Phew! I'm relieved, both as an atheist and as a small-"d" democrat, to find that the Tibetan political and religious leader, the Dalai Lama, has feet of clay.
Lama now says that the Iraq war may be justified, and has always said that homosexuality is not. It seems that his reputation for peace and understanding is something of an artificial creation.
On Bush's wars:
The Dalai Lama said Wednesday that the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan may have been justified to win a larger peace, but that is it too soon to judge whether the Iraq war was warranted.And, as for my wretchedness:"I think history will tell," he said in an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday, just after he met with President Bush.
For example, the Dalai Lama explicitly condemns homosexuality, as well as all oral and anal sex. His stand is close to that of Pope John Paul II, something his Western followers find embarrassing and prefer to ignore. His American publisher even asked him to remove the injunctions against homosexuality from his book, "Ethics for the New Millennium," for fear they would offend American readers, and the Dalai Lama acquiesced.He sounds like a not-so-moderate Republican to me.
What's the good of a lama if he won't defend truth and justice everywhere? And besides, we can even weep and fight for Tibet itself without the ministrations of a Buddhist fakir.
Your wretchedness quote is from a NYTimes article by Patrick French on Feb. 19, 2003. I'd point you to
http://www.tibet.ca/wtnarchive/1997/8/27-2_5.html
which, if we believe it is an accurate quoting, seems like the Dalai Lama is more just against sexual misconduct, and seems confused by the idea of homosexuality itself. Maybe he just hasn't pondered it; the interpreters interjections don't help. Note also that there is no direct quote from the "American Publisher," only hearsay and anecdotes.
I don't know - my point is that you should go straight to the source. Quoting a statement by NYtimes is just that, and you shouldn't necessarily trust that it represents correctly. (Didn't you read Franken's book?!)
I don't trust the Times, but I obviously can't read everything, so like any reasonable person I have to use intelligence, my own experience and a process somewhat analogous to triangulation to determine the validity of news or information sources.
Ok, I just went to the source you cite, and I see nothing that significantly alters the impression given by the Times piece.
By the way, you suggest, "Maybe [the Dalai Lama] just hasn't pondered it"? How could a man of his stature not have pondered something so fundamental? It's his business to ponder, and, regardless of the history and practice of his predecessors in his line of work, this lama is very much in the world, a world where sexuality is no small concern, whether enjoyed, suppressed or condemned.
Finally, I think we should all be suspicious of the phrase "sexual misconduct" no matter its source.
The Dalai Lama is just a huge a quack with a Scooby-Doo voice. A pretender kicked out of his serfdom.
he is for peace- but he goes abotu it wrong. THE FIRST STEP IS ACCEPTANCE. He is against homosexuality.He thinks war is ok- which isnt his place it isnt his war and he has his own problems to deal wih CHINA
for a man that is supposed to represent PEACE and HAPPINESS he seems to omit the happiness of others who dont fit into his ideals ARE GAYS NOT PPL TOO... do they not deserve the same pleasures/ happiness and PEACE as others,....