I tweeted this article today and thought it worthy of another snip.
I was impressed with the lead-in to this video (follow link in above tweet). The anchor seemed a bit more on the ball than some media anchors, who stumble on their words as if they’ve just heard of some distant country, leader or idea.
Karen Armstrong is well-known within Religious Studies. Anyone who’s taken a graduate course in that area, maybe even undergrads, would know her name. It seems she’s a slightly better author than speaker. But still, what matters is her words, not so much the delivery. And she rightly points out that conflict is caused by a variety of factors—religion only being one of those.
A few days ago I dared to critique the Dalai Lama (not a single like on that post, which is telling). Seems it’s fair game to critique Popes, especially former popes and Bible thumping fundamentalists. And I’m fine with that. But why are other religious groups always handled with kid gloves?
I don’t agree with everything this Newsweek article says. But I was glad to see that someone else is willing to step outside of the politically correct box and actually address some issues that need addressing. Turning a blind eye to problems never solves anything. Even religious problems.
Funny how so many New Age pundits tell us to “embrace change” and look for the BIG GOOD in the flux of smaller good and bad events. But all this great sounding wisdom flies out the window when it comes to the warmer regions and climate change.
Because climate change is really a political issue. Some regions will suffer, others will likely benefit.
I’ve been saying this for months now, but because current power brokers and vulnerable peoples are concerned about what climate change will do to them, we hear a great outcry. I’m not sure if Canada will truly benefit. True, it’s a cold country and our population is quite small, largely because of the climate. But personally, I like it that way.
Earthpages is “the real alternative,” so don’t expect me to gush out the usual politically correct stuff about the DL. Personally, I think he’s a bit of a poser. First, I think that the notion of reincarnation is too simple—a manmade theory trying to make sense of a mysterious universe. So basically, we have this kid who bought into the idea that he was the reincarnation of someone important. If you don’t understand what I’m saying here, look up how the DL is selected. Very shaky, if you ask me.
Second, I have exceptionally good reasons to believe in God, and Buddhists say that God is just a human idea. So on those two counts, I distrust the DL. Also, I wonder where the funding comes from in Buddhism. Is it magically free of corruption? I doubt it.
Let’s get real. Organized religions and much of society usually have a dark underbelly. At least the Catholic Church is addressing that issue rather than sweeping it under the rug. And I would imagine that the DL and his group are still in the “cover it up at all costs” phase. I have no proof of this. But just a hunch.
The other reason I would never follow the DL is because I saw him when he came to Toronto, quite some time ago. Yes, there was a perceptible buzz in the room. But it was not the kind of holy feeling that I feel through Christ. It was a different experience. And, for me, inferior.
So as I say, don’t expect political correctness from me. Especially when it comes to, imo, religious posers.—MC