Unless you have available evidence to provide as well to support your very own definition of delusion that you are using to refer to and define others as delusional(example being in reference to another one's spiritual and/or religious beliefs)then I once again,highly suggest you present your future posts in here in reference to this as just your personal opinion or personal belief and/or perception for example instead of presenting your posts as an exclusivity of truth(which by the way,breaks forums rules for you to do so).

And just to help ya out on this..guess what...theories are not what many of the academic minds would consider as AVAILABLE EVIDENCE!

Just like others over here,I am a critical thinker as well and the first thing that I do is separate facts from opinions. And just because you seem to always fail to present your posts as a belief and opinion,don't assume that others lack the mental ability that demonstrates one to be able to present their post and position accordingly.

I agree completely and I for one, am through calling him on this and presenting it as a request once again that he refrain from such while posting in these open forums...I have extended every courtesy I can in reference to this and although I am not one to file reports of forum violations but I will next time I see this occur with this poster.

But I only post my opinions here.

You actually thought that I suggested differently somewhere?

I'll comply with any interpretation the moderators have regarding my posts. Especially after having the oportunity to compare them to so many others here. Indeed I would welcome your challenge before an independent authority.

Your problem not mine. Many here and on other forums don't seem to have near the problem that you and a very few others have figuring out that I offer no facts, just opinions. And that even after you've been told on more than one occasion that I consider nothing that I post here as anything other than my opinion.

You quite clearly present them as though they are factual.....

You quite clearly present [your words] as though they are factual.....

jrbogie:If you are delusional enough to believe in god, you're religious. If not, you ain't. Simple really.

No you and but a few others incorrectly read them as though I think they are factual. The vast majority don't seem to share your difficulties.

Or each person who considers himself Buddhist.... ?

If it's a religion by the way, why do you suppose it is not offered those protections that you point out by the government and given the same consideration by employers as well? Hmmmmm.

Could it be that even your own government and the vast majority, if not all, of the employers in the US do not view Buddhism as a religion just like me?

Are Buddhists legally protected more than us humanists? Are they afforded more consideration in the work place than we are. Interesting point. Think I'll file that one away. Never thought of it. See, I am still learning.

We sure don't have any national holidays honoring Buddhism

I'd sure like any direction you might point me to for my own research. Don't bother to copy and past an excerpt that you might decide address the issue. I'll do my own reading. Just point the way. Or maybe in a day or two when the world series is over I'll shed some light on it for you.

Well I found some stuff afterall. As usual though with the law, light is not always shed. Several cases seem to contradict each other. For example:

In Davis v. Beason, the Court stated: "The term ‘religion’ has reference to one's views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will.

In Torcaso v. Watkins, the Court broke the theistic mold which had theretofore restricted the American legal definition of religion. According to the Court, the first amendment precluded government from aiding "those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs." The Court noted that "[a]mong religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." This expanded position reflected a recognition of the great diversity of religious beliefs in modern America.

While Congress has provided no definition of religion in the context of federal tax exemptions, it did so in the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948. The Act’s provision allowing a military exemption for those conscientiously opposed to war due to religious credences defined religious training and belief as "an individual’s belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation but [not including] . . . essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code."

So we come full circle yet again. Many definitions of what a religion is. Using congess's, some supreme court rulings and mine, Buddhism ain't one. You and others in the field of law and government don't seem to agree. Simple really.

If I have personally attacked somebody other than in my expression of my views on the particular issue then it was wrong of me and I'll watch it in the future.

ig·no·rant –adjective 1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

de·lu·sion (di l?'??n)

noun

a deluding or being deluded
a false belief or opinion
Psychiatry a false, persistent belief maintained in spite of evidence to the contrary

But I only post my opinions here. Whether it be my interpretation of a word and how it applies or absolutely anything else I post here. You and I have gone over this before but I'll say it again. EVERYTHING I POST HERE IS NOTHING BUT MY OPINION.

Were I trying to convince you or anybody else here that you shoud accept those views and opinions as fact then of course I would be obligated to present the evidence. But I'm not asking you to drop your beliefs and use reason and logic to come to your conclusions am I. And I've spent way to many years observing the evidence and reading who I consider to be more learned than me on the various issues than to be able to post enough evidence here that would begine to change your beliefs.

As for whether Buddhism is a religion? According to some it is.... according to others it isn't.... so who decides? The majority? The Dalai Lama? Or each person who considers himself Buddhist.... ?

Finally we agree on something. Additionally, each person who is not a Buddhist decides for himself what definition of a religion is that he/she will accept and whether or not Buddhism or any other doctrine fits the description.

It DOES have those rights. Where the hell do YOU live?

Is that what this is all about? People do not recognize how YOU think as being on the same level as a religion, so you have to tear others down to make you feel better?

What it DOES allow for is that a company is legally obligated to give you time off for your religious obligations without penalty.

This really does sum you up. Ignore all evidence given you, while demanding that we accept yours.

The Act that you are using to back up your claims is from 1948. I would hardly consider that to be adequate cause, considering that it was in the 50s that the US pledge of allegiance was changed to say "one nation under god."

You are worse then that, you attack WHOLE GROUPS of people.

And you come down on ME for using a strict definition?

When you come out and tell me that what I have said is WRONG, continuously, then you are NOT stating merely your opinion.

By telling me that I am wrong, you are doing just that.

If someone disagrees with you, they are wrong.

If they have enough evidence to back them up, you back into the corner of 'these are just my opinions.

But the way YOU use that statement is to basically say that you are right and that we are wrong regardless of evidence.

You appear to be of the mind that because other people are prejudiced, then you are allowed to be yourself.

What an intelligent question!!! The authoritative guide to church/state issues heard by the Supreme Court is "Toward Benevolent Neutrality: Church, State & the Supreme Court," by Robert Miller & Ronald B. Flowers. 885 pages in two volumes, the latest edition (6th, I think) is coming out very soon.

Sure, but if there's a confliction of terms, the argument goes to the one who professes the belief... Otherwise we're talking discrimination.

California. I looked all over today to clarify whether or not Buddhism qualifies as a religion in the legal sense regarding protections against discrimination in the workplace or anywhere else including tax exempt status. Not saying your wrong. Just not saying that as far as I can see the federal and California government does not seem to agree with you. I'm not trying to be contetious here. If you can find something to shed light on the legal status of Buddhism as a religion in the US I really would like to know about it. I really could find little to suggest either way.

Not saying I dissagree. Simply saying that nowhere have I been able to find that Buddhism falls in the category of religion in a legal context as regards our antidescrimination laws. You seem to think I'm argueing that you're wrong here. I'm not. Just cannot confirm that you are right. But I would like to know. So if you can point to legislation or court rulings that could shed some light on the subject I would appreciate it. Not to proove you wrong. I'd just really like to know.

But you have given me nothing that I accept as credible evidence. Only your own copy and pastings and your opinions. If you copy and pasted something here then simply tell me where you copied it from and I'll go research it for myself. You see, after this week or so of exchanging posts, I lend very little credibility to something that you may have had the oportunity to edit or left out because it doesn't support your position. If you have a reliable source or evidence, simply point me towards it. I can read.

I simply don't know if Buddhism is legally accepted as a religion in this country. Either as a tax exempt church or as a qualification as a religion as pertains to discrimination laws. Nor do I know whether or not it can be legally taught as a phylosophy in a public school because it is or is not considered a religion. Again. I do not know. What part of that statement is so difficult for you to understand. If you do know, point me toward the references that you have used to form your knowledge.

No. I have offered my views and opinions on whole groups of people. I have done that not only with the religious groups but with the KKK, nazis, gangs comprised of various racial makeup, political parties and on and on. I don't think I am much different than you or anybody else in that regard. If people in those groups are offended by my views then I am not much concerned about that. They are my views and just like you, the KKK and individuals within a political party, I am fully entitled to state those views and opinions. And you likely have a scroll whell on your mouse that will readily alow you to scroll right on by my posts here. Simple really.

But I am. My opinion is that you are wrong.

No. By telling you that you are wrong I am giving you my opinion on your being right or wrong. Now were I to say something like you better believe precisely as I do about god or you will burn in hell for eternity, then I would be trying to sway you to my beliefs or convince you that my position is right. But I'm not. Frankly I could give a crap less what you think of my views. But then you know that huh?

And another christian will claim that that person is not really a christian. So here, each professes a belief in god and that christ was his son, and yet there is a confliction of terms. The term being christian. And of course the possibility exists that other christians will say that neither is correct regarding what is a christian. So if I am on the outside looking in to this arguement and deciding that knowbody seems to be able to agree, which is how I feel about this issue of Buddhism, then who is it that is descriminating?

But I am. My opinion is that you are wrong.

Instead of playing these childish games, why not try to prove your point?

Buddhism is protected under law just ike any other religion... At least here in Canada... In fact, it's the fastest growing religion in this country.

You seem to think that _your_ definition is what matters. To you? Absolutely. To others? Nope. You're not the centre of the universe -- )

We as a society agree on certain words meaning certain things.

"Religion" is a word that mostly, generally, usually, normally means a belief in a something between a Minor and a Supreme Being or Deity and the practices associated with that belief.

"Philosophy" means a system of thought and criticism that applies to practical beliefs and structures and examines human thoughts and practices without any specific regard to gods, goddesses, spirits, and such.

"Delusion" is a false belief or opinion in a known and established fact, especially in the face of hard evidence presented to support the fact.

Fee free to claim that the above are meanings for others, but not for you, and therefore your claims stand,

You want me to prove that my opinion is that I don't see Buddhism as a religion but instead as a phylosophy? How would I go about proving what my opinion is? It's an opinion, not a fact to be proven. At least I don't see it as a fact. Nor is mine an opinion that I expect you or anyone else to accept. What is there to prove? It's my frigging opinion.

hat's interesting. Now if I could just learn whether or not Buddhism is protected by law in the US I'd be very appreciative. I simply don't know but would like to. I've looked for something to indicate one way or another whether or not Buddhism is legally considered a religion in this country but I cannot find a thing on it. Not suggesting that legally it is or is not a religion, just would like to find out one way or the other. If you can point me in the right direction I'd appreciate it.

used the word absolutely when expressing my views or opinions that I recall. If I have please post it here so I can make a formal retraction.

I think you're too intelligent not to know that in the absence of a qualifier statements are regarded as absolute/universal/general.

My advice to others is to ignore what you post until you use language common to discourse and dialogue.