[Buddha-l] Re: Can an Air Force cadet have Buddha nature?

[curt]

Dan Lusthaus wrote:

>I can read well enough to see that the list of qualities is far from a
>neutral list of stereotyped metonymies. The subgroups are all "negative"
>images. In a discussion of how Buddhists can become more prominently engaged
>AS Buddhists in political causes, "quietists" would be deadweight. Recent
>posts make clear what you think of Christian fundamentalists. "Terrorists"
>speaks for itself. Nude starvationists strikes nonJains as abhorrent,
>whatever the karmic justification.
>
>So that just leaves "Zionists."
>
>Or turn it around. Should MORE Buddhists be quietists? More Muslims
>terrorists? More Jains starvationists?
>
>Apparently you are implying something negative would be the case if more
>Jews were Zionists, further implying that the non-objectionable type of Jew
>would be a non-Zionist.
>  
>
OK - granted that the implication is that "Zionism" is a not so
great. As a matter of fact, it's not. Or at least that's my opinion,
and possibly that of Richard Hayes, but I wouldn't know.
But that leaves us with the question: so what? Is there something
wrong with criticizing Zionism? As far as I can tell, the book is
still open on how good of an idea it has turned out to be -
and that is being generous. Of course others may disagree.

>"Stereotypes?" You may be able to dazzle your undergrads with these sorts of
>rhetorical tricks; to the rest of us they are transparent. If you say it, at
>least own up to it... Right Speech and all that....
>  
>
Own up to what? Oh, perhaps you are implying that 
anti-Zionism=anti-Semitism?
Is that it? If that's the case, then perhaps you should do the owning 
up. If not,
then perhaps you could explain exactly what is so unforgivable about putting
Zionism into a very loose category of "dubious ideas associated with various
religious groups".

- Curt