If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   White House hosts Faith-Based initiative conference with American Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh and Jain communities. Where is your Uttaradhyanayanasutra now?   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 70
    More: Spiffy, American Hindu, Sikhs, faith-based initiative, White House, Jain  
•       •       •

813 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Apr 2012 at 6:30 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



70 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-23 03:18:13 PM
What an Uttaradhyayana Sutra may look like:

i.imgur.com

By the way, before anyone gets too huffy. Jains don't believe in a creator god. But they are most definitely religious. And I'm sure the Fark Atheist Troop Squad Obambulators (a.k.a. 'FATSO') will find something to get amazingly butthurt about. Or at least out of consistent principle, they should.

/obambulator
//I love that word
///obambulator
 
2012-04-23 03:21:41 PM
One of my friends in college once told me about her aunt asking her about her classes while she was studying for her Religious Studies degree, and after a few minutes of listening to her talk the Aunt sputtered out, "You shouldn't study anything other than Christianity! Everything else is just lies!"

Surprise, a degree from a secular University required at least a few survey courses in non-Christian religions, and her extended family could never figure out why.

/CSB
 
2012-04-23 03:22:47 PM
This doesn't strike me as terribly appropriate activity by the White House.

Somacandra: By the way, before anyone gets too huffy. Jains don't believe in a creator god. But they are most definitely religious. And I'm sure the Fark Atheist Troop Squad Obambulators (a.k.a. 'FATSO') will find something to get amazingly butthurt about. Or at least out of consistent principle, they should.


Yeah, it's not generally a good thing when the Executive Branch talks about building strategic partnerships with churches. The important thing, though, is that you managed to beat any of the horrible atheists to being the first obnoxious post in the thread.
 
2012-04-23 03:24:43 PM

Somacandra: Or at least out of consistent principle, they should.


What? Why? These guys seem to be doing good work on a secular level as well as religious level, and I commend them for it. They're not advocating extremism or violence, nor are they being exclusionary or holier-than-thou. Those are the things that I would normally condemn someone religious for, not volunteerism and social justice work.
 
2012-04-23 03:27:15 PM
So, sort of a Dharma Initiative.
 
2012-04-23 04:18:35 PM
I'm sure that this is going to offend someone...

But, as a Buddhist, good on him.
 
2012-04-23 04:18:54 PM

Cagey B: This doesn't strike me as terribly appropriate activity by the White House.


Why? Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems like any of the hundred other random things they do each year.
 
2012-04-23 04:31:43 PM

DamnYankees: Cagey B: This doesn't strike me as terribly appropriate activity by the White House.

Why? Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems like any of the hundred other random things they do each year.


I feel pretty strongly about separation of church and state, and I think the idea of the White House providing organizational assistance to religious groups (in this case, giving a forum to established churches who are seeking to streamline their outreach efforts and, thus, further their influence) isn't appropriate.

Is it THE WORST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED? No, of course not. But why does the United States government need to be involved in something like this?
 
2012-04-23 04:32:26 PM

Cagey B: DamnYankees: Cagey B: This doesn't strike me as terribly appropriate activity by the White House.

Why? Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems like any of the hundred other random things they do each year.

I feel pretty strongly about separation of church and state, and I think the idea of the White House providing organizational assistance to religious groups (in this case, giving a forum to established churches who are seeking to streamline their outreach efforts and, thus, further their influence) isn't appropriate.

Is it THE WORST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED? No, of course not. But why does the United States government need to be involved in something like this?


Aren't they engaging them for charitable and humanitarian purposes?
 
2012-04-23 04:33:07 PM

DamnYankees: Cagey B: This doesn't strike me as terribly appropriate activity by the White House.

Why? Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems like any of the hundred other random things they do each year.


White House hosts religious leaders all the time; just because these didn't happen to be Judeo-Christain flavored doesn't mean it was any different than usual. Seems like they followed the normal church-guest formula, from a quick skim of the article.

If he means it's inappropriate for the White House to be hosting any kind of religious leaders at all, an argument could certainly be made for that, but I don't know how diplomatic it would be in the long run, which is usually most of the point of these visits.
 
2012-04-23 04:34:20 PM

hubiestubert: I'm sure that this is going to offend someone...

But, as a Buddhist, good on him.


As a Taoist, I find that offensive. Eat my Wu-tang boxing fist!

/Not a Taoist.
 
2012-04-23 04:37:11 PM

DamnYankees: Aren't they engaging them for charitable and humanitarian purposes?


What if they are? Does that somehow make things different? Shall we turn over humanitarian outreach efforts currently sponsored by the US to religious organizations?

I've never been comfortable with the Obama Administration's willingness to continue "faith-based initiatives" begun under Bush II. Again, this isn't some horrible atrocity that I'm going to wig out over, but I question its appropriateness.
 
2012-04-23 04:39:43 PM
What, no love for Shinto?
 
2012-04-23 04:41:29 PM

Cagey B: What if they are? Does that somehow make things different?


Yes, of course it does. The government is perfectly allowed to engage in humanitarian efforts, whoever the partner.
 
2012-04-23 04:41:53 PM

Paris1127: What, no love for Shinto?


Is Shinto a Dharmic religion?
 
2012-04-23 04:42:53 PM

balisane: If he means it's inappropriate for the White House to be hosting any kind of religious leaders at all, an argument could certainly be made for that, but I don't know how diplomatic it would be in the long run, which is usually most of the point of these visits.


This thread is quickly heading to "not worth it" territory since the event in the article is pretty harmless, but just to clarify a couple of philosophical points:

- No, I'm not discriminating because they're Hindus/Jains/Sikhs etc. I would have the same complaint if it was any other religion.

- I think it's different than the White House "hosting" religious leaders. If the Dalai Lama or the Pope or whoever are visiting for diplomatic purposes, I see no issue.

If, on the other hand, the White House is providing space and material support for "Catholic-Con 2012: How We Can Proselytize to the Third World Through Charity", that's another matter.
 
2012-04-23 04:44:39 PM

RexTalionis: Paris1127: What, no love for Shinto?

Is Shinto a Dharmic religion?


No.
 
2012-04-23 04:56:59 PM

DamnYankees: RexTalionis: Paris1127: What, no love for Shinto?

Is Shinto a Dharmic religion?

No.


Well, that answers Paris1127's answer, then. The initiative is related to Dharmic religions, hence why the only participants are representative of Buddhism, Sikh, Jain and Hindu religions.

Besides, I don't know why Shinto is mentioned before a much more noteworthy religion, like, say, the traditional Chinese religion (embodying ancestor veneration, shamanism, Shenism, Taoism and Confucianism., which is much bigger (it's, what, the 5th or 6th largest religious tradition in the world?).
 
2012-04-23 05:02:55 PM

RexTalionis: DamnYankees: RexTalionis: Paris1127: What, no love for Shinto?

Is Shinto a Dharmic religion?

No.

Well, that answers Paris1127's answer, then. The initiative is related to Dharmic religions, hence why the only participants are representative of Buddhism, Sikh, Jain and Hindu religions.

Besides, I don't know why Shinto is mentioned before a much more noteworthy religion, like, say, the traditional Chinese religion (embodying ancestor veneration, shamanism, Shenism, Taoism and Confucianism., which is much bigger (it's, what, the 5th or 6th largest religious tradition in the world?).


It may not be Dharmic, but Shinto and Buddhism go hand in hand in Japan... There's overlap there.
 
2012-04-23 05:06:07 PM

Paris1127: RexTalionis: DamnYankees: RexTalionis: Paris1127: What, no love for Shinto?

Is Shinto a Dharmic religion?

No.

Well, that answers Paris1127's answer, then. The initiative is related to Dharmic religions, hence why the only participants are representative of Buddhism, Sikh, Jain and Hindu religions.

Besides, I don't know why Shinto is mentioned before a much more noteworthy religion, like, say, the traditional Chinese religion (embodying ancestor veneration, shamanism, Shenism, Taoism and Confucianism., which is much bigger (it's, what, the 5th or 6th largest religious tradition in the world?).

It may not be Dharmic, but Shinto and Buddhism go hand in hand in Japan... There's overlap there.


Sort of. Japanese Buddhism was definitely influenced by the concepts of the kami, and often used as metaphor, but they very different practices.
 
2012-04-23 05:07:58 PM

Paris1127: RexTalionis: DamnYankees: RexTalionis: Paris1127: What, no love for Shinto?

Is Shinto a Dharmic religion?

No.

Well, that answers Paris1127's answer, then. The initiative is related to Dharmic religions, hence why the only participants are representative of Buddhism, Sikh, Jain and Hindu religions.

Besides, I don't know why Shinto is mentioned before a much more noteworthy religion, like, say, the traditional Chinese religion (embodying ancestor veneration, shamanism, Shenism, Taoism and Confucianism., which is much bigger (it's, what, the 5th or 6th largest religious tradition in the world?).

It may not be Dharmic, but Shinto and Buddhism go hand in hand in Japan... There's overlap there.


There's also overlap between the Chinese traditional religion(s) and Buddhism. Just got back from my grandmother's funeral in China - the Buddhist monks, Taoist monks and some other type of lay disciples (I can't tell what, they were chanting and wearing robes, though) were all there chanting and blowing horns and banging on drums.
 
2012-04-23 06:39:05 PM

SphericalTime: One of my friends in college once told me about her aunt asking her about her classes while she was studying for her Religious Studies degree, and after a few minutes of listening to her talk the Aunt sputtered out, "You shouldn't study anything other than Christianity! Everything else is just lies!"


I would love to take her aunt to a Christian Studies class just for the LOLs. "What do you mean Jesus wasn't born on December 25th?" "Easter isn't a pagan holiday!" "A Roman Emperor did not make the final decisions as to what books were to be included in the bible?" "The trinity has always been a part of the bible! It was not added 300 years after the death of Christ!" The cognitive dissonance would be great fun to watch.

/Bonus points, I'd let her attend the class at a Catholic school.
 
2012-04-23 06:46:44 PM
Why is this still allowed?

The whole faith based initiative preferential treatment for funds thing I mean.
 
2012-04-23 06:54:29 PM

DamnYankees: RexTalionis: Paris1127: What, no love for Shinto?

Is Shinto a Dharmic religion?

No.


It's Gregic.

*blink*

/So very ashamed.

I also have very mixed feelings about Faith Based Initiatives.

Tax dollars to religious groups? That's bad.
But the money goes to charities? That's good.
But it's disproportionately given to Christian charities? That's bad.
But it's becoming more inclusive? That's good.

Can I just go?
 
2012-04-23 06:56:38 PM

Somacandra: the Fark Atheist Troop Squad Obambulators (a.k.a. 'FATSO')


Name change!
i224.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-23 06:58:44 PM

Paris1127: What, no love for Shinto?


0bama has shown NO support for Shinto.
None.
 
2012-04-23 06:58:49 PM
I have no problem with this but I think we should have equal time for a Science-Based initiatives. Invite representatives of each of the major fields of science to chill and talk about nebulous, unactionable solutions to problems, just as these fine gentlemen are.
 
2012-04-23 07:00:09 PM

Cagey B: This doesn't strike me as terribly appropriate activity by the White House.


Not sure why, the White House is always engaging in Christian stuff, talking to Christian leaders, doing the big prayer breakfast. At least they're giving a little bit of equal time to the non-Christian denominations.
 
2012-04-23 07:10:00 PM

PonceAlyosha: I have no problem with this but I think we should have equal time for a Science-Based initiatives. Invite representatives of each of the major fields of science to chill and talk about nebulous, unactionable solutions to problems, just as these fine gentlemen are.


Thetan!
 
2012-04-23 07:15:18 PM
Tax payer money given to Planned Parenthood gets all mixed up and used for abortions even though it's illegal, but somehow money given to religious groups is easily accounted for and completely separate from proselytizing.

ok, then.
 
2012-04-23 07:16:14 PM
There is also growing focus among American Dharmic communities about international human rights concerns. This comes in response to growing evidence of possible kidnappings, forced marriages, and high conversion rates among Hindus and Sikhs (and Christians) in Pakistan, as well as Buddhists in Southeast Asia.

Kidnappings and forced marriages are one thing, but people changing religions?
Now that's an international human right concern if I ever saw one.

I hope they informed the White House of this dire news.
 
2012-04-23 07:18:46 PM

God-is-a-Taco: Kidnappings and forced marriages are one thing, but people changing religions?


I think they mean forced conversion through coercion. They fact that it rhymes does not make the crime less heinous.

/anus.
 
2012-04-23 07:29:33 PM
Why can't community organizations just do good work without having to involve fairy-tales?
 
2012-04-23 07:37:13 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Paris1127: What, no love for Shinto?

0bama has shown NO support for Shinto.
None.


More proof he is a damn sekrit muzlim
 
2012-04-23 07:39:49 PM
And the libs said that there was no threat of Sharia Law. Yeah, sure - now what do you have to say, libs? Huh? The "president" just hosted what is basically a "Sharia in America" planning session. This time next year, it'll be veils and turbans for everyone.

Hey - don't blame me, I didn't vote for the guy.
 
2012-04-23 07:45:32 PM

AnEvilGuest: tenpoundsofcheese: Paris1127: What, no love for Shinto?

0bama has shown NO support for Shinto.
None.

More proof he is a damn sekrit muzlim


Or his pulling away from the Shinto could prove he's a secret Shinto.
 
2012-04-23 07:45:49 PM
Rambino:

Poe's law
 
2012-04-23 07:50:01 PM
Obama is a sekrit evangelical fundamentalist christian.
 
2012-04-23 07:50:23 PM

PonceAlyosha: God-is-a-Taco: Kidnappings and forced marriages are one thing, but people changing religions?

I think they mean forced conversion through coercion. They fact that it rhymes does not make the crime less heinous.

/anus.


Ohh, yeah. I didn't think of it that way. You must be right.
 
2012-04-23 08:00:23 PM

Cagey B: DamnYankees: Cagey B: This doesn't strike me as terribly appropriate activity by the White House.

Why? Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems like any of the hundred other random things they do each year.

I feel pretty strongly about separation of church and state, and I think the idea of the White House providing organizational assistance to religious groups (in this case, giving a forum to established churches who are seeking to streamline their outreach efforts and, thus, further their influence) isn't appropriate.

Is it THE WORST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED? No, of course not. But why does the United States government need to be involved in something like this?


Eh, I doubt there's much harm here. People in government ask the opinion of religious leaders all the time. When they start saying "Thou shalt believe in (x) religion or suffer (y) punishment", we have a problem. I think people in Obama's administration are reasonable enough to not do that.

The major issue is when religious belief translates directly in to law. Being as there aren't too many Jains in the US, I doubt this will be a problem.

/Christian
//was thoroughly thankful when Santorum dropped out of the race.
 
2012-04-23 08:05:04 PM

djRykoSuave: Why can't community organizations just do good work without having to involve fairy-tales?


It is a rare community that doesn't have a large majority of religious people.

People invent and believe in religions because they provide emotional support that is very important to them.
If you wish to engage a people it is important to respect this particular irrationality.
Reason serves emotion in human beings so reason shouldn't ever be expected to prevail over it.

That said, as much as I despise the cruel intolerance, irrational policy and arrogant ignorance that go with much of religiosity in the public sphere I respect the ability of these myths and stories to bring comfort to many people who would otherwise feel more frightened and hopeless. It would be irrational to reject these benefits.
We need to resist the selfishness of creationists, homophobes and the like who would harm the world in pursuit of this advantage but it is sensible to respect people's faith when it isn't harming others because it makes them easier (or possible) to work with.
In short: Fark you Karl, the masses need their opiates
 
2012-04-23 08:08:22 PM

God-is-a-Taco: PonceAlyosha: God-is-a-Taco: Kidnappings and forced marriages are one thing, but people changing religions?

I think they mean forced conversion through coercion. They fact that it rhymes does not make the crime less heinous.

/anus.

Ohh, yeah. I didn't think of it that way. You must be right.


To a certain extent, forced conversions happened in that area after Independence: raging mobs would strip down Hindu men to see if they had "converted" to Islam (become circumsized or not). But believing that a few leaders in America have any say over the actions of raging mobs anywhere is just grandiose thinking.
 
2012-04-23 08:13:14 PM
Wha? Christians were not invited? OMG, why the oppression?!?!

api.ning.com
 
2012-04-23 08:19:36 PM

hubiestubert: I'm sure that this is going to offend someone...

But, as a Buddhist, good on him.


Might as well make the Initiative work for everyone, as the Christians can be heard sniping in the background, "Ack, lies lies lies."
 
2012-04-23 08:19:38 PM

Marine1: Cagey B: DamnYankees: Cagey B: This doesn't strike me as terribly appropriate activity by the White House.

Why? Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems like any of the hundred other random things they do each year.

I feel pretty strongly about separation of church and state, and I think the idea of the White House providing organizational assistance to religious groups (in this case, giving a forum to established churches who are seeking to streamline their outreach efforts and, thus, further their influence) isn't appropriate.

Is it THE WORST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED? No, of course not. But why does the United States government need to be involved in something like this?

Eh, I doubt there's much harm here. People in government ask the opinion of religious leaders all the time. When they start saying "Thou shalt believe in (x) religion or suffer (y) punishment", we have a problem. I think people in Obama's administration are reasonable enough to not do that.

The major issue is when religious belief translates directly in to law. Being as there aren't too many Jains in the US, I doubt this will be a problem.

/Christian
//was thoroughly thankful when Santorum dropped out of the race.


Fortunately, the founding fathers were familiar enough with the bloodshed caused during the English Reformation, so they were sane enough to take steps to avoid repeating all that craziness.
 
2012-04-23 08:21:38 PM

Rambino: This time next year, it'll be veils and turbans for everyone.


Everybody Freak out.
 
2012-04-23 08:24:39 PM

Handbasket: To a certain extent, forced conversions happened in that area after Independence: raging mobs would strip down Hindu men to see if they had "converted" to Islam (become circumsized or not)


The worst part is that it's never as sexy as it is in my fan fictions.

/oh abdullah please don't get your four sexy brothers to forcibly introduce me to the five pillars of islam
 
2012-04-23 08:27:37 PM
A man named Jain?
 
2012-04-23 08:34:32 PM

Sybarite: So, sort of a Dharma Initiative.


They're taking a big risk getting involved with the faith-based crowd; sure, it gives them a chance to experiment with some interesting projects and maybe hatch up some new ideas, but they may eventually get overwhelmed by the others in the group.
 
2012-04-23 08:35:33 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: A man named Jain?


The hero of Karnataka. The man they call Jain
 
Displayed 50 of 70 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report