Why the Buddhist Peace Fellowship is Wrong

[Bob Hubbard]

Well, since we are throwing movie quotes about .... I reference the Klingon Ambassador from Star Trek VI - The Undiscovered Country.



And no insult was hurled. You lease your own little corner of this site. I issued and observation that opinions might better be kept there.

As it had been a time since you posted, my ignore lists were updated, and you were removed. My error. I apologize, and will rectify the situation immediately.


* * * EDIT * * *

Actually, as you are a Moderator, I can not add you to the ignore list. Because of this, I think Bob should allow free reign of hurled insults.

Due to a quirk in the software, you can't set anyone who has a moderator privilege to ignore from your end. While Phil is not staff here, he does rent a spot which does prevent you from ignoring him, and anyone else who has a hosted forum. If you would like any hosted forum mod set to ignore, let me know and I can hard-code it for you.

We're not going to allow free reign on the insult war front, but are contemplating stricter actions if the personal digs do not cease.

 

[MSUTKD]

Phil,
I had to find time to read your essay. I hate saying this, but after doing some quick research on this group, I think they are definitely misguided and your opinion has some validity to me. They wear some nice “rose colored glasses”. I am with you; I think pacifism is a waste. I am a warrior and please don’t wish that peace stuff on me. I think of all the discipline required to be a warrior and wonder what they are thinking. On the other hand, to be a pacifist must require the same amount, or more, discipline. To me it appears to be a coward’s way out but I can see how courageous one who practices pacifism might be. The real ones do not have a political agenda like the group you mention. At least you read the material; I do not think I would have.

ron

 

[Flying Crane]

If your descriptions of the magazine's content is indeed accurate, then yes, much of it sounds hokey.

However, what I find disturbing is what appears to be a tremendous amount of hate aimed at a group that essentially has suggested that the world might be a better place if we all stopped shooting, bombing, and executing each other, and found other ways to resolve our differences. While their interpretation of Buddhism may be screwy, their desire for peace is something that i can agree with. I just don't understand the hatred that you preach. It almost gives the impression that you are just hoping for an excuse to shoot somebody at a peace rally someday.

 

[Cruentus]

However, what I find disturbing is what appears to be a tremendous amount of hate aimed at a group that essentially has suggested that the world might be a better place if we all stopped shooting, bombing, and executing each other

The problem is that you have to look out for wolves in sheeps clothing. There are people out there that preach against violence, which is at its essence a good thing, while simultaniously pushing forth a worldview that is at best not appliable to the real world, and at worst dangerous to our individual freedoms and contradicting to the philosophy of "non-violence" that they propose.

A good example is the PETA organization. This group claims to be an animal rights activist group. I essentially agree that animals should be treated humanly, and am an animal lover myself. However, Peta is responsable for Euthanizing thousands of pets per year, is an advocate of breed specific legislation and policy that has been responsable for the Euthanisation of millions of animals, and group members have been responsable for violent terrorist acts on humans (animal testing facilities and such).

So, you see, there are many groups out there who will take something that is essentially good, like peace or animal rights, and will advocate getting there by any means necessary, regardless of who gets hurt or what is lost in the process.

And in these cases, these groups are morally and ethically wrong, regardless of how good their cause may seem.

It almost gives the impression that you are just hoping for an excuse to shoot somebody at a peace rally someday.

Well, isn't everyone?

lol sorry, couldn't resist...

Paul

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I once went spear fishing in a swimming pool...does that count?


Seriously though, I think both pacifism and militarism have their places. These fringe groups aren't representative of the larger whole. Just as Al Queda isn't representative of the majority of Muslims, neither is this group for Buddhism.

 

[Xue Sheng]

That's something we agree on; you've destroyed my theory that we wouldn't.

I'm just as shocked as you are

My Best

We're not going to allow free reign on the insult war front, but are contemplating stricter actions if the personal digs do not cease.

And I am not sure if this is directed at me or not, but I did apologize for what was the dig, if you will, and I acknowledge that is was out of line.

But if this is in reference to what Don Roley said he would steal that was neither a personal dig at me, nor was what he is stealing a personal dig at anyone. As a matter of fact it made the above response possible.

If it was not directed at me, I will quietly return to my padded cell and keep quiet

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I think this all comes down to creating something and then declaring it is the only way. That is what bother's people and why sniping happen's. Just because someone and I do mean anyone has an opinon does not make that opinion right or the only way. Let's all discuss peacefully without the sniping because that is one of the great thing's about MartialTalk!

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com

 

[Phil Elmore]

If your descriptions of the magazine's content is indeed accurate, then yes, much of it sounds hokey.

However, what I find disturbing is what appears to be a tremendous amount of hate aimed at a group that essentially has suggested that the world might be a better place if we all stopped shooting, bombing, and executing each other, and found other ways to resolve our differences. While their interpretation of Buddhism may be screwy, their desire for peace is something that i can agree with. I just don't understand the hatred that you preach. It almost gives the impression that you are just hoping for an excuse to shoot somebody at a peace rally someday.

No rational person wants a world torn by violence. My point is that this group, in attempting to push its totally unworkable and unrealistic beliefs, is actually doing much more harm than good. Their philosophy is self-destructive and ultimately morally evil for the reasons I have described. THAT is what I hate about them.

Please do not project onto me some morbid desire to harm another human being. That does us both a disservice.

Just because someone and I do mean anyone has an opinon does not make that opinion right or the only way.

A single individual's opinion has only as much power as you are willing to grant it. If you don't like an opinion, no matter how forcefully or passionately stated, you will feel much better about your dissenting views if you present them in a cogent fashion, presenting a rebuttal to the ideas with which you disagree.

 

[Flying Crane]

The problem is that you have to look out for wolves in sheeps clothing. There are people out there that preach against violence, which is at its essence a good thing, while simultaniously pushing forth a worldview that is at best not appliable to the real world, and at worst dangerous to our individual freedoms and contradicting to the philosophy of "non-violence" that they propose.

Paul

good point.

The truth is, I am not familiar with this group, and what their overall goals are. My suspicion is that in the greater scope of the world this is probably a small and ineffectual group that has little real impact and hardly warrants the kind of attention that Phil has given it.

This kind of essay really does give the impression that Phil just has a tremendous amount of hatred and fear for anyone who is ideologically different from him. One of the greatest lessons he might have to learn one day is that most of the world does not run the way he would like it to, and that isn't going to change. He pushes his views as thoughts on "self defense" and "National Defense", but perhaps he is the dangerous wolf in sheep's clothing. He preaches hatred, fear and paranoia, and I think it is just really misplaced and inappropriate, and even dangerous.

 

[Phil Elmore]

This group boasted the presence of Cindy Sheehan at one of its rallies (at which Sheehan and members of the group were arrested). Cindy Sheehan is someone whose name is a household word. The group puts out a regular publication that I found in a small bookstore in Upstate New York, about as far removed from Berkeley, California, as you're going to get in the United States. The group even has a chapter in the city where I work. I'd call that representative of a fair amount of political influence compared to other organizations.

This kind of essay really does give the impression that Phil just has a tremendous amount of hatred and fear for anyone who is ideologically different from him.

No, it really doesn't. This kind of essay should give the impression that I despise pacifism because I believe it to be self-destructive and therefore harmful to humanity. This "hatred" and "fear" business is you projecting your own suppositions onto me. I would appreciate it if you'd stop doing that because it's really very annoying.

One of the greatest lessons he might have to learn one day is that most of the world does not run the way he would like it to,

No, the world isn't rational, the world isn't reasonable, and the society in which I live places increasing emphasis on victims over victors, equating self-defense with immorality and marginalizing those who understand its place in a dynamic, assertive, and full life. This is a lesson I learned a long time ago when I first starting having arguments like this. It comes as no surprise to me.

and that isn't going to change.

It probably won't; those with your attitude outnumber those with mine. I believe, however, that some battles are worth fighting, even if they cannot be won -- because at the end of the day I have to live with myself and I can't do that if I haven't exerted the fullest effort possible to do what is right.

He pushes his views as thoughts on "self defense" and "National Defense",

I don't "push" my views on anyone. I don't see anyone with a gun to your head demanding, "Read Phil Elmore's opinions! Read! Read now or else!" You are free to dismiss anything I write; you are free never to open a single thread I start; you are free never to post in response. In a medium that is entirely text-based, it is impossible for me to "push" anything on anyone.

I have chosen to write in the field of self-defense because it is important to me. There are many reasons this is so, first and foremost because I believe strongly in the sanctity and the sovereignty of the individual and in individual rights. Quite honestly, however, I also really enjoy the martial arts. I enjoy training. I enjoy learning new things. I enjoy increasing my skill base, becoming more prepared, becoming more broadly competent. I also enjoy sharing what I know and what I've learned and I am blessed with skill where writing is concerned. I do this for my own enjoyment, when you come right down to it. It wouldn't be worth it if it wasn't, ultimately, gratifying in many ways.

but perhaps he is the dangerous wolf in sheep's clothing.

I am dangerous to no one. Wait, no, that's not true -- I'm dangerous to people who aren't secure or confident in what they believe. I threaten them, as do my opinions. I'm dangerous to the watering down of "martial" arts in favor of commercial or ideological concerns. I'm dangerous to popular cultural trends that support this. So, yes, in that sense alone, I am dangerous. This is fair and understandable.

I am no danger to anyone physically. It is extremely insulting for you to claim this. Unfortunately, those right of center must often contend with this claim from those left of center.

He preaches hatred, fear and paranoia,

I preach rationality, awareness, and preparation. There's a difference.

and I think it is just really misplaced and inappropriate, and even dangerous.

You are wrong -- and you are projecting your feelings onto me.

 

[Flying Crane]

This "hatred" and "fear" business is you projecting your own suppositions or inner feelings on to me. I would appreciate it if you'd stop doing that because it's really very annoying.

Sorry, Phil, I'm gonna call it the way I see it. It's just my opinion, of course, which I am entitled to, but you don't have to agree with.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Of course. Your opinion of me is, unfortunately, wildly speculative. It cannot be supported in an intellectually honest fashion. It is also a logical fallacy; you are attacking me as a person instead of addressing my arguments.

 

[Flying Crane]

Of course. Your opinion of me is, unfortunately, wildly speculative. It cannot be supported in an intellectually honest fashion. It is also a logical fallacy; you are attacking me as a person instead of addressing my arguments.

Well, I have conceded that this group sounds like it has a wacky interpretation of Buddhism, but I doubt they are such a big danger that you seem to think they are. Having their publication sold in New York and other places is hardly proof of world domination. Any schmoe with a website can potentially reach anyone around the world, as you have discovered with your own website.

The last I recall, people in the USA are free to have whatever religious, political, and ideological beliefs they want, and are free to discuss and promote those beliefs. This holds true even if they are beliefs that you disagree with, including pacifists, communists, socialists, and any of the other bogeymen out there. Even if you believe they are "evil", or their beliefs are "evil", they have the right to have, discuss, and promote their beliefs, just as you have, discuss, and promote your own beliefs that others find offensive. Just as you denounce them for their foolish beliefs, myself and others will denounce you when we perceive that you are promoting foolish beliefs. It's a two-way road.

 

[Cruentus]

Well, I have conceded that this group sounds like it has a wacky interpretation of Buddhism, but I doubt they are such a big danger that you seem to think they are.

I wouldn't be so sure. If this is the kind of group that would rally and lobby for the disarmement of citizens, or rally in support against someone who uses "violence" (by their definition) in self-defense, then I would say they (and groups like them) are pretty dangerous to our civil liberties.

Paul

 

[Bob Hubbard]

And I am not sure if this is directed at me or not, but I did apologize for what was the dig, if you will, and I acknowledge that is was out of line.

But if this is in reference to what Don Roley said he would steal that was neither a personal dig at me, nor was what he is stealing a personal dig at anyone. As a matter of fact it made the above response possible.

If it was not directed at me, I will quietly return to my padded cell and keep quiet

Just a general note to watch the personal shots to all involved. Nothing specific.

 

[Flying Crane]

I wouldn't be so sure. If this is the kind of group that would rally and lobby for the disarmement of citizens, or rally in support against someone who uses "violence" (by their definition) in self-defense, then I would say they (and groups like them) are pretty dangerous to our civil liberties.

Paul

well, we can go down a whole long road in discussing who is dangerous to our civil liberties.

With regard to this group, I just have serious doubts that they will have any real effect. They may wish they do, but I doubt it will happen.

Of course any group has the right to be involved and active politically. That is a right, in this country. Whether or not they represent something "dangerous" is all in perspective. What you might regard as dangerous, another might regard as a noble cause. There are no absolute truths here.

 

[Phil Elmore]

There are indeed absolute truths here. Disarmament is self-destructive and directly opposed to constitutionally protected civil liberties in the United States.

No one has said such a group does not have the right to work for its self-destructive goals. I have simply denounced them as evil, as they should be denounced.

 

[Andrew Green]

There are indeed absolute truths here. Disarmament is self-destructive and directly opposed to constitutionally protected civil liberties in the United States.

That's not a absolute truth, that's your opinion, nothing more.

And some will consider your goals the evil ones, and they are just as sure of them as you are of yours, provide just as good of arguments as you. Why are they evil and you not?

 

[Flying Crane]

Why are they evil and you not?

The constitition does protect the rights of the citizens to be armed, that much is true. Forcing disarmament of the population goes against the constitution, so that much would be illegal. But ideas that promote something that is illegal is not the same as evil.

But Andrew has proposed a good question. I mean, while these people may propose something that is unrealistic in today's world, at least they recognize killing as inherently wrong and something to be avoided. Personally, I believe in the right to self defense, even if that might require killing an attacker. But looking for other ways to resolve our problems, and getting away from shooting, bombing, and executing people seems like an inherently good idea to me. I just don't see any logic in the idea that Pacifism is "evil". Not wanting to kill people is evil? Sounds pretty twisted to me.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Opinions can be judged by the degree to which they correspond to objective reality. Those who believe disarmed citizens are "safer" are evading that reality; their opinions are not statistically nor logically supportable.