Why the Buddhist Peace Fellowship is Wrong

[Phil Elmore]

But ideas that promote something that is illegal is not the same as evil.

Actually, they are. NAMBLA -- the "North American Boy Love Association" -- advocates the molestation of underage males. This is both illegal AND immoral. It is quite evil. By your definition, this advocacy is not the same as actually molesting a child. I, on the other hand, contend that such advocacy is every bit as evil because of the results its promotes and encourages.

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.

Understanding that force is sometimes necessary does not mean one does not reserve it as the last resort; all rational people seek to avoid armed conflict if a better way can be found that still solves the problem. This does not change the fact that the pacifism of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship is an unworkable, self-destructive philosophy that would have disastrous consequences for any society that attempted to implement it at the governmental level (which is what the organization seeks).

In a society comprised of only pacifists, pacifism can work. Such a society has never existed and never will exist. It is a utopian fantasy.

 

[Flying Crane]

Actually, they are. NAMBLA -- the "North American Boy Love Association" -- advocates the molestation of underage males. This is both illegal AND immoral. It is quite evil. By your definition, this advocacy is not the same as actually molesting a child. I, on the other hand, contend that such advocacy is every bit as evil because of the results its promotes and encourages.



Understanding that force is sometimes necessary does not mean one does not reserve it as the last resort; all rational people seek to avoid armed conflict if a better way can be found that still solves the problem. This does not change the fact that the pacifism of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship is an unworkable, self-destructive philosophy that would have disastrous consequences for any society that attempted to implement it at the governmental level (which is what the organization seeks).

In a society comprised of only pacifists, pacifism can work. Such a society has never existed and never will exist. It is a utopian fantasy.

Apples and oranges. Not the same thing. Not everything that happens to be illegal is evil.

Your last line is true. But again, does this make them evil? Unrealistic idealists, perhaps, but certainly not evil.

 

[Cruentus]

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.

So, kind of like the Klu Klux Klan and neonazi groups? We shouldn't denounce groups like that because they probably won't have any real effect, and after all they do have the right to assemble, and whether or not they represent something "dangerous" is really all in perspective because, hey, someone might consider their cause noble.....?

Yea, I guess your right. No absolute truths here...:erg:

 

[Flying Crane]

So, kind of like the Klu Klux Klan and neonazi groups? We shouldn't denounce groups like that because they probably won't have any real effect, and after all they do have the right to assemble, and whether or not they represent something "dangerous" is really all in perspective because, hey, someone might consider their cause noble.....?

Yea, I guess your right. No absolute truths here...:erg:

Sorry Paul, the KKK and Neonazi groups actually promote violence, discrimination, and hatred directed toward certain groups of people. This Buddhist group, while perhaps misguided in their efforts, promotes NOT killing, NOT discriminating, and NOT hating others. There is a world of difference here.

Yes, they have a right to hold their beliefs, promote their beliefs, and assemble, but if anyone were to view a group as potentially dangerous, I think these would be more reasonable targets than a bunch of misguided hippy Buddhists who happen to want people to not kill each other.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Non violent beliefs are fine, and something I'm in support of. (The irony of being a wargamer, a martial artist and a paintballer who is also a pacifist at heart).

The problem is, there are too many others who aren't, and a group of pacifists are little more than a speedbump to a tank, much less someone without the moral or ethical resistance to inflicting harm. Ghandi would have been trampled under Attila's calvary, simply put.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Apples and oranges. Not the same thing. Not everything that happens to be illegal is evil.

No one said it was. You're arguing in circles and missing the point. The advocacy of something that is evil is every bit as bad as the evil being advocated.

Unilateral disarmament and pacfisit governmental policies are every bit as harmful as race hatred and the advocation of unprovoked and unjustified violence -- because the end result of such "idealistic and unrealistic" policies is suicide. That is why what the Buddhist Peace Fellowship preaches is evil.

 

[Flying Crane]

No one said it was. You're arguing in circles and missing the point. The advocacy of something that is evil is every bit as bad as the evil being advocated.

Unilateral disarmament and pacfisit governmental policies are every bit as harmful as race hatred and the advocation of unprovoked and unjustified violence -- because the end result of such "idealistic and unrealistic" policies is suicide. That is why what the Buddhist Peace Fellowship preaches is evil.

No Phil, you are missing the point. being misguided and mistaken is not evil. It is being misguided and mistaken, plain and simple.

A pacifist movement would hope that ALL would disarm and stop killing each other, not just one to be left defenseless. Realistic? Probably not. A nice idea? Sure. Evil? Nope.

 

[Andrew Green]

Unilateral disarmament and pacfisit governmental policies are every bit as harmful as race hatred and the advocation of unprovoked and unjustified violence -- because the end result of such "idealistic and unrealistic" policies is suicide. That is why what the Buddhist Peace Fellowship preaches is evil.

Yes, how dare they want everyone to stop killing each other, those evil little buggers. Work of the devil I say. If they had there way and everyone started being friendly and not killing each other it would be like hell on earth. I say we hit them with there own sort of evil and be nice to them, that will teach them.

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

Careful, Andrew...there was this one guy, went around telling everyone how great it would be if we all just stopped fighting and started being nice to each other, how much greater the world would be. Got nailed to a tree for His troubles.

 

[Carol]

I hate it when pacifists transform perfectly good airplanes in to bombs and fly them in to buildings and stuff. That really rattles my cage.

 

[Flying Crane]

well, that wouldn't be a pacifist, would it?

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

True...that's the powerful, yet lunatic, fringe of Islam. Akin to abortion clinic bombers found in edge-dweller Christianity.

 

[Flying Crane]

yeah, that's the problem, often the mainstream guys are OK, but the fringe people tend to be a bit out there.

 

[Carol]

well, that wouldn't be a pacifist, would it?

No...no, I guess not. And that whole thing called "insurgency", I guess that's not pacifism either. Yep, abortion clinic bombing...that's evil, too.

Those thugs that busted in to a makeshift recording studio in Boston and shot 4 musicians, that's evil, too.

Call me old fashioned, but personally, I don't think there's much more evil than killing people.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Sadly, I can think of a number of things more evil than killing. In some cases, it's a kindness. Which puts some into ethical dilemmas.

 

[tshadowchaser]

The advocacy of something that is evil is every bit as bad as the evil being advocated.

only in your mind but maybe not in mine or in my belifes

 

[Cruentus]

No Phil, you are missing the point. being misguided and mistaken is not evil. It is being misguided and mistaken, plain and simple.

A pacifist movement would hope that ALL would disarm and stop killing each other, not just one to be left defenseless. Realistic? Probably not. A nice idea? Sure. Evil? Nope.

So....then their just stupid?

See, I don't buy it. Sure, there may be individual people who are misguided and who belong to the group, but I don't think that fits the group as a whole, and I especially don't think that fits it's group leaders and writers. I think they have well thought philosophies that I simply don't agree with.

I used the example of the KKK to prove a point that I don't think your seeing. That is that if a group is morally or ethically wrong and intends to lobby our government and society to make their ideas more of the "norm," then speaking up against their ideas and policies is THE RIGHT THING TO DO. So, I don't understand why it wouldn't be O.K. to speak up against the group if one believes them to be morally wrong, by your (and others) standards, with the exception that this is a happy hippy "buddhist" group promoting "peace."

And as to this notion...

Yes, how dare they want everyone to stop killing each other, those evil little buggers.

That is the problem. Because the group supposedly is promoting "peace" then they must be a good group that we shouldn't worry about. However, if this is the same type of group that would lobby for someone to go to jail for the rest of their life because they shot someone in self-defense, for example, then we absolutely should "worry" about them.

Just because they claim to promote "peace" that doesn't mean speaking out against them means that you don't promote peace. I am an advocate for peace myself, and I think most rational people are. I just don't think giving up our civil liberties or that ignoring the realities of self-defense is going to get us there.

Careful, Andrew...there was this one guy, went around telling everyone how great it would be if we all just stopped fighting and started being nice to each other, how much greater the world would be. Got nailed to a tree for His troubles.

Dude, you can't be serious!?

Well, as far as religion goes, I don't recall most sects of Buddhism that I have studied or Christianity for that matter advocating government forced pilfering of our civil liberties for the sake of a "common good." I do recall both Buddhism and Christianity philosophically supporting individualism and personal choice, issues that this particular groups seems to have overlooked. You remember, "personal relationship with Christ" and "The way to enlightenment is solitude," and all that jazz? Guess I could be wrong...

"If you meet the Buddha on the road, Kill him." - Zen Koan

Paul

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

Dude, you can't be serious!?

Well, as far as religion goes, I don't recall most sects of Buddhism that I have studied or Christianity for that matter advocating government forced pilfering of our civil liberties for the sake of a "common good." I do recall both Buddhism and Christianity philosophically supporting individualism and personal choice, issues that this particular groups seems to have overlooked. You remember, "personal relationship with Christ" and "The way to enlightenment is solitude," and all that jazz? Guess I could be wrong...

"If you meet the Buddha on the road, Kill him." - Zen Koan

Paul

Sure, I'm serious. My illustration was to note the response that pacifism and decency tends to get, in a general sense. Then and now. This was posted more as a comment on the pacifist-bashing that surfaced over the last few pages than on the politics, hidden or not, advocated by the group in question.

Moreover, Christ said render unto Ceasar, obey your authorities and all that jazz. They killed him anyways.

 

[Flying Crane]

So....then their just stupid?

See, I don't buy it. Sure, there may be individual people who are misguided and who belong to the group, but I don't think that fits the group as a whole, and I especially don't think that fits it's group leaders and writers. I think they have well thought philosophies that I simply don't agree with.

I used the example of the KKK to prove a point that I don't think your seeing. That is that if a group is morally or ethically wrong and intends to lobby our government and society to make their ideas more of the "norm," then speaking up against their ideas and policies is THE RIGHT THING TO DO. So, I don't understand why it wouldn't be O.K. to speak up against the group if one believes them to be morally wrong, by your (and others) standards, with the exception that this is a happy hippy "buddhist" group promoting "peace."

And as to this notion...


That is the problem. Because the group supposedly is promoting "peace" then they must be a good group that we shouldn't worry about. However, if this is the same type of group that would lobby for someone to go to jail for the rest of their life because they shot someone in self-defense, for example, then we absolutely should "worry" about them.

Just because they claim to promote "peace" that doesn't mean speaking out against them means that you don't promote peace. I am an advocate for peace myself, and I think most rational people are. I just don't think giving up our civil liberties or that ignoring the realities of self-defense is going to get us there.
Paul

It's possible that they are just stupid, but once again, certainly not Evil. This whole thing is really quite comical in many ways. This Buddhist group from Berkeley, that probably no one on this forum had ever heard of until Phil brought it up (I never heard of them, and I live in San Francisco!) is just not a threat to the fabric of our nation. You think they have crackpot ideas, and if I knew more details about them I would probably agree with you, but I just can't see demonizing them over it. They are small and ineffectual. Do you really think they are going to hold sway over our lawmakers and turn this country into something different? It won't happen.

But because of their ideology, they have incurred The Wrath of Phil. OK, so Phil thinks they are crackpots too. I don't have a problem with that. But what I have a problem with is the preachy Righteousness, Anger, Hatred, and, yes, I'll say it again, Fear that Phil slings out in his soapbox monologue rantings and ravings. Everything to Phil is polarized into Good and Evil, but the world isn't really like that. Most things fall somewhere in the gray area between the two and it is not so simple as he would like us all to believe.

So feel free to view this group as a bunch of crackpots. If you believe that, I can't change your mind and you are probably right, in this case. But keep it all in perspective and lets not make a mountain out of a mole hill. When people post rantings like Phil does, in my opinion, it makes him look like a crackpot, even if I might actually agree with some of what he is saying.

 

[Cruentus]

Sure, I'm serious. My illustration was to note the response that pacifism and decency tends to get, in a general sense. Then and now. This was posted more as a comment on the pacifist-bashing that surfaced over the last few pages than on the politics, hidden or not, advocated by the group in question.

Moreover, Christ said render unto Ceasar, obey your authorities and all that jazz. They killed him anyways.

Well...O.K.. Fair enough.

It's possible that they are just stupid, but once again, certainly not Evil. This whole thing is really quite comical in many ways. This Buddhist group from Berkeley, that probably no one on this forum had ever heard of until Phil brought it up (I never heard of them, and I live in San Francisco!) is just not a threat to the fabric of our nation. You think they have crackpot ideas, and if I knew more details about them I would probably agree with you, but I just can't see demonizing them over it. They are small and ineffectual. Do you really think they are going to hold sway over our lawmakers and turn this country into something different? It won't happen.

But because of their ideology, they have incurred The Wrath of Phil. OK, so Phil thinks they are crackpots too. I don't have a problem with that. But what I have a problem with is the preachy Righteousness, Anger, Hatred, and, yes, I'll say it again, Fear that Phil slings out in his soapbox monologue rantings and ravings. Everything to Phil is polarized into Good and Evil, but the world isn't really like that. Most things fall somewhere in the gray area between the two and it is not so simple as he would like us all to believe.

So feel free to view this group as a bunch of crackpots. If you believe that, I can't change your mind and you are probably right, in this case. But keep it all in perspective and lets not make a mountain out of a mole hill. When people post rantings like Phil does, in my opinion, it makes him look like a crackpot, even if I might actually agree with some of what he is saying.

Um....O.K. to you too.

I guess I really don't have much to else to say on the subject. There are a lot of opinions to go around, and I made mine clear. I'm not sure that people even disagree that much with my opinions for that matter.

As far as this debate goes, the issue for some people seems to be with the arguer rather then the arguement, and personal issues between people is something I don't really like getting involved in. So...thanks for the discussion, all.

Paul