Normal59 said...
142 said...
How soon you guys forget that we are not to throw in religion here. Let's not get the man's thread locked.
Forum rule #6 specifically bans "posts of an overtly political or religious nature (ie. proselyting)." For clarity, and because I don't think everyone understands that rule, religious proselytising refers to the attempt of a religious individual to convert people to their beliefs.
Unless we are now making up new rules, I don't believe that three 5's re-use/modification of the well-known Buddhist prayer is in any way proselytising.
Sidebar: I'm currently reading a biography of John Quincy Adams who ended up being unpopular as president for straddling across party lines and trying to do what was best for the country. Interestingly after being voted out of the presidency following only a single term, his Massachusetts constituents overwhelmingly voted him into the House of Representatives where he really made a name for himself (reference JFK's Profile in Courage book). He spoke repeatedly in the 1830s that "I do believe slavery to be a sin in the eyes of God" and was shouted down by southern state Representatives for proselytising, which was an unwritten rule. Was that proselytising? I don't think so in that case, either.Normal - the “ie” in the rule you quoted, means “for example”. It is not limiting. The rule you refer to also includes the phrase “Overtly religious”. Rogers post was a well intentioned post that did not mention religion overtly. You made it overt.
I would rather have these conversations privately. But last week, when I emailed you a request, using the word “respectfully”, to edit your post in the HDR & Brachytherapy” thread, which was clearlty meant to provoke, you ignored me, so I had to edit it myself. This post, referring to Dali Lama, was also meant to provoke.
Don’t be the cause of another (good) thread being (re-)locked. Read 142’s post above. It’s the final word.