Obviously there is no single Buddhist teaching authority now. But it’s not correct to imply that Buddhism as a whole doesn’t claim any supernatural powers exist.
And even putting aside the mind-reading and levitation, the central aspect of virtually all Buddhism is the claim of rebirth.
You are much too gentle.
We need to send him a box of Tide.
I realize this is perhaps a bit of a side debate, but have any Buddhist beliefs actually changed? Many religions make essentially the same claim, the idea being not that they’re actually going to change anything, but that their beliefs are correct and therefore there will be no need to. If something contradictory does come along, they just fudge the interpretation of scripture to make it look like they were right all along. Of course, at this point most of the world’s religions have figured out its a very good idea to be vague about cosmology and other potentially verifiable claims.
Is there anything in the Constitution that would prevent a war against a philosophy?
Not seeing a transcript, it’s hard to say what’s going on, and I’m not in a place where I could listen to video and not be the subject of about 15 angry stares…
But if we try and give him the utmost benefit of the doubt (just for shits and giggles here), maybe he means “Christianity” in its vaguest form, not affiliated with any particular organized religion. That is, Catholicism is a religion. Lutheranism is a religion. Baptist-ism is a religion. But the common values of Christianity do not constitution a religion. One of those common values would be a Christmas Tree (I guess). And he’s going by a strict interpretation of the establishment clause meaning it’s not meant to “establish” any particular organized religion as the state religion. “Christianity”, then isn’t a religion because there is no official arbiter of what “Christianity” is.
Anyway, that’s about as far as I’m willing to take this whole benefit of the doubt thingy without hearing or reading the full exchange.
Also, one would have to admit that one could say the same thing about most other religions. Islam comes immediately to mind, as does Buddhism.
The one I hear is that Christianity is not a religion, it’s a “personal relationship with Jesus.”
That just triggers my gag reflex.
That would be great if it were commonly so, like general George “Chinese” Gordon, who read his bible, belonged to no church, and considered himself an instrument of God’s will.
Millions of people do the first and last of those two, but it’s the middle one that disproves the “way of life” assertion. And it’s asserted by O’Reilly, who sees Red because Barack Obama’s mom knew some Communists/members of the New Left. At some point association = organization. But Occam’s razor is always different depending on which ax you’re grinding.
Oh please. As with every religion, some of the basic principles of Christianity could be called philosophical or ethical and don’t need a supernatural component, and others serve can’t be called anything other than religious because they make no sense without a religious component. The first few commandments and the Nicene Creed are not philosophical. They are religious beliefs by any sensible definition. I haven’t watched the clip and of course it’s always hard to tell if O’Reilly means what he [del]says[/del] yells, but I find myself wondering if he’s heard this and just thought it sounded good without knowing what the hell it means.
Tenets. And I think that’s an oversimplification. You don’t have to believe in miracles to accept the Four Noble Truths, but if you believe in karma or reincarnation or you believe that Buddha was born out of his mother’s side after a prophetic dream and immediately after birth he started walking around and whatnot, then yes, you believe in something supernatural.
OK, I listend to the clip, and he is saying what I thought he was saying. But the problem is that he’s very Christian-centric in this idea that Christianity isn’t a religion. He says that what counts as a religion is something like Catholicism, not “Christianity”. But he also explicitly says that “Judaism” is a religion. I guess it’s just a matter of numbers to him, then.
But the atheist guy didn’t throw back the obvious retort: Is Islam a religion or a philosophy? Can our government make Muhammad’s birthday a federal holiday? Can it shut down cafeterias in federal buildings during Ramadan (or whatever times of the day you’re not supposed to eat during that holy day period)?
and can I strangle travellers in the name of Kali?
Please?
It is so bizarre to me that so many conservatives are for gov’t doing less, yet try to find way for it to push their religion. Don’t they think the private sector can take care of people’s religious needs properly, and more efficiently?
This strategy has already been used to try to suppress Islam in some parts of the country. Here in Tennessee groups were arguing that Islam did not qualify for protection under the constitution because it’s not a religion, it’s a “political movement.” Tennessee Mosque Opponents: Islam is not a Religion | People For
That sure brings back memories of the McCarthy days. Which suggests that if the Communists had been really smart, they would have made Communism a religion for political purposes. Wonder why they didn’t?
You can’t explain this.
Because religion is the opium of the masses, and then they would have been in for possession and distribution of controlled substances.
We shouldn’t read too far into O’Reilly’s statements. He’s not hugely stupid, but he thinks he knows everything he needs to know. So he’ll bullshit on any topic and say anything that he thinks will win an argument in that moment. It doesn’t matter if it’s contradicted a minute later. He will just forget about it if something disproves what he says.
We see that all the time on this very board. How many times do we show someone that what they think is wrong, and they ignore it and just leave the thread, only to come back and repeat the assertion later. These people aren’t stupid, they’re just defending themselves because it hurts to be wrong. O’Reilly is the poster child for that.
The First Amendment.
O’Reilley’s an intelligent, educated guy, but he sure can be a moron when he wants to.
As an agnostic, though, I wish people like Silverman wouldn’t argue against things like traditional holidays. Strictly speaking, he’s correct. I can’t argue his point, from theory. But practically speaking, stuff like that just rallies the Bible-clutching masses against us unGodly heathens, and sets the cause back a decade or so.
In any case Christmas in the US these days is more of a commercial enterprise than a religious holiday.
Gee, I didn’t know Buddhism was a landlord. Nice digs? Maybe I should move!
Good for him. However, Buddhism tenets contain a lot of facts that has to be taken on faith, and thus still qualifies as a religion in my book.