Doing some research on the Buddhist priesthood. Need help.

[Buddha]

Long story short is that I am doing some follow-up research on somthing that someone here said. I am wondering about exact examples to prove that there is corruption within the Buddhist priesthood. I am kind of going into this with no prior knowledge so I am doing a lot of Google searches and the like. If anyone has a website or any source of information that I could use for this, bu all means do share the info.

No priestly caste in the history of religion has ever fostered and preyed upon the terror and ignorance of its flock with the systematic brigandage of the lamas.

This quote is from a jesuit priest writing about the corruption he found within the monasteries of Tibet. The sad thing is that this is more true than is comfortable for me. I think that whenever you have a group of people in one place and given authority, you will inevitably have problems.

Link about Tibetan Buddhist corruption
This link contains a lot of things that I don't agree with and mentions violence and dogmatism perpetuated by Buddhists. I do not want to take the easy way out and say that they do not accurately depict true Buddhism. The so called 'no true scotsman fallacy' is what I just described here. The article in the link also mentions that the lamas controlled Tibet with the same kind of tactics used by the Catholic priesthood of the Middle Ages. This is only half true and the reasons for this are complicated. It goes back to when the legendary saint Padmasambava brought Buddhism to Tibet. Tibet was practicing a religion called Bon. This was similar to the practices of witchcraft in Europe. For more information read the article and I will find more when I can.

[Thanas]

I strongly suggest you stop using the internet and start reading Books. If you do not know how to compile a bibliography, I suggest starting with britannica or any other well known encyclopeadia, which will usually have some starting info and point you to furhter reference books.

[Thanas]

Ghetto edit:

The article in the link also mentions that the lamas controlled Tibet with the same kind of tactics used by the Catholic priesthood of the Middle Ages. This is only half true and the reasons for this are complicated. It goes back to when the legendary saint Padmasambava brought Buddhism to Tibet.

I also strongly advise you to get over your preconceptions on the matter. First of all, "this is only half true for complicated reasons" when not citing those reasons is not really the way to go. I suggest you refrain from such comments until you can show evidence to the contrary.

Also, distance from the subject of your research is important when researching historical facts. Do not make the mistake assuming that just because you like the guy (and the adjective of legendary you attached to his name seems to suggest this to me) all evidence which paints him in a negative light is wrong.

Otherwise, what you are doing is not history, but a form of hagiography. I assuming you are interested in the truth and not some panegyricus.

[Buddha]

I do realize that the tone of what I wrote and the premise of the thread are in conflict. I am a bit uncomfortable with some of the things that I am reading, but I am not afraid to admit that they are accurate. It's a bit like having a father with a drinking problem. You don't want others to know too much or too many people to know as it is embarrasing. Especially with recent events and how it would legitimize the actions of the P.R.C in Tibet. I am hoping to be able to air out the dirty laundry and deal with it without swinging to any extreme. As cliche as it sounds, there will be more to come as I dig up more information from books and other sources.

[Covenant]

I do realize that the tone of what I wrote and the premise of the thread are in conflict. I am a bit uncomfortable with some of the things that I am reading, but I am not afraid to admit that they are accurate. It's a bit like having a father with a drinking problem. You don't want others to know too much or too many people to know as it is embarrasing. Especially with recent events and how it would legitimize the actions of the P.R.C in Tibet. I am hoping to be able to air out the dirty laundry and deal with it without swinging to any extreme. As cliche as it sounds, there will be more to come as I dig up more information from books and other sources.

The Chinese are an extremely brutal force wherever they are, but the Buddhists in Tibet haven't exactly been a force for the uplifting of the people. Seriously though, the internet is a poor source of information, even if it is a good source for biased news (which has a value of sorts if you balance it out). You'll probably find what you're looking for in a history of tibet combined with some specific information about the priesthood of Tibet and the ruling system of the Lamas.

This kind of stuff may be upsetting, but it's because far and wide it has simply not been reported. Buddhists are described as pacifists and kindly and wise and utterly concerned with the advancement of the spirit. This is the kind of stuff people always think of when they think of a 'noble savage.' The Tibetans are basically a stand-in for the mystical primitives that we've already wiped out. They have a funny religion and it's not about people being nailed to wooden things and they live in a harsh and beautiful landscape, so they must be totally peaceful and primitive, right?

If you look at the history of Tibet, you'll certainly find that to be wrong. And the Buddhists themselves are not a peaceful people either, no religion has yet been able to quench the fires of violence in their nations, and many times it actually is used to further it. Look at the role of Imperial Buddhism in giving the Japanese another reason to slaughter and conquer their neighbors. And the oppression of the poor in Tibet is no rare example of priestly abuse. The Dali Lama, for all his holiness and such, essentially wants to return Tibet to that kind of a stone-age brutalness. The Chinese, despite their incredibly violent and destructive policies towards everything are at least dragging Tibet into the modern world. That in no way justifies what they've done to a soverign nation of course, but in a very objective sense at least they're now under the rule of a modern brutal oppression.

No religion is or has ever been, I repeat, free of violence and corruption. While you may find Buddhist stuff very ennobling and enlightening and comforting, you gotta remember that someone out there is just going to use it to justify making someone else toil for his gain. Go find some good, deep analysis of the situation in Tibet over the years from several authors with well-documented sources and then form an opinion of things. But you've always got to remember that a 'system' doesn't deserve respect unless it has a good result. Don't defend a system just because you like the idea.

[Darth Wong]

Long story short is that I am doing some follow-up research on somthing that someone here said. I am wondering about exact examples to prove that there is corruption within the Buddhist priesthood. I am kind of going into this with no prior knowledge so I am doing a lot of Google searches and the like. If anyone has a website or any source of information that I could use for this, bu all means do share the info.

No priestly caste in the history of religion has ever fostered and preyed upon the terror and ignorance of its flock with the systematic brigandage of the lamas.

This quote is from a jesuit priest writing about the corruption he found within the monasteries of Tibet. The sad thing is that this is more true than is comfortable for me. I think that whenever you have a group of people in one place and given authority, you will inevitably have problems.

Link about Tibetan Buddhist corruption
This link contains a lot of things that I don't agree with and mentions violence and dogmatism perpetuated by Buddhists. I do not want to take the easy way out and say that they do not accurately depict true Buddhism. The so called 'no true scotsman fallacy' is what I just described here. The article in the link also mentions that the lamas controlled Tibet with the same kind of tactics used by the Catholic priesthood of the Middle Ages. This is only half true and the reasons for this are complicated. It goes back to when the legendary saint Padmasambava brought Buddhism to Tibet. Tibet was practicing a religion called Bon. This was similar to the practices of witchcraft in Europe. For more information read the article and I will find more when I can.

Am I the only one who finds it hilarious to read such words of righteous condemnation coming from a Catholic priest?

[The Vortex Empire]

Long story short is that I am doing some follow-up research on somthing that someone here said. I am wondering about exact examples to prove that there is corruption within the Buddhist priesthood. I am kind of going into this with no prior knowledge so I am doing a lot of Google searches and the like. If anyone has a website or any source of information that I could use for this, bu all means do share the info.

No priestly caste in the history of religion has ever fostered and preyed upon the terror and ignorance of its flock with the systematic brigandage of the lamas.

This quote is from a jesuit priest writing about the corruption he found within the monasteries of Tibet. The sad thing is that this is more true than is comfortable for me. I think that whenever you have a group of people in one place and given authority, you will inevitably have problems.

Link about Tibetan Buddhist corruption
This link contains a lot of things that I don't agree with and mentions violence and dogmatism perpetuated by Buddhists. I do not want to take the easy way out and say that they do not accurately depict true Buddhism. The so called 'no true scotsman fallacy' is what I just described here. The article in the link also mentions that the lamas controlled Tibet with the same kind of tactics used by the Catholic priesthood of the Middle Ages. This is only half true and the reasons for this are complicated. It goes back to when the legendary saint Padmasambava brought Buddhism to Tibet. Tibet was practicing a religion called Bon. This was similar to the practices of witchcraft in Europe. For more information read the article and I will find more when I can.

Am I the only one who finds it hilarious to read such words of righteous condemnation coming from a Catholic priest?

No, no you are not.

[ray245]

Long story short is that I am doing some follow-up research on somthing that someone here said. I am wondering about exact examples to prove that there is corruption within the Buddhist priesthood. I am kind of going into this with no prior knowledge so I am doing a lot of Google searches and the like. If anyone has a website or any source of information that I could use for this, bu all means do share the info.
This quote is from a jesuit priest writing about the corruption he found within the monasteries of Tibet. The sad thing is that this is more true than is comfortable for me. I think that whenever you have a group of people in one place and given authority, you will inevitably have problems.

Link about Tibetan Buddhist corruption
This link contains a lot of things that I don't agree with and mentions violence and dogmatism perpetuated by Buddhists. I do not want to take the easy way out and say that they do not accurately depict true Buddhism. The so called 'no true scotsman fallacy' is what I just described here. The article in the link also mentions that the lamas controlled Tibet with the same kind of tactics used by the Catholic priesthood of the Middle Ages. This is only half true and the reasons for this are complicated. It goes back to when the legendary saint Padmasambava brought Buddhism to Tibet. Tibet was practicing a religion called Bon. This was similar to the practices of witchcraft in Europe. For more information read the article and I will find more when I can.

Am I the only one who finds it hilarious to read such words of righteous condemnation coming from a Catholic priest?

No, no you are not.

Too bad we have yet to see another major debate between the religious leader on live television.


It will be funny to see Dalai lama and the pope trying to condemn each other on live TV.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Am I the only one who finds it hilarious to read such words of righteous condemnation coming from a Catholic priest?

Honestly, considering the viciousness of the Buddhist monks and the shift in public relations that secular government demanded from the Catholic Church in the mid 20th century, it's entirely expected.

[Mobiboros]

The easiest example of Buddhist monk corruption:

Why do they care so much about regaining Tibet? It's just worldly possessions and material goods. They are buddhist monks, they should be working on giving up their attachment to material things (Since it's attachment to things that causes suffering), not waging a political war to get them back. They could easily end their suffering by just saying "Meh, keep it. It's just things." and walking away. But they don't.

[Broomstick]

No priestly caste in the history of religion has ever fostered and preyed upon the terror and ignorance of its flock with the systematic brigandage of the lamas.

This quote is from a jesuit priest writing about the corruption he found within the monasteries of Tibet. The sad thing is that this is more true than is comfortable for me. I think that whenever you have a group of people in one place and given authority, you will inevitably have problems.

While I suspect the Jesuit in question was a matter of the pot calling the kettle black, it is true that organized religion tends to concentrate power, and power does tend to corrupt. Run forward a few centuries and you have Problems. This was true in Ancient Egypt, Bablyon, and Ur as well among the Inca of Peru, the various civilizations of Central America, the peoples of Europe both pre and post Christian... why should Buddhists be in any way an exception to this? They are human, and thus vulnerable to human flaws, vices, since, and crimes.

Link about Tibetan Buddhist corruption
This link contains a lot of things that I don't agree with and mentions violence and dogmatism perpetuated by Buddhists.

And yet, it seems very much in line with what I've seen reported by others... the war-torn history of Tibet isn't really news, go to library and get some of the older books on Tibet, the ones discussing it before 1960, and you'll see the statements more or less confirmed.

The article in the link also mentions that the lamas controlled Tibet with the same kind of tactics used by the Catholic priesthood of the Middle Ages.

I should point out that such tactics were neither invented by nor limited to Medieval Catholicism. The details vary from place to place, but draconian punishments meted out by religious authorities and appropriation of land, materials, labor, and children is in no way unique to any large, organized religion. Not all religions practice all of the above, but it's not unusual to find examples.

This is only half true and the reasons for this are complicated.

So? How does that excuse eye gouging and child rape, exploitation of labor, and systematic denial of education, medicine, and so forth?

It goes back to when the legendary saint Padmasambava brought Buddhism to Tibet. Tibet was practicing a religion called Bon. This was similar to the practices of witchcraft in Europe.

So? And how would this religion called "Bon" - which to my admittedly limited understanding is some sort of polytheist/animist/shamanistic religion ultimately pre-dating Tibetan Buddism with definite elements of Siberian shamanism, although with some evidence of modification by both Persian and Chinese contact and Buddism - be justification for the egregious examples of Tibetan Buddism gone astray? How could it possibly justify multi-generational slavery, inheritence of debt, usurious lending practices, use of physical mutilation as penalty for crimes, kidnapping of children into lives of bondage, sexual abuse of woman and children, and so forth? Nor is the comparison with European witchcraft - hardly a homogenous religion in any case - particuarly apt since European pre-Christian traditions were wholly wiped out and Bon still exists as an unbroken continuation both in Tibet and in the Tibet diaspora. The only "justification" would be that it was a competing religion and thus must be eliminated. Religions, as a general rule only practice tolerance when either they are exclusive (you must be born into the cult and you can not convert) or in a minority position. Once a religion gains politcal/economic/other forms of power it seeks to eliminate all other sects that are competing for members and treasure. And, as both the Jews and the Zoroastrians can testify, they'll seek to exterminate non-competing religions that just want to be left the fuck alone.

Personally, while I feel religion does serve a role and can be useful, I am opposed to organized religion. Organized religion is just another form of government and a source of restriction. It tears people down and limits them rather than building them up and freeing them. At that, although being pretty secular in most respects, I'm one of the more religious people on this forum. Be aware of that. Most here are atheists who have no use for any religion, and some are openly hostile towards same. You can certainly discuss religion here, but don't expect anyone to respect any sacred cows (or, for Tibetan Buddists, sacred yaks).

[Darth Wong]

Separating religion and organized religion is like separating eating and shitting. If you do the former, you will eventually get the latter. It's just a matter of time.

[Broomstick]

Mike, I happen to disagree with the idea that organized religion - by which I mean professional clergy and accumulation of worldly power and influence - is inevitable, but I don't care to actually debate you on the topic, and particularly not in this thread as that would definitely be a hijack.

Although I would suggest that removing tax-exemptions from churches and abolishment of established churches would be a vast improvement and a good start. In addition, if I were Supreme Dictator, I would also prohibit any sort of clergy from accepting monetary or other substantial forms of compensation for performing religious rites and services. The only exception I would consider approving would be a modest stipend for expenses involved with travel or purchase/maintenance of required paraphernalia. Donations and tithes would be strictly tracked and audited. This would pull the teeth of a lot of influential religions and get the lazy-ass priests/pastors/imans/whatever to fucking WORK for a living instead of preying on the uneducated and unwashed masses. Your monastic community wants to spend 8 hours a day in prayer? OK, fine, live like you want - but don't expect anyone else to pay your bills.

[Buddha]

Separating religion and organized religion is like separating eating and shitting. If you do the former, you will eventually get the latter. It's just a matter of time.

I believe that organization within a religion is a necessary evil and one that is meant to keep order and adherance to principles of the religion. Monks who follow the many rules and keep their vows are keeping order with the system. It also means managing dicipline and norms and dealing with those who break those norms. That is how organization works to keep those who do not obey rules and regulations by enforcing those rules. Without organization you allow for people to come in and corrupt a belief structure by interpreting it the way they see it.. I do think that it requires a better anology than body functions.

[Darth Wong]

Separating religion and organized religion is like separating eating and shitting. If you do the former, you will eventually get the latter. It's just a matter of time.

I believe that organization within a religion is a necessary evil and one that is meant to keep order and adherance to principles of the religion. Monks who follow the many rules and keep their vows are keeping order with the system. It also means managing dicipline and norms and dealing with those who break those norms. That is how organization works to keep those who do not obey rules and regulations by enforcing those rules.

And coerced "order and adherence to principles of the religion" are good things ... why?

Without organization you allow for people to come in and corrupt a belief structure by interpreting it the way they see it..

And that would be a bad thing ... why?

I do think that it requires a better anology than body functions.

Neither you or Broomstick has successfully shown what's wrong with the analogy; if you have one, then the other is inevitable. Every organized religion started life as a disorganized one, often in stark opposition to existing organized religions. But once you codify your beliefs, write them down, and declare that X is legitimate but Y is not, then you are already laying the foundation for an organized religion whether you admit it or not.

The solution to the sins of organized religion is science and logic, not repeating the cycle of overthrowing organized religions with new competitors.

[Mobiboros]

I believe that organization within a religion is a necessary evil and one that is meant to keep order and adherance to principles of the religion. Monks who follow the many rules and keep their vows are keeping order with the system. It also means managing dicipline and norms and dealing with those who break those norms. That is how organization works to keep those who do not obey rules and regulations by enforcing those rules. Without organization you allow for people to come in and corrupt a belief structure by interpreting it the way they see it.. I do think that it requires a better anology than body functions.

Wow, are you sure you're interested in being buddhist? The heart of Siddartha's initial reason for creating the buddhist path was to break the power of the hindu clergy. He felt that a person shouldn't need clergy to force them to adhere and that one didn't need them to find their path.

Basically, whatever else the tibetan monks are being is largely irrelevent to Buddhism as a whole. They are not leaders or officiants. Or rather, they shouldn't be. It's sad that not only have they become such, but that people want them to be.

[Broomstick]

Separating religion and organized religion is like separating eating and shitting. If you do the former, you will eventually get the latter. It's just a matter of time.

I believe that organization within a religion is a necessary evil and one that is meant to keep order and adherance to principles of the religion.

It's a major tenet of MY religion that if you need coercion to stay within the boundaries of the religion you're better off going to another one.

Monks who follow the many rules and keep their vows are keeping order with the system. It also means managing dicipline and norms and dealing with those who break those norms. That is how organization works to keep those who do not obey rules and regulations by enforcing those rules.

And coerced "order and adherence to principles of the religion" are good things ... why?

Yeah - why is coercion a good thing?

If a religion is so inherently superior why do you have to force people to adhere to it? If it's so wonderful why don't people just flock to it of their own accord?

Without organization you allow for people to come in and corrupt a belief structure by interpreting it the way they see it..

And that would be a bad thing ... why?

Yes, why is that a bad thing? Isn't that how we get different sects anyway? It's just that in a religion like Tibetan Buddism someone with a different approach is suppressed (sometimes ruthlessly) unless they can win over sufficient worldly force to survive.

My current religion EMPHASIZES personal interpretation. We also do not have paid clergy, no one makes a living by conducting services, seeking tithes, or otherwise preying upon the community. You are clergy in addition to supporting yourself as a lay person would. In fact, there is little distinction between lay and clergy, no central authority, and a whole lot of arguing - but from my viewpoint that's good because it keeps the thing DISorganized and prevents any faction from asserting coercive control over others. Not that we don't have problem children - any group of human beings will have those - but none of them are living in million dollar mansions or getting about in private jets supported by donations from poor people who really can't afford to bleed money for religion.

Neither you or Broomstick has successfully shown what's wrong with the analogy; if you have one, then the other is inevitable. Every organized religion started life as a disorganized one, often in stark opposition to existing organized religions. But once you codify your beliefs, write them down, and declare that X is legitimate but Y is not, then you are already laying the foundation for an organized religion whether you admit it or not.

As I said, I don't want to turn this into a debate about MY religion, thus I haven't tried to come up with another analogy though I may have to depending on how things go.

As I stated above, though, my religion does not have a central authority or a definitive text a.k.a. "Bible". Everything is open to argument, interpretation, modification, and you are supposed to question (although not everyone does, see above comment about problem children). If you decide to leave you are not damned to any sort of hell, and forbidding proselytizing is one of the very few fairly strong mandates.

And while every organized religion might have started as a disorganized one, not every disorganized religion ever becomes organized - many versions of animism and genuine shamanism have never been written down or "codified", and while many things are passed from teacher to student there is, again, no central authority to bring the hammer down on dissent. Of course, since many people define religion as an Abrahamic monotheism there is a tendency to overlook such belief systems.

The solution to the sins of organized religion is science and logic, not repeating the cycle of overthrowing organized religions with new competitors.

And science and logic have the effect of turning a lot folks in my religion into quasi-secular spiritualists. A lot of us recognize that religion provides emotional support, particularly in times of crisis, but if science contradicts a mythic story then the facts win. I've long said that the reason I still claim religion is because it can serve emotional needs that logic can't - an example is mourning rituals, where the rituals of a religious mourning can provide a means by which people express their grief in a somewhat controlled manner, and may even spell out the obligations of a community towards the mourning. These are not bad things - and arguably secular customs could serve a similar purpose. I'm not the sort that believe atheists observe no holidays, feel no grief, do not wish to celebrate weddings and births. How you conduct your emotional life is YOUR business, not mine, and that includes whether or not you include any form of spirituality.

One reason I avoid debating religion in regards to my specific beliefs is that there is such a bias towards defining religion as something monotheistic, Abrahamic, centralized, and organized that I'd have to spend several thousand words delineating the differences between what is commonly defined as "religion" and my own belief system. Nor do I wish to debate that my system is better than any other, including a lack of any religious belief or practice, because of the following:

1) It's skirting the edge of proselytizing as some of us define it - and as I said, no-seeking-converts is one of the few things we agree on pretty widely.

2) Since we have no central authority (and that's delibrate - we're are consciously trying to keep it that way to avoid the negatives Mike listed. Yes, it's an experiment and no, we don't know if we'll succeed long-term) a lot of stuff is much fuzzier than the logical types prefer. Sorry, that's the way it is, sometimes ambiguity exists.

3) We make no claim to superiority anyway. If you don't like our system go to one that suits you. You can stay in our realm as long or as little as you like. All we can say is this works for us - if it doesn't work for you please find something else that does, with our blessing.

4) There are aspects of my belief system that are in the form of a mystery cult or secret society. Although there's a lot of information out there, I can't talk specifics in my case unless you're initiated - and as far as I know no one on SD.net is (although a spouse of one person is). So, for example, I could freely discuss initiation rituals til we're all blue in the face, but I can't discuss my particular initiation in open forum. You may or may not agree with why, but I did make a promise and as far as possible I keep my promises, even when it's not terribly convenient to do so. I'm just that kind of person. Now, there's actually no requirement that you actually believe any of the stuff required to be absorbed prior to initiation but, frankly, I doubt very much that anyone here will want to take on the minimum year-and-a-day coursework, particularly when every five minutes they're muttering "Who believes this shit?"

I would be happy to discuss my belief system with those interested (to the extent that I can do so publicly) but I see no point in debating about it in a largely atheist community. If your lack of spiritual beliefs works out for you then I am somewhat obligated NOT to argue you away from that viewpoint.

[Darth Wong]

How can such a decentralized, unstructured religion be referred to as a single belief system? If your only really codified rule is not to proselytize, it sounds more like a code of conduct for vaguely religious people than a coherent religious group or belief system. Not that such a code is a bad idea, but it doesn't really seem like something you could refer to as a coherent group.

[Broomstick]

Indeed, Mike, that is one of the arguments used against us, to say we aren't a religion. "No proselytizing" is one of several nearly-universally accepted rules, not just the only one. If you feel better referring to us as "vaguely religious people" that's OK by me. It certainly does help us avoid some of the problems of organized religion.

Or, perhaps it's not a single belief system but a spectrum of them.

As I said, it's not what most people would call "religion", hence the difficulty in discussing, much less debating it.

[Buddha]

I don't want to be necroing this thread but I found out somthing that I think is big. I think it it worth mentioning that the Tibetans had little problem with killing the Chinese troops during the invasion of their homeland. There is also some evidence of CIA involvement in Tibet (giving weapons and training to Tibetan resistance groups) which you can take as you will. Before you hit the link I would like to say that this is pertaining to Tibetan Buddhism and not all of the Buddhist world. This is a perfect picture of the desperation they felt and continue to feel in what China has done and continues to do. This is not propaganda and I think the video (albiet on Youtube) is good and informative for anyone who wants to understand the past. This has a lot to do with the present situation.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I don't want to be necroing this thread but I found out somthing that I think is big. I think it it worth mentioning that the Tibetans had little problem with killing the Chinese troops during the invasion of their homeland. There is also some evidence of CIA involvement in Tibet (giving weapons and training to Tibetan resistance groups) which you can take as you will. Before you hit the link I would like to say that this is pertaining to Tibetan Buddhism and not all of the Buddhist world. This is a perfect picture of the desperation they felt and continue to feel in what China has done and continues to do. This is not propaganda and I think the video (albiet on Youtube) is good and informative for anyone who wants to understand the past. This has a lot to do with the present situation.

Desperation? Seriously, have you mistaken desperation for greed disguised as righteousness?

Heck, I could bring up a more recent incident in Myanmar, which though the monks rose up and got beaten down, behind the scenes, many of the elder monks supported the regime, because it was the regime that put them in power. Why bite the hand that fed you? The end result was death, and nothing absolutely achieved. The same will soon happen in Tibet, that I will assure you.

[Ohma]

I don't want to be necroing this thread but I found out somthing that I think is big. I think it it worth mentioning that the Tibetans had little problem with killing the Chinese troops during the invasion of their homeland. There is also some evidence of CIA involvement in Tibet (giving weapons and training to Tibetan resistance groups) which you can take as you will.
...

So the United States being manipulative dicks justifies a theocracy (that to reiterate, abused children among others) because?

[Zixinus]

Before you hit the link I would like to say that this is pertaining to Tibetan Buddhism and not all of the Buddhist world.

No, its just its origin and prime example.

[Darth Wong]

If religion is so good, then why do religions with political power have an even worse track record than people with political power normally do?

[ray245]

I want to ask a question...

How much religion influences does the religious leaders possess in china in the past? From what I undertstand, china don't really have a state religion.