against the Chinese assimilation and colonization of Tibet) than an religious one...
Ask the Dalai Lama if he considers himself to be a religious leader or a political leader. I think you'll find that he considers himself to be both.
- In spite of their colorful folklore, there are very few Tibetan Buddhists on the planet currently.
I think you'll find the Dalai Lama is one of these Tibetan Buddhists. There may be more than you think. Before the Chinese seized Tibet, I believe that just about everyone in Tibet identified themselves as Buddhists. Now, they may be more or less afraid to make that association.
- Secondly, your assertion that atheism or agnosticism may lead to religious intolerance is just pure FUD.
I wasn't the one who suggested that a specific religious group is an "Unnecessary Evil", neither was it you who made that remark, but it was someone who identifies themselves as an atheist. However, the person who did make that remark happens to be French, so I couldn't resist the temptation to point out that a Religious Leader is in Paris now. I doubt that this person would refer to Tibetan Buddhism as an "Unnecessary Evil".
Religious intolerance? No, not really. Certain people consider Christians "Evil" and "Unnecessary" while other Religions are just examples of diversity.
BTW, how do you like being baited?
Re:All?
rafael on 2003-10-15T16:53:27
The Dalai Lama might consider himself -- and be considered by Tibetans -- as a religious authority, that's usually not revelant when he's received by political authorities in non-Buddhist countries, including India, where he lives. I very much doubt that Bush, receiving him at the White House not so long ago, considered him as a religious authority. Neither does Debré.And you're surely joking when you're asserting that Robin's game of words about the well-known idiom "necessary evil" was to be taken seriously. I'm pretty sure Robin doesn't place Buddhism above or below Christianism, or than any other religion for that matter. That might not be your case.
Re:All?
jordan on 2003-10-15T17:24:49
I'm sure you're right about this. Being European and thus far more worldly and informed that a silly American like myself.
I expect it's just a mistake that the President's press Secretary insisted that he was a spiritual and religious and not a political leader:
Q Ari, is the President prepared to press China on Tibetan rights? And why didn't he meet with the Dalai Lama in the Oval Office, why in the Roosevelt?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President met with him in the residence in connection with the visit from a spiritual and religious leader. The President thought it was the appropriate place to have the meeting. It's interesting, too, it came up this morning about the previous administration used to have drop-bys, for example, with the Dalai Lama, as opposed to a meeting. Going back to administrations before the Clinton administration, there used to be meetings. So the President is maintaining the longstanding tradition of meeting with the Dalai Lama.
I've issued a statement in regard to what the meeting covered. I won't bother to go through the statement again; you have that at your disposal, you can read that. It addresses your question, Campbell.
Q Ari, you keep referring to him repeatedly as a spiritual leader. Does that mean you do not believe he has a temporal voice, as many of his people do?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Tibet is not seeking and is not viewed as an independent nation. Tibet is a part of China.
Q He does have strong political views about autonomy, and it's something that he campaigns for.
MR. FLEISCHER: And I've addressed in the statement that you have what the President's reaction was to the meeting.
- And you're surely joking when you're asserting that Robin's game of words about the well-known idiom "necessary evil" was to be taken seriously.
I recognized it as a play on words and meant to be a flippant comment. I also recognized it as tasteless and frightening that someone would ascribe the term "Evil" and especially "Unnecessary Evil", thus placing it below the category of a "Necessary Evil" to a whole religion, even in jest. I can't imagine anyone making a similar off-hand gibe at Buddhism or Islam without being challenged.
- I'm pretty sure Robin doesn't place Buddhism above or below Christianism, or than any other religion for that matter. That might not be your case.
Now, what reason do you have for taking this pot shot? I've given you no reason to believe that I have a prejudice against any religion, have I?
I guess, since I'm American, you can naturally assume that I hate all those weird or foreign institutions, right?
It's difficult to get Europeans to admit they might have biases, but for some foolish reason, I try.
Can't fake the funk
TorgoX on 2003-10-15T22:32:27
...Or maybe it's just the Christian religion? That must be it. No one would dare apply the term "Evil" to any religion except for Christianity, certainly not Buddhism, certainly not Islam. No, that would be considered insensitive.No need to rush things, folks -- I'll hate everyone's pouty religion soon enough! I'm just spread thin at the moment, so I can't do them all at once.
How about this: This week I'll take a deep breath and despise all scriptural monotheism in one go (including Bahai, Mormonism, etc, as well as the usual suspects, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), then next week I'll sit and fume and mutter about fundamentalist Hindus, and for the week after I'll pencil in some special events where I look askance on Moonies, Sikhs, Oprah, Zoroastrians, Macintosh, and Voodoo. Thanks for your patience! You will all be despised evenly, I promise!
Re:Can't fake the funk
jordan on 2003-10-16T00:48:18
- This week I'll take a deep breath and despise all scriptural monotheism in one go (including Bahai, Mormonism, etc, as well as the usual suspects, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam),
...
You will all be despised evenly, I promise!
If your aim is to inspire equal amounts of ire in every religious group, I think I should warn you that you are in danger of gaining extra anger from the Mormons, and perhaps slightly less distress from certain other Christians, by implying that the Mormonism is distinct from Christianity.
Re:Can't fake the funk
TorgoX on 2003-10-16T01:30:51
If your aim is to inspire equal amounts of ire in every religious group, I think I should warn you that you are in danger of gaining extra anger from the Mormons, and perhaps slightly less distress from certain other Christians, by implying that the Mormonism is distinct from Christianity.THAT'S the SPIRIT!
I can only assume you're referring to the Chinese successfully launching a taikonaut? If so, I have to say that I am extremely happy to see this. If, in fact, the rumors that China wants a lunar outpost are true, I will be one of the first to cheer them on. I can not say that I am a particular fan of China or the terrible things that they have done, but I am happy for humankind to be seriously reaching for space again.
Time to find some old Heinlein to read.
Re:No Such Thing as a Free Launch
vsergu on 2003-10-15T20:29:48
The only problem I have is this silly "taikonaut" word. I understand that Chinese feelings are hurt that there's a special English word for Russian astronauts, so they want their own word too, but where do we draw the line? Do we need a new word every time a new country launches someone into space? The proper solution is to stop using "cosmonaut" and call everyone "astronauts". (And the Russians can stop using "астронавт" and use "космонавт" for everyone, and the Chinese can use whatever they want when speaking Chinese.)Re:No Such Thing as a Free Launch
Ovid on 2003-10-15T20:37:33
The proper solution is to stop using "cosmonaut" and call everyone "astronauts".
Given that Yuri Gagarin, a Russian, was the first man in space, wouldn't it be more appropriate then for us to abandon the silly word "astronaut" and start calling everyone "cosmonauts"?
Re:No Such Thing as a Free Launch
vsergu on 2003-10-15T20:53:10
Possibly, except that the word "astronaut" was used in English as early as 1929, before Gagarin was born. If there's already an established word for a concept, there's little need to borrow a new word for it.Re:No Such Thing as a Free Launch
hex on 2003-11-20T13:33:00
"Astronaut" translates as "star-sailor", which seems a bit silly, unless the person in question is travelling on a craft powered by a solar sail. Everyone should just say "spacer", like they did in SF novels from the 1950s!Re:No Such Thing as a Free Launch
TorgoX on 2003-10-15T22:18:43
I understand that Chinese feelings are hurt that there's a special English word for Russian astronauts, so they want their own word too, but where do we draw the line?I say call them "meat popsicles", one and all.
Re:No Such Thing as a Free Launch
djberg96 on 2003-10-15T23:31:58
Fifth Element.
/me gives himself 25 Trivia Points
