Talkback
Published on November 28, 2008
Published on November 28, 2008
In addition to this group, there are many other groups that have split up, including some monasteries. The Dalai Lama has created huge suffering in the Tibetan communities on a number of issues, including the issue of Dorje Shugden. The atmosphere within the Tibetan communities is such that people can't even engage in peaceful protests, such as the one at Colgate (http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/en/news/protest-at-colgate-university-ny-april-22-2008/) without receiving death threats, intimidation, and ostracism. Many people look to the Dalai Lama as being like Mahatma Gandhi, but a closer investigation shows him to be a politician ... happy to cause harm to others if it suits his needs.
Felix Pace Friday, Nov 28, 2008 at 05:43 PM
This story has 5 comments so far
Published on November 28, 2008
How sad that Buddhist communities cannot use the teachings of the Buddha to foster harmonious relations among those who disagree! I applaud Amherst Bulletin for covering this divisive issue in a tradition known for its peace-making. As a professor of journalism, I understand the reason for quoting Williams College religion professor Georges Dreyfus, who believes that charges of religious persecution "are greatly exaggerated;" Dreyfus is a credentialed scholar at a fine college in the area. On the other hand, he is not without his loyalties in this contentious matter, as an examination of prior statements would have quickly revealed. Had the reporter done just a little more homework, he might have found links on Wikipedia to a French documentary that calls this good professor's statement into question. Signs remniscient of the "whites' only" signs of the old American South now permeate Tibetan settlements in India, and Buddhists who refuse to give up a practice the Dalai Lama has banned in the name of "religious freedom" now find it difficult to gain access to basic amenities. Wikipedia may not be an authoritative source that journalists can quote directly, but it often points to primary sources like this documentary that can offer differing views.
Holly Stocking Thursday, Nov 27, 2008 at 06:39 PM
This story has 5 comments so far
Published on November 28, 2008
Weiss doesn't seem to understand, or care to understand, the effect of a SB member injecting his or her own initiative into the planning board's process without their consent, nevermind prohibitions in the law that make it illegal for him to do so.
What if 5 SB members did the same with five different issues? Chaos would ensue as would the disempowerment of the planning board.
But why was Weiss interfering? Qui bono?
This is the second time Weiss has announced personally rejecting clearly stated and clearly understood constraints on his power as a select board member.
The rules are not in dispute. What is in dispute is Weiss authority to ignore them. Weiss stands alone in claiming that authority.
Richard Nixon's legacy is having claimed that "if the president does it, it's not legal." There is not a single person in Amherst, Larry Kelley included, who sides with Nixon. In a nation of laws, even the president is accountable to the rule of law. So why not in Amherst?
Nixon was a right wing criminal. What does that make Gerry Weiss?
ARHS '76 Thursday, Nov 27, 2008 at 02:35 PM
This story has 1 comment so far
Published on November 28, 2008
This action is a prime example of how Tibetans in particular and Buddhists in general are treated if they decide to not change their belief when the Dalai Lama does. Basic logical reasoning shows this as a fact. The Dalai Lama changed his mind about his faith and has "strongly advised" others to follow. His followers are "strongly" advising others to do the same... even if this means denying food, medical treatment, and refusal to keep a spiritual group together. How sad for Buddhists worldwide. Our job is to train our mind, and have compassion and tolerance for all living beings regardless of their chosen path. Om mane pame hum. May the holy Dharma be protected and may all living beings be free from suffering.
Lee White Thursday, Nov 27, 2008 at 07:50 AM
This story has 5 comments so far
Published on November 28, 2008
Find more information on this subject at http://www.wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.org/
Wisdombuddha Wednesday, Nov 26, 2008 at 07:47 PM
This story has 5 comments so far
Published on November 14, 2008
Well if you did your homework there 'Your Lordship', you would know that the Select Board of 9/10/01 voted the six "holidays" AND Inauguration Day.
So, yeah, you damn well better fly them!
Larry Kelley Thursday, Nov 20, 2008 at 10:37 AM
This story has 3 comments so far
Published on November 14, 2008
How about we fly the flags on inauguration day?
Gerry Weiss Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 07:56 AM
This story has 3 comments so far
Published on November 14, 2008
Im glad somebody gets it! Actually, I honestly believe the vast majority of Amherst citizenry also gets it; unfortunately its our exalted leaders the former-Czar and now thankfully former-resident Anne Awad and her understudy Gerry Weiss that do not.
That American flag can represent whatever you want it to. Like you, I prefer to see it as indeed representing our "ongoing endeavor."
And yes, 'Only in America' would the Horatio Alger story of Barack Obama come true.
God bless him, our great country and all who serve her.
Larry Kelley Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 03:15 PM
This story has 3 comments so far
Published on November 07, 2008
Albany and Taunton have The Amherst Bulletin (and its posters) to thank for insuring their teachers, staff and students were protected from the abuse of Mark Prince.
Continue to Speak Out Against Abuse!
Says the article from Amherst Bulletin:
____________________________
""Williams College religion professor Georges Dreyfus called the conflict "a difficult issue that is being manipulated by outside forces who are only too happy to use this issue" and said he believes that charges of religious persecution "are greatly exaggerated."""
______________________________
Let's analyze the seemingly reasonable statement by Professor Dreyfus:
"a difficult issue"
A difficult issue? Who made it an issue, who made it difficult? This is equivalent to saying: Hmm, the belief in the Archangel Saint Michael is a difficult issue. Well, if the Pope had decided to ban the devotion to the popular Protector of the Christian faith, declaring that it harms his health and the destiny of Christianity, and had induced Catholics around the world to segregate, ostracize and generally persecute their fellow Catholics who have a devotion for Saint Michael --then of course, this devotion should be called "a difficult issue". But there is not such issue, because the Pope did not ban Saint Michael and does not persecute his devotees.
"that is being manipulated by outside forces who are only too happy to use this issue"? Now, this is a very interesting revelation. Just plain history (go to the records and read please) shows that the Dalai Lama banned a deity in March 1996 and established a still today ongoing persecution of his devotees. The devotees, the persecuted ones, are saying that they are persecuted. In a general way, one would expect a Professor of religion to show an interest in the victims of human rights abuse. But in this case, the victims are ignored, they are not interesting, they do not exist for him. Instead of paying attention to what they say, Professor Dreyfus echoes what the Dalai Lama -the persecutor, the issuer of the religious ban, the promoter of the civic persecution- is telling the Press, the world, in order to justify or disguise his actions: that there is no such ban -oh, only an advice- and that the Chinese have invented and/or are exploiting the issue. The Tibetan person quoted in the article just repeats exactly what the Dalai Lama says, whereas Professor Dreyfus echoes it, with such delicate words: "outside forces"...
Dear reader, please go and read what history has already recorded. Please try to find out and you will see, it's going to overwhelm you, the extent of this persecution.
Just as an example: the Draft Constitution of the Tibetans, supposedly the document that will found a democracy in a free Tibet, has already been modified, in 1996, the year of the ban, to forbid Dorje Shugden devotees from public offices.
This of course is an abstraction, since there is nothing even remotely resembling democracy in the Tibetan Government in exile. But back then, in 1996, all those working in any Tibetan institution that didn't renounce their faith in the Protector Dorje Shugden had to quit their jobs.
Professor Dreyfus, why do you go on writing and saying things to justify this persecution instead of keeping at least a sympathetic silence out of respect for the victims?
There is much to say to every aspect of this sad issue, but it would be best for the reader to go to sites like
www.shugdensociety.info
It is indeed unbelievable that the man who roams the world promoting religious tolerance acts as his own contradictor, doing exactly the opposite of what he preaches.
Friendoftruth Sunday, Nov 30, 2008 at 11:56 PM