January 06, 2005
This Is What It’s All About.
I just read this article and feel totally and utterly moved.
“Life is very precious and the loss of life and property during this tragedy of unparalleled proportions is so enormous,” said abbot Thich Nguyen Thao.
“This is the least I could do to provide some comfort to the victims who are suffering unbearably. Their need is urgent and greater than our own,” said the abbot as he touted the temple in a Vancouver suburb.
Right there - that’s what religion should be. Preach it, live it. You talk about helping others and being generous and kind and thoughtful to your fellow human beings and you do it.
The whole “putting things into practice” thing is why I drifted away from the Catholic Church at such a young age. I couldn’t quite understand why the same bunch who repeatedly pass on the message “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” happen to be the richest people on earth.
According to Avro Manhattan’s book The Vatican Billions (published over a decade ago…)
Wow. Now wouldn’t it be inspiring if the Vatican, instead of just asking ordinary people to donate to those less fortunate than themselves in the world, actually lived what they preached and sold some of their assets in order to help solve world poverty?
I’m not an expert - I’m no financial guru and I’m no theologian. But I really don’t understand how those in the Vatican can live their lives surrounded by such riches, all in the name of a guy who told us being rich means nothing in the greater scheme of things.
Thich Nguyen Thao, and the fellow Buddhists who also meet at the temple which is now for sale, are true inspirations. I dream of a day when the Catholic Church does something similar - not just to raise money for tsunami victims, but to help improve the lives of all poverty stricken people in the world.
Yes, I’m being naive and idealistic. But I can dream, can’t I?
PS: I know I said the last post would be it for today, but I read this article and couldn’t not share it with you.
PPS: Do you love how Alanis “Can’t Not” Morrisette that last bit was?
— Filed under Common
Comments / Trackbacks (URI)
You know you’re in silly-ville when Schumacher gets kudos and the Pope get’s slammed.
Perhaps you should total up the Catholic relief effort Jess? I know it outstrips everyone, from anywhere, including the US. The best thing? It is private and it will go on for years, long after the media cameras have stopped rolling. Now that’s real giving.
Meanwhile, why the hell is every comment on religion an opening to shaft the Catholic Church? Watch your prejudices, just because you once were something doesn’t give you a ticket to vilify it for no reason.
Reply to this
Firstly, I didn’t give Schumacher kudos. When the filthy rich give a huge donation towards the less fortunate, it’s a good thing but so they fucking should. While we could never be totally sure until it happened, I believe strongly that after a certain point you don’t need any more money and should I ever become rich, I will share that wealth with those less fortunate. Of course, a lot of people throughout history have said that and changed their minds once they actually came into cash so we can only speculate whether I’d be the charitable person I hope I would be if I became loaded with dosh.
Secondly, I don’t doubt the Catholic relief effort has been substantial. I also don’t doubt that Catholic individuals and Catholic priests and nuns around the world live their religion and practice what they preach. That’s fine.
But do you dispute that the Vatican is incredibly wealthy? That it contains treasures and wealth beyond most people’s wildest dreams?
If the Vatican contributes substantially towards the poor, it’s good but so they fucking should. And if you ARE going to follow the teachings of Christ who proclaimed that being rich meant nothing in the Kingdom of God, how can you justify holding onto such wealth? Is it because wealth DOES equal power in our mortal world and despite everything, man does crave power - regardless of their good spiritual intentions?
If you remember, DREADNOUGHT, I backed you up when you claimed Darp appeared to be giving the Catholic Church an unfair rap during a blog entry about the foot-in-mouth Jensens. Don’t get me wrong - I don’t think he did it intentionally, but I DID point out that’s how it could be interpreted. I don’t bash religion for fun. I respect that people have faith, and religion is fine - it’s the organisations behind religion that I occasionally have issues with.
I have no prejudices towards the Church, or any other religion for that matter. And in response, I would say that simply because you are a Catholic doesn’t mean the Church doesn’t get it wrong and people don’t have a right to question them.
And no, I’m not mad at you either, but I don’t think I quite deserved to be burned at the stake virtually :P My problem with the Catholic Church has little to do with those who follow the religion and practice it’s message - which essentially, from what I’ve learned, has a lot to do with the importance of love. My problem is with those who use faith as a method of control, gaining riches and power, and justifying hate.
Oooh, intense religious debate on ausculture.com? What the hell next then, eh? 1000 words on why Cosima DeVito is the greatest thing in Australian music ever? xxx
Reply to this
Ha! Just mixing things up a bit.
You might wanna check out Umberto Eco’s novel ‘The Name of the Rose’ for a ‘pop’ approach to the whole riches versus poverty thing and his film with Christian Slater and Sean Connery. The flap you’re getting into was resolved about six hundred years ago kitten, right about when Cosima was born…
Oh and check out JPII’s private rooms, they’re as spare as an old queen’s [something witty about fat old homos].
Nighty night (“,)
Reply to this
Haha! Are you saying I need to read intelligent debate on religious issues in “pop” form because I am a slave to popular culture and it’s lightweight approach to important topics?
It was sorted 600 years ago? HOW EMBARRASSING FOR ME?! I can’t believe the Vatican selling off it’s assets somehow escaped my notice?! That old guy who bought the Vatican, jeeez he looks loads like John-Paul II doesn’t he? :)
Now you know that snazzy smiley thingo always floats my boat… you shouldn’t use it while I am debating non-superfluous* issues for the first time in my shallow life, it might distract me!
*This was for La Nadine’s benefit, FYI. Her recent challenge reminded me of how much I love the word - it was my descriptive word of choice during the 1998 HSC!
Reply to this
Oh and I still like you, just a bit sulky now.
Reply to this
Sometimes you highfive yourself for being on the right religious team.
Reply to this
I high five myself?
Or you’re a Buddhist and you’re chuffed by what happened?
I’m not on a team. I wish I was, I could have in depth conversations with fellow followers.
As it is, I’ll have to stick with intense discussions about Alcazar with Fop.
Reply to this
I don’t really know what I meant by that statement, I was really, really drunk when I wrote it.
Reply to this
I visited the Vatican Palace a few years ago and was disgusted by the sheer opulence and wealth of riches I saw housed within. But it’s not just the Catholic Church - the Mormon Church is also fabulously wealthy.
Reply to this
You’re right, it’s not just the Catholic Church. As Darp has mentioned many times on his site, Hillsong is a highly cash-based church as well - all about assets and sales and wealth and success. I’ve no doubt there are other religious institutions happy to set up shop in the temple, so to speak.
I’m not anti-money, but I do find it a bit much that religions which tend to hammer home certain aspects of the Bible (Homos are going to hell! Sex is wrong unless for procreation! Etc!) conviniently forget other parts of the same book (Wealth is not happiness! Love everyone! Don’t eat seafood or you’ll go to hell! Pork sucks! Periods are icky and women should live alone in caves when they have ‘em!)
Reply to this
Catholicism isn’t cash-based and it is way cooler than the Hillsong Happies.
There are just so many of us and after two thousand years even ten cents in the bank + interest, would probably buy you a small continent!
Reply to this
Religious debates don’t belong on Ausculture.
Reply to this
Pray tell then - what does?
Not that I’m disagreeing with you, but I’m curious to hear what a reader reckons. :) I’ve been told in the past NO MORE POLITICS and LOVE THE POLITICS so it gets a little confusing. Hence I sort of just bumble my way through, writing about whatever thought crosses my mind at the time.
Reply to this
Oh politics belongs everywhere. Australia doesn’t really have a religious culture. What should belong in my opinion is politics, sports, who’s the latest celebrity to say “I love Australia” and pop culture.
Reply to this
RE:
In terms of conveyancing practice, I’ve never seen a temple been put up for sale before! I mean it has to be another Buddhist association that buys it up, right? It’s not like a rich non-Buddhist would just go, I want to go shopping for my own temple which I could convert into restaurant/bar serving fusion food?
Reply to this
Hmmm. True, although the land might be where the money is at, not the building on the land. The thought is nice regardless :)
Reply to this
Thankfully there are less hypocritical Churches, thanks to the Reformation, not that I am a believer. On the other hand, some things are priceless - should they be sold to the highest bidder no matter what?
Reply to this
I heard Michael Schumacher is donating just under $13Million.