Practicing religion without force

[emilynghiem]

Dear Sky:

I found the two posts you made, one citing an example of a religious abuse victim, and the other a list of signs of religious abuse.

A. I believe if you equally address "legal abuse" (and not just "religious abuse" you would see the real factor in all cases.

It isn't caused by just religion, and certainly not Christianity more than others. [Many people now are jumping about the Jihadists being blamed on Muslims or the Westboro Baptists being confused with Christians (when they are family members at a law firm and hate group not a church). Anyone can take ANY law and decide to judge or punish others based on their personal authority without respect for checks and balances to prevent abuse or injustice.]

The problem with both legal or religious abuse is when people abuse authority, law or relationships instead of respecting the equal interests and protection of others under the same laws.

Most of these abuses come from "unresolved conflicts"

When people don't think they can achieve agreement on what they want by reasoning or free will, many will just impose by greater force or authority than the other party.

Any "bullying" or abusive behavior is a tendency of human nature when we form groups and have leaders and followers and "pecking order."

Relationship abuse can happen in any family, because of parental authority over children; and happens in schools, business or government where there is hierarchy.

If you distinguish this factor as general of human nature and behavior to begin with,
then I believe we could talk about if Buddhists or Christians tend to abuse it more or not.

Do you agree this factor of abuse comes from human nature first?

NOTE: I believe that either legal or religious abuse can be prevented by teaching and enforcing civil laws and protections as in respect for Constitutional laws. So it isn't the fault of the religion being taught, but the practice of religious freedom to abuse others instead of protect people equally. If you read your list of signs, trying to disrupt relations with others is violating the "freedom of association" or trying to limit or manipulate one's beliefs is violating "freedom of speech, or freedom of religion". Those are Constitutional violations of civil rights, no matter which person is abusing what law to do this!

B. On that note,
If you look at the people who are ACTIVELY teaching and enforcing Constitutional laws to prevent abuses by persons or government, I think you will find more Christians involved in politics, military or policing than Buddhists. So the more "proactive" approach, which runs a greater risk of abuse than a passive stance, also serves when it comes to public defense.

I don't think it is fair of you to only see the abuses and take those out of context with the greater good that Christian traditions also offer by being more "proactive" "in relation with others" than Buddhist traditions that focus inward on just disciplining yourself without imposing.

I believe you are trying to point out that Christianity tends to be taught more proactively, where it is evangelized and many groups tend to require their members share it actively as part of their purpose or calling. While Buddhism tends to focus inward, and not so much on converting other people, but just working on your own discipline and process.

However, if you are going to say that more Christian or Bible-based people are involved in religious abuses or cult abuses, then also consider that more Christians are involved in Constitutional reforms and activism to prevent abuses of laws. More Christians than Buddhists would be involved in military defense or policing for the sake of law enforcement.

So in general if you are going to point out the "advantages" and "disadvantages" between the more "passive" approaches to teaching Buddhist principles, than the more "proactive" approaches to teaching Christian laws, then be prepared to point out the good with the bad.

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm not interested in communication with Sky. She's a lying douche who has zero ability to think objectively or communicate. Not only that, her objective is and has always been to oppress those who don't fall in line and eliminate freedom.

But ultimately it comes to this..she's dishonest, so there's no point in trying to pursue adult communication with her.

She sounds like an interesting challenge. If you can learn how to communicate with someone whom you most object to, and have least success or in common with, you can learn to deal with just about anyone else. This is very valuable if you use it that way!

I would encourage you to try different angles and explore what it would take to get some common points established that are beneficial to both you and Sky. And she will also learn in the process how to communicate more effectively where she does not give a negative perception to others. You stand to learn and gain a lot more than you might think!

I would encourage you not to encourage me. I have communicated with Sky a lot, and have stopped any sort of attempts at trying to get her to face her own dishonestly. Now my one and only interaction with Sky is done with an absolute focus on exposing her as the liar and fraud she is.

I don't want to cure her, she has no desire to be cured. She's a dishonest twat and until she owns her hypocrisy, I've no interest in her, except as a scumbag that I can expose.

 

[AllieBaba]

I once had a friend who had a stupid, crazy roping horse. The horse's name was Chicken.

Anyway, this horse was really athletic and quite pretty, but mean as catshit, tricky, and had a lot of buck (and other unpleasant characteristics).

This one day someone had brought up people who *talk* to animals and can psychoanalyze, and I asked my friend, "Hey, you should get ahold of a horse psychoanalyst and find out what's up with Chicken". He asked me what a horse psychoanalyst did, and I told him the horse psychoanalyst would tell him what Chicken was thinking.

"Why the hell would I want to know what Chicken's thinking?" was his immediate response. "Chicken's fucking crazy."

Lol....that's how I feel about Sky. I tried to meet her halfway. She's a fucking lying lunatic, and it's a waste of time and breath to reason with her.

 

[emilynghiem]

Seems wise to me. What do you think?

Dear Sky Dancer:
I will try to shorten my other msg.

1. If you believe that religion should be practiced without force, what about secular laws. Do you believe that any laws, even civil laws, should be taught and enforced by voluntary compliance only?

Do you believe that nonviolent policing is enough to protect peace in society? That no law enforcement should require force or the threat of force or punishment?
Would this help prevent abuses if no coersion was ever used?

2. Are you only worried about Christian laws being taught using emotional coercion, so that this can be abused? Are you equally considering the damage from criminal laws or civil laws enforced in abusive ways?

3. If you are only considering Christian laws, and not the other, then why are you focusing on just that?

From what I have seen, the damage from abusing legal authority of the state is just as extensive if not more! Because that authority is "mandatory" by law to follow, and not optional as with religious authority or parental authority.

I happen to believe in enforcing Constitutional laws by consent and "voluntary compliance" in order to prevent abuses, resolve conflicts of interest or corruption, and provide restitution.

But I also believe that the use of armed defense is necessary to deter or counter violence when it does occur. I don't believe in using arms or threats of force to attack, but certainly for defense until conflicts can be worked out peaceably.

In the meantime, I don't blame abuse of power or authority on "Christians" even if it is manifested in religious teachings or Christianity as you point out.

I believe the factors in any such abuse, of legal or of religious authority, are independent of which law or religion it is, and comes from the person and has to be resolved in context.

I am actually more concerned with ending legal abuses of corporate or government authority, but the same corrections required there are also needed with religious abuses.

I believe both kinds issues can be resolved by correcting conflicts peaceably instead of just criticizing threatening to punish people for violations.

I hope that is more clear than my other msg.

I would not criticize Christians or others for being more proactive or even coercive than
Buddhists, but would expect that approach to teaching and enforcing laws to carry greater risks of being abused. The point is whether we "check and balance" that proactive factor by being "equally active" in resolving conflicts and enforcing civil standards to PREVENT abuses (not by being passive in order to avoid imposing on others in the first place).

That is more the context or angle I am coming from. I believe in both Buddhist and Christian teachings, so I was having problems understanding why you were pointing to other religions as being more abusive instead of looking at the root cause independent of what religion or case you are talking about. The damages from legal and judicial abuses are much worse, since court authority is mandatory, so I am more alarmed at that type.

Yours truly,
Emily

 

[emilynghiem]

I would encourage you not to encourage me. I have communicated with Sky a lot, and have stopped any sort of attempts at trying to get her to face her own dishonestly. Now my one and only interaction with Sky is done with an absolute focus on exposing her as the liar and fraud she is.

I don't want to cure her, she has no desire to be cured. She's a dishonest twat and until she owns her hypocrisy, I've no interest in her, except as a scumbag that I can expose.

Hi Allie Baba:

Somehow that doesn't sound very Buddhist to me! Buddhists are not supposed to be attached to their own thinking. And are certainly supposed to be "mindful" of any suffering they may cause to others equally as themselves.

If she has a bias against Christians or Christianity that is very interesting.
A true Buddhist would recognize attachment and reaction, and commit to letting go. I believe she may have acknowledged some past experiences, but I agree this all sounds more defensive than open and free.

Whatever step in her process she is in, it sounds like she is still working on something internally and not ready to interact perfectly freely. If she has formed a "protective scab" of denial and projection around herself, whatever wounds she has from past interactions are still vulnerable. Instead of seeking to "expose her" perhaps it is best NOT to pick at someone's wounds, but leave them alone. I think you are wise not to interact, if that is really what she is doing right now, just being defensive to guard her personal space so she can rethink things on a deeper level, whether she hears or acknowledges any input from you or others. I wouldn't depend on that, most people won't tell you, not till later when they finish resolving all their thoughts.

I have one other friend who was using inner meditation to deal with past abuses in order to heal. He is not ready to discuss anything dealing with Christianity either. But he did not even get to THAT point in his recovery without first accepting Christian healing prayer to remove the demonic rage that was blocking him and keeping him trapped in the past.

He doesn't even have to acknowledge that the deliverance prayer worked and helped him get to where he is now with his healing process. It still works. I don't worry about getting anyone to acknowledge anything, but just help them to take steps. They will change when they are ready to change, and any pressure on their process is just another distraction.

As for the topics brought up, I think those can still be explored and discussed, whether or not Sky is honestly working on her own issues, or if she is a fraud or deluded person which would be against Buddhism. If she is truly committed to Buddhism she should work all these issues out from the inside out. But the process may not be what you or I think, agree with or understand. She is working on something or else she would not be sharing at all!

Thank you for sharing and I hope we can still have productive exchanges, regardless if there are blocked relations or biased perceptions already in place. Everyone has biases and goes through different stages of working through things. Sorry to hear it has been so negative for you, and I hope it moves to a better focus that has more to offer!

 

[emilynghiem]

It is not necessary to call me dishonest for posting them. If you are not interested in the topic of how to offer religion without force, and to discuss the misuse of religon don't post on the thread.

Hi Sky: I don't know what you said or didn't say on here that causes people to claim you are being dishonest? If you are aware of biases you have, and admit them, that is being honest. If you act like you don't have a bias regarding Christianity (as opposed to other expressions of abuse of authority that are equally or more prevalent and damaging) then I would understand why you could come across as "lying to yourself."

Do you really think other people or other religions have problems that don't affect or apply to you?

Or do you see yourself as equally going through the same processes that everyone else has to in life, no matter what laws or approaches we start with, and what we follow.

Just curious what is your background, and how did you get put on the defensive where other people are criticizing you for biases or not acknowledging hypocrisy?

Can you summarize what conflicts led to this point?

Thanks Sky

I don't mean to criticize you either, just trying to understand the whole context, as I seem to be coming from a mixed background. I'd rather address what you are saying from where YOU are coming from, but I have my own biases too (where I don't have problems reconciling either Buddhism or Christianity as both necessary and helpful teachings that are key to resolving a lot of society's problems). Sorry if I come across wrong on here.

 

[Sky Dancer]

It is not necessary to call me dishonest for posting them. If you are not interested in the topic of how to offer religion without force, and to discuss the misuse of religon don't post on the thread.

Hi Sky: I don't know what you said or didn't say on here that causes people to claim you are being dishonest? If you are aware of biases you have, and admit them, that is being honest. If you act like you don't have a bias regarding Christianity (as opposed to other expressions of abuse of authority that are equally or more prevalent and damaging) then I would understand why you could come across as "lying to yourself."

Do you really think other people or other religions have problems that don't affect or apply to you?
Or do you see yourself as equally going through the same processes that everyone else has to in life, no matter what laws or approaches we start with, and what we follow.

Just curious what is your background, and how did you get put on the defensive where other people are criticizing you for biases or not acknowledging hypocrisy?

Can you summarize what conflicts led to this point?

Thanks Sky

I don't mean to criticize you either, just trying to understand the whole context, as I seem to be coming from a mixed background. I'd rather address what you are saying from where YOU are coming from, but I have my own biases too (where I don't have problems reconciling either Buddhism or Christianity as both necessary and helpful teachings that are key to resolving a lot of society's problems). Sorry if I come across wrong on here.

Hi Emily,

I think it's pretty clear I have a bias against authoritarian forms of religion based on my own personal experience. It's just my experience. I don't mean to say Catholicism has no value, or that Christianity is a misguided teaching or ALL, or MOST Catholics or Christians are the way my foster parents were or the nuns in my school were.

I cannot really help you much with why I am being criticized for being a hypocrite or dishonest. If anything I have dislosed more personal information that informs my biases than anyone else on this board. That's what honesty means to me.

What seems to have happened is that a few people think they are amateur shrinks and they want to analyze my past experience. I don't need them to do that, but it seems to amuse them. I have resources in my RL that are very supportive of me healing my wounds. Buddhist practice is one such resource. I have a loving mate of 26 years and many close friends and spiritual teachers and community. Most people in my community find me honest, trustworthy, kind, loving, open minded and compassionate. They also find me a competent professional.

I thought this topic would be of interest to anyone who belongs to a religion or spiritual path or even those who don't.

This all started because a Christian poster named Marie, a very kind lady with a good heart wrote a post that hurt and offended me. I told Marie that it did, she apologized and then a number of posters took up the cause of telling me that I had no right to object to Marie's post.

I highlighted a part of your post that has a question to me that I don't understand. Do I think other people or other religions don't have problems that affect or apply to me. I do think other people have problems. I posted a number of articles describing the kinds of problems that people who have been religiously abused express. For whatever reason, some of the posters here thought that was off topic, a diversion, and dishonest. You'll have to ask them. I'm sure they'd be happy to fill you in with their version.

I'd love to hear about your biases too. My biases are that I have a favorable bias toward Buddhism and an unfavorable bias toward the RCC and some Christians. I am not biased against the Christian religion itself, just how some people practice it.

I appreciate a new face here. Thanks for your post.

Sky

 

[AllieBaba]

No, it's not about being her shrink. It's that sheo has one set of standards for everyone else, and one set of standards for herself. Meaning there are no standards for herself. If a person points out that she is being untruthful, she shouts harassment from the rooftops.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Seems wise to me. What do you think?

Dear Sky Dancer:
I will try to shorten my other msg.

1. If you believe that religion should be practiced without force, what about secular laws. Do you believe that any laws, even civil laws, should be taught and enforced by voluntary compliance only?

Do you believe that nonviolent policing is enough to protect peace in society? That no law enforcement should require force or the threat of force or punishment?
Would this help prevent abuses if no coersion was ever used?

2. Are you only worried about Christian laws being taught using emotional coercion, so that this can be abused? Are you equally considering the damage from criminal laws or civil laws enforced in abusive ways?

3. If you are only considering Christian laws, and not the other, then why are you focusing on just that?

From what I have seen, the damage from abusing legal authority of the state is just as extensive if not more! Because that authority is "mandatory" by law to follow, and not optional as with religious authority or parental authority.

I happen to believe in enforcing Constitutional laws by consent and "voluntary compliance" in order to prevent abuses, resolve conflicts of interest or corruption, and provide restitution.

But I also believe that the use of armed defense is necessary to deter or counter violence when it does occur. I don't believe in using arms or threats of force to attack, but certainly for defense until conflicts can be worked out peaceably.

In the meantime, I don't blame abuse of power or authority on "Christians" even if it is manifested in religious teachings or Christianity as you point out.

I believe the factors in any such abuse, of legal or of religious authority, are independent of which law or religion it is, and comes from the person and has to be resolved in context.

I am actually more concerned with ending legal abuses of corporate or government authority, but the same corrections required there are also needed with religious abuses.

I believe both kinds issues can be resolved by correcting conflicts peaceably instead of just criticizing threatening to punish people for violations.

I hope that is more clear than my other msg.

I would not criticize Christians or others for being more proactive or even coercive than
Buddhists, but would expect that approach to teaching and enforcing laws to carry greater risks of being abused. The point is whether we "check and balance" that proactive factor by being "equally active" in resolving conflicts and enforcing civil standards to PREVENT abuses (not by being passive in order to avoid imposing on others in the first place).

That is more the context or angle I am coming from. I believe in both Buddhist and Christian teachings, so I was having problems understanding why you were pointing to other religions as being more abusive instead of looking at the root cause independent of what religion or case you are talking about. The damages from legal and judicial abuses are much worse, since court authority is mandatory, so I am more alarmed at that type.

Yours truly,
Emily

1. Secular laws are necessary. I have no problem with the justice system enforcing them.

I have no problem with police and that police must sometimes use violence to subdue criminals. Obviously, as a Buddhist, I would not serve in law enforcement or the military.

2. I have no worries about this. I have a problem with clergy who abuse their power.

3. Please show me the post that gave you the impression that I have a problem with Christian moral commandments. I'm not a Christian. Christians are free to have whatever moral commandments they like.

4. I never said religious abuse of power occurred in Christianity only.

I hope this clears things up.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Dear Sky:

I found the two posts you made, one citing an example of a religious abuse victim, and the other a list of signs of religious abuse.

A. I believe if you equally address "legal abuse" (and not just "religious abuse" you would see the real factor in all cases.

It isn't caused by just religion, and certainly not Christianity more than others. [Many people now are jumping about the Jihadists being blamed on Muslims or the Westboro Baptists being confused with Christians (when they are family members at a law firm and hate group not a church). Anyone can take ANY law and decide to judge or punish others based on their personal authority without respect for checks and balances to prevent abuse or injustice.]

The problem with both legal or religious abuse is when people abuse authority, law or relationships instead of respecting the equal interests and protection of others under the same laws.

Most of these abuses come from "unresolved conflicts"

When people don't think they can achieve agreement on what they want by reasoning or free will, many will just impose by greater force or authority than the other party.

Any "bullying" or abusive behavior is a tendency of human nature when we form groups and have leaders and followers and "pecking order."

Relationship abuse can happen in any family, because of parental authority over children; and happens in schools, business or government where there is hierarchy.

If you distinguish this factor as general of human nature and behavior to begin with,
then I believe we could talk about if Buddhists or Christians tend to abuse it more or not.

Do you agree this factor of abuse comes from human nature first?

NOTE: I believe that either legal or religious abuse can be prevented by teaching and enforcing civil laws and protections as in respect for Constitutional laws. So it isn't the fault of the religion being taught, but the practice of religious freedom to abuse others instead of protect people equally. If you read your list of signs, trying to disrupt relations with others is violating the "freedom of association" or trying to limit or manipulate one's beliefs is violating "freedom of speech, or freedom of religion". Those are Constitutional violations of civil rights, no matter which person is abusing what law to do this!

B. On that note,
If you look at the people who are ACTIVELY teaching and enforcing Constitutional laws to prevent abuses by persons or government, I think you will find more Christians involved in politics, military or policing than Buddhists. So the more "proactive" approach, which runs a greater risk of abuse than a passive stance, also serves when it comes to public defense.

I don't think it is fair of you to only see the abuses and take those out of context with the greater good that Christian traditions also offer by being more "proactive" "in relation with others" than Buddhist traditions that focus inward on just disciplining yourself without imposing.

I believe you are trying to point out that Christianity tends to be taught more proactively, where it is evangelized and many groups tend to require their members share it actively as part of their purpose or calling. While Buddhism tends to focus inward, and not so much on converting other people, but just working on your own discipline and process.

However, if you are going to say that more Christian or Bible-based people are involved in religious abuses or cult abuses, then also consider that more Christians are involved in Constitutional reforms and activism to prevent abuses of laws. More Christians than Buddhists would be involved in military defense or policing for the sake of law enforcement.

So in general if you are going to point out the "advantages" and "disadvantages" between the more "passive" approaches to teaching Buddhist principles, than the more "proactive" approaches to teaching Christian laws, then be prepared to point out the good with the bad.

I agree abuse in all it's many forms comes from the unchecked poisons of the mind; jealousy, pride, ignorance, anger and neurotic grasping.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Emily-

I wanted to contrast the experience I've had watching my sangha introduce Buddhist practice to their children and how Catholicism was introduced to me as a child.

Children are exposed to Buddhist practice in utero, when their mothers meditate. They are exposed to Buddhist practice in utero when their mothers attend sadhana practice, they can hear the prayers and the song and the instruments.

When the mothers are going through birth, the community is praying for them, and a midwife who is a Buddhist meditator is coaching the parents.

Then after the child is born, the parents are welcome to attend and join in meditation or sadhana practice at any time. As the children grow, their parents naturally bring them with them when the parents come to practice with the community. Usually the parents bring toys or books and the children are allowed to freely come and go from the shrine room. No one sees a child who is fussy as a 'disturbance' to their meditation. It is included in our meditation. It's very natural.

Recently, I was at a retreat over Tibetan New Year and one of my sangha members brought all four of his children with him. Twin boys age 16 months, five year old boy and a ten year old girl. The boy was wandering around from where his father was serving as choepen for the ceremony and he would interact with his father while his father was engaged in helping Rinpoche. The twins were with their mother playing with their toys, crying alot and coming in and out of the room.

Alot of the time, the five year old was on my lap. I had just met him and we were fast friends. Some folks thought I was his grandmother. Sometimes he would ask me a question about 'what are they saying now' and I would translate the Tibetan text for him. He was satisfied with my answers and would go back to play. He sometimes want to ring the bell and hold the dorje and I let him. He would pick out holy pictures from my text and walk around the shrine room showing them to everyone and exclaim with delight as he held a picture of the meditational deity "I just love ........ and name the meditational deity.

The children's parents are very loving and devoted dharma students. The children are happy and well adjusted and they enjoy the kind attention they receive from the adults in our sangha.

This is the kind of introduction to spiritual practice I wish I'd had as a child.

sky

 

[AllieBaba]

Wow. How confusing.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I just happened to find this resource, it's a book on recovering from religious abuse.
Jack Watts: Recovering From Religious Abuse

 

[Sky Dancer]

When I talk about religious abuse it is in this sense:

"Religiously-based psychological abuse of children is a growing area of interest in the psychological and sociological community. It can take the form of using teachings to subjugate children through fear, or imposing heavy indoctrination such that the child is taught only the beliefs and/or points of view of their particular sect (or even just that of their caregivers) and all other perspectives are stifled or kept from them. The beliefs are taught as absolute truth, with no way of ever questioning them. Psychologist Jill Mytton describes this as crushing the child's chance to form a personal morality and belief system, making them utterly reliant on their religious system and/or parents. They never learn to critically reflect on information they receive. Similarly, the use of fear and a judgmental environment (such as the concept of Hell) to control the child can be traumatic."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_abuse

 

[Sky Dancer]

This is a form of religious abuse.

"Mary Norris and Josephine McCarthy each spent three years of hard labor, enforced silence and prayer, after it was decided that they were in moral danger and unfit to live in Irish society.

Both had come from troubled homes, spent time in Catholic orphanages, and were sent out as servant girls, where they ran into trouble with their employers for staying out late. They were turned over to the nuns because it was suspected they either were, or were about to become, sexually active. Josephine says she was accused of having sex in the backseat of a car.

“And then the next thing I knew, I was with this woman on a train to Cork. And I was just brought up here. I was just told my name was Phyllis, and I'd work in the laundry,” said McCarthy, walking down the laundry during her revisit to the convent.

They were given new names by the nuns to help them break from their pasts. No one knows how many women were sent off to the laundries. The religious orders refuse to make those records available, but estimates range into the tens of thousands.

The church was the only authority under which they were held, as Norris explained. “I would have rather been down in the women’s jail. At least I would have got a sentence and I would know when I was leaving,” she said.

“It's made me feel a horrible, dirty person all my life,” McCarthy added, when the two of them walked past the convent.

They were both teenagers when they came here, Norris in the 1950s and McCarthy in the 1960s. Their only crime was appearing to violate the moral code dictated by the church. At that time, it was the church and not the state that was the most powerful force in Ireland. There was no due process and no appeal.

The only way out was to be claimed by a relative who was willing to take responsibility. McCarthy recalled that they were watched 24 hours a day. And the chances of being claimed was slim, too.

“My mother didn't know where I was. My sisters didn't know where I was. Nobody knew where I was,” said Norris."
The Magdalene Laundry - CBS Sunday Morning - CBS News

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Emily-

I wanted to contrast the experience I've had watching my sangha introduce Buddhist practice to their children and how Catholicism was introduced to me as a child.

Children are exposed to Buddhist practice in utero, when their mothers meditate. They are exposed to Buddhist practice in utero when their mothers attend sadhana practice, they can hear the prayers and the song and the instruments.

When the mothers are going through birth, the community is praying for them, and a midwife who is a Buddhist meditator is coaching the parents.

Then after the child is born, the parents are welcome to attend and join in meditation or sadhana practice at any time. As the children grow, their parents naturally bring them with them when the parents come to practice with the community. Usually the parents bring toys or books and the children are allowed to freely come and go from the shrine room. No one sees a child who is fussy as a 'disturbance' to their meditation. It is included in our meditation. It's very natural.

Recently, I was at a retreat over Tibetan New Year and one of my sangha members brought all four of his children with him. Twin boys age 16 months, five year old boy and a ten year old girl. The boy was wandering around from where his father was serving as choepen for the ceremony and he would interact with his father while his father was engaged in helping Rinpoche. The twins were with their mother playing with their toys, crying alot and coming in and out of the room.

Alot of the time, the five year old was on my lap. I had just met him and we were fast friends. Some folks thought I was his grandmother. Sometimes he would ask me a question about 'what are they saying now' and I would translate the Tibetan text for him. He was satisfied with my answers and would go back to play. He sometimes want to ring the bell and hold the dorje and I let him. He would pick out holy pictures from my text and walk around the shrine room showing them to everyone and exclaim with delight as he held a picture of the meditational deity "I just love ........ and name the meditational deity.

The children's parents are very loving and devoted dharma students. The children are happy and well adjusted and they enjoy the kind attention they receive from the adults in our sangha.

This is the kind of introduction to spiritual practice I wish I'd had as a child.

sky

That's just it. YOU were were introduced to Catholicism in a way that traumatized YOU. This is not the case with the majority of Catholics. If it were, there would not be so many of them that are happy healthy and good natured. I will post my first impressions I gathered from Buddhist having met a few. The devout ones I have met rarely if ever go on about how nice or perfect it is. This is something only the western verity of Buddhist do. Thats not a jab either, I dont believe it always comes from a feeling of superiority, but instead, they feel a need to prove to them selves that they are devout. Non western Buddhist will show you through there actions. If you have a question they will answer. This is also a Christian principal as well that is backed by scripture. I wont convince you otherwise and I wont try. But your experience is not the same as everyone else.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Emily-

I wanted to contrast the experience I've had watching my sangha introduce Buddhist practice to their children and how Catholicism was introduced to me as a child.

Children are exposed to Buddhist practice in utero, when their mothers meditate. They are exposed to Buddhist practice in utero when their mothers attend sadhana practice, they can hear the prayers and the song and the instruments.

When the mothers are going through birth, the community is praying for them, and a midwife who is a Buddhist meditator is coaching the parents.

Then after the child is born, the parents are welcome to attend and join in meditation or sadhana practice at any time. As the children grow, their parents naturally bring them with them when the parents come to practice with the community. Usually the parents bring toys or books and the children are allowed to freely come and go from the shrine room. No one sees a child who is fussy as a 'disturbance' to their meditation. It is included in our meditation. It's very natural.

Recently, I was at a retreat over Tibetan New Year and one of my sangha members brought all four of his children with him. Twin boys age 16 months, five year old boy and a ten year old girl. The boy was wandering around from where his father was serving as choepen for the ceremony and he would interact with his father while his father was engaged in helping Rinpoche. The twins were with their mother playing with their toys, crying alot and coming in and out of the room.

Alot of the time, the five year old was on my lap. I had just met him and we were fast friends. Some folks thought I was his grandmother. Sometimes he would ask me a question about 'what are they saying now' and I would translate the Tibetan text for him. He was satisfied with my answers and would go back to play. He sometimes want to ring the bell and hold the dorje and I let him. He would pick out holy pictures from my text and walk around the shrine room showing them to everyone and exclaim with delight as he held a picture of the meditational deity "I just love ........ and name the meditational deity.

The children's parents are very loving and devoted dharma students. The children are happy and well adjusted and they enjoy the kind attention they receive from the adults in our sangha.

This is the kind of introduction to spiritual practice I wish I'd had as a child.

sky

That's just it. YOU were were introduced to Catholicism in a way that traumatized YOU. This is not the case with the majority of Catholics. If it were, there would not be so many of them that are happy healthy and good natured. I will post my first impressions I gathered from Buddhist having met a few. The devout ones I have met rarely if ever go on about how nice or perfect it is. This is something only the western verity of Buddhist do. Thats not a jab either, I dont believe it always comes from a feeling of superiority, but instead, they feel a need to prove to them selves that they are devout. Non western Buddhist will show you through there actions. If you have a question they will answer. This is also a Christian principal as well that is backed by scripture. I wont convince you otherwise and I wont try. But your experience is not the same as everyone else.

That's absolutely true. I never said my experience is universal to all Catholics. I merely pointed out why I had to leave the Church.

My experience is not the same as everyone else. It's merely my experience. I never said anything otherwise.

What I have done, that was a mistake, is to NOT qualify every time I am speaking of a minority of Catholics or Christians. I should ALWAYS put a qualifier (a few, some, in my experience, etc) in front of the term; Christian or Catholic when I speak of my experience.

I've offended alot of Christians and they have let me know about it. Conversely, (with the exception of Marie) they deny, minimize, and invalidate my feelings when I'm hurt or offended by their posts. They expect me to always be sensitive to them, to never question ANY Christian, to never make a mistake, and to keep my mouth shut when I feel hurt or offended. It's unrealistic.

It would be nice to have an equal kind regard.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Emily-

I wanted to contrast the experience I've had watching my sangha introduce Buddhist practice to their children and how Catholicism was introduced to me as a child.

Children are exposed to Buddhist practice in utero, when their mothers meditate. They are exposed to Buddhist practice in utero when their mothers attend sadhana practice, they can hear the prayers and the song and the instruments.

When the mothers are going through birth, the community is praying for them, and a midwife who is a Buddhist meditator is coaching the parents.

Then after the child is born, the parents are welcome to attend and join in meditation or sadhana practice at any time. As the children grow, their parents naturally bring them with them when the parents come to practice with the community. Usually the parents bring toys or books and the children are allowed to freely come and go from the shrine room. No one sees a child who is fussy as a 'disturbance' to their meditation. It is included in our meditation. It's very natural.

Recently, I was at a retreat over Tibetan New Year and one of my sangha members brought all four of his children with him. Twin boys age 16 months, five year old boy and a ten year old girl. The boy was wandering around from where his father was serving as choepen for the ceremony and he would interact with his father while his father was engaged in helping Rinpoche. The twins were with their mother playing with their toys, crying alot and coming in and out of the room.

Alot of the time, the five year old was on my lap. I had just met him and we were fast friends. Some folks thought I was his grandmother. Sometimes he would ask me a question about 'what are they saying now' and I would translate the Tibetan text for him. He was satisfied with my answers and would go back to play. He sometimes want to ring the bell and hold the dorje and I let him. He would pick out holy pictures from my text and walk around the shrine room showing them to everyone and exclaim with delight as he held a picture of the meditational deity "I just love ........ and name the meditational deity.

The children's parents are very loving and devoted dharma students. The children are happy and well adjusted and they enjoy the kind attention they receive from the adults in our sangha.

This is the kind of introduction to spiritual practice I wish I'd had as a child.

sky

That's just it. YOU were were introduced to Catholicism in a way that traumatized YOU. This is not the case with the majority of Catholics. If it were, there would not be so many of them that are happy healthy and good natured. I will post my first impressions I gathered from Buddhist having met a few. The devout ones I have met rarely if ever go on about how nice or perfect it is. This is something only the western verity of Buddhist do. Thats not a jab either, I dont believe it always comes from a feeling of superiority, but instead, they feel a need to prove to them selves that they are devout. Non western Buddhist will show you through there actions. If you have a question they will answer. This is also a Christian principal as well that is backed by scripture. I wont convince you otherwise and I wont try. But your experience is not the same as everyone else.

That's absolutely true. I never said my experience is universal to all Catholics. I merely pointed it out why I had to leave the Church.

My experience is not the same as everyone else. It's merely my experience. I never said anything otherwise.

What I have done, that was a mistake is to NOT qualify every time I am speaking of a minority of Catholics or Christians. I should ALWAYS put a qualifier (a few, some, in my experience, etc) in front of the term; Christian or Catholic when I speak of my experience.

I've offended alot of Christians and they have let me know about it. Conversely, (with the exception of Marie) they deny, minimize, and invalidate my feelings when I'm hurt or offended by them.

It would be nice to have an equal kind regard.

No offense here. You speak your mind on a message forum. Thats why its here.

 

[syrenn]

That's absolutely true. I never said my experience is universal to all Catholics. I merely pointed out why I had to leave the Church.

My experience is not the same as everyone else. It's merely my experience. I never said anything otherwise.

What I have done, that was a mistake, is to NOT qualify every time I am speaking of a minority of Catholics or Christians. I should ALWAYS put a qualifier (a few, some, in my experience, etc) in front of the term; Christian or Catholic when I speak of my experience.

I've offended alot of Christians and they have let me know about it. Conversely, (with the exception of Marie) they deny, minimize, and invalidate my feelings when I'm hurt or offended by their posts. They expect me to always be sensitive to them, to never question ANY Christian, to never make a mistake, and to keep my mouth shut when I feel hurt or offended. It's unrealistic.

It would be nice to have an equal kind regard.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's absolutely true. I never said my experience is universal to all Catholics. I merely pointed out why I had to leave the Church.

My experience is not the same as everyone else. It's merely my experience. I never said anything otherwise.

What I have done, that was a mistake, is to NOT qualify every time I am speaking of a minority of Catholics or Christians. I should ALWAYS put a qualifier (a few, some, in my experience, etc) in front of the term; Christian or Catholic when I speak of my experience.

I've offended alot of Christians and they have let me know about it. Conversely, (with the exception of Marie) they deny, minimize, and invalidate my feelings when I'm hurt or offended by their posts. They expect me to always be sensitive to them, to never question ANY Christian, to never make a mistake, and to keep my mouth shut when I feel hurt or offended. It's unrealistic.

It would be nice to have an equal kind regard.

Is that you saying you disagree? Perhaps you missed Newby, Allie, Immie, and RD's posts.

You sometimes have a way of expressing your 'hurt' or 'being offended' in a way that suggests universalism though, Sky. And then when you are called on it, you deny that you intended for it be a universal perception and only THEN do you qualify it as your experience alone and that it should not be extended beyond that. THAT is what makes your comments so often perceived as dishonest or unbelievable even when you do not intend them that way.

But when others express their opinions, you often see them as offensive and attacking you personally. Okay, sometimes they intend to be, but usually they do not. Subtle or backhanded contempt for the beliefs or practices of others is no less offensive than is that which is straight forward and put out there honestly. And it is seen as far less honest.

Admittedly some are more charitable or perhaps tactful than others in expressing their perceptions, observations, and opinions, but if we are going to accept people for who and what they are, we accept ALL for who and what they are. And that includes the blunt and honest along with those who try to be more gentle.

If you wish to be accepted for who and what you are, I suggest being less wounded and attacked when others stick up for themselves and don't agree with your point of view.