Go baby go . Need some leader ship here: http://www.danielpipes.org/pf.php?id=3242

Hi Andrew,

I am not in favour of nationality tests for immigrants or of tagging known or potentially dangerous Islamists.  This is because I am not “in favour” of immigrants full stop.  Tests will be passed.  Tags will be taken off.  The world will not change.  And those who have suffered to take the tests and have worn the tags will feel all the more entitled to remain amongst us.  They will have one more point arguing in their favour.  We, for our part, will have one less.

If we are not liberal politicians and do not have to undergo the baleful pretence of celebrating diversity, why would we strengthen the case for immigrant domicile here?

Yep. have to agree, Our Leaders certainly have got us into a pickle, I sort of view this as a starting measure to total reversal of what the Zen Budhist braindead left atrocity.
Can I shrink this signiture a little, I thought it might come out as a thumb nail size, but it takes up the whole screen.

Andrew - 20 January 2006 06:27 AM

Yep. have to agree, Our Leaders certainly have got us into a pickle, I sort of view this as a starting measure to total reversal of what the Zen Budhist braindead left atrocity.

Hmm, I don’t know that much about Zen per se. What is often called Zen in the west is just a distilliation of the weirdest bits, which were seized upon by 60’s/70’s radicals (like Richard Baker) at the San Francisco Zen Center or whatever it was. It is my understanding, that Zen in Japan is mostly just conventional Buddhism, i.e. study of the Suttras (Buddhist scriptures), meditation, work etc.

I am a Buddhist myself, and it’s my opinion that Buddhism has less in common with Marxism and political correctness than Christianity does. Buddhists have no doctrine of equality of humans for instance. Buddists only judge by fruits. The extent to which anyone or any group of persons can be Buddhist is really an empircal matter. The extent to which one is a Buddhist is the extent to which one follows the ‘eight-fold path’, and the extent to which some population or other can be Buddhist can only be resolved by determining how Buddhist it becomes after being presented with the religion. This is quite different from the Christian idea that upon conversion anyone is a Christian.

For the record I don’t pretend to be any saint or anything but I do do daily meditation (approx 1 hour/daily). I was a CHristian when i was a kid but I think that but the idea that unchristian behaviour can be a consequence of genetic predisposition, undermines the whole religion, throwing a big monkey wrench into the idea of single-lived souls making free-willed choices between good and evil and then getting judged. Furthermore that idea isn’t far removed from what Marxists believe, believing that humans are interchangeable units and that population differences are purely a result of social factors. In fact I’ve noticed in the churches that stating unequivocally Marxist views never gets churchgoers into trouble. CHristians by and large are comfortable with Marx, although Marxists, on the other hand , get their knickers in a knot about Christianity, which is I suppose because Christianity once served as a western ethnocultural unifier. But because CHristianity doesn’t do that anymore, it makes no sense for conservatives to be supportive of it.

Gday Dissidentman,
Zen Buddhist in the context is only a coined expression,I think your explanation was excellent. I will strike that one out of the Lexicon, WE some times use that expression, but in your instance I understand why it may seem a bit harsh, and certainly was not intended to be to wards your religion.
Much like a TV presenter here in Sydney many years ago, interviewed Muhammad Ali, Boxer, and asked him, Come over here boy,
Here we would say that as flattery for age, Negro’s hear it differently, and their was a huge furore in the studio. It took a while for Ali to calm down.