Religious Conservatism

Discussion
41

Classical Liberal negative rights have never changed since their conception. Others can come up with what they think are other rights, which are always positive rights, but from a perspective like mine they aren’t valid. To give an example, the Soviet Union had a concept of positive human rights without respecting negative human rights. The only rights we can safely say are human rights are the negative rights of life, liberty, property, marriage, religion and so on. Positive rights such as healthcare, education etc are questionable as to if they are rights. Personally I don’t think they are, although they are good public services to run.

Regarding conversion therapy the claim is that it is a medical treatment for homosexuality. Since homosexuality is not a disease and since even if it were the therapy itself is a failure i see no reason why we wouldn’t ban it like we would ban any quack medical treatment. That being said, if a gay Catholic really believes that his orientation is wrong and he wishes to refrain from engaging with it I see no reason why Catholic priests can’t offer him spiritual guidance from their religion’s POV if he is an adult of that religion willingly seeking said advice.

Because prohibition of alcohol has been seen to do more harm than good.

Given the 100,000 people who die each year from alcohol its questionable that that is correct, and that’s without taking into account the spin offs from alcohol use such as domestic violence, sexual violence and general criminal behaviour. However, when you ban it you get an increase in organised crime which also causes harm. I think the case of alcohol highlights the problem of basing your policies solely around harm reduction. By implementing one policy to reduce harm you will inadvertently cause harm somewhere else, thus it becomes a contradictory and futile exercise. Personally I think adult citizens should have the freedom to choose to take alcohol or not, with the responsiblity of their actions resting with them. The state can deal with the after effects in terms of health and criminal justice, as well as trying to take preventative measures through education rather than taking a nanny state position of banning everything it deems harmful. To go back to our good Catholics, Catholics should be free to teach their children what they wish about their religion at home. Catholics should also be able to form and run their own schools, since faith schools are also a human right, but the state can also ensure that when in school values such as tolerance, respect and lessons about other religions (or non-religious philosophies) are also taught alongside the Catholicism so that the children know A) Tolerance is good even if we don’t agree with someone and B) There are other options besides Roman Catholicism.

I see that you appear happy that children now have some rights, so that fills me with hope that some religious conservatives are at least moving in a positive direction.

Well I think we religous conservatives have always viewed children as having rights, at least in the west where rights are so embedded in our culture. An example would be the pro-life movement which is centered around the embryo/foetus being a living being and so having a right to life. The right to life vs the right to bodily autonomy along with questions of when beinghood begins are at the heart of the whole abortion issue.

42

Greetings Gene,

I’m really very practice oriented, and as such tend to focus my attention on the Noble 8 fold path. I find speculation and engaging in extended intellectual analysis doesn’t weaken the hindrances, but often exacerbates clinging to the intellect… So I try to keep it to a minimum.

in my understanding the difference between Arahants and a SammaSamBuddha is the degree of clear seeing. The SamBuddha saw and understood it all, and was able to expound the 4 Noble truths, before these were stated anywhere in the world. He set the wheel of Dhamma in motion.

While the first 2 Noble truths are ‘easy enough’ to see, the 3rd and most importantly the 4th are something special. The Buddha taught these, and through these teachings, those with little dust in their eyes, were able to ‘use his raft’ to cross to the other side - the Arahants.

Just as a little exercise… When in deeper meditation, are you male or female? What is your Mind? Does the citta/stream of consciousness have a gender? What is it’s significance?
Gender is simply a condition.

5 Likes
43

In the context of the Catholic church this is part of their religious practice and inflicted on children. Back in the 60s when I was a Catholic child it was conducted as a form of exorcism, then later it became a “cure”. It is referred to in other ways by the Catholic church these days, but it’s fundamentally the same. It’s like playing whack a mole.

Interesting that you would advocate for a ban on this instance. I don’t see quack medical treatments banned in the way you describe - at least not in the UK. There is a substantial, lightly regulated market in what are now called “alternative” medicinal treatments.

Exoticism / conversion therapy is often inflicted on children.

You have stated in this thread that:

and

I would disagree with your assertion.

I didn’t say solely did I?

I’ve only talked about children in this thread and the harm that is inflicted on them as a result of their parents religious beliefs and practices.

1 Like
44

In the context of the Catholic church this is part of their religious practice and inflicted on children. Back in the 60s when I was a Catholic child it was conducted as a form of exorcism, then later it became a “cure”. It is referred to in other ways by the Catholic church these days, but it’s fundamentally the same. It’s like playing whack a mole.

As far as I’m aware current Catholic dogma is that it can’t be cured. Naturally I’m not for this being forced upon children, but if an adult wishes to go ahead with it that is their choice.

Interesting that you would advocate for a ban on this instance. I don’t see quack medical treatments banned in the way you describe - at least not in the UK. There is a substantial, lightly regulated market in what are now called “alternative” medicinal treatments.

If I subscribe to the lunacy of homeopathy I am not directly harming myself, so long as I seek proper medical treatment at the same time (i believe this is part of their regulation). If however a “medical expert” tells me to put 3 drops of bleach into my eye on a daily basis then I am directly harming myself and said person should be prosecuted.

Exoticism / conversion therapy is often inflicted on children.

I already stated that parents are free to raise their children as they see fit unless it turns abusive. From what I know of exorcisms they aren’t appropriate for children.

I would disagree with your assertion.

Either you are for human rights or you are not. It seems you have adopted the latter. You can of course do that. Most left wing people, which you seem to be, tend to ignore them in favour of consequentialist moral thinking. It does mean however that a fundamental level we will not agree, since deontological ethics and consequentialist ethics are incompatible.

I didn’t say solely did I?

That is good to hear.

I’ve only talked about children in this thread and the harm that is inflicted on them as a result of their parents religious beliefs and practices.

Sure, and I have defended the parent’s right to raise their child as they wish as long as they do not abuse or neglect the child.

45

Are we now playing zero sum games of black and white, true and false, good and evil? You’re either with us or against us? They hate us for our freedom?

There is quite a bit of nuance between for and against.

4 Likes
46

I’m not sure whether this thread is in the process of veering off track?
… Surely not. :anjal:

4 Likes
47

What if we’d assume that neither man nor woman can be a Buddha, since the mind doesn’t have a gender? It’s just a worldly manifestation of consciousness after all.
Body has a gender, body is not the Buddha. It’s Anatta, no one’s there, so definitely no gender too. Just because the Dhamma has to manifest somehow in this world it has to manifest in its conditions and in best possible way to be accepted by people in current society I guess. In ancient India it was definitely impossible it it was a women manifestation.

6 Likes
48

Welcome to the forum @nipaka. We hope you’ll find lots to interest you on the Forum and, if anything is confusing, please ask a question and a helpful person is sure to appear. Otherwise try @helpdesk-dd or @moderators for harder stuff. :slight_smile:

2 Likes
49

I found this in the Chinese translated text of probably the Indian Theravada branch vinaya text (rules of monks/nuns commentary)which has this explanation for the superiority of being a man. For example in the past you might have been a woman but in the perfections one change to male sexe. Because one does good. It changes. So Buddhas are said to work for good in the past as Bodhisattva so the amount time they kept changing back and forth can a lot. But it’s probably how nature works. Because for example being born a man we naturally strong and can withstand certain conditions. So there the perfections is noticeable. It can been seen when we are asked from our wife to certain things that also is sign that mentality also a male just means you trained in past and got born as male. But what if then you do bad, then your chances of being born a female is possible. Woman has to suffer if they get pregnant. Man just gets mental stress waiting :joy:

[edit] I forgot to add this mean that eventually a woman like seen in Jatakas will also become a male Buddha. Arahants are male and females. But Buddhas are highest perfections so it always leads to a male version.

image

50

I think this is one of the conflictive points (for those who adhere to the view you presented):
Are (all) men naturally strong(er)?
What does “naturally” mean?

1 Like
51

Ok. I mean that nature is made that way. It’s about development quality. Actually there is no male or female in reality. As Buddhist genesis story explains. So this has to be seen as process to give us opportunity to grow. Like a Apple tree. You give water is it grows slow. You give fertilizer it grows fast.

But you asked about naturally. For example. Think kids. Boys play rough. But girls play cooking and dolls.

If they did still play rough as girl it’s because they where attached to female element in the past life. But was developing their mind, doing good etc.

With naturally needs to be understood that if we can’t help it. It’s like part of us. But then again who knows I was a female in the past. So with naturally again seeing it in a way that society itself depends on Kings so much. There where some periods of female powers. But nature seems to love male. In nature look at male birds. Nature beautiful colors just to attract the female.
Although they born beautiful for that reason again nature wants man to attract female birds. :man_shrugging: So I’m just saying maybe it a natural law. (sanatan dharma)

In Nettipakarana commentary explain how we can be attached to the male element or female element

I don’t if it’s because I’m a man, but I don’t see reason why a Buddha have to a male or female, but I just accept it as nature. That’s what maybe they didn’t explain us.

Then what’s the difference if it’s a female Buddha? It doesn’t make a difference right?

But Buddhas are supposed by tradition born in everything high position in society. Born as a prince. Why not a princess? Maybe the parents will get him married to man, and the man will not give him permission to go forth. Maybe Buddhas need the calm attitude of a female. Maybe they ask the wife about it before they do it? My wife for example always said to follow my dreams. Will smith has a nice video saying how his wife is the one that encouraged him to grow.

We tend to see traditional scriptures but there is probably natural reasons. For example we are said Buddha just went forth. But there is another version where Buddha explains that his parents was weeping when he went forth. I doubt in India he went away without saying.

Another concept I read from Vasubandhu, Buddhas are born in middle India only. That’s why Buddha was born in Nepal. Now will we ask why Buddhas are not born in my country?

According to Buddha in our scriptures a good birth is when you are born in the middle country where Buddha is born and you use the opportunity wisely to practice Dhamma. Now that’s not talked a lot about. If Buddha is born right now. And we are born in another country, how will hear about it. He can be between the gurus of India right now for example and we don’t know. So this birth is all about the possibility that you have created good possibilities also for you to naturally be able to do something big as being a Buddha or listening to Buddha.

52

In the Abhidhamma masculinity and femininity are a sub-set of rupa, and so are ultimate realities.

53

Most words are created by us. We have to use them since we made the distinctions. Like we have to use the idea of non-self. Because we wrongly believe there is a self. Does a baby think like we do? Today they fight, tomorrow they are friends. We can be like that after training. But they are free until slowly we teach words and distinctions. In 5 years they a total different cuteness you expected.

Nirvana start with desire to attain it. That’s why Buddha said two man don’t sleep the one in love with a woman. And the one striving for Nibbana.

At end in higher attainments do a Buddha see male or female? For example a Buddha? Or does he just use the word for sake of the world.

54

A Buddha would clearly see and know ultimate reality (dhammas) which masculinity and femininity are a part of (under rupa). In Abhidhammic thought they aren’t unreal concepts, like “Paul” or “house” or “God” are.

55

I can’t go in a Buddha mind you can’t either. That’s difficult to say. We make the distinction because we want to. But I assume they do it because it’s a old habit already. But mentally there is more freedom. But without thinking there is a sexe. Say they see a flower. Will they say it’s ugly or beautiful? It’s just a flower. In explaining a lesson. A Buddha might out of compassion explain about a beautiful girl. But not that he see one and say what beautiful girl. I don’t think you expect that right?

56

A flower is a concept. It’s unreal. “Beauty” is a little more complicated. In terms of sexual lust, Ven. Bakkula said:

Friend, in the eighty years since I went forth I do not recall ever having grasped at the signs and features of a woman.

MN 124.

58

Is this maybe a typo?

59

I think I went sleeping thinking why Buddhas aren’t woman. :joy: I came with a another natural assumption.

Man normally are the first ones to fall in love with the female. Female tend to hope we ask them out, females tend to wait for the mans to approach. There is few cases of girls asking a boy for marriage on internet. So what if to be Buddha, it necessary also before going forth to fall in love so the desire for Deathless is strived for in the same way. I already said above. Buddha did say there is two man that doesn’t sleep, the one in love with a woman and the one striving for Nibbana.

Because it’s the same sort of energy is part of the natural attitude of knowing we want something like we feel for. He was probably saying that thinking of himself. Although not a Traditionly taught subject but what’s the point of a Bodhisatta have a wife and child? That’s another one. Leaving family behind is the hardest thing. As leaving the attachment etc to reach Nibbana. So here we see two things why getting a wife was necessary maybe for the Buddha. I like the Buddha movie on Netflix it’s shows Buddha giving flowers to Yaso even before thinking to get married. Fallen in love. Maybe the way humans work, maybe the quality of falling in love for a man is stronger, because woman is more beautiful in the world. And man is known to see outside beauty more than women. Women see much other things that we normally don’t. Of course with experience we tend to learn to see more. But when young in love what matters for us is being like love birds. :joy:

60

My bad. I’ve edited it.

1 Like
61

I’m sorry. I was the first one you replied to. I didn’t read the sutta. I didn’t remember. It did sound familiar. My mind tired. :joy: So yeah that’s describing the experience of a disciple. Nice one.

arahant-ideal-bakkula by Analayo is nice to read