Reavers and Buddhism by christhecynic

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Reavers and Buddhism

POSTED BY: CHRISTHECYNIC
UPDATED: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 09:41
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2470
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, December 26, 2005 3:42 PM

Ok so I’m watching Serenity, and thinking of Miranda, which reminds me:

This assumes that you’ve seen the movie. If not go out and buy a copy widescreen to see it all, full screen to make up for the fact your TV isn’t the size of a movie screen, and three more copies of each as penance.

Anyway I was watching Serenity and it occurred to me that Miranda is an example of extremes, what Aristotle would call vices of excess and deficiency. The ones who laid down and died would be exhibiting vices of deficiency, Reavers are a picture perfect example of excess.

Normal people follow the middle path between the two, which brings us to Buddha.

The Alliance is a body of people principally from the central planets who are mostly Buddhist. How the hell could a group made primarily of Buddhists not see the inherent wrongness in forcing a group of people to abandon the middle path by drugging them?

I had a point but, “I’m a leaf on the wind,” just happened and I forgot.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 26, 2005 4:06 PM

JUBELLATE

I'm not sure how Buddhist the central planets are. I know there's influence of eastern culture, buyt not necessarily buddhist. The "Operative" could be described more as a follower of "Sun Tzu" and Taoism, but definitely not Buddhist. Also, religions tend to evolve. There are reformations of belief where a religion known by the same name 1000 years ago can be almost irrecognizable today. So that's what I think sums up the reasoning. The culture had changed or the culture was more complex that at first glance. So choose what suits you,

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. – H.L. Mencken

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 26, 2005 4:09 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Ok so I’m watching Serenity, and thinking of Miranda, which reminds me:

This assumes that you’ve seen the movie. If not go out and buy a copy widescreen to see it all, full screen to make up for the fact your TV isn’t the size of a movie screen, and three more copies of each as penance.

Anyway I was watching Serenity and it occurred to me that Miranda is an example of extremes, what Aristotle would call vices of excess and deficiency. The ones who laid down and died would be exhibiting vices of deficiency, Reavers are a picture perfect example of excess.

Normal people follow the middle path between the two, which brings us to Buddha.

The Alliance is a body of people principally from the central planets who are mostly Buddhist. How the hell could a group made primarily of Buddhists not see the inherent wrongness in forcing a group of people to abandon the middle path by drugging them?

How did you arrive at the conclusion that the central planets are "mostly Buddhist"? The only evidence for that seems to be that Inara is a Buddhist. For a man versed in Aristotle, this seems to be a pretty flimsy bit of induction. Before anyone tackles the question you posed, I'd like you to defend the proposition that the central planets are mostly Buddhist.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 26, 2005 4:29 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Well I have to admit that apparently I jumped a bit too far. The main religion on the two founding planets of the Alliance was Buddhism, according to A Brief History of the Universe Circa 2507 A.D. by Joss Whedon as it appears in The Official Visual Companion but having something be the main religion on the founding planets is far from being the majority in the resulting culture.

Therefore I abandon my proposition that they are mostly Buddhist, and leave this thread and question to fend for themselves.

Or not.

Even without the, "mostly," I think the question does hold, if on a lower level. These people are in a culture that came from one where Buddhism was, if not the majority religion, the main religion and even in a perfect separation of church and state they must have had the value of moderation drilled into them from the start.

How does one go from the belief structure that encourages the middle path to the belief that forcing a tilt is a good thing? Even if they had gotten exactly what they wanted they would have still forced people out of the middle, just not nearly as far.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 26, 2005 5:18 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
How does one go from the belief structure that encourages the middle path to the belief that forcing a tilt is a good thing?

Perhaps the idea was that artificially inducing non-violence would help these folks find the middle path that much easier?

Incidentally, it wouldn't make any more sense if the core worlds were dominated by Christians. The bevavior of medieval European kingdoms and the early Catholic church notwithstanding, Christianity is a religion of non-violence as well ("turn the other cheek" and all that). Perhaps the problem isn't that Miranda offends the ideology of one religion, but that "making people better" is simply wrong in itself (vs. wrong-for-Buddhists).

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 26, 2005 10:03 PM

GORBA916

The name Miranda is loosely based on William Shakespeare's last play "The Tempest"

Quote:
The sorcerer Prospero, rightful Duke of Milan, and his daughter, Miranda, have been stranded for twelve years on an island in the Adriatic, after Prospero's jealous brother Antonio—helped by the King of Naples—deposed him and set him adrift with the three-year-old girl. Possessed of magic powers due to his great learning and prodigious library, Prospero is reluctantly served by a sprite, Ariel, whom he has rescued from imprisonment in a tree. Ariel was imprisoned by the African witch Sycorax, who had been exiled to the island years before and died before Prospero arrived. The witch's son Caliban, a deformed monster who was the only non-spiritual inhabitant before the arrival of Prospero, has been compelled by Prospero to serve as the sorcerer's servant, carrying wood and gathering pig nuts. Caliban, provoked by the comeliness of Miranda, has proposed to her that they join in sexual union in order to create a new race to populate the island.

Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tempest_%28play%29

-------------------------------
O Serenity, O Serenity! Where art thou Firefly?
Deny thy networks and refuse thy box-office totals;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I'll no longer be a Capulet....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 26, 2005 10:29 PM

STDOUBT

Hiya,
Governments are not religions.
The Parlament borked Miranda, not some
group of Buddhist fellers.
Given your premise, would you consider the
American govt. to be Christians? If you would,
you. would. be. wrong. They can call themselves
whatever they want. For example, I'm a Rocket
Scientist. Trust my math! ;]
Though governments often use religion to
to further their ends, I never got the impression
that the central govt. in the Serenity 'verse
held *any* sort of religious aspect.
Just sayn'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 26, 2005 11:32 PM

OOKAMIKAWAHARA

Just a quick response to your post here. Remember a government is a government with no religous overtones. Even if you do have religion mixed in, a govt will still function while following or not following the rules etc of such religion. A good case in point is Japan. It is primarely Buddhist/Shinto as major religion although there are other ones. Anyways during WW2 you had the Japanese biological weapons unit 731. They carried all sorts of medical experiments on civilian Chinese and also possibly Allied POWs similar to Miranda ie using live humans as test subjects. Pure War crimes. However, does this make Japan a bad country? (yes and no!!) Yes in that this is a stain of dishonor on Japan, but other countries (U.S. included) have similar stains of dishonor. No in that, that was the past. As long as a country learns from its dishonors and past mistakes and do not repeat them, then the past mistakes can be redeemed!!! Anyways there is my 2 cents. Hope that helps.
mata, Ookami yori

Suren Sarge, ain't this a whole heapen load of trouble.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2005 3:58 AM

CAUSAL

It's a mite simplistic to say that governments are just governments, pure and simple, with no entanglements in religion. This seems to assume that American secularism ("separation of church and state") is the norm not just all over the world, but in all times. Even in our own time, you can see this is not the case (with Islamic theocracy in Iran, for example).

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2005 5:21 AM

CYBERSNARK

Our own Shepherd said it best, I believe: "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned."

Also, I believe that a good portion of all organized religions are made up of hypocrites who just want a way to justify their own agendas.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2005 5:23 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC

The reason I asked was that I was tired at the time and unable to think of a single example of Buddhism being seriously twisted in all of the years since its inception. In my drowsiness I managed to forget about the entire nation of Japan.

-

The rest is of academic concern only.

Governments do not exist in isolation, they are made of people (unless someone put lizards in charge with out telling me) and those people were raised somewhere with some values or other pushed upon them.

The US government has always been and probably will always function as a fractured multi-ideology congregation (not in the religious sense) of various Christians. If it were run by Hindus there is a very good chance things would have come out differently even with the prohibition against the establishment of a religion.

Of course the US government and the people running it are perhaps the worst examples of Christian values thrown into play that I have ever seen, but that is nothing new. Christianity has been exploited for various reasons for almost as long as it has existed.

I mean where have you seen more self proclaimed Christians saying something like, "Jesus was an asshole and what he said in Mark 10:21 was pure commie bull, same with Mark 12:43-44" than when it comes time to figure out taxes? I admit they don’t use those words.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2005 6:29 AM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
The US government has always been and probably will always function as a fractured multi-ideology congregation (not in the religious sense) of various Christians.

Not sure I can agree with you on this point. The trouble, of course, is the difficulty of pinning down the essential nature of Christianity. Self-profession can't be it, any more than my saying, "I'm Welsh" makes it so--there are ways of determining whether or not it is the case, my own profession notwithstanding. As my understanding of my own faith has matured over the years, I've come to realize that the most reliable indicator of Christianity is the life truly lived in imitation of Christ. This will be marked by compassion, generosity, self-sacrifice (though not to the same degree, hopefully), and above all, love. So when someone claims Christianity, one does well to examine that person's lifestyle. That being the case, it can hardly be said that the people running this country (or even the average citizens for that matter) are Christians.

Quote:
Of course the US government and the people running it are perhaps the worst examples of Christian values thrown into play that I have ever seen, but that is nothing new.

Where is the generosity of a government that in 1999 passed a bill in which gave the richest 20% of Americans a total of 79% of the tax savings? Where is the compassion of a government that turns a blind eye to American corporations that pay workers in foreign plants less than subsistence wages? And let's not even begin on the subject of war. Our goverment, in short, is hardly what one would call Christian. If they adopt the trappings of Christianity via self-profession, that reflects negatively on them, not on a religion that champions service to the poor and downtrodden, a religion of non-violence, and love of neighbor. It is a sad commentary on the politicians, but not the faith itself.

Quote:
Christianity has been exploited for various reasons for almost as long as it has existed.

Beginning with Constantine and running right up to the present day, Christianity has been exploited for economic and political power. But this is no different than, say, Islam. The Sauds (the ruling family of Saudi Arabia) are hardly good Muslims, yet they use Islam to unite and control Saudi Arabia. Arafat, Bin Ladin, and Zarqawi aren't the most pious Muslims either--they're simply using it as a carrot-stick combo to further their own ends. Such is also the case with Christianity. Who'd dare to call Pat Robertson a shining example of faith in Jesus? Yet there he is, growing richer and richer. One can hardly call the crusades a model of Christian love; such a bloodbath. My frustration (and please understand, I'm not accusing anyone in this thread of this--I'm just venting) is that while people can accept that Bin Ladin doesn't represent true Islam, they think that Robertson represents true Christianity. So my faith takes on a foul reek, and is subsequently mocked or even outright persecuted on the basis of a handful of perverse men who manipulate a beautiful faith for their own purposes.

________________________________________________________________________
Rant over.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2005 6:44 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Now would probably be a good time to point out that I have nothing against Christianity or the US government, I do however have some problems with members of both groups, some self proclaimed and others elected.

-

In my mind most people who claim to be Christians are not, but I've given up on convincing others to look at it that way. Since I'm hardly devout myself it's really not my place anyway.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2005 7:00 AM

CAUSAL

Well, there seems to be some confusion about what actually makes you a Christian. I was once told, "I'm a Christian"; I said, "Really? How do you know?". The reply: "Well, my parents are Christians." Apparently it's genetic? I don't know.

Sorry about the tirade; I could tell by your posts that you don't have anything against Christians; it's just that the door was open, and I couldn't stop myself from walking through it.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2005 7:30 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Sorry about the tirade … it's just that the door was open, and I couldn't stop myself from walking through it.

I know the feeling (impulse.)

Quote:
Well, there seems to be some confusion about what actually makes you a Christian. I was once told, "I'm a Christian"; I said, "Really? How do you know?". The reply: "Well, my parents are Christians." Apparently it's genetic? I don't know.

The genetics of religion I don't get. If your parents are Christians, specifically if your mother is Christian, and that is your only connection to religion wouldn't that make you ... Jewish?

I mean to be a Christian you need to be baptized, or born again, or converted, or ... something. You need some conscious acceptance of Christianity. To be a Jew you need heritage, as it has been explained to me. So since Jesus was a Rabbi and Christianity is by definition a sect of Judaism that means that the person who told you that had Jewish parents (in an odd roundabout sort of a way) and as that person's religion was based on heritage not any conscious acceptance of Christianity that person must be Jewish.

Or some such, it makes no sense.

-

Jesus talked down genetics in a passage I came across when looking for the money bits. Mark 3:31-35

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2005 9:00 AM

BARNABY36

In every forum I visit, seriously. Why do I always have to answer to this argument?

Religion is community. A religion is a group of people who more or less agree that they believe in a similiar philosophy. As signs of being members of this society, they start traditions and rites and holidays that set them apart from everyone else in more ways than just philosophy. Some sects of Christianity baptize their followers, many Jews observe Kashrut (keeping Kosher), and during Ramadan, Muslims fast during the day. These observances and differences in belief are all that seperate religions.

Now, when you are born, your philosphical slate is blank. You probably haven't thought about what happens when you die. Your parents, who usually want you to live a decent life, and think that their life has been decent, teach you the moral and physical aspects of their religion (including atheism. Atheists have morals). Therfore, most religions assume that as a child of a member of their faiths can be a part of them with little or no ritual required to do so. A person who was not born under a particular faith, though, who wishes to join that faith, usually must undergo a conversion ritual that is meant to do what parents would have done to the convertee had he been raised by religious folk.

It isn't genetics that decide religion, it's how who are assumed to have been brought up.

Oh, and Christianity split from Judaism pretty early on. Despite similiar mythos, philosophies and rituals, and despite sharing lineages, they are seperate religions, because that is how they identify themselves.

For the reader's information, I'm Jewish. Have a happy holiday season, and try not to shoot your relatives.

Ben, from Austin

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2005 9:41 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by barnaby36:
In every forum I visit, seriously. Why do I always have to answer to this argument?

Ben I think you missed the point, we were not arguing for what you are refuting. We were both, in or own ways, pointing out the absurdity of it.

Neither of us believe that genetics decide religion, but we have both encountered people who do. They believe that they are what their parents are simply by virtue of their parents being that.

Were that the case I would be half Catholic half northern Evangelical because of my grandparents, never mind that I attend neither church (except for funerals and once to administer All Souls Day prayers for a very devout very dead believer.)

Some people say, "I'm Catholic/Lutheran/Anglican/Baptist/Evangelical/Eastern-Orthodox/just-plain-Christian because my parents were/are," when they don't even know what that group believes.

I think even the way you look at it this isn’t true because they are not actually part of that group and they do not hold that similar philosophy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE