[Buddha-l] Fwd: Clahsing of Symbols, was: Re: A friendly Quaker-Buddhist debate

[sjziobro at cs.com]

 Correction:  Besides not being able to spell "clashing" properly in the subject line I inverted the meaning in my last sentence.  The term "former" should be amended to read "latter."

 


 Stan

 

-----Original Message-----
From: sjziobro at cs.com
To: buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
Cc: sfeite at roadrunner.com
Sent: Sat, Jun 11, 2011 12:07 pm
Subject: Clahsing of Symbols, was: Re: [Buddha-l] A friendly Quaker-Buddhist debate


 Steve,

 


 Your remarks lend themselves to an interesting point amidst the clashing of symbols.  I think we naively assume that the symbol per se is the problem when the real issue is the manipulation of these symbols as expressions of human intelligence.  Moreover, these manipulations can be oriented for purposes of good or of evil, and when used for the former, raise issues of subversion of meaning for the advance of a particular ideology, etc.

Regards,

Stan

 

-----Original Message-----
From: sjziobro at cs.com
To: buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
Sent: Sat, Jun 11, 2011 11:45 am
Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] A friendly Quaker-Buddhist debate


Steve,
 

 Your points may be well taken.  One can always build an increasing array of anecdotal evidence for making the case that there is violence in a culture.  Take, for instance, the incredibly bloody and violent non-Christian, atheistic regimes of the old Soviet Union - particularly under Stalin, China under Mao, Cambodia under Pol Pot, etc.  Although these dwarf any violence originating from the USA I suppose they ultimately are excusable because the context is non-Christian, the evil occurred in lands other than the USA, and so forth.  Additionally, simply terming the USA a violent Christian nation because of iconic symbols which are rejected by the majority Protestant population strikes me as a bit simplistic.  Such a view overlooks the complexity of the context in which events occur.  Just for the record, I made a point of including China and Cambodia as exemplars of extreme brutality and violence because of their connections with Buddhism, particularly Cambodia.  Apparently the irenic iconic symbols of Buddhism are the cause of the evil that occurred there, at least that is what one can infer by taking the current point to a logical conclusion.


 
Stan

 

-----Original Message-----
From: S.A. Feite <sfeite at roadrunner.com>
To: Buddhist discussion forum <buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com>
Cc: buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com <buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com>
Sent: Sat, Jun 11, 2011 10:24 am
Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] A friendly Quaker-Buddhist debate


I could be wrong Stan, but I would suspect that the cross and/or Jesus on the 
cross are primary Christian symbols. Of course there are many others. 

The underlying point here is that for a "Christian" nation, the US is one of the 
bloodiest and most militaristic nations on earth. That doesn't seem very 
Christ-like to me.

One of the few exceptions that come to mind was the recent slaughter of a school 
of little Amish girls and the adamant response of their elders.

Steve

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 11, 2011, at 12:42 AM, sjziobro at cs.com wrote:

> Actually, Steve, Christ crucified is only one image Catholics and Orthodox 
venerate, but there are many others which you apparently don't know about or 
strategically ignore.  Peace loving as you are, your disdain and intolerance 
seems a bit out of place here.  But then again, I suppose it is a sign of 
superior intelligence.

_______________________________________________
buddha-l mailing list
buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l