for those who have reality tv as their guilty pleasure
Reality Ravings | Australia's leading Reality TV blog!

Masterchef Australia – Kate Refuses To Call The Dalai Lama By His Title

Masterchef Australia continues to hit some big goals with huge locations and now this Sunday with the leader of the Buddhist movement, the Dalai Lama, being a special guest on the show.

In a previous blog post I questioned why a spiritual leader would go on a reality show and whether it diminishes their integrity. However I also think it goes to show how popular and powerful a medium reality TV has become, that the Dalai Lama who does use popular culture to promote is brand was happy to be apart of the show.

His strategy appears to work, a lot of people where I live are not religious but like “the buddhist philosophy” or the “eastern religions”.

However it appears Kate Bracks, the mum of three, was not so overawed by his appearance. Kate, a Christian, refused to call him by his title – his holiness.

News.com.au reports:

That was the religious test facing MasterChef mum Kate Bracks, who refused to acknowledge the leader by his formal title when he was the guest star of Sunday’s episode.

The 36-year-old Christian from Orange was the only contestant who felt “uncomfortable” with the protocol, addressing him only as “Dalai”.

His appearance created an emotion-charged challenge for the other five competitors, who all spoke of his “energy”, “aura” and “amazing spirit”.

But Bracks said she did not “see the Dalai as a holy man”.

“My belief is that God is the only one that is perfectly holy,” she said.

“So in terms of everybody calling him Your Holiness, that was probably the only aspect of the challenge I was uncomfortable with. I just called him Dalai Lama.”

Interestingly enough christian leaders in their own communities Bill Crewes and Tim Costello were quite comfortable calling the Dalai Lama by his title.

When a person’s  religion states it is superior to another I think it is time they had a re-think about religion. As Kate is not just slighting the Dalai Lama, but also his millions of followers. I am not talking about the latte set in inner Sydney, but the  people of Thailand, and Tibetans, and other genuine believers of this innocuous religion.

My view is you must respect all religions (not the fundamental elements which the three major religions all have), and it should have been shown by Kate to the Dalai Lamai on this episode.

I am a Republican but I would always curtsey to the Queen and call her by her correct title. I have issues with George Pell’s views on a lot of things, however I would address him by his correct title, as I would the Pope.

Kate who has been very popular on the show may have lost some fans over this stance, or she may have gained some as well, but are they the fans you really want to have?

What are your thoughts on Kate’s view on this issue?

138 comments

1 phil { 07.19.11 at 2:03 pm }

she gives a bad name to christians and Australians, she needs to rethink he old-fashioned W.A.S.P attitude and show respect to others from different cultures.

2 Paul { 07.19.11 at 2:08 pm }

This drama is so overblown, its laughable.

Honestly if it hadn’t been spelt out for some people as to what happened, nobody would have even noticed.

But now all of a sudden she’s a bad mother and gives Christians a bad name.

Get the rope out everyone. There’s a lynching to be done !!!!!

3 Culinary Boner { 07.19.11 at 3:13 pm }

Why, oh. why does a fairly straight forward post like this, which is primarily about a reality contestant showing a lack of grace or manners to the leader of a heavily-followed non-christian religion, draw out all this illogical pissant christian angst? Whilst sceptical of the Dalai Lama’s political goals and critical of MCA’s cynical ratings stunt, he should have been seen as somewhat akin to a visiting diplomatic dignatory and treated on screen by all contestants accordingly.

As noted in my earlier post I was educated (if that’s the word) by the Christian Brothers (for the ignorant, them’s apparently a catholic brotherhood ‘dedicated’ to community service and celibacy, well anyways, no vaginas thank you very muchly). Though most were just remarkably untalented and unimaginative teachers*, the order, as a whole, could outdo the most rabid standing armies in history for the number of sadists and sociopathic paedophiles it kept in its ranks. (No wonder the Chinese authorities in the past preferred to rely on eunuchs).

Heaven help** a lay teacher who just happened to have an in-built biological preference for ADULT members of the same sex. They’d’ve been hounded out if they didn’t stay deeply buried in the closet, whilst the perverts salivating over children would be cosseted and protected. And the greatest irony would be that gay teachers were hounded out because they posed a threat to the kids. As if! As a kid, you soon got to know quickly who the harmless gay teachers were, and who were the freak perverts. Unfortunately, the history of this sad issue often meant that the kids put in harms way, were inadvertantly put there by their parent’s faith which meant more direct extra-curriccula involvement and greater unsupervised time with the perverts.

Anyway, whilst all institutions are guaranteed not to live up their ideals in some way, religions fail most abysmally because they promise so much, based on so little. All of ’em.

Whilst an atheist, I’m happy for my primary school aged daughter to do scripture (of her own volition she’s chosen Anglican, though I’m hoping she’ll also be able to do ethics classes). It’s somewhat endearing to see her blind faith in this along with her equally adamant belief in fairies. (No doubt, the fairies have been hounded out of existence too). While most of the Jesus stuff doesn’t trouble me, what does is the emphasis on Old Testament stories that, to be frank, are too weird and appalling to explain to most sane adults, let alone kids scared of Bruce the Shark in Nemo. What sort of ‘God’ is this YHWY that he condones and even encourages rape, murder, mutilation, infanticide and genocide?

Writer and blogger Jack Marx wrote a great piece on Senator’s Conroy’s internet filter and what, by the standards of censorship of ‘offensive’ material, this should mean for the Bible – http://blogs.news.com.au/jackmarxlive/index.php/news/comments/filtering_the_bible.
Makes for interesting reading.
One final observation. What would people make of a religion in which believers eat the body and blood of the redeemer, albeit symbolically? Imagine the hysterical Fox News reports if islamic, rather than christian, churches had such rituals? Myopia is just one step from blindness.

And poor form is poor form. And this is what Kate was guilty of. Well, apart from the crime to dessert aesthetics she stumped up last night.

* My science teacher was the exception
** A meaningless but relatively literary turn of phrase, used ironically here

4 brain dead dave { 07.19.11 at 3:14 pm }

She’s a frump,too.

5 NT Kate { 07.19.11 at 3:19 pm }

Good grief, a perfectly unremarkable avoidance of a title that offended Kate’s personal beliefs makes her guilty of all the sins of the paedophile scandal, not to mention responsible for all of God’s judgments on mankind chronciled in the Bible!! Get a grip Boner.

6 Sooty { 07.19.11 at 3:51 pm }

What a heartless response to a heartfelt and articulate posting.

You must know he meant nothing of the kind.

7 Culinary Boner { 07.19.11 at 3:54 pm }

C’mon NT Kate, of course Kate’s reponsible for no more than poor form, the worst winning dessert in masterchef’s short history and for committing the greatest sin of the 21st century, frumpery. (She can join Julia Gillard outside the confessional on that last sin).

As the rest of the post contained a myriad of odd opinions attempting to justify her faith-based position (mainly by people who her share her faith) I thought it entirely reasonable to share some of my first-hand experiences and personal obesrvations with the defenders of this faith. Oh, and other less prickly, readers of this blog.

You will note I refer to ethics classes. While these are an essential component in any quality secular education system – they teach kids how to think and behave as decent human beings without the need for medieval scare tactics (like the devil and his minions will prod you with pitchforks and set your ass on fire for eternity) or last century psychological scare tactics (god won’t love you and neither will the singing nuns, weren’t they one of the joys of the 70s?) – these classes are being opposed by most of the main christian religions in NSW, led by that beacon of tolerance the Rev Fred Nile (see, I used his title).

I don’t see why the majority who want a tolerant, secular society have to dictated to by the likes of the Rev Nile, Cardinal Pell and whoever’s heading up the main faction of the Anglicans at present. If they were businesses, the ACCC would be looking at them for restricting competition on this matter.

Back to my comment right at the beginning, MCA should have kept religion (an irrelevance, except on an entirely personal level) off the show. I expect they won’t be visiting China next year.

8 NT Kate { 07.19.11 at 5:12 pm }

Sooty and CB – Yes MC should have stayed clear of religion.

But having done so, I do find this burst of secularist-fundamentalist ire at the very expression of one’s own personal religious views frankly scary.

Just why is that the Dalai Lama’s views of his titles are more important than Kate’s views of what her religion permits her to call other people? The reality is that the DL is an exiled ex-theocratic leader with no diplomatic status whatsoever. He isn’t even technically the spiritual leader of his faction of Tibetan Buddhists – appointing said leader was just one of his perogatives. He is just a cult leader with a great stik and publicity machine.

The only justification for granting a higher status to his position than hers as far as I can gather is that you and others hate Christianity and Christians for assorted good and bad reasons. Therefore anyone else’s religious views have priority over those of Christians.

The kind of arguments CB is making are eerily reminiscent of the view of christianity taken by early Roman critics, who similarly baulked at the idea of what they saw as ritualised cannibalism and other aberrations. And those early Romans too thought that Christians should just suck it up and just pay lip service to the (pagan) gods as everyone else did too.

I’m truly sorry for all of those who had terrible experiences at the hands of those in authority, and operated under the guise of religion. But to take one’s own personal traumas, or even institutionalized traumas, and use that as justification to oppose the freedom of others to practice their religion is irrational and unfair.

Back in those first centuries, they killed Christians for refusing to conform to the expected norms of society and displaying “poor form”.

So far in this country we are just mocking and harrassing them.

But this utter failure to refuse to see it as reasonable for people to be allowed to express their own beliefs, what ever it might be fueled by is as disturbing as the evils done in the name of religion in my view. It really does make one wonder whether secularism could be a bigger threat than Islam to those of us who don’t buy the current standard lines.

9 Sooty { 07.19.11 at 5:27 pm }

“Sooty and CB – Yes MC should have stayed clear of religion. ”

I didn’t say that. But all of this hot polemic really does make a mockery of your statements earlier regarding “pagan rituals” being not necessarily a pejorative expression, etc, when it clearly was.

I am not into debate. But all this shrillness is really getting to me and I stand by what I said above. You attacked CB for no good reason, accused him of bizarre intentions, and now you are ranting again about, what, your random Wiki findings?

Oh, by the way, the phrase ‘pagan rituals’ was, not unsurprisingly, not in my dictionary. Not in my Macquarie, old or new editions; not in my Oxford, small or two-voume. Funny that. But I did not need a dictionary to know what it meant.

I am sick of arguing with half-baked prissy “Christians”. This used to be a fun place where we could shoot off our silly opinions, bad jokes, worse puns, and have a bit of a laugh at life and tv.

10 Culinary Boner { 07.19.11 at 5:32 pm }

NT Kate, this’ll be my last peep on this matter.
Secularism, the Western scientific and cultural enlightment, the trading and commercial systems pioneered by the early Islamic empires, parliamentary democracy and the astounding commonsense of the personal and property rights of the English common law are the reasons why we have a better functioning society than most, not arcane medieval Christianity.

11 NT Kate { 07.19.11 at 7:48 pm }

Sooty – look up the words separately!

I find it very telling that because I engage you on the issues you feel obliged to respond with a personal attack, and make all sorts of unwarranted assumptions about where I’m coming from.

Yep, a real fun place at the moment where long bizarre monologues attacking the beliefs of 70% or so of the population and their right to have their democratic say on issues such as their children’s education has suddenly become appropriate.

As to those totally bizarre claims about the basis of our culture – well…let’s just go back to food.

12 RarelySeen { 07.19.11 at 7:54 pm }

Sorry to run the stick along the cage CB, but it was Lord Atkin who worked out the connection between ‘love thy neighbour’ (biblical reference) and the ‘neighbour’ principle in Tort law in Donoghue v Stevenson in 1932. The understanding is now considered naf because of the obvious Christian theological underpinnings. However, that perspective does underly a lot of the foundations of early English Common Law.
But generally I agree with you about the true value of other cultures and belief systems being able to enrich our lives.

13 NatSplat { 07.19.11 at 7:59 pm }

“Get a Grip Boner” NT Kate…thanks for the giggle….

14 Sooty { 07.19.11 at 8:35 pm }

“Perhaps she was reacting to being forced to be associated with the pagan rituals being enacted based on the clips we’ve been shown to advertise the show. If it were me, I’d be more than a little upset.” So you said, NT Kate.

“Sooty and CB – Yes MC should have stayed clear of religion. ”
And this too. Was that “trying to engage” me on “the issues”? Well, I disengaged, by pointing out that this was not and never has been my opinion.

I have however been engaged today with unbelievable assertions which I have gone to the bother of explaining and refuting, blah blah blah, on another post. If you consider “prissy ‘Christians'” a personal attack, so be it.

15 Ash { 07.20.11 at 12:50 am }

I find it hilarious that all the tolerant, all accepting, never judging, *insert bullocks here* are so intolerant of Kate.

16 NT Kate { 07.20.11 at 6:06 am }

Indeed Ash.

Sooty – sorry if you feel I was verballing you on MC and religion, that particular comment was a response to something CB said, and since you were defending his comments in general, I assumed incorrectly that you agreed with him.

But to be clear, my position is not that hard to understand. I think most of these “religions” are scams. Some are worse, dangerous cults. But I do believe in genuine tolerance, tolerance that does not privilege one minority group over another, or worse, a small minority over the majority (the 2% of Buddhists over the 64% Christians in the last census; 3% gay vs 97% heterosexual for example!), just because one has a great media and lobbying machine behind it.

The attraction of reality shows is that they show us “real people” doing things. And while it does normally bring in ‘celebrity chefs’ and the like, their celebrity status is normally pretty c list, in a very narrow sphere. Most of the chefs who appear on masterchef are there to get publicity for their businesses, so real people too, albeit very talented ones.

By contrast, the DL and such people are celebrities by virtue of the cult of celebrity created and exploited by the media including the soon to be defunct Murdoch empire (and organisations like the producers of MC). The whole celebrity thing, I suspect is about to become so last year…

But in the meantime while the death throws create ripples, we shouldn’t let ourselves get sucked into it.

That means a few things in this context. First, whatever the weirdness of their views, they should all be allowed to do their thing amongst themselves and argue publicly for their positions on public policy. Whether or not they persuade the government/people should be and is a matter of how well they play the democratic process, and if nuttiness prevails that is our fault not theirs!

Secondly no one should be forced to comply with some tiny minorities religious rituals and practices just because they happen to have a good publicity machine going.

Do other cultures and religions have much to offer us? Of course they do provided we pick selectively and reject what is bad about these ideas (oppression of women etc). But that doesn’t mean we should feel compelled to totally reject and attack the heritage we already have, just that we should add to our diversity. And we won’t do that by forcing people to conform to new minority positions.

The reality is that our culture, society and institutions to this point have been pretty much shaped by the Christian legacy which preserved and incorporated Judaeo-Graeco-Roman culture, took in and modified and passed down assorted indigeneous cultures (such as Anglo-Saxon) and laid the basis for what we have today. I personally don’t like many aspects of what that entails. But it is our heritage and starting point, and pretending it isn’t is just revisionist history of the type practiced in totalitarian regimes. To suggest that trade or science originated with the early Islamic conquering empires, or that the English common law developed in isolation from Christianity, for example, is just historically untrue.

And I remain completely puzzled about why so many people are upset at Kate for making such a minor and harmless display of her faith, and why it has unleashed such a wave of anti-Christian sentiment.

Christians may be mostly weirdos but they are our weirdos.

17 Steve Wakeford { 07.22.11 at 5:25 pm }

Oh, pleeeeaaassseeee! Aren’t we supposed to be the most tolerant society in the world?? Don’t we pride ourselves on this? Then let’s tolerate Christians who have the backbone to actually live out their faith in a courteous and civil manner. Heaven knows we Christians are asked to tolerate a fair bit of flack from noisy minority groups – and everyone expects us to just cop it. Thank God we live in a country where we can express our individual opinions on these issues. Not many places on earth have this freedom!

18 Jmus { 07.26.11 at 7:53 pm }

Kate is welcome to honor her own beliefs, just as we all are. If her religion says that God is holy and no one else, it would be a crime to force her to dishonour her beliefs. She is not demonstrating tollerance If she negates her own beliefs to placate another’s, unless doing so restricts someone else’s religious freedom.

19 MR { 07.29.11 at 6:02 pm }

Well, let see,….. if Pope was the guest and someone just called him “pope” at his face while others called him “your holiness” out of respect regardless of their beliefs, I wonder how big of a deal this matter gets a day after the airing….

20 David Ashton { 08.04.11 at 10:43 pm }

Only someone who is pig ignorant themselves would suggest Kate Bracks is. She treated him with the same respect she treats everyone.

A “sky-fairy”?? It’s rather ignorant to deride Christ when you know next to nothing about Him, don’t you think? Why do people get hostile about believing in Christ? No-one is making you believe, and it would be good manners to actually listen before you leap.

21 L. { 08.09.11 at 10:56 pm }

Quoting NT Kate: ‘The kind of arguments CB is making are eerily reminiscent of the view of christianity taken by early Roman critics, who similarly baulked at the idea of what they saw as ritualised cannibalism and other aberrations. And those early Romans too thought that Christians should just suck it up and just pay lip service to the (pagan) gods as everyone else did too.’

Dear NT Kate,

Early Roman critics viewed the emerging Christian cult askance due to a range of factors. Perhaps the most bothersome was the similarity in language, and perhaps in superficial appearance, of Christian ritual to the rituals of the Bacchanalian cult. Christian ritual (early and modern) is full of words associated with feasting, the (metaphorical/transubstantial) consuming of divine flesh and blood, the solidarity of the Church family, a primary allegiance to God, and the separation of oneself from ‘pagan’ society. These were all ‘red flags’ for the Roman government.

The Bacchanalian cult was suppressed by the consul Sp. Postumius Albinus and the Senate in 186 BC (see Livy XXXIX 8-19, and Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus CIL I2 581), due to a range of factors, but in particular for exhibiting anti-social and anti-Roman behaviours that bear similarity to the common aspects of Christian ritual mentioned above. The Romans saw the emergence of the Christian cult (perhaps rightly so, given that they viewed all Christian sects, both Gnostic and Pauline, as one) as a potential conspiracy (the L. word coniuriatio carried specific legal meaning and ramifications), requiring immediate, severe, attention (see Cicero De Legibus 2.8 for Roman attitudes towards appropriate severity).

As such, I don’t think you can compare CB’s opinion towards Christians with that of the Roman government.

Thanks,

L.

22 L. { 08.09.11 at 11:03 pm }

A particularly prescient quote that reflects Roman attitudes towards foreign cults (Christianity would have been viewed as such) is as follows:

“No one shall have gods to himself, either new gods or alien gods, unless recognised by the state. Privately they shall worship those gods whose worship they have duly received from their ancestors.”
Cicero De Legibus 2.8.19

I think ‘lip service’ is a little too weak a descriptor for how integral Roman Religion was in Roman life (Republican and Imperial). It was an all pervading system that permeated political, social and private life.

23 L. { 08.09.11 at 11:09 pm }

Corrections:
1. (see Cicero De Legibus 2.*15* for Roman attitudes towards appropriate severity).
2. that of Roman *critics*.

24 Christine Rae { 08.17.11 at 5:43 pm }

It took courage to do what Kate did. I applaud her. There is no-one holy except God, even the Dalai Lama will have to bow before the King of Kings one day, along with the rest of us (“Every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord”)

25 NT Kate { 08.17.11 at 7:46 pm }

L – Bit of a redherring but…I wasn’t suggesting that Roman religion wasn’t integral to its society, quite the contrary. The similarity I would suggest is to various attempts to get Christians to superficially at least conform to the prevailing norm (just offer the sacrifice and we’ll let you go…). And of course one can trace the origins of the Roman civic religion in Greek culture, and Socrates famous ‘atheism’.

My point was actually that there is an erie parallel between the reasons why Christians then were viewed as such a threat to the state religion, and why Christians now are viewed as so threatening to the anti-religious secular state.

First then, as now, a whole series of bizarre misunderstandings of what the religion actually teaches and practices circulated, which was what I was pointing to in Boner’s comments, serving to confuse the masses and undermine the credibility of Christians. Your point about confusion with Baccanalian practices back then is certainly part of it, but I think it was a lot more complex than that, as you will find if you take a look at comments on Christians by Pliny, Galen, Celsus and others (a really excellent book on this topic is Robert Wilken’s, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them). Personally though I tend to think that these grotesque misrepresentations of what Christianity is about circulating today (including in CB’s post) are symptoms and reflect the tactics of opponents rather than the real issues.

In the end you are righ, it was about a political threat, both to social cohesion and to specific laws (look at the legislative programme implemented after the Empire officially became christian: abolition of slavery, ban on exposing infants, etc etc etc).

Today the Christian threat is to the secularist ideal: Christians want to preserve traditional marriage rather than allowing homosexual and other variants, for example, and much more . And it was precisely this political threat that Boner had a go at, suggesting that people like Cardinal Pell, Fred Nile at al should not have a voice at all, because they challenge the new orthodoxy and he doesn’t like them.

My point is not that you have to agree with Pell et al, but that they surely have a right to speak up, and individuals should have the right to opt out of practices they find abhorrent unless absolutely required for good reasons by law.

My fundamental point is that this whole incident illustrates that somewhere or other, just as Rome abandoned the Republic, we seem to have abandoned the small l liberal ideal of a democracy in which individual conscience is taken seriously and respected, and not overruled in the interests of the new god of ‘tolerance’, and where robust debate on all sides is regarded as a positive.

26 L. { 08.18.11 at 4:17 am }

N T Kate.

Thanks for your clarification. I have no issue with your argument as it stands. Your language suggested to me something other than your intent, and as such, ’twas merely a misinterpretation on my part.

I would argue that any position, liberal, relativist or otherwise is tyrannical if taken to the extreme . The notion that Christians should somehow remove themselves from political or social discourse attacks the concept of democracy. When this notion is championed by liberals, I would argue that they attack the foundations of our democracy (which just so happened to be built on Greco-Judeo-Christian values).

To be mildly retentive, I think connecting Roman state religion (non-Stoic) with Socrates’ ‘atheism’ is a bit of a long bow :P. While the archetypes used in the (early) pantheon of Roman state religion were influenced by Greek models, much of the gods’ underlying ‘divine’ attributes were absorbed from local Villanovan/Etrurian prototypes. Furthermore, the Roman state religion was a constantly evolving, syncretising beast that persistently practised ‘evocatio’ in order to absorb foreign gods (as a political or popularist tool) into the state religion. With regards to Roman *religious* attitudes towards Christianity, I would examine the official responses regarding the evocatio of the Magna Mater, the suppression of the Bacchanalia and the rise of the Imperial cults as appropriate temporal exemplars. Non-religious attitudes are a whole different kettle of fish, and the book you mentioned probably covers those facts in detail.

On a side note, I recently was suprised by the existence of an early ‘Christian’ text termed the ‘Pseudo-Sibylline Oracles’ that was persistently popular in Jewish and Christian communities (as well as with early Christian Fathers such as Augustine, Theophilus and Clement) throughout the mid to late first millenium AD. This text contains a pastiche of oracles attributed to the Sibyls, that provide references to Hesiodic/Homeric, Jewish and Christian religious and historical material. It was so popular amongst Christians that Celsus, the anti-Christian philosopher, was recorded by Origen as stating that Christians were ‘believers in Sibyl’ (Origen Against Celsus V.LXI). When some modern Christians state emphatically that Christianity has always been, in some respects, fundamentally intolerant of other world-views or religions (in the sense that they are essentially in opposition), they tend to forget the patchwork nature of the early Christian church with its variety of sects, factions and ‘heresies’.

Robust debate should always be valued, but ignorance of facts, history or the complexity of human nature should be shied away from.

L.

27 bikram { 08.24.11 at 1:59 pm }

if u dont respect its ok, but don’t insult.

28 kelsang { 09.29.11 at 8:20 pm }

I am a tibetan n i dnt feel bad for kate!! as its her wish n im sure his holiness wouldnt hav even notice bout kate callin him by his name rather than title!! we love ad resect all religion,b it muslim or christian catholics watever it is!! so peace n dont make a big fuss of it!!

29 Tenzin Dudul { 10.14.11 at 8:14 am }

please dont make a fuss abt it…
M a tibetan n I will call by his title till ma last breath..
meanwhile i will keep callin other religious leaders by their title..
Its ma choice..
Please, Dont make it holy-issue..!!

30 Tenzin Dudul { 10.14.11 at 8:21 am }

N one more thing… Please dont insult!!
thank u..

31 David { 01.03.12 at 6:38 pm }

Some of the people who have commented above seems to have little sense on the definition of RELIGION. In my understanding through many reading and classes, religion involves faith which means anything that involves faith is religion. And, as I have traveled around different places, it came to my knowledge that people from east with their religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism demonstrate far more faith than us ( West). Over the time, especially due to the introduction of science and technology, we ( Western) have lost both faith and moral principles that our religion demands. Thus, envy of others’s faith and dedication towards their religion, we make every effort to negate , nullify, and even demean others’ religious beliefs by jolting all the nonsensical factors that are either false or individuals’ mis-perception. With such religion far older than other religions in the western hemisphere and being able to counter all opponents with reasoning, there is hardly anything left with us ( monotheist) to disrespect Buddhist beliefs. Though, I could have just ignored most of the above comments and spend my spent time on other meaningful things, but due to some misinformation that is provided in above, I was induced to jolt some of my personal though reasonable thoughts. ( Anyway, Dalai Lama means “Ocean of Wisdom” and it is not a tibetan word)

32 Duncan { 01.19.12 at 2:02 pm }

I had the opportunity to meet Kate personally yesterday, and I personally affirmed my support for her conscious choice of not calling the Dalai Lama “holy”, without being in anyway disrespectful to him (though some might perceive it that way simply because she chose not to call her by that title). Publicly going against the majority’s opinions (and for good reasons), knowing that it would be criticize by some, take guts and conviction, and it is inspiring to see that in “ordinary people” in ordinary life.

33 Danesh { 02.10.13 at 7:56 am }

I think, its just a reflection, of poor upbringing, and shit loads of ignorance.
I am half jewish, and half zoarastrian. I am an atheist, so, I quite frankly, don’t care much, for religion.
But, I like the Dalai Lama, cause he is as straight forwards about giving his views on sex, and abstinence, as he is about spirituality.
Kate is just an Ugly, Over-Weight, Uneducated woman, who can’t cook, to save her life. She was nowhere near the Top 10 chefs, of the season. How she won, is a mystery, even she can’t answer.
I am sure, the Dalai Lama, didn’t care, whether she called him Dalai, Lama, or the chink from Tibet. He is far above,and beyond, all that shit. She, on the other hand, has issues. The least of which, dealt with, how to address someone, who has millions of followers, around the world.

34 David Ashton { 02.10.13 at 2:52 pm }

One thing Kate is not is ignorant, but Danesh betrays his own. Why are christians expected to act against their own conscience? She was neither rude or unkind, and the Dalai (the term by which he addressed him) was OK with what she did.

The arrogance of Danesh’s comment is astounding. Kate would never address any human being with the term “Your Holiness”.

35 akcesoria.forum-monitoring.com { 11.09.13 at 8:09 pm }

Smartfony niezmienny się rzeczywiście powszechne w tych dniach , iż nawetmałe
latorośl wie, jak owo działa ! W rzeczywistości,
większość przychówek zaś młodzieży widoczne są przyklejone aż do smartfonów .
Ponieważ ,szał na Smartphone ma dotrzeć rekordową popularnością , natomiast jego nasilenie wykorzystania między przychówek ma kędyś się
rodzice cokolwiek napięte – Stworzyła \” luki komunikacyjnej \”
pośrodku dziećmi i ich rodzicami . Przeważnie przychówek
są trolling w ich cyfrowym świecie , co sprawia, iż niezwykle z
trudem jest śledzić ich rutynowych działań .
Ale kiedy to powiedział \” jederman szkopuł ma sposób \”
, skutkiem tego ma ten trudność również mają własne fortel .
Mobilne sklepy aplikacji są zalane niepomiernie i na wskroś zaprojektowanej aplikacji monitorowania przychówek ,
co sprawia, iż bez trudności się sneak peek aż do cyfrowego świata dziecka.
Małe czereda i młodzież są szczególnie bardzo wrażliwe na czynniki zewnętrzne
, są naiwne , zaś tym samym wolno swobodnie przeciągnąć do świata zbrodni
, oraz nawet w jakimś złym towarzystwie .

A co w środku tym idzie , powinno się wciąż
monitorować swoje działania a ich miejsca pobytu .
W przeciwieństwie do wcześniejszych sposobów wynajęcie detektywa , jest dozwolone zaczerpnąć aplikację śledzenia dzieci
, iżby otrzymać jaśniejszy dzieło malarskie o miejscu pobytu
dziecka. Z takich bardzo rozwiniętych aplikacji wolno próbować swoje latorośl
na krzyż uzyskanie swoją lokalizację ( prąd) .
Krótko mówiąc, na skutek niej będziesz
świadomy ich pobytu zaś zapewnia precyzyjne oraz dokładne szczegóły ich lokalizacji.

W ów sposób jest dozwolone osiągnąć pewność , że są bezpieczne
, jednakowoż nie robi coś, czego nie mają sprawiać .

W rzeczywistościstopa przestępczości przy czereda
jest zatrważający , toteż jest to niezwykle oczywiste
w celu rodziców, aby kłopotać się o nich oraz ich bezpieczeństwo.
W rzeczywistości, w krótkim czasie można dojść aż do dziecka w razie niebezpieczeństwa w czasie rzeczywistym rozwiązań obecnych na Państwa dyspozycji.
Jednak sporo Smartphone posiada system śledzenia GPS , jaki pomaga
otrzymać dokładne wskazówki , wobec tego wolno przybyć do
konkretnego miejsca w żadnym momencie. Co więcej , wolno nawet ochronić kontrolę na zaproszenia oraz zapisów wymowa dzieci.
Choć wydaje się, że przeszkadzam w ich osobistej przestrzeni ,
to jest no tak pomagarodziców do ustalenia, czydziecko jest
owszem w złym towarzystwie czy też jakichkolwiek innych problemów poważnych .

Poza tym , od momentu Smartfony umożliwiają dostęp do
Internetu – I gdy sieć stajeopen source , stało
się niezmiernie grunt , ażeby posiadać oko na korzystanie z Internetu
Twojego dziecka. Z tych aplikacji , można pilnować codzienne korzystanie z Twojego dziecka działalności internetowej , tudzież i być
dobrze poinformowani o jego użycia zaś nadużycia obiektu internetu w
swoim telefonie .

36 Nicco J { 05.06.14 at 10:13 pm }

I think she was a tad bit (or a lot) immature.
If she doesn’t believe, so what. It was/is a title, one doesn’t have to add belief to it.
I think she disrespected not only the Dalai Lama and those that believe in what he does, but her own religion as well.

37 David Ashton { 05.06.14 at 11:23 pm }

Nicco J hasn’t been paying attention. Kate would have disrespected Christ by referring to the Dalai Lama as “his holiness”. Only God is holy.
She took a mature decision with which he was OK.

38 brain dead dave { 05.06.14 at 11:52 pm }

Yawn.