[net.religion] A Good Example of Religious Tolerance!

amra@ihuxj.UUCP (Steven L. Aldrich) (10/30/84)

       I read an interesting article a while back that may be
      of interest to people in this news group. 

       It was reported by the Los Angeles Times, and appears below
      complete and un-edited. [ or should I say un-altered since I 
      have obviously used an editor to enter the story -:)  . ]


                         Pope Hails Wisdom of
                            Buddhists!!  (5-11-84)
                         By: Don A Schanche   L.A. Times.

          BANGKOK--Pope John Paul II slipped off his shoes to sit
        quietly with the supreme patriarch of Thailand's Buddhists
        at a monastery here yesterday and afterward praised the
        " ancient and venerable wisdom " of the Asian religion.

          After meeting with the 87 year old Buddhist patriarch, His
        Holiness Vasana-Tera, the Roman Catholic pontiff told 30,000
        Catholics at the city's National Stadium that their country's
        Buddhist tradition provided " fertile terrain " for Christian
        beliefs.

          "The church looks with *sincere respect* upon the religious
        wisdom contained in non-Christian tradition and rejects *nothing*
        that is *true* and *holy* in them," he said.  (emphasis mine)

          Referring to the contemplative aspect of Buddhism, John Paul
        said: "The fruits of a peaceable and gentle wisdom are manifestly
        evident in the Thai character and are esteemed and respected by
        those who have the good fortune to meet you and come to know the
        spiritual quality within you."

          Thailand, last stop on his 11-day Pacific pilgrimage, is mostly
        Buddhist, with Christians making up less than 1 percent of its 50
        million people. About 200,000 are Catholics.

          After his jet landed from Papua New Guinea, the pope kissed the
        tarmac and was welcomed by Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn. He
        was driven to the ornate throne room of the Grand Palace to meet
        King Bhumibol Adulayadej, Queen Sikrit, and members of their
        family.

          The pope told them he had come to thank them and the Thai people
        on behalf of the church for " the generous hospitality given to
        thousands and thousands of refugees."

          Thailand harbors 135,000 refugees from Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam
        and provided temporary refuge for hundreds of thousands more before
        they left for new homes in the United States, Australia, France
        and Canada. The pope will visit the Phanat Nikom refugee camp 55
        miles north of here today.

          John Paul II then called on the supreme patriarch of the Buddhists
        at Ratchabopit Monastery.

          He sat on a low throne facing Vasana-Tera, who sat cross-legged
        on a platform so their eye level was equal. Without even a word of
        greeting, the two sat in silence for five minutes of prayer and
        meditation.

          The Buddhist leader then spoke concerning "common objectives such
        as happiness and peace based on *justice, loving kindness, and
        compassion," said a Vatican official. The pontiff's reply was too
        softly spoken for anyone but the Buddhist leader and his translator
        to hear. --Los Angeles Times (05-11-84)


      I wish more people, especially in this group, would develop the same
     attitude toward the beliefs of others. Why can't we calmly discuss and
     share our views on religious matters without animosity toward each
     other?? It seems that the only purpose of this group is to argue,insult
     be-little and denounce the beliefs of others who dis-agree with our
     own opinion(s). If each one of us would try harder, I believe we could
     actually carry on * calm, rational, & maybe even meaningful* discussions
     about different religious views of the world.

      Personally, I get tired of reading so much *hate mail* on this news
    group. When I first started reading net.religion, I had hoped to gain
    some insight into many different religions. However it didn't
    turn out that way.

      I believe if we *ALL* tried a little tolerance for a change, there
    would be a significant improvement in the quality and diversity of
    material submitted to net.religion.

      If you'd care to comment on this, send it to me by Email or POST
    your reply to this news group. I will do my best to respond in a timely
    manner. However I am rather busy at the moment, so replies may be slow
    in coming. Thanks in advance for your input, always glad to hear from
    others. (even if we don't agree on things)

                          PEACE & BEST WISHES
                     From the life force currently
                              known as:
                            Steve Aldrich
                          (IHNP4!IHUXJ!AMRA)

      P.S. "Which way are you lookin', is it hard to see? Do you
           say what's wrong for him is not wrong for me? You walk
           the streets in righteousness, but you refuse to understand.
           You say you love the baby, then you crucify the man!"
                              Jim Croce

ecl@hocsj.UUCP (10/31/84)

Reference: <732@ihuxj.UUCP>

Amen!  This item should be required reading for all those posting to this
newsgroup.

					Evelyn C. Leeper
					...ihnp4!hocsj!ecl

emh@bonnie.UUCP (Edward M. Hummel) (11/02/84)

	Steve put his finger right on it!

One of the main purposes of this group should be education,
not conversion.  I am very interested in what various religions
hold to be the essential truths.  There is too little
discussion about what makes up the core of a religion and too
much arguing.  Arguing has its place, but sometimes it reduces
to little more than sarcasm, name-calling and general flaming.

I think most people who have a belief are not going to be easily
swayed by the type of discussion taking place in this group.
Most religions do not differ greatly in practice.


	Can someone summarize the basic tenets of:
Catholicsm, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and the major Protestant
churches?
	What do people know of Unitarianism, Universalism,
Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses?

	Thanks for your patience.

					Ed Hummel
		{allegra,burl,ihnp4,cmcl2,...}!clyde!bonnie!emh

dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (11/14/84)

> One of the main purposes of this group should be education,
> not conversion.  I am very interested in what various religions
> hold to be the essential truths.  There is too little
> discussion about what makes up the core of a religion and too
> much arguing.  Arguing has its place, but sometimes it reduces
> to little more than sarcasm, name-calling and general flaming.

Sentence 1:  Very proselytic statement.
Sentence 2:  Really?  Even Ken Nichol's religion, or David Brunson's?
	I would guess not:  both of them have been expounding what
	the essentials of Christianity are, from their point of view.
	The general net response is:  buzz off/go away/f___ off.
Sentence 4:  True.  But the question is complicated by the tendency of
	many to call an exposition which does not happen to conform
	to their own beliefs (such as many by Ken, or myself) a "flame".
	Needlessly so, I think, because Ken doesn't really (as far as
	I can tell) have any desire to beat anyone over the head with
	his Bible - but he *does* believe in not rolling over and
	playing dead when someone slams Christianity undeservedly, or
	slams the Christ.

Non-christians, a question:  many of you have expressed a desire
that we should shut up or go away, or quit "preaching", etc.  Larry
Bickford has observed, accurately I believe, that most of the articles
submitted by Christians are submitted on topics in which an anti-
Christian comment was made; we do not normally just get up and
say "everyone who doesn't agree with me goes to Hell", just to get
up and proclaim how great Christianity is.  But as the discussion
progresses, and Christians say what they believe, then all of a
sudden, we're "preaching", "proselytiziing", trying to "convert"
people.  Well, maybe we are.  So what?   What do you want?  Sterile
discussions all predicated on the notion, "here's what I believe.
It's no better or worse than what you believe.  We should tell each
other what we believe, but we won't try to convince anyone that
they ought to believe it, too."  No, thanks.  Religious beliefs,
by their very nature, tend to affect how people live.  If the beliefs
that affect your life aren't worth propagating, they aren't worth
holding personally.

I expect non-christians to try to convince me that I'm wrong.
Don't expect me not to speak up when I think you're in error.

-- 
Paul DuBois		{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois

chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Cheshire Chuqui) (11/20/84)

In article <467@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes:
>Non-christians, a question:  many of you have expressed a desire
>that we should shut up or go away, or quit "preaching", etc.  Larry
>Bickford has observed, accurately I believe, that most of the articles
>submitted by Christians are submitted on topics in which an anti-
>Christian comment was made; we do not normally just get up and
>say "everyone who doesn't agree with me goes to Hell", just to get
>up and proclaim how great Christianity is.  But as the discussion
>progresses, and Christians say what they believe, then all of a
>sudden, we're "preaching", "proselytiziing", trying to "convert"
>people.  Well, maybe we are.  So what?   What do you want?  Sterile
>discussions all predicated on the notion, "here's what I believe.
>It's no better or worse than what you believe.  We should tell each
>other what we believe, but we won't try to convince anyone that
>they ought to believe it, too."  No, thanks.  Religious beliefs,
>by their very nature, tend to affect how people live.  If the beliefs
>that affect your life aren't worth propagating, they aren't worth
>holding personally.

A major problem I have with these discussions as a non-christian is the lack of
flexibility in the discussions by many of the participants. Many
discussions seem to quickly degenerated into 'I'm right-- I have God on my
side and you're going to Hell.' There is a fine line between explaining
your position to me and telling me what my position is (~you can't be
right-- you aren't a {christian/jew/zen druid}!~). I'm interested in
hearing the Christian viewpoint. I'm interested in hearing the Jewish
viewpoint. I'm interested in discussing the viewpoint from my perspectives
as a Zen Druid. I'm not interested in constantly hearing why, as a Zen
Druid, I'm going to go to Hell because I turned my back on a man who may or
may not have existed, may or may not have been the Son of God, and may or
may not be the saviour of mankind (and womankind). The perspectives of my
religion allow your God(s) to coexist with mine-- I just wish that some of
the more conservative members of the various religions out there would
allow me the same freedom to serve God as I see fit without feeling
persecuted. I have never (and will never) attempt to tell you that the only
way to God is through growing living things and staring at your navel. All
I really ask is you don't assume that the only way to God is through the
Christian, Jewish, or any other pantheons. I tried it, and it didn't work
for me. What I have now does, and I rejoice in it, but it probably won't
work for you because you are different. If you look very closely at
Christianity you'll see that every person has a different view of what it
really means-- that diversity within a single framework should show you
that there are equally valid views outside that framework as well.

chuq
please,
-- 
From the Department of Bistromatics:                   Chuq Von Rospach
{cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui  nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA

  This plane is equipped with 4 emergency exits, at the front and back of
  the plane and two above the wings. Please note that the plane will be
  travelling at an average altitude of 31,000 feet, so any use of these
  exits in an emergency situation will most likely be futile.