The Dalai Lama is evil
Yesterday a lot of Missoulians got super excited that Tenzin Gyatzo, the 14th Dalai Lama is coming to our burg in 2011. Aside from the fact that his visit is over a year away, there are more reasons to not be excited this.
First off, I have to say that I think China is a terrible totalitarian-minded regime that crushes people. I find their human rights record grotesque, and their leaders to be awful, empty husks of humanity. But that said… the Lama isn’t that great of an alternative.
A humble representation of everything Americans should be against (Wikipedia Commons).
Mr. Gyatzo views himself as the rightful leader of Tibet. He believes himself to be spiritually on high, even being referred to as “His Holiness.” Here’s my first issue with him. He sees himself as both the political and spiritual leader of Buddhist and the nation of Tibet. In other words, he is a theocrat.
I know that America is no pearl of democracy, or bastion of freedom, but we are not a theocracy (in fact, we made our first constitutional amendment a refutation of theocratic government). What Mr. Gyatzo wants is a theocratic rule of Tibet. He is not for a “free” Tibet. He is in fact for implementing a religious dictatorship. It’s sick. It’s un-American. It should not be something supported by our government, the CIA, or our treasured D-List actors like Steven Seagal (who Mr. Gyatzo has claimed is a reincarnated lama).
Under his rule people would have to be Buddhist, and his word would be the end-all-be-all of any conflict within the government of the faith. That’s such an awful and evil thing to me that I can’t help myself from going insane any time someone says he should have Tibet back. Why would we wish that upon a people so under siege (not Under Siege, a film by reincarnated lama Steven Seagal)?
But we do support him. We give him asylum, and money, and so many of us praise his wonderful, humble living style. Which is my second issue with Mr. Gyatzo, by the way.
The lamas class in Tibet had a much higher standard of living than other people. They did not live in humble poverty, but in monasteries and temples. There was gold, and an abundance of food while below many lived in unending poverty and filth. Some people will say that I’m buying into Chinese propaganda concerning Tibet’s past, but even the Dalai Lama himself has said that serfdom existed, but then — in a stunningly weasel move — says that serfs in Tibet were treated better than serfs in China. As if that makes it better. As if we are to think that one oppression is okay by default because it could be worse. It’s like he’s saying, “Sure, you don’t have any rights and live in poverty, but over there they only have turnips! So be glad you’re over here in poverty and filth. Back to work.”
It is easy, however, for him to make these claims as he rides around in his LandRover doing commercials for Apple.
But of course this second issue is just an extension of my overall annoyance with American’s loving on this man. He does not deserve his nation back (and the Chinese also do not deserve it, FYI). The people of Tibet deserve the lives proclaimed — but not believed in — by so many bumper stickers: a Free Tibet. They deserve to have voting rights, freedom of speech and belief. And the Dalai Lama would not give this to them. He would make his ideas and beliefs the law.
Tenzin Gyatzo has a way of respecting this man, and if you disagree with him you will lose your rights. (Image from Wikipedia Commons)
He is no better than the leaders of Iran, really. Sure, he is against the death penalty, but he is also against people engaging in sexual acts like masturbation. (He also believes that homosexuals are incapable of being Buddhist because they engage in sexual acts he finds offensive.) While he will not kill people in cruel, and awful ways as the Ayatollahs will, he will take away freedom just the same.
But still America will continue to lift this man up as a courageous and giving soul. He will continue to get money from Richard Gere, and Sharon Stone (in a way he’s like Scientology).
Our leaders will praise and welcome him during so many gatherings.
And all the while the only victim will be the truth.
*****
Wow. I thought I was kicking people in the teeth when I said a gay man compiled the modern Christian Bible.
Anyway, I’ve been busy these past few months trying to write a novel and working my ass off at…work. I’ll be updating more frequently.
Hey
Duganz,
Truly thought out, bold, and respected blog post. You might turn some heads!
When you mix religion and politics as the Dalai Lama does it results in the utter corruption of one’s spiritual values. Many people like Christopher Hitchens believe religion is the cause of violence, corruption, and subjugation. Unfortunately, Hitchens completely misses the point – it is the fusion of religion and politics that creates this apostasy. Jesus understood this when he said,’render on to Caesar that which is Caesar’s’ – which means, leave politics to the politicians and religion to the religious. If you investigate carefully you will many examples of the Dalai Lama’s direct or indirect use of violence, corruption, and subjugation of both his own people and his enemies. This is the sad and shameful hidden truth of this Nobel Peace prize winner.
Check this out…
The Dalai Lama (or at least, an organization the Dalai Lama gave his full support to) turned orphaned and destitute Tibetan children into child soldiers. It was a mandate for those kids to serve up until the late 1980s. And oh yeah… what year did the Dalai Lama win his Nobel Prize? 1989?
Thank you, WikiLeaks.
http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/photos/dalai-lama-wikileaks-shame/
I suggest you have a close look at the CATHOLIC CHURCH AND POPE.
I don’t think he’s any better. Geez. Did you even read anything on this blog? I’m an atheist. I don’t like any of these people.
….YOU DIPSHIT.
Deep, man, deep.
You are one arrogant stupid man You know that..
Yeah. Such arrogance I hold wanting people to be free of theocracy. I’m such a jerk.
hahahahah… i am fascinated with your point of view… never thought of this… but i do still likes dalai lama hehehehe… human is always human… they are flawed.. free of theocracy not always mean have negativity of it, you know
Sometimes, I am amazed at the ignorance of the human mind. The author of this article has obviously not thought this through very well. You speak of it being “un-American” to support a country that does not espouse democratic values. I suggest you do your research before making such an idiotic statement. The fact is: America has supported many political systems that are not democratic, and don’t even clain to be democratic. So that is NOT the issue here. Why would America support dictatorships? Because it’s in America’s best interest to do so. And here’s the bottom line, if you want to talk about “American” values: Recall how our own country began. We all firmly beleive in a p[eople’s right to self determine thier own government, right? Oh, wait a minute…it does sound a bit like you don’t think people should rule themselves. It sounds like you really, if you get right down to it, beleive that the US should still be under British rule. I mean, after all, it is their country right? They “owned” the land, so it must always be theirs, right? Who cares about what the people who actually LIVE there want, right? This is really the crux of your ignorance actually. You don’t even, for one instant, consider how the people of Tibet might want to be governed. I mean, Tibet was self governed for at least a few hundred years right? How many revolutions did they have? None? Hmmmm, one might start to think that maybe, just maybe, the Tibetans WANT a theocracy. Did that ever even occur to you? Seems to me that would be a very noble society. You seem to operate under the assumption that a theocracy is a bad thing…I’m wondering where you base your assumption. And here’s something to think over: who cares what you think, or what I think, or what Beijing or Washington think…Shouldn’t the question be: What do the Tibetans think? If they overwhelmingly support the Dalai Lama as the political and spiritual leader of their nation, why, praytell, does it matter what you or Beijing thinks? Wouldn’t the “American” thing to do would be to support a people in determining their own self rule…just like we did in 1776? You horribly misunderstand the “Free Tibet” movement, but in keeping with the theme of your blog, I’m not surprised you are mistaken in this as well. When the term ‘free” is used here, it is not saying “insert your definition of free here” What it is referring to is the right to self-determination of a people. If a people freely choose their form of government, I think a member of the world community would have to agree that they have made a “free” choice. That is what is being referred to in the slogan, not your interpretation of what you think the word ‘free’ should mean. You are sadly mistaken (again) of the lama’s approach to government and people. I know it is hard for you to understand that some people are truly not motivated by power, but just try to accepot for just a second that maybe the Lama really does want what is best for his people. I know, here is the west, we have no models for this. Our leaders want what is best for themselves, and so we start thinking that ALL leaders are this way. The Dalai Lama, I promise you, is thinking of others first, ALWAYS. You make much ado about nothing, over and over, and even worse, you don’t even have your facts straight. For example, your bit about serfdom in Tibet. For some reason, you think it is a big point you’ve made by reporting that the Dalai Lama said that Tibetan serfs were better off than Chinese serfs. What exactly is your point here? I don’t see it. Are you oppsed to the word ‘serf’, is that it? Ok, I live in America, and we don’t call ourselves ‘serfs’ here, but, could you describe a better term for the masses of people living in poverty, whose sole job in life is to make money for their capitilist overlordsand reproduce so the sytem can perpetuate itself? Boy, sure sounds like a serfdom to me!!!! So, I guess I could say “well, at least our serfs have cable tv!” Do you see the point? Probably not. I re-read your blog just now to make sure I am not being unfair here, but nope, you really DO come across as ignorant.
Let me guess…You are a die hard Christian, right? If so, that would explain a lot of your ignorance right there. If not, I will admit my folly in assuming thus. I say i assume this because overall, I have found Christians, right here in the USA to be THE most ignorant people on the planet. Based on the level of your ignorance displayed in your blog, I have to assume the worst. If this does not appy, ignore this. If it does, perhaps you should look into why the majority of the population of the planet thinks you are just flat out wrong. It certainly would be a worthy exercise to understand why almost everyone disagrees with you, no?
Oh yeah, last thing: Yes, you are arrogant for wanting to force your own beiefs onto other people who live in a culture you know absolutely nothing about. I won’t go as far as to say your stupid, you are just very very ignorant.
I do see where you reply to a comment and say you are atheist. Fair enough. Ignore the last full paragraph, it does not apply…to you (although it DOES apply to many people out there)
Peace. (Please try to rethink your position on this though, you ARE in error)