I agree. Religious beliefs can seem pretty much unshakable. But even with these, and perhaps I’m being naive, I have a feeling that over time, perhaps generations, those beliefs will become diluted and without any real substance. Well, who knows. Time will tell, I guess.
I also want to pay tribute to Andrew Huxley. Many years ago I had along exchange with him about Buddhist law. He was extremely knowledgeable and I learned much from him and his unique scholarship. I met him only once, but remember him as a warm as well as an intelligent person.
In the Analects of Confucius, parental piety usually termed “filial” is most prominent description and one see that in practice everyday among the Chinese and Korean communities.
Funny thing is Chinese drivers are notorious for paying scant attention to traffic rules and counterfeiting seems such common practice among the race so much so that in Hong Kong “HK$1000 banknotes is not accepted (sic)” is a common sign especially in restaurants.But you would hardly find someone prepared to “disrespect” the ancestors. Whether the “west”, highly progressive liberal or not can really appreciate the essence of it is at best doubtful.You need to be borne into it and immersed in it. Not cultivated as afterthought.
“A Confucian would always has ancestral worship and propitiation of souls”
Wow!
Is that what these ubiquitous Confucius Institutes on University campuses (and public schools) are trying to teach those naive “politically-correct-multi-culturally-sensitised” Western kids? LOL
One simple argument against such situation is that religion is by definition not logic or humanitarian or anything people who has the need to see it and describe it in sweet, soft, delectable light.
It is by nature a faith, no logic, no hanky-panky, but blind faith. One of course can believe in sweet little made up or artificial progressive belief, but most adherents of religion would not go with that.
Same with societal traditions. No reasoning and logic is required or desirable. Eg. A Confucian would always has ancestral worship and propitiation of souls. And one practitioner can simply stop doing that, but by doing so that person becomes something else.
Main reason logic cannot replace religion is human’s innate recognition of limitation of human logic.
Eisel Mazard seems to be something of a crackpot. Anyone familiar with the Samyutta Nikaya, which is regarding by some important scholars as preceding the other Nikayas, should be able to see the absurdity of Mazard’s claims here. I suspect this man, having now distanced himself from Buddhism, certainly no Buddhist himself, is using this “theory” as a last grasp at scholastic infamy. We are to believe his insight is so penetrating that he saw in the paticcasamuppada what no one else ever has seen, what the Buddha seems to have been unaware of himself! This baseless theory might – might – hold up if one had nothing but the bare bones 12 link formula to work with, but as soon as one considers the bulk of texts expounding on the sequence, it falls flat. Hopefully it will not mislead anyone in their practice.
I do agree that one shouldn’t impose one’s views. What I’m in favour of is actively challenging the views of others, just as those others should feel free to actively challenge the views I hold if they wish to do so.
By challenge, I mean engage in rational debate and argument, not violent confrontation or anything illegal. I firmly believe that it is by challenging views/beliefs (not meekly tolerating them) and their underlying premises that we can all come to a more or less common (mono)cultural understanding -the product of give and take from all sides.
This pipe-dream does however assume that we are at heart rational beings and that deep down we all accept that reason is the preferred basis of deciding how we live our lives and what rules define our societies.
Having said all this, surely one should not deny the right of people to hold any views they wish. I agree. My point is simply that rather than tolerate (i.e. in effect turn a blind eye to)views which seem harmful or absurd, much is to be gained by respectfully and politely challenging those views. If I can’t persuade someone that a belief is illogical, I accept that I must tolerate their right to continue to hold that belief. Likewise, they must respect my right to hold to beliefs I refuse to give up.
So, I say a big ‘Yes” to mono-culturalism borne of a climate that actively promotes reasoned argument and discussion.
To have a common belief or religion for the whole society would be unnatural and mathematical impossibility.
To impose on other of what one believes in to modify or influence in one way or others (short of prevention of criminal acts by common law which must always prevail to sustain a community) is proselytizing. Even if one does it how would one knows that one’s own belief or value is “superior” or more “desirable” than the one one is trying to influence? Who decides that?
It’s not a good sign or even a “good style” if the author of an article in an”academic publication” feels the need to reply to almost all the comments. Just saying!
Yes Jaf there is. Trouble is, it’s hard to deconstuct myths when so many people, including academics, have reputations at stake.
A senior Falintil/FDTL Commander once told me that Gusmao was never a fighter, just a political Komissar. He got so frightened when the rounds were flying that they needed 2 or 3 men to hold him down and stop him from fleeing, he was shaking so violently.
That’s neither here nor there. The true story of his relationship with Monteiro Leite and his wife, awaiting execution in Baucau jail during the civil war, the mass murders in Same during the same period, the circumstances surrounding his capture by TNI, and the manner in which Gastao Salsinha felt obliged to surrender have not been placed in the public domain, yet. Not that I haven’t tried…
I think this is your answer to the question I posed:
“One other would be where one practise one’s own religion and “ignore” the others or let them be, neither sucking up nor disparaging/ condemning. You are not obliged to look into details of their practice and analyse it or approve it. That would be multiculturalism as that way all cultures of all sorts can stay together without any particular group trying to eradicate other groups.”
But surely, this just doesn’t work at all. I’m reminded of the adage that goes something like this: “Evil prevails when good people do nothing.”
I find myself rather hoping that muticulturalism is just a stepping stone to a form of mono-culturalism borne of members of each culture vigorously, and armed with reason, arguing against (or for) values their, and other’ cultures endorse. Hopefully this might make it possible for a new common culture to arise which is acceptable to all.
Put it this way: It should not be too hard to persuade some at least of those who believe blue eyed babies should be put to death it we were allowed to try.
“anything less than a DIRECT AND UNEQUIVOCAL comparison between Malaysia today and Nazi Germany, between 1933-1945, is an inaccurate portrayal of what is happening in Malaysia today.”
I have rarely read such utter rubbish.
Whatever is wrong in Malaysia, i cannot see concentration and death camps there, neither do i see Malaysia throwing the entire continent into war.
You may want re-read some history books on Nazi Germany, or are you one of those loony holocaust deniers?
A typical Thai royalists’ rant! What do use to measure for you to say that “Thai people are not ready for democracy?” And how do you know that “everyone of us is so happy under the guidance of our Father?” In my forty-plus years on this earth I have never seen any monarch save Kasat Bhumiphol and Rashinee Sirikit and family been so hated by their own people. I think you are belittling Thai people’s intelligence when you said that ordinary Thais are ” not ready for democracy.” Let me ended the sentence by saying something in Thai ( a Thai-style rant): Grow up, Buck Harm-Noi!
There seem three separate issues, ocean traveller.
One is proselytizing with lethal force where other religions are simply unacceptable to be on earth. The article argues to embrace them like kissing a hungry tiger.
One other would be where one practise one’s own religion and “ignore” the others or let them be, neither sucking up nor disparaging/ condemning. You are not obliged to look into details of their practice and analyse it or approve it. That would be multiculturalism as that way all cultures of all sorts can stay together without any particular group trying to eradicate other groups.
What you are saying now is someone according to their own belief, religion or otherwise, would do active harm or an act you do not approve, your example being killing babies, yet could easily be marrying of a girl of 8 to a 40 year old man, or ritually sacrificing human to propitiate higher beings- say at a time of building a religious monument.
That is nothing whatsoever to do with multiculturalism but with common law criminal justice. To be sustainable, a society must have basic law to protect the societal members so that harm may not befall them even if there is religious or otherwise desire or need to do so.
Then again, say we now have airplanes falling out of sky every day. And as we are so modern, we cannot do without air travel, non-existent few short decades ago, anymore. And hypothetically some sage suggests that that tragic loss of so many human lives can be averted simply by just keeping virgin girls at the end of runways round the clock open to the elements. What would a society do? That is how sacrifices are started. And there will be more to come. And that is pure human selfishness and ruthlessness combined, nothing to do with one’s tolerance of the others. Dependening on its own decadence, a soclety would decide that.
“The more we demonise fundamentalist whilst at the same time extolling the tolerance of any and all forms of culture…”
This is what I object to most about multiculturalism, the requirement that I am to be tolerant of others’ beliefs. Yes, I accept that I should try and understand those beliefs and why someone might hold them, but why does this obligate me to tolerate or ‘respect’ those beliefs? If for example Mr/s X argues his/her newly formed religion requires that all blue eyed babies be put to death, am I to tolerate this? Personally I see nothing wrong with publicly arguing such a religion is barbaric and absurd.
I’m curious and a little confused, and so here’s a question for those who favour multiculturalism and would wish it defended. just how should those like yourself respond to Mr/s X if at all?
The basis of this article appears to be that the only acceptable depiction of the Buddha is a historically accurate one. Good luck with that approach towards art and literature.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Multi-culturalism: the flipside of fundamentalism?
I agree. Religious beliefs can seem pretty much unshakable. But even with these, and perhaps I’m being naive, I have a feeling that over time, perhaps generations, those beliefs will become diluted and without any real substance. Well, who knows. Time will tell, I guess.
Remembering the work of Professor Andrew Huxley
I also want to pay tribute to Andrew Huxley. Many years ago I had along exchange with him about Buddhist law. He was extremely knowledgeable and I learned much from him and his unique scholarship. I met him only once, but remember him as a warm as well as an intelligent person.
Multi-culturalism: the flipside of fundamentalism?
In the Analects of Confucius, parental piety usually termed “filial” is most prominent description and one see that in practice everyday among the Chinese and Korean communities.
http://www.mandarinchineseschool.com/files/The%20Analects%20of%20Confucius%20LunYu%20with%20english%20translation.pdf
Funny thing is Chinese drivers are notorious for paying scant attention to traffic rules and counterfeiting seems such common practice among the race so much so that in Hong Kong “HK$1000 banknotes is not accepted (sic)” is a common sign especially in restaurants.But you would hardly find someone prepared to “disrespect” the ancestors. Whether the “west”, highly progressive liberal or not can really appreciate the essence of it is at best doubtful.You need to be borne into it and immersed in it. Not cultivated as afterthought.
Multi-culturalism: the flipside of fundamentalism?
“A Confucian would always has ancestral worship and propitiation of souls”
Wow!
Is that what these ubiquitous Confucius Institutes on University campuses (and public schools) are trying to teach those naive “politically-correct-multi-culturally-sensitised” Western kids? LOL
Multi-culturalism: the flipside of fundamentalism?
One simple argument against such situation is that religion is by definition not logic or humanitarian or anything people who has the need to see it and describe it in sweet, soft, delectable light.
It is by nature a faith, no logic, no hanky-panky, but blind faith. One of course can believe in sweet little made up or artificial progressive belief, but most adherents of religion would not go with that.
Same with societal traditions. No reasoning and logic is required or desirable. Eg. A Confucian would always has ancestral worship and propitiation of souls. And one practitioner can simply stop doing that, but by doing so that person becomes something else.
Main reason logic cannot replace religion is human’s innate recognition of limitation of human logic.
Unpopular facts about one of Buddhist philosophy’s most popular doctrines
Eisel Mazard seems to be something of a crackpot. Anyone familiar with the Samyutta Nikaya, which is regarding by some important scholars as preceding the other Nikayas, should be able to see the absurdity of Mazard’s claims here. I suspect this man, having now distanced himself from Buddhism, certainly no Buddhist himself, is using this “theory” as a last grasp at scholastic infamy. We are to believe his insight is so penetrating that he saw in the paticcasamuppada what no one else ever has seen, what the Buddha seems to have been unaware of himself! This baseless theory might – might – hold up if one had nothing but the bare bones 12 link formula to work with, but as soon as one considers the bulk of texts expounding on the sequence, it falls flat. Hopefully it will not mislead anyone in their practice.
Multi-culturalism: the flipside of fundamentalism?
I do agree that one shouldn’t impose one’s views. What I’m in favour of is actively challenging the views of others, just as those others should feel free to actively challenge the views I hold if they wish to do so.
By challenge, I mean engage in rational debate and argument, not violent confrontation or anything illegal. I firmly believe that it is by challenging views/beliefs (not meekly tolerating them) and their underlying premises that we can all come to a more or less common (mono)cultural understanding -the product of give and take from all sides.
This pipe-dream does however assume that we are at heart rational beings and that deep down we all accept that reason is the preferred basis of deciding how we live our lives and what rules define our societies.
Having said all this, surely one should not deny the right of people to hold any views they wish. I agree. My point is simply that rather than tolerate (i.e. in effect turn a blind eye to)views which seem harmful or absurd, much is to be gained by respectfully and politely challenging those views. If I can’t persuade someone that a belief is illogical, I accept that I must tolerate their right to continue to hold that belief. Likewise, they must respect my right to hold to beliefs I refuse to give up.
So, I say a big ‘Yes” to mono-culturalism borne of a climate that actively promotes reasoned argument and discussion.
Multi-culturalism: the flipside of fundamentalism?
Agreed – and just too bad for ‘academic’ ‘style’! 🙂
Multi-culturalism: the flipside of fundamentalism?
To have a common belief or religion for the whole society would be unnatural and mathematical impossibility.
To impose on other of what one believes in to modify or influence in one way or others (short of prevention of criminal acts by common law which must always prevail to sustain a community) is proselytizing. Even if one does it how would one knows that one’s own belief or value is “superior” or more “desirable” than the one one is trying to influence? Who decides that?
Multi-culturalism: the flipside of fundamentalism?
It’s not a good sign or even a “good style” if the author of an article in an”academic publication” feels the need to reply to almost all the comments. Just saying!
Thai Coup: A normal way of life
Kaen Phet – your argument is about as believable as this : http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/Thai-prime-minister-refuses-to-deny-possible-elect-30250673.html
The changing face of Xanana Gusmao
Yes Jaf there is. Trouble is, it’s hard to deconstuct myths when so many people, including academics, have reputations at stake.
A senior Falintil/FDTL Commander once told me that Gusmao was never a fighter, just a political Komissar. He got so frightened when the rounds were flying that they needed 2 or 3 men to hold him down and stop him from fleeing, he was shaking so violently.
That’s neither here nor there. The true story of his relationship with Monteiro Leite and his wife, awaiting execution in Baucau jail during the civil war, the mass murders in Same during the same period, the circumstances surrounding his capture by TNI, and the manner in which Gastao Salsinha felt obliged to surrender have not been placed in the public domain, yet. Not that I haven’t tried…
Multi-culturalism: the flipside of fundamentalism?
I think this is your answer to the question I posed:
“One other would be where one practise one’s own religion and “ignore” the others or let them be, neither sucking up nor disparaging/ condemning. You are not obliged to look into details of their practice and analyse it or approve it. That would be multiculturalism as that way all cultures of all sorts can stay together without any particular group trying to eradicate other groups.”
But surely, this just doesn’t work at all. I’m reminded of the adage that goes something like this: “Evil prevails when good people do nothing.”
I find myself rather hoping that muticulturalism is just a stepping stone to a form of mono-culturalism borne of members of each culture vigorously, and armed with reason, arguing against (or for) values their, and other’ cultures endorse. Hopefully this might make it possible for a new common culture to arise which is acceptable to all.
Put it this way: It should not be too hard to persuade some at least of those who believe blue eyed babies should be put to death it we were allowed to try.
Multi-culturalism: the flipside of fundamentalism?
“anything less than a DIRECT AND UNEQUIVOCAL comparison between Malaysia today and Nazi Germany, between 1933-1945, is an inaccurate portrayal of what is happening in Malaysia today.”
I have rarely read such utter rubbish.
Whatever is wrong in Malaysia, i cannot see concentration and death camps there, neither do i see Malaysia throwing the entire continent into war.
You may want re-read some history books on Nazi Germany, or are you one of those loony holocaust deniers?
Thai Coup: A normal way of life
A typical Thai royalists’ rant! What do use to measure for you to say that “Thai people are not ready for democracy?” And how do you know that “everyone of us is so happy under the guidance of our Father?” In my forty-plus years on this earth I have never seen any monarch save Kasat Bhumiphol and Rashinee Sirikit and family been so hated by their own people. I think you are belittling Thai people’s intelligence when you said that ordinary Thais are ” not ready for democracy.” Let me ended the sentence by saying something in Thai ( a Thai-style rant): Grow up, Buck Harm-Noi!
Multi-culturalism: the flipside of fundamentalism?
There seem three separate issues, ocean traveller.
One is proselytizing with lethal force where other religions are simply unacceptable to be on earth. The article argues to embrace them like kissing a hungry tiger.
One other would be where one practise one’s own religion and “ignore” the others or let them be, neither sucking up nor disparaging/ condemning. You are not obliged to look into details of their practice and analyse it or approve it. That would be multiculturalism as that way all cultures of all sorts can stay together without any particular group trying to eradicate other groups.
What you are saying now is someone according to their own belief, religion or otherwise, would do active harm or an act you do not approve, your example being killing babies, yet could easily be marrying of a girl of 8 to a 40 year old man, or ritually sacrificing human to propitiate higher beings- say at a time of building a religious monument.
That is nothing whatsoever to do with multiculturalism but with common law criminal justice. To be sustainable, a society must have basic law to protect the societal members so that harm may not befall them even if there is religious or otherwise desire or need to do so.
Then again, say we now have airplanes falling out of sky every day. And as we are so modern, we cannot do without air travel, non-existent few short decades ago, anymore. And hypothetically some sage suggests that that tragic loss of so many human lives can be averted simply by just keeping virgin girls at the end of runways round the clock open to the elements. What would a society do? That is how sacrifices are started. And there will be more to come. And that is pure human selfishness and ruthlessness combined, nothing to do with one’s tolerance of the others. Dependening on its own decadence, a soclety would decide that.
Multi-culturalism: the flipside of fundamentalism?
Noted with the celebrity culture thing. I guess my point is that ‘far’ can be ‘nearer’ than we think?
cheers.
Multi-culturalism: the flipside of fundamentalism?
Thanks.
Last Man? Or First Bot-Humanoid?
Multi-culturalism: the flipside of fundamentalism?
“The more we demonise fundamentalist whilst at the same time extolling the tolerance of any and all forms of culture…”
This is what I object to most about multiculturalism, the requirement that I am to be tolerant of others’ beliefs. Yes, I accept that I should try and understand those beliefs and why someone might hold them, but why does this obligate me to tolerate or ‘respect’ those beliefs? If for example Mr/s X argues his/her newly formed religion requires that all blue eyed babies be put to death, am I to tolerate this? Personally I see nothing wrong with publicly arguing such a religion is barbaric and absurd.
I’m curious and a little confused, and so here’s a question for those who favour multiculturalism and would wish it defended. just how should those like yourself respond to Mr/s X if at all?
The Buddha was bald
The basis of this article appears to be that the only acceptable depiction of the Buddha is a historically accurate one. Good luck with that approach towards art and literature.