Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
Sonam wrote:I don't know whether to post this on the pedophilia board, or the religion board.
Pedophilia is rampant in Buddhist monasteries in Asia. The custom of giving small children away to monasteries full of celibate adults is a recipe for disaster. The children aren't allowed to leave the monasteries once they're admitted, until they're 21. In Tibetan monasteries, if the boys try to run away to escape chronic rape and molestation, they're hunted down by "warrior monks", and forcibly returned to the monastery. Their parents have no idea what goes on, and trust the monks and lamas completely. In Sri Lanka and Taiwan there have been lawsuits filed by groups of child-novices against their monk- or abbot-tormentors, yet the problem continues.
Even more alarming is the news that Southeast Asian monks in the US have enticed children into private quarters for sexual molestation, and in spite of complaints and even criminal charges filed, the perps have avoided sanction. One monk's m.o. was to set up a tutoring service for grade-school kids. He avoided legal authorities by leaving the US, then returning to a different State, and starting his illicit activities over again. The US monasteries harboring these criminals are uncooperative with police. Where is the FBI when you need them?
How can anyone believe that Buddhism is the much-vaunted "religion of kindness" when thinking about the trauma children suffer as a result of living in (or near) monasteries full of pedophiles? As adults, the ex-monks suffer from unresolved Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, arrested emotional and intellectual development, and a slew of other problems. We may not be able to do anything about the monastic abuse going on in Asia, but these monk-perverts shouldn't have access to kids in Western countries, nor should they be able to avoid prosecution if they do commit these crimes.
http://lamashree.org/dalailama_08_child ... teries.htm
Simulist wrote:If you get a bunch of human males together, and then convince them to avoid sexual activity, you're creating a sexual time bomb.
If you then introduce children into the equation, you're creating a potential crime! — because a certain percentage of humans are just that fucked up.
(And why should this be so hard to figure out? Except that dogma makes people dumb…)
Simulist wrote:The point isn't about "monastics" and "diversity"; the point is about MEN: specifically, men who are grouped together, and men who are all trying not to have sex. Is that a ticking time bomb — irrespective of any religion? Damn right it is. Why? Because it doesn't work, except while the bomb is ticking — everything is quiet and peaceful, until then. (Which is really the very definition of a "ticking time bomb," isn't it?) Then, when the timer runs out, there's an explosion (or, in this case, an eruption). There isn't anything "simplistic" about that, but there is everything simple about it. And yet, people persist in trying to believe that, because someone claims "this" as his religion or "that" as his philosophy, somehow the "invisible spirit" (or whatever) is going to impart some special grace or singular dispensation that magically circumvents biology. Forget it.
matrixdutch wrote:Simulist wrote:The point isn't about "monastics" and "diversity"; the point is about MEN: specifically, men who are grouped together, and men who are all trying not to have sex. Is that a ticking time bomb — irrespective of any religion? Damn right it is. Why? Because it doesn't work, except while the bomb is ticking — everything is quiet and peaceful, until then. (Which is really the very definition of a "ticking time bomb," isn't it?) Then, when the timer runs out, there's an explosion (or, in this case, an eruption). There isn't anything "simplistic" about that, but there is everything simple about it. And yet, people persist in trying to believe that, because someone claims "this" as his religion or "that" as his philosophy, somehow the "invisible spirit" (or whatever) is going to impart some special grace or singular dispensation that magically circumvents biology. Forget it.
Acutally, you're reasoning is simplistic and naive. You believe in one-trick pony answers to complex scenarios. A complex scenario contains multitudes and a root cause analysis never leads to a single issue that enables a problem. You automatically take it that ALL men who voluntarily decide not to have sex have problems, when in fact these problems are anomolous. It has nothing to do with religion, philosophy or mysticism. Biology circumvents itself. There are people born with varying degrees of sexual inclination, drive, and plasticity that feeds back to the environmental influences. Celibate men can either interact well or poorly with children. Promiscuous men can interact well or poorly with children. Pedophilia itself is anomolous behavior and by using a single rule-of-thumb pedestrian label on a problem is misleading and not very granular.
Simulist wrote:The problem here really is with "anomalous" behavior, isn't it? The problem is also that this kind of anomalous behavior seems to be happening often-enough in so-called "celibate" communities that it's a problem.
(And if you're going to call someone's reasoning "simplistic and naive," couldn't you at least bother to get your spelling and grammar right in the paragraph where you do it?)
matrixdutch wrote:Simulist wrote:The problem here really is with "anomalous" behavior, isn't it? The problem is also that this kind of anomalous behavior seems to be happening often-enough in so-called "celibate" communities that it's a problem.
I'm sure you realize that sexual child abuse is more prevalent among non-monatics...yet you're not foaming at the mouth about that though.
matrixdutch wrote:(And if you're going to call someone's reasoning "simplistic and naive," couldn't you at least bother to get your spelling and grammar right in the paragraph where you do it?)
I type fast and didn't check my spelling. I thought you would overlook that in favor of the crux of the discussion instead of being a grammar nazi. Grow up.
matrixdutch wrote:You automatically take it that ALL men who voluntarily decide not to have sex have problems, when in fact these problems are anomolous.
It has nothing to do with religion, philosophy or mysticism.
matrixdutch wrote:Biology circumvents itself.
There are people born with varying degrees of sexual inclination, drive, and plasticity that feeds back to the environmental influences.
matrixdutch wrote:Celibate men can either interact well or poorly with children. Promiscuous men can interact well or poorly with children.
matrixdutch wrote:Pedophilia itself is anomolous behavior and by using a single rule-of-thumb pedestrian label on a problem is misleading and not very granular.
Simulist wrote:If you get a bunch of human males together, and then convince them to avoid sexual activity, you're creating a sexual time bomb.
If you then introduce children into the equation, you're creating a potential crime! — because a certain percentage of humans are just that fucked up.
(And why should this be so hard to figure out? Except that dogma makes people dumb…)
Simulist wrote:Celibacy is a problem, not only because it is false and misleading, but also because it leads to a number of other problems, some of which are notably harmful.
Britain's most senior Buddhist monk accused of raping two girls under 10 (one in his temple's shrine room)
66-year-old faces nine assault charges
'Enticed girls onto his lap with Polo sweets'
Alleged rapes took place in 1978, 1984 & 1985
Monk says he's innocent victim of mistaken identity
By Ian Garland
PUBLISHED: 19:59, 25 April 2012 | UPDATED: 07:07, 26 April 2012
www.dailymail.co.uk
One of Britain's most senior Buddhist monks is accused of carrying out a string of sex attacks on two young girls aged under 10.
The Venerable Pahalagama Somaratana, 66, is facing nine counts of rape, indecent assault and sexual assault.
One girl claims Somaratana abused her in the shrine room of Croydon Temple - where he has been chief monk for the past 31 years.
The attacks are alleged to have taken place on one victim in Chiswick, London during the summer of 1978.
A second woman claims she was indecently assaulted at Croydon Temple during the mid 1980s.
Somaratana appeared at Isleworth Crown Court last week to deny all charges against him.
The Sri Lankan-born monk told the court he was the victim of mistaken identity.
Prosecuting Richard Merz told the court the first victim, who was nine in 1978, had been enticed into the monk’s room with fruit Polo sweets and told to sit on his lap.
Later, he told the court, Ven Somaratana cornered her in the temple shrine and raped her.
He said: 'You used to see her in the corridor downstairs and ask her upstairs.
'Three times this happened, three times. The victim says the person who did this to her in the shrine rooms was someone who gave her the fruit Polos.'
Mr Merz added the second victim, who was aged between nine and 10 during the alleged attacks in 1984 and 85, was also enticed into his room with sweets at the temple in Selsdon, South Croydon, which he founded in 1981.
He said: 'She says she was attacked by you in your room.'
The second victim only recalled the assaults during hypnotherapy sessions she underwent as an adult in 2009.
Somaratana denies the charges.
He suggested in court that another, unidentified, monk could have been responsible for raping the first victim.
And insisted it would have been impossible to carry out attacks in either his temple room or the shrine - because there was little privacy and the temple was always occupied by worshippers.
He said: 'There are so many people coming from 9am to 9pm they regularly go to the shrine room.'
The trial is expected to last three weeks.
Return to Religion and the Occult
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests