Suing over Buddha

Hi guys:

An asshole is demanding a refund from a Chinese restaurant because the have a Buddha statue, and he’s a Christian. He was–therefore–offended.

See below:

People wonder why I shy away from religion. Shit like this is what gets me worried about the United States turning into a Christian Iran.

What are your thoughts and ideas?

He’s a fucking moron. The judge will throw out his case because of the First Amendment.

First Amendment


I agree that he’s a fucking moron. I do not agree about the judge throwing it out, as we now have state-funded religious schools (at least in Oklahoma).

I fail to see what this has to do with the school system. You cannot sue a business over their choice of religion or how they express that. If he doesn’t like it, he can eat somewhere else. If someone wanted to sue me for having an atheist flag in my front yard, it wouldn’t go through because of the First Amendment. It’d be tossed out. You cannot persecute someone criminally or civilly because of that. Like for example, I avoid a particular gas station in my home town. The owners are Christian. Their business reflects that. Unlike said asshole in article, I was mature about it and chose to boycott their business instead.


If he was so “offended”, why did he still sit down and eat there? Because he wanted a free lunch, that’s why.
Fucking (word removed by mod).

1 Like

Every single time I think it can’t get any worse . . . it gets worse.

I see so much craziness, that I often wonder if it’s me and/or my faulty perceptions. Is thinking that the whole world is going crazy a symptom of getting older?

1 Like

hmmm…I find myself pondering this a good deal these days. It almost makes me flirt with the expression “Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise”…almost… :wink:

Edit to pull head from ass

1 Like

I feel much safer around the average Buddhist, as I do around the average Christian.

I also love Buddhist statues/art, they are far more beautiful in my eyes, than a skinny dude nailed to a bloody cross, which is actually really messed up if you think about it.

Kind of like the Legion from Fallout New Vegas has come to town.

1 Like

I am more comfortable with Buddhism than Christianity . . . although I judge people as individuals.

Have no fear a christian will always find a way to justify his false religion, their ignorance is bountiful as you are showing then they wonder why people think they are so mentally challenged.

Text removed by mod.

It seems fair since they are always calling out non Christians.

1 Like

You honestly shouldn’t be. It is a horrible belief system. (I also really like the Koans and some of the ‘Be Here Now Bullshit’ but the religion is as amoral as Christianity.

Buddhism is extraordinarily anti-sexual. Rejection of sex is the first and most important aspect of its central principle, renunciation. Buddhism recommends complete celibacy for lay people as well as monastics. Actual Buddhist practice is completely incompatible with any sexual activity, and even with the slightest twinge of desire.3

Peter Harvey’s Introduction to Buddhist Ethics devotes an entire chapter, 56 pages long, to “Sexual Equality.” This simply does not exist in Buddhism. 1. Women could become nuns, so they were not excluded from religious practice [but nuns are explicitly inferior to monks, according to vinaya and in cultural practice] The best case for gender equality in Buddhism may be in some “mother lineage” tantras, which say that women have greater potential for certain religious practices. As far as we know, this never translated into social equality

Buddhist societies had codes of laws in which particular categories of people had particular rights. However, there was no idea of human rights—ones all humans have, simply for being human. Human rights is a Western concept that was unknown in Asia until modern times.


  • Slavery is explicitly approved in many Buddhist scriptures.
  • “There is almost no indication in any premodern Buddhist source, scriptural or documentary, of opposition to, or reluctance to participate in, institutions of slavery.”7
  • According to scripture, the Buddha himself (after enlightenment) accepted slaves as gifts to the sangha, and he did not free them.
  • Slavery was normal in most or all Buddhist cultures, throughout pre-modern history.
  • In most or all Buddhist cultures, monasteries routinely owned slaves.

Not surprisingly, many modern Buddhists want to deny the facts. When that fails, they want to find excuses. This prevarication deserves contempt.

It’s big attraction in the West is that it was foreign and mystical. We adopted all the good stuff and ignored most of the ignorant bad shit like true Karma, Cast systems, and more.


Thank you for bringing this up (and no, I’m not being sarcastic).

I’ve always admired the Buddhist ideals of vegetarianism (to refrain from doing violence), and the idea that inner peace can be cultivated despite the filth and corruption in the world. I also place a lot of credibility in the idea that suffering is often caused by desire . . . and that eliminating the desire can eliminate the suffering, which seems very relevant when one considers the mechanics of alcoholism, drug addiction, compulsive gambling, and so on.

I’ve recently had an interesting discussion with a religious person who made several interesting points that I’ve never considered . . . and these arguments are not only relevant toward your points about Buddhism, but also toward Christianity (and many other religions).

Basically, I said that abortion was an accepted practice (and even advertised on church community bulletin boards) until about 150 years ago, and then it became a religious and spiritual issue . . . so the force of tradition can’t be brought out by the pro-lifers.

He countered by asking me if scientific knowledge has evolved and become more refined with time, and I agree that it has.

So, because science is more advanced, does that make the science less relevant today than, say, 50 years ago?

“Of course not,” I replied.

"Then why do you believe that religion can’t evolve as well when new insights are codified? As an example, we have amendments to the Constitution. Slavery used to be considered Constitutional, but the Constitution was interpreted more precisely, which led to a determination that slavery is wrong.

"Why do you believe that it’s impossible to interpret religious scripture with greater precision . . . which shows that people before us were wrong, but it’s fixed now?

So, he argued that the permissiveness about abortion from 150 years ago was a mistake that is being remedied by paying attention to it now . . . with our deeper understanding of Christianity.

I’m sure we could make a similar argument about Buddhism.

However . . . I still asked my friend why it took thousands of years to reach the point where we’re fixing everything.

Is not the desire to end corruption a desire?
Is not the desire to not eat meat a desire?
Is the desire for inner peace not a desire?
Is refreaining from doing violence not a desire?
You are trapped by your own words.

Eliminate desire and what remains? A dead body. Do you not desire to drink when you are thirsty. Do you not desire food when you are hungry. The end of desire is death. A much better teaching is “All things in moderation.” or “The middle way.”

The desire to eliminate suffering is a desire.
The desire not to suffer is a desire.
Gambling, addiction, are also desires, the same as being addicted to seeking Nirvana.

Religion does evolve. A modern Christian would be burned at the stake as a heretic, were he to exist 100 years in the past.

It is not being remedied. Is he paying attention to politics? Religon changes slowly because it operates on tradition, belief without foundation, and dogma. (This includes Buddhism)

An excellent question. Because until the Church lost power, and science got its foot in the door by demonstrating its superiority, the Church was able to kill anyone who opposed it. (It really is that simple.)

1 Like

The choice is to eat meat, not to refrain from eating meat.

Not eating meat is the default, and then people choose to eat meat.

1 Like

I certainly disagree with that. We are not herbivores.


Ah, but we are omnivores, meaning we can eat both.

Just having the ability to eat meat, doesn’t mean a necessity.

We don’t have to eat meat, it isn’t a requirement for the majority of people.

The eating of meat is an action, and people choose to commit actions. (of course there are actions beyond our control, blinking, breathing, heart beating) eating meat is an action that we are ‘consciously’ aware of.

Not eating meat is a non-action.

Sure you could argue you are refraining from eating, but if for example you were on an island, and there was no access to meat, and you had to live off bananas and coconuts. Then suddenly a meat source came along, you would choose to eat that meat source. (I probably would too, if all I had is coconuts and bananas.)

I would also make the point, that our ancestors the Purgatorius were herbivores, and it was only due to stressors in our environments that caused us to become omnivores, which only actually occurred around 2.5 *million years ago, when our ancestors were Australopiths it is heavily contested whether or not that was the point we evolved into omnivores, but it is currently the most likely. (As our bodies couldn’t digest meat in large quantities, so eating a nut rich diet, with fatty acids, rather than a heavily fibre based diet, caused changes in our intestines.)

1 Like

In general, humans can eat seeds, fruits, vegetables, roots, and many other plant parts. That said, our bodies aren’t able to digest them all completely.

Herbivores like cows, goats, and deer likewise can’t produce cellulase on their own. However, they have friendly gut bacteria that produce it for them — while humans don’t have such gut bacteria (5Trusted Source, 6Trusted Source).

Yet, our bodies produce all of the enzymes, such as protease and lipase, necessary for the breakdown and absorption of meat

Plants don’t provide certain nutrients that animal products do.

One such essential nutrient that you can’t get from plants is vitamin B12, which is necessary for the normal function of the nervous system and the formation of red blood cells (11Trusted Source, 12Trusted Source).

This is why people who follow a diet that excludes all animal products are advised to take vitamin B12 supplements.

Other nutrients, such as creatine, vitamin D3, and omega-3 fatty acids like docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), are also missing in a plant-based diet. Yet, your body can produce them in small amounts, so you don’t need to rely solely on your diet to obtain them.

Keep in mind that vegan and vegetarian diets should be properly planned to avoid nutrient deficiencies. Other nutrients that may be difficult to obtain on such diets include protein, iodine, zinc, and calcium.

Nothing wrong with being a vegetarian or a vegan, but if you are trying to convince me it is more natural, you are barking up the wrong tree. Biology does not support your claim. It is a poor argument. Do you have an argument outside basic biology?

Sorry I should have cited the source - There is a whole lot more: Should Humans Eat Meat? Biology, Nutrition, and Culture
I’m not putting down vegetarianism or veganism. Just saying, if you are trying to make a biological case for it, you are going to fail.


I actually agree with most of your points. As I said, my friend’s ideas are interesting, but I don’t neccesarily agree with him.

And I do have the impression that religion has changed because it has to . . . not because it wanted to.

I have the idea that the recently departed Pat Robertson would still burn people at the stake for crimes like heresy and apostasy, and the religious right has exerted political and financial influence in other countries (such as Uganda) to make homosexuality a crime that justifies life imprisonment or the death penalty.

So . . . maybe religion hasn’t evolved as much as my friend says it has.

1 Like

I am actually a very strict vegetarian.

I agree with your points about enzymes and vitamin B12, but as to whether or not it’s more natural?

Vegetarians generally live longer. Please see below:

I’m not a vegetarian because I’m health-obsessed (although it would be nice to live longer and be healthy) but, rather, out of an effort to express kindness.

When I worked in South Florida, I had any number of friends and co-workers from places like Haiti, Jamaica, etc…

A Haitian friend went back to Haiti to visit relatives, and they had a video of the family reunion.

Part of this was a pig roast.

There was a pig who was a part of the family for a few years. There was video of the pig cuddling with the children, playing fetch, and rolling over to have his belly rubbed.

In any case, the family patriarch called the pig over by whistling to it, and then straddled it and slashed it’s throat with a large butcher knife while it struggled. Everybody was chearing, and when some of the kids started sobbing . . . they were beaten.

So, I became a vegetarian . . . although I will eat lionfish if I can find out where it’s being sold, as lionfish are invasive in South Florida and are being killed anyway for this reason.

1 Like

I’ll agree. I am not certain that actually has to do with vegetarianism though. Vegetarians, in general, take better care of themselves overall. They eat better, sleep better and schedule their lives better. They tend to be more concerned about their bodies and their health. A meat eater with the same concerns would never sit down to consume a 16 oz steak.

I have lived in Korea for 27 years now. I eat meat. I have a steak dinner perhaps once a year and I end up bringing most of it home. Small bits of meat are generally served with loads of vegetables. One American style steak dinner could feed a family of four in Korea. I would say my meat consumption has drastically reduced. Perhaps I will live longer.

I am agreeing with you. Meat based diet carries with it health risks. I am also asserting that being a vegetarian means you think more and care more about your health than the average person. That also leads to longevity. A meat eater with the same concerns might well reap the same benefits. (All things in moderation.)