Tibetan revolution - not just for monks anymore!

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:13 pm

Update: 10 people dead according to the Chinese, 30-100 according to the Tibetans. The demonstrators have been told to pack it in by midnight Monday.

Post by **Mikey** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 4:17 am

Rochey wrote:
Monroe wrote:I honestly don't think anyone has to fear a Buddist theocratic government
You'd be surprised. Said Budhist theocratic government commited horific torture in the past.

Mikey wrote:There is a much different form of religion being practiced there today - the lamas practice a much more Indian-influenced sort of Buddhism.
Maybe so, but how long would it really take for the old ways to spring back up? Theocratic governments always end up going downhill at some stage, it's just a case of sooner or later.

Yeah, look at all the heads on poles in Vatican City.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 1:10 pm

The Vatican isn't a great example of a theocracy. It's more of an over-sized monastary than a country. For a proper example of a theocracy, just take a look at the Middle East, or Europe during the Middle Ages.

shran · Post by **shran** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 4:26 pm

The Vatican was quite a nasty place, until the unification of Italy. until then, the Vatican was one big block of power. And abig one, I may say.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 6:05 pm

Not surprising at all.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:09 pm

Mikey wrote:
Yeah, look at all the heads on poles in Vatican City.

The Vatican isn't really a theocracy given that half the people that work there don't live on the grounds. A great example of a theocracy would be Taliban Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia or any of the European countries during the crusades. Lots of heads on pikes in those countries.

Post by **Mikey** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:51 am

Yeah, but you get those with secular governments too.

mwhittington · Post by **mwhittington** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:30 am

Wasn't it the Vatican who sanctioned the forming of the castrati choir boys in the 1600s or so? Talk about barbarism, all for preserving the boys' high voice because females were forbidden to join the choir!

Post by **Mikey** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:21 am

mwhittington wrote:Wasn't it the Vatican who sanctioned the forming of the castrati choir boys in the 1600s or so? Talk about barbarism, all for preserving the boys' high voice because females were forbidden to join the choir!

I believe that was a common praqctice which the Vatican "merely" avoided abolishing. Bear in mind that middle-ages and Rennaisance Vatican dealings were Catholic in name only, and were often as immoral and illicit as anything anywhere else.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:30 pm

Yeah, but you get those with secular governments too.

And? Those weren't motivated simply by belief. With every religion, you have "kill those guys, 'cause they're inferior and don't worship out god". Religion has simply caused genocide after genocide. The only secular government I ever remember doing anything similar to the religious massacres is Stalin's USSR. And that was motivated by communism, not by atheism.

Bear in mind that middle-ages and Rennaisance Vatican dealings were Catholic in name only, and were often as immoral and illicit as anything anywhere else.

How were they "Catholic in name only"? They followed the Bible a lot more to the letter than the modern Vatican does.

Quite simply, any theocracy or government strongly influenced by religion will eventualy pass laws because of their religion. Now, if their religion says "enslave black people because they're inferior", then that's going to lead to some unpleasantness for black people living in said theocracy. That's why theocracies are bad things.

Post by **Mikey** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:16 pm

Rochey wrote:How were they "Catholic in name only"? They followed the Bible a lot more to the letter than the modern Vatican does.

I'm referring to clergy - up to and including the pontiff - having both wives and mistresses, along with children (both legitimate and otherwise) as well as owning brothels, secular businesses, holding serfs, etc., etc.; plus in their professional regard, selling indulgences (and charging usury for them!) as well as giving them for political favors.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:48 pm

Oh, right. You're correct in saying they were some of the biggest hypocrits ever.
Though I believe indulgences were a legitimate legal thing until they were outlawed after the Reformation.

Monroe · Post by **Monroe** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:40 pm

The Dalai Lama said he'll step down if the violence continues. I don't know of a Dalai Lama ever doing that in the past. Don't they need to die first? But I know Hindu reincarnations do that often.

Post by **Mikey** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:42 pm

Monroe wrote:The Dalai Lama said he'll step down if the violence continues. I don't know of a Dalai Lama ever doing that in the past. Don't they need to die first? But I know Hindu reincarnations do that often.

He wouldn't (perhaps couldn't) step down as the actual Dalai Lama - he would, however, step down as the head of the temporal Tibetan government-in-exile.