On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 15:29:20 -0700 (PDT), bmoore@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>On Apr 9, 3:17?pm, Raymond <ni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 13:24:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Apr 9, 12:46?pm, Raymond <ni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >> I'm glad you have to choose ignore my argument.
>>
>> >> Thank you for making myself feel so good.
>>
>> >> :-)
>>
>> >Well, even in the United States, there is no "freedom of religious
>> >authority"; the different churches are not permitted to have church
>> >police that make sure their believers are religious enough!
>>
>> That's not true. In the United States, religious authority enjoys many
>> special privileges and treatments both politically and economically.
>> They are powerful forces which even the US government can't really do
>> anything about them. It's because they have such power, the separation
>> of church and state in the US constitution is nothing but empty words.
>>
>>
>>
>> >But churches do have independent organizational structures; the
>> >government does not say who can be the next Pope, who is the next
>> >incarnation of the Panchen Lama, who can be a priest or so on.
>>
>> The crowning of Tibetan lama is a tradition of Chinese dynasty. The
>> current government is merely complying with tradition so there won't
>> be any power struggle among different factions of Tibetan Lamaism.
>> BTW, Banchan Lama enjoys exact equal prestige and privilege as Da-Lie,
>> Panchen rules in QingHai province. Da-Lie lived in Lhasa, Tibet. The
>> two of them were never even friends back in the old days. They were
>> political rivals. Therefore, even the Chinese government did not
>> choose the next incarnation of Banchan Lama, it still was not up to
>> Da-Lie to give a ****. I'm sure Banchan's followers would love to kill
>> him if he dares to get his feet into QingHai province.
>>
>>
>>
>> >It is the second type of freedom that does not exist in China. Because
>> >the government knows it is a hated tyranny, and so it fears people
>> >getting together except under its watchful eye. You seem to be trying
>> >to confuse the second with the first, which indeed would not be a
>> >legitimate thing for religions to ask for.
>>
>> Not at all. There is no confusion on my part. The confused one is you
>> who naively believes that you can still have the separation of church
>> and state while still giving religious authority the power they ask
>> for. Yes, the Pope is a religious dictator as well. His religious
>> power should have been stripped and limited also. The reason world
>> religion is giving the world so much trouble these days is largely
>> because they have too much power.
>
>It's rather humorous to hear you say one thing after another, almost
>all of it absurd. Your lack of understanding is understandable,
>though. Something has been taken from you and you don't seem
>interested in getting it back.
>
I'm glad you enjoy it. Just sharing what I know about Tibet, about
Lamaism, and about the true separation of church and state. Do you
feel enlightened listening to a Chinese about your own constitution
and its failings?
You should.
:-)
|
