Re: Soka Gakkai International -- SGI
Posted by:
TaitenAndProud
()
Date: January 21, 2013 02:30PM
What I would like them to become aware of is that, if any religion is going to be enshrined as government favorite and allowed to dictate which religion(s) will - and, more importantly, will NOT - be allowed to exist, it is going to be the one with the most adherents, which, according to Christians, is Christianity. So, if we go with the Christians' own estimates of their numbers *ahem*, that means that Christians would be the ones deciding which religions' teachings are "bad" and "harmful." The Christians making these decisions, of course, would have their own scriptures to justify their decisions. If, on the basis of Christianity's claim to have the most members worldwide, Christianity were empowered to decide what religions throughout the entire world would be allowed to survive, the Nichiren Buddhists might find themselves up for a rude awakening.
When the shoe is on the other foot, it's another situation entirely, isn't it? That whole "It's bad and harmful" isn't so comforting when it's being used *against YOU*, now is it??
It is unfortunately a rather popular view among human beings that whatever *I* prefer is so obviously sensible and reasonable that EVERY thoughtful, competent person will choose as I do. And that those who are clearly dim-witted and incompetent should be *compelled* to believe as I do, or at least PRETEND to believe as I do and go through the motions so it appears as they do, for their own good and the benefit of one and all. Of course, their pretense will make ME more comfortable (because then I can pretend they agree with me), and isn't that the most important thing? People tend to be just this selfish, self-centered, and narcissistic. What *I* like is CLEARLY the best in the whole world! It's *OBVIOUS*!!!
THIS is why my wish is for them to see that intolerance is *BAD* for *EVERYONE*, because chances are always better than even that it is YOU and YOUR RELIGION that are going to be the ones being eliminated by a larger, more powerful, equally intolerant group. Sure, you *like* the way your intolerance feels - it will give you power and prestige and social standing! YEAH! Everybody's going to have to look up TO YOU!! But that same intolerance isn't nice *at all* when someone else is wielding it - especially when they're wielding it AGAINST YOU. For the Christians, we'll suggest the Muslims as their antagonists. Thus, YOUR only hope for survival is to endorse equal rights for all and equal protection under the law, for all, regardless of whether you *like* anyone else's doctrines or not. Your only hope for survival is the guarantee that all survive. Even the ones you hate. And your only hope for MEANINGFUL survival is that the government explicitly favors *none* over others. The secular government provides your best chances of survival along with everyone else's, much as you might hate the prospect. Of course you'd prefer to have an advantage, being intolerant and all, but that's a sharp, double-edged sword you're playing with.
I simply cannot understand why this is such an unpopular stance. The only way to guarantee protection for yourself is to advocate for protection for EVERYONE. How could anyone twist that into something anti-Buddhist??