The above photo is of the Dalai Lama being awarded a congressional gold medal from last October. Doesn't he look awfully miserable? Ron Paul seems to think so. Ron has a habit of screwing people while claiming to uphold the principles that they stand for, and doing it in their own self-interest. He does this because he assumes that he's a better expert on what those people stand for then they themselves. e.g., the exact sort of patronizing behavior that he hypocritically accuses the state of doing. Ron Paul voted against awarding the Dalai Lama a gold medal, citing the following reasons:
Mr. PAUL: Mr. Speaker, with great sadness I must rise to oppose this measure granting a congressional gold medal to the 14th Dalai Lama. While I greatly admire and respect His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and fully recognize his tremendous status both as a Buddhist leader and international advocate for peace, I must object to the manner in which this body chooses to honor him.You'll notice how Ron Paul always makes statements such as these before attempting to screw people over, which is his own version of "with all due respect." In the eyes of the Paultard, this makes Ron Paul exempt from criticism.
I wonder if my colleagues see the irony in honoring a devout Buddhist monk with a material gift of gold. The Buddhist tradition, of course, eschews worldly possessions in favor of purity of thought and action. Buddhism urges its practitioners to alleviate the suffering of others whenever possible. I’m sure His Holiness the Dalai Lama would rather see $30,000 spent to help those less fortunate, rather than for a feel-good congressional gesture.Now, I'm not expert on Buddhist faith, but then, neither is Ron Paul. But I'm pretty sure that Buddhism is about rejecting the desire for and attachment to material possessions, rather than the material possessions themselves. If someone offered you a gold medal, then fine, take it. The Buddhists monks who I've spoken to tell me that they aren't allowed to refuse anything. And if someone put a gun to your head and said "hand it over, or else," then you hand it over. But I don't think that their doctrine forces them to rely on purity of thought alone. That's pretty naive. I mean, what would they eat? Where would they live? What would they sleep on?
True, you could argue that the $30,000 could be spent on other things. But that's a slippery slope. For instance, you could say the same thing about their plane trip, and their living accommodations. And it's ironic for Ron Paul to on the one hand claim to uphold "purity of thought," while on the other hand claim to reject a "feel-good congressional gesture." Again, I'm not an expert, but if the congressional gold medal brings people together and gets them to overlook their differences (with one notable exception), then I think that it would be in line with the whole concept of Buddhist compassion.
Update: Commenter Yokomado Jin chimes in: "You are exactly correct. The physical possession has little meaning, it is the intention that is what important. In this case, this Mr. Paul guy insulted Buddhists two ways. First, by assuming for another things about the faith he doesn't understand- stereotyping us. Secondly, as the world works based on the laws of karma, a gift is a good deed that brings good into the world. By rejecting others desire to give a gift, he is removing their potential reward of good karma. I don't know who this Mr. Paul fellow is, but he strikes me as the typical ignorant westerner who doesn't understand Buddhism beyond what they see in a movie. I've looked at some of the other articles about him and I am not surprised, he seems to be a bitter man. Blessings to his heart that it turns less ignorant."
15 comments:
I'm no Ron Paul fan. But what is your obsession with giving out medals to everyone that tries to change the world? Do you think they are in their houses thinking "Gee I would really like for a united states medal to complete my life".
And why aren't you giving your own opinions on whether or not the Dalai Lama deserves a medal? Do you realize he met with Heinrich Harrer, a Nazi death squad leader? I thought meeting with nazis was 'taboo' in your mind due to earlier postings?
You said: Buddhism is about rejecting the desire for and attachment to material possessions
You are exactly correct. The physical possession has little meaning, it is the intention that is what important. In this case, this Mr. Paul guy insulted Buddhists two ways. First, by assuming for another things about the faith he doesn't understand- stereotyping us. Secondly, as the world works based on the laws of karma, a gift is a good deed that brings good into the world. By rejecting others desire to give a gift, he is removing their potential reward of good karma. I don't know who this Mr. Paul fellow is, but he strikes me as the typical ignorant westerner who doesn't understand Buddhism beyond what they see in a movie. I've looked at some of the other articles about him and I am not surprised, he seems to be a bitter man. Blessings to his heart that it turns less ignorant.
Yokomado Jin
Anarchist, I would like your citation of where Heinrich Harrer was a death squad leader. AFAIK, he was a pre-war Nazi who was detained by the British in 1939 as an enemy alien, who regretted his past immensely. That's pretty different from being a proud, American Nazi in 2008, who has the advantage of hindsight.
If a reformed criminal met with a Priest seeking forgiveness, would you hold that against the Priest? Because that's very different from accepting money from said criminals while he's still proudly committing crimes.
//I thought meeting with nazis was 'taboo' in your mind due to earlier postings?//
yeah you guys complain about everyone else except Ron Paul. Paultards make claims about how great there cult figure is,but when it comes to criticism they like to change the subject.
//Even in the midst of this flood of red ink, the president is busy finding programs to expand. He plans to increase funding for the rotten National Endowment for the Arts by $20 million in 2005//
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul153.html
So I guess Ron Paul opposes something that is funded mainly through private donations.What is this mans problem?
Ron Lawl,
There is no evidence that he was never in the SS. SS, by the way, would be a death squad, incase you didn't know. Whether it was pre-war or not is irrelevant. You wouldn't know that though.
"That's pretty different from being a proud, American Nazi in 2008, who has the advantage of hindsight."
Please tell how many people this proud american 'nazi' killed? And please inform me when Ron Paul ever met with a Nationa Socialist, I would be very surprised to hear such a story.
"ecause that's very different from accepting money from said criminals while he's still proudly committing crimes."
This comment is so stupid I'm not even going to reply to it. If you are implying that racism is a crime then you're too insane to talk to.
"If a reformed criminal met with a Priest seeking forgiveness, would you hold that against the Priest? "
YOu analogy has nothing to do with real life situations. The Dali Lama isn't going around judging people. He preaches a message to negotiate with all people whether he believes what they say or not. Stop trying to portary him to have this primitive "DUHH Nazis are bad cuz they fite against americosn!11!1" attitude that you adore.
//True, you could argue that the $30,000 could be spent on other things. //
but in Ron Paul's eye money spent by our government is always wrong. Paultards of the night what dogma they preach!
I see you left out the rest of the Congressman's statement:
We cannot forget that Congress has no authority under the Constitution to spend taxpayer money on medals and awards, no matter how richly deserved. And I reiterate my offer of $100 from my own pocket to pay for this medal–if members wish to honor the Dalai Lama, all we need to do is pay for it ourselves. If all 435 of us contribute, the cost will be roughly $70 each. So while a gold medal sounds like a great idea, it becomes a bit strange when we see the actual cost involved.
Wow, Ron Paul can't even get a two-minute speech out without making contradictory arguments, can he? In one paragraphs, he argues that the Congressional Gold Medal is an insult to the Dalai Lama's religion, which abhors materialism. On the other hand, he claims that he's willing to chip in. If he really believes in argument #1, then why bother with argument #2?
But the whole "Ron Paul offers his own money" point has already been refuted in the Rosa Parks FAQ. Ron Paul has no intention of carrying through on these offers even when given the opportunity, and there's no real precedent for them because Congress doesn't work like this. For instance, Ron Paul recently drafted legislation that would have allocated $240,000,000 for Cold War veterans, which would have amounted to a over half a million dollars per congressman. Did Ron Paul personally volunteer to donate half a million dollars to the very legislation that he drafted? Why should congress personally have to pay for SOME medals, but not others?
It is the responsibility of Congress to care for the United States armed forces. It is well within their powers to allocate resources to the military veterans of the Cold War, and to honor and give medals to those we have asked to sacrifice much for our great country.
It is not, however, the purview of the government to allocate money to private individuals. There is no doubt that Rosa Parks is a courageous person and Congressman Paul has the utmost respect for her. However, she is a private citizen. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give Congress the authority to take your money and my money to give to private individuals. No matter how well-intentioned, it is not for the government to decide how to spend our money aside from what is directed in the Constitution.
Sophie, please cite me where the constitution states that it's okay to give medals to veterans, but not to private citizens. Show me where is makes a distinction. Because if you can't do that, and I know for a fact that you can't, then your entire argument is bullshit. You can make up all the claims that you want about how "congress the constitutional authority to do this, but not the constitutional authority to do that," but providing actual citation is quite another matter."
Moreover, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't Ron Paul offer to fund the cold war veterans personally, assuming that this was a legitimate request?
"yeah you guys complain about everyone else except Ron Paul. Paultards make claims about how great there cult figure is,but when it comes to criticism they like to change the subject."
Hold on, why are you changing the subject right now? I am talking about meeting with "Nazis" and you jump subjects.
"he was a pre-war Nazi who was detained by the British in 1939 as an enemy alien, who regretted his past immensely. That's pretty different from being a proud, American Nazi in 2008, who has the advantage of hindsight."
How did he 'regret his past immensely"? FYI, he met with the dalai lama when he was a nazi. He was a National Socialist nonetheless, whether he killed people or not. By the way that "proud American nazi" in 2008 never killed anyone.
By the way, since when were the Nazis the 'evil' of the world? Do you realize the Communists of Russia were much worse than the National Socialists? You realize Martin Luther King JR. himself was a Communist. May be you should condemn Martin Luther King for actually attending communist meetings.
So according to Anarchist, the absense of absense of evidence is the same thing as the evidence of evidence. If you can't prove a negative, which is logically impossible, then that is prove of the positive. You claimed that Heinrich Harrer was in charge of a death camp, do you have any evidence at all of this? Because that's a pretty bold accusation you're making there.
And your willingness to defend the Nazi's while painting Martin Luther King as the ultimate evil is seriously disturbing.
Jesus, Ron Pauliacs are scary people. Scientologists on steroids. Thank The Flying Spaghetti Monster that clown will never be president.
Oh, and the Dalai Lama did not learn of Mr. Harrer's Nazi past until it appeared in the news a few months before the release of the film in 1997.
Frigging Pauliac nutbars.
Ron Paul is a frigging neonazi, neoconfederate and white supremacist.
Yeah, you can be all 3.
Just Google Hans Herman Hoppe.
Post a Comment