As an Indian Athiest
( born in Hindu brahmin family and married to a German Christian and with lot of friends in all religious spectrum) I am dead against any religious head to play political role.
Vatican is still an independent state where a German Pope is at the helm of affairs.
Dalai Lama is, without doubt a religious leader and not an elected president of Tibet.
"The Wall Street Journal in its Nobel editorial meanwhile made no mention of Gore but gave a list of worthy non-winners, such as the monks who led recent pro-democracy protests in Myanmar, and people braving danger to rebuild Iraq"
What the WSJ think about Dalai Lama and his fans.
Why the hell he should be a refugee in India ? while his devotees are waging war against injustice? In Burma for example?
Don't you think that he should bestow his borrowed time to sooth the enraged Monks? or settle there to make life comfortable for the Burmese?
Is it fair on his part to get a good conduct certificate from a president( USA) who had shown his conduct ?
Are there any Buddhists to uphold the views of Rama or Dalai Lama?
How about some from Sri lanka?
Burma
forget about Tibet and Dharmasala
Re: Edgar
Ramafuchs wrote:Kindly excuse me.
It is not a question of China's behaviour towards the autonomous region of Tibet.
My question is this.
Is Dalai Lama
THE HEAD OF A GOVERNMENT IN EXILE?
No，He is only the head of monk in tibet.such as schoolmaster.
Thanks sir.
He should not entangle in barbarism.
By barbarism i mean non-Gandhian politcs.
He is not a German Chrisian POPE to make use of the two title.
Religious head of Catholic christian and head of a puny country by the name of VATICAN
Tibet Buddhism is different from Buddhism so why should not Dalai Lama both be a religious leader and political leader at the same time.
The Pope is the Pope and not a President.
There are other countries were the head of state is also the head of the church
The Queen of Great Britain, The Queen of Denmark and the King of Norway are all three head of state and head of the church.
There starts the trouble sir.
Confrontation should be avoide.
Religion has nothing to do with political admininstration.
If Politics use religion to refurbish the image of the Residents of power, then that politics is worse than anything.
This is my view.
Consider other people who had not admixed the two( Religion and Politics)
Atheism is also a form of religion. which can be just as fundamentalistic and intolerant as a religion, which you prove by your bias attitude.
saab's judgment is based on the world outlook of Saab.
Of course I uphold each view to enrich my knowledge.
Atheist are exposers.
Exposers of their own ignorance and searchers for decency.
Religious people are the blind followers of the invisible God.
