[Buddha-l] [Fwd: [skepnet] Documentaire: Jesus Camp (2006)]

[Joy Vriens]

Hi Eric,

>Hi Joy, how are things in the Vaatican? 

Super. Very happy with the return of Latin mass. :-)

>There's religion and there's religion. 

According to Régis Debray, and who am I to not believe him, religions are mainly about building a group identity. Spiritual needs can be fulfilled outside religion. The relationship between religion and spirituality is that religion is the infrastructure of spiritual theory and practice in packaged form. But spiritual exercices can and are also practised out of a religious context. So I think the building of group identity is the more important function, including for the majority of practitioners of a religion. One of the ingredients of group building is to set the limits of that group. That's the front where the hardest work is done and the most cruel battles are fought. Inside the group itself life is very much like inside any other group.

If you go back to the origins of religions then they tend to be quite hardcore. Most religions as we know them in the West have been eroded by the beliefs in rationality (a dream that like Baron Munchausen wants to lift itself out of belief) of Enlightenment, science etc. So according to their degree of erosion, we call them extremist, moderate, perhaps even enlightened... But when you come to think of it, how is it possible that those eroded religions have been built on the foundations of a hardcore religion and evolved out of it and are still considered as being that same religion. It seems to me that the substance of this connection is simply group identity. If as a religion your ennemy tells you that there is religion and religion and that yours is ok, then you may wonder what is left of your original hardcore religion?

> I'm sure that there are more  
>similar examples in other religions, but that doesn't mean that this  
>documentary shows just standard practices in any religion or  
>christendom.

I just learned the other day from an atheist aunt that one of her sisters (my aunt) had to go through a ritual called "churching" after having given birth to her daughter. Beause of the birth sin she needed to be cleansed before being allowed back in church. I will give you the details if you are interested. If you dig a bit into any religion, dig, not superficially look at the image they give to the outside world, then you will be astounded at all the madness you discover.  

> I hope there are no Buddhacamps anywhere in the world. 

I noticed the special effort that was put into making the children feel special. They were special individually, their generation was special etc. And I was reminded how at the beginning of basically every Buddhist teaching we were reminded of the opportunity we had to be born human, to have met this particular form of Buddhism, this particular form of Tibetan Buddhism and this particular teacher. As for the military aspects, I will invite you to have a closer look at the Kalacakra teachings. Don't stop at the surface, dig further, don't buy all the spiritual interpretations of the symbolism. Does spirituality really need such a heavy infrastructure to be passed on?  

>The fact that everybody still looks happy doesn't prove anthing,  
>Hitlerjugend also used to look very happy. 

In comparison, look at the youth in the West (moody bored adolescents, "hangjeugd" etc.), who are daily equaly coached and manipulated to become manpower and consumers. What we can learn from that?

>> I wonder how Evangelical Christians treat their widows. There is a market of 40 million widows in India to be conquered. 
>> http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/07/05/damon.india.widows/index.html 
>>    
>They treat them fairly well, I suppose. Most of them would have to  
>restrict their activities to charity and household, but otherwise they  
>should be all right. 
>The cruel treatment of widows in hindu¡¡sm is appalling of course, but  
>it's no excuse for the Jesuscamp 

And the widows are only one category that is ecxluded. The treatment of other group members by a group has its importance. I don't think the Evangelical Christians have a bad score at all in that field. Is their rejection of the ennemy (Muslims) stronger than that in hinduism? I don't know, the Evangelical Christians stand nearer to us and that is why we (I include myself) feel a stronger rejection towards them, but as for the bare facts, are they really that bad?

Joy