Yasukuni as a Wartime Machine

Picture was taken from http://www.univie.ac.at/rel_jap/bilder/yasukuni.jpg

The summer in Japan, especially August 15 when the World War II ended, is the season to pray for people who died in the war. But in the recent years, it became a controversial season to guess the possibility of whether or not Japanese Prime Minister would visit Yasukuni Shrine in the year ever since the former Prime Minister Koizumi had visited there officially a number of times during his Administration, despite massive strong oppositions in and out of Japan. Now talking about whether or not the Prime Minister would and should visit this year is almost like an annual event. We, Japanese people, have been already fed up with this fruitless argument long time ago.

Let me explain briefly the background and history related with Yasukuni Shrine. Yasukuni Shrine is one of the Shinto’s shrines. But it is very special, and should not be underestimated as one of them. During and pre-World War II era, Yasukuni Shrine was used as a war-time spiritual machine to galvanize Japanese people’s spirit to support the Japanese belligerent government at that time. People were taught that their souls would go to Yasukuni Shrine if they died for the soul of Japan and Emperor Hirohito who was thought as living God. They were also taught it was an ideal way to die as Japanese with pride. Therefore, before going to the place where battles took place, soldiers visited Yasukuni Shrine with hope to die beautifully for the country.

This is not the only problem. In 1970s, War Criminal As were enshrined to Yasukuni. Those names include Japanese war-time Prime Minister who irresponsibly did not stop Japanese no-hope war to fight the United States, which cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

In addition, in Yasukuni, there is a museum showing the history of war-time Japan in the way to “praise” then-Japanese government and war itself in some level. All in all, Yasukuni is seen as a holy place for hawkish right wing people.

Also, visiting Yasukuni is thought as a violation of the constitution which separate Church and State. No matter how the Prime Minister insists his visit is done privately, it is a groundless argument. This is because, virtually, there is no private or unofficial activity of politicians while sitting the post.

With reasons discussed above, there are a number of people who think visiting Yasukuni is very problematic. It is the act to ignore an emotion of relatives and descendants of people who were killed by Japanese military. Visiting Yasukuni was actually one of the reasons there were mass protests against Japan in China, South Korea, etc., a couple of years ago.

However, what Japanese right-wing politicians say is that this is a personal and religious visit, and there is no right of people in other countries to deny the right of religious visiting. Those pro-Yasukuni politicians accuse anti-Yasukuni critics in Japan that it is a sign of being weak to stop to visit there because of criticism coming from the outside of the country.

But I’m pretty sure that they also acknowledge that visiting Yasukuni damage foreign relationships with countries in Far East Asia a lot. But, even though they know how much problematic it is, they keep visiting there and sending flowers there to show the respect to Yasukuni.

Those politicians including the former Prime Minister Koizumi say “Isn’t it bad to show respect to Japanese soldiers who died in WWII?” Wait a minute. Then, what about the respect toward people who were killed by Japanese military? For those people, there is no more disrespectful “political” act than visiting Yasukuni. It is totally understandable that people in China, South Korea, etc. resent such insensitive activity.

Also, I really doubt that those pro-Yasukuni politicians really believe that visiting Yasukuni is a sign of showing respect. I don’t think so. It is, actually, an activity to maintain political supports from cultural conservative groups such as Japan Bereaved Families Association. This group has very strong political connection with the ruling party, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). Many pro-Yasukuni are actually politicians belonging to the LDP. They fear that they would lose political support from them if they stop to visit Yasukuni. Therefore, many people criticize those politicians that their argument of “showing respect” is actually used as an excuse.

Well, if they really want to show their respect to dead soldiers, there are so many other ways to do so, rather than visiting controversial Yasukuni. For example, why can’t they go to other Shinto shrines? Is there any sound argument that Yasukuni is the only “appropriate” shrine that they can pray for soldiers? Why is that?

Also, a recently discovered diary of Emperor Hirohito (he passed away about two decades ago) shows that he actually avoided visiting Yasukuni after Wartime Criminal As were enshrined, considering that visiting would likely destroy relationship with other Asian countries. Even though he didn’t have a political power officially in the current Constitution, he refrained from visiting there, understanding his role as a public figure. How smart he was, especially compared to the current right-wing politicians who keep visiting Yasukuni.

Well, my argument might be largely reflecting the voice of some liberal newspapers such as Asahi Shimbun (<http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200705100059.html>). I admit that. I know I am politically liberal (not too radical, though).

But still, even after reasonably thinking, it is nonsense for those politicians to visit Yasukuni, damaging the foreign relationship so much. There are much more negative effects to visit there than positive, if any at all. Also, I cannot accept their reasoning that visiting Yasukuni is a personal religious activity. It is much more political than religious. I want to say those politicians “Don’t politicize the religion.” People who died in WWII would not want such controversial visits to Yasukuni. It is, actually, disrespectful even to souls of dead soldiers.

America's New Catholic Town

You might have read over the last year or so about how Domino's Pizza founder Tom Monaghan decided to create a Catholic town in Florida. Well, this past weekend the town, called Ave Maria, has finally opened. The town, located east of Naples, Florida, includes a cathedral sized chapel at its center, a Catholic university which will take up about 1/5 of the town’s 5,000 acres, and, eventually, 11,000 homes. Every aspect of this town is influenced by Catholicism, even the streets have names like Assisi or Annunciation. The founder wanted this town to “reflect a faithfulness to Catholic teachings that they do not see elsewhere.” This of course draws controversy because of the issue of the separation of church and state.

AOL Video also has an ABC news clip about this town, and what I found interesting was that one of the town’s residents said that he wouldn’t mind if they had a gay neighbor.

Also, the Florida ACLU has threatened a lawsuit, since the town’s founder has said that there will be limit on the selling of condoms and other forms of birth control. Normally, I would be really against the idea of doctors/pharmacies not allowing access to birth control, but in this case I'm not so sure how I feel.

Religious Books Banned in Prisons; Islam Blamed

I recently came across an article from the Jewish Week discussing the newest victims to the war on terror: prison inmates.

Prisons have enacted regulations to limit the amount of religious texts accessible to prison inmates, removing all but 150 books per religion from prison chapels. As the Jewish Week explains, prison officials are fearful that religious texts, particularly Muslim books, are used to promote violence in prisons. As a result, religious texts have been banned and removed, leaving some Jewish prisoners without access to even the Torah. As the author laments, "Jewish inmates appear to have become the unintended victims."

We must question, though, why Muslims are the intended victims of these regulations.

According to an article by FoxNews, Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Feldman told U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain that the removal stemmed from a Department of Justice review done in April of 2004 of the way prisons choose Muslim religious service providers. Feldman said that the study was done because of a concern that prisons "had been radicalized by inmates who were practicing or espousing various extreme forms of religion, specifically Islam, which exposed security risks to the prisons and beyond the prisons to the public at large."

It scares me that our very own government, our own Department of Justice issues reports implying that Islam is a religion that incites violence and poses a threat to our country.

What scares me even more is that our government is in the business of limiting what we are allowed to read.

Religion as a Political Tactic

Today I finally got around to catching up on some of the articles on religion and politics that have been emailed back and forth at RFP (see here and here).
Both of the articles that I read focused on the importance to much of the American public that their elected officials be religious people or at least people with strong values that are compatible with the faith of their constituents. The articles mentioned that prior to the current presidential campaign, few Democrats were comfortable talking about their faith or religion in the public sphere, and the "religious talk" was therefore prevalent only on the right side of the aisle. Gearing up for the 2008 election, however, Democratic candidates have begun to realize that they cannot win an election if religion is off the table. They have decided to speak about religion at their campaign stops, emphasize their belief in God and their "religious values", and prove that they are just as "faithful" as their Republican counterparts.

While the tone of the articles was along the lines of "finally the Democrats are moving in the right direction, and maybe now they even have a chance to win!" I was somewhat troubled by the image that these articles portrayed. First of all, I got the feeling that the Democrats are now scrambling to take up an angle that just might give them an edge, and while they might actually believe what they are saying, they aren't saying it only because it is such a part of who they are that it can't be hidden. For these candidates, religion is just another political tactic, a strategy that will help them "convert" more and more voters. I wonder if these voters remember what these same politicians were saying a few years ago, emphasizing the separation of church and state and criticizing Republicans whose faith played such a strong role in their political decision-making. Working at Religions for Peace, I am a witness day in and day out to all the good things that religious traditions emphasize, and all the good things that religious communities can work together to accomplish. It seems contradictory to the faiths that these politicians profess when they use religion to achieve nothing more than a check by their name on a ballot.

The other thing that troubled me about these articles was not what they contained, but what they left out. In talking about conversing in the language of religion and courting prominent religious leaders and organizations, the religion was Christianity. There was little if any mention of engagement with Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, or any other kind of religious leader. The emphasis was on values - but it was understood that this meant Christian values. For some, being Christian was not enough - the candidate had to be a specific Christian denomination. What was implied is that a Jew or Muslim or Buddhist or Sikh does not have the right values to be President of the United States. I would imagine that in their opinion, an athiest doesn't have any values at all. All in all I sensed intolerance, an unwillingness to believe that people of a different tradition or background can be good, moral people.

I am greatly troubled by the actions of these politicians, but I am equally troubled by the attitudes of so many American citizens. Our Constitution prohibits the use of religious tests as qualifications for public office, but it cannot eliminate a religious litmus test at the ballot box by the voters themselves. Only education, conversation, understanding, and acceptance can do that.

Operation Save America

I am so conflicted about this organization. I get so indignant when I read about the things they are doing -- their actions are totally and hideously inappropriate to me. They violate every aspect of respect, consideration, compassion and tolerance. They were the ones shouting at Ven. Rajan Zedji as mentioned in Rori's post, and they also are engaged in many similar campaigns.

Take this one for example: the "God is Going Back to School" campaign. OSA went to Harding High School in Bridgeport, CT on Friday Sept. 22, 2006. In their article on this action, they talk about how they passed out literature, Holy Bibles, wristbands and other tracts, and how "Each student had to go in through these front doors. We had access to about two thousand kids in forty-five minutes time."

The way this sounds, it seems like the only reason anyone listened to them or payed attention was because they HAD to; students weren't necessarily interested in their message, but because they had to go to school, they were forced to pass through the OSA crowd. Of course, they only mention the kids who love them and praise their efforts, and not the ones that tell them where to go, if you know what I mean.

I remember going to school in Rochester, NY, and having to walk through swarms of people holding up posters with huge images of aborted babies yelling slogans at us. Then at the end of the day, having to get on the RTS buses to go home, we had to do the same thing all over again.

As a future educator, though, what disturbs me most is what they say at the top of this webpage: "We are never more effective than when we take the battle to the very gates of hell -- the public school." I wonder, is it because public schools don't teach students to be intolerant of other religions, or to go out and heckle those who think and pray differently? Is that why they are the "gates of hell"? Or is it because public schools don't teach that "Jesus is the standard"? I hope to teach in these public schools, because I believe in them, and because I am largely a product of public schooling. The only sentiments of cynicism I might have toward public schools would come out of the last year and a half of research I've done on the No Child Left Behind Act.

I was talking to my roommate last night, and he wrote off OSA as fanatical lunatics, and I must admit, it's easy to do that. And while I couldn't disagree more with these people, I have to still accept that they are doing what they believe in. This is why I am conflicted. I want to write them off, too...and so badly, because they make me so furious. But they are entitled to say and do what they will, as long as it does not impinge on the rights of others. (To this extent, their ruthless action in Washington D.C. on the 12th is reeeeeally pushing it.) And as a part of RFP-USA, I am obliged to respect their religious sentiments, so long as they remain peaceful, even if I personally think they are totally betraying the tolerant teachings of Jesus Christ.

Argh.

Activists Disrupt Hindu Prayer

I was absolutely shocked to read this article about Christian activists who heckled the first Hindu to be invited to the Senate to lead a Hindu prayer.

In a historical moment, Rajan Zed, a Hindu chaplain, was invited to perform the invocation for the Senate, a prayer that is typically Christian. Just before he was able to begin, though, three individuals from the Christian Right anti-abortion group Operation Save America began shouting. "Lord Jesus, forgive us father for allowing a prayer of the wicked, which is an abomination in your sight. This is an abomination. We shall have no other gods before you."

The presiding officer for the morning, Senator Bob Casey, immediate asked the sergeant-at-arms to restore order. As they were led out, they continued shouting their protests: "No Lord but Jesus Christ" and There's only one true God."

Rajan Zed, unnerved by the incident, then continued with his invocation. He said:

"Let us pray. We meditate on the transcendental glory of the deity supreme, who is insie the heart of the earth, inside the life of the sky an inside the soul of heaven. May he stimulate an illuminate our minds. Lead us from the unreal to real, from darkness to light, and from death to immortality. May we be protecte together, may we be nourished together. May we work together with great vigour. May our study be enlightening."

A video of the incident can be viewed here.

A copy of this video is also found on the website of Operation Save America, proud of the hate they have spread. They issued the following press release, condemning the members of the Senate for not joining in their protests:

WASHINGTON, July 12 /Christian Newswire/ -- Ante Pavkovic, Kathy Pavkovic, and Kristen Sugar were all arrested in the chambers of the United States Senate as that chamber was violated by a false Hindu god. The Senate was opened with a Hindu prayer placing the false god of Hinduism on a level playing field with the One True God, Jesus Christ. This would never have been allowed by our Founding Fathers.

"Not one Senator had the backbone to stand as our Founding Fathers stood. They stood on the Gospel of Jesus Christ! There were three in the audience with the courage to stand and proclaim, 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me.' They were immediately removed from the chambers, arrested, and are in jail now. God bless those who stand for Jesus as we know that He stands for them." Rev. Flip Benham, Director, Operation Save America/Operation Rescue.

I am ashamed that when our government finally becomes progressive enough to invite a Hindu to lead the prayer, he faces such treatment.

Iraq = post-war Japan?

We’ve already been sick and tired to see bloodsheds in Iraq through the monitor of TV every day. It seems a never-ending story. Everybody wonders why we have so many struggles in Iraq continuously. Why, why, and why… Why can’t Iraqis get together to stop sectarian violence and build up their new nation with their own power? Why?

Well, things are not so easy, obviously. Sometimes, watching what is happening in Iraq on TV reminds me one story. I’ve heard that, before invasion to Iraq, US top officials had Japan in their minds as a model of post-war nation-building. Why? Well, it’s so obvious. Even though there might have been struggles, no one would say that nation-building process in post-war Japan was a failure. As native Japanese, I would say it was a big success. It’s economically revived drastically within a few decades, even though Tokyo was completely destroyed during the wartime. And, its politics was relatively stable. With assistance mainly from US, it’s revived in only a few decades after the World War II. It’s simply a good example of post-war nation-building for Bush Administration. No wonder why they tried to adopt this example to Iraq.

But, could we successfully have adopted Japan-model to Iraq so far? No one would think so. Well, of course, it is too early to judge how it would be in the future. But seeing today’s severe sectarian violence and bloodsheds in Iraq, it’s very difficult to be optimistic to imagine Iraq would experience success as Japan did in a few decades.

Then, next question would be “What is (are) the reason(s) that we cannot implement post-war strategies as we did in Japan?” To me, it’s also so obviosus. The biggest difference between today’s Iraq and post-war Japan of 60 years ago, is the extent of ethnic diversity.

Japan, even in the Globalized Age of 21^st century, still relatively keeps its mono-ethnic culture. In my opinion, it’s very amazing (I don’t take it favorably, though). I guess, more than 90 percent of people living in Japan are born and raised in Japan. Most of them (or should I say “many”? But I guess it’s close to “most”) are basically Buddhists, even though they tend to keep its Buddhist tradition only when there’s a ceremony like a funeral (of course, there are people believing in other religions). Virtually almost 100% (not 100%) of people in Japan speak Japanese, and there’s no second national language. Most of them can speak only Japanese. Ethnically, Japan is also monotone. Other tribes and ethnic groups are totally marginalized, and virtually (and sadly) Japanese people don’t know even their existence. But, historically Japan have imported culture from all over the world, and interpreted in its own Japanese way.

Of course, Japan cannot escape from the tide of globalization and has to accept some level of cultural and ethnic diversity, as it has done gradually. But still, even now, the level of cultural monotone in Japan is very special among developed countries. So, you could easily imagine how monotone Japanese society was sixty years ago.

Compared to it, Iraq is totally different. It has Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Christians, etc. And Iraqi’s social and economical status was likely to be separated by which ethnic groups they belonged to under Hussein Regime. It is so easy to imagine that some level of sectarian struggles could not be avoided after the dictator was gone. Then, we see what’s happening in Iraq.

Japan? Before the war ended, Emperor Hirohito was thought as living God. Everybody was supposed to lose his/her life for him. Simply because, he was God. But after the war ended, he became just “one of us,” a human being like everybody.

Then, had there been a power struggle like Iraq of now? As far as I know, I don’t think so. I think Japanese collectivism mentality united them to rebuild nation from zero again. Also, mono-culture-ness of Japan at that time helped them to avoid what we’ve seen in Iraq as sectarian violence.

I’m really curious how seriously high US officials thought about Iraqi ethnic diversity in the post-war projection, before they invaded Iraq. Of course, I guess they knew this fact. But it’s matter of degree. How serious were they? Maybe, they didn’t take it seriously, or even if they did, President Bush and its surroundings just ignored the fact.

If it is easy to overcome the wall between different ethnicities and religions, we don’t need Religions for Peace in this world. But it is not. We cannot underestimate how high the wall is. Even if people understand cooperation beyond the religious and ethnic differences is important in their head, it is still hard to overcome their hatred flowing under their consciousness. The process takes time. Interfaith dialogues take time. Understanding diversity to the level of working together is hard. We should not forget this, and should not underestimate how difficult it is. We should not easily connect Iraq with post-war Japan.

Why should I be tolerant?

I live in a rural area in Indonesia where 90 percent of the populations are Moslems. There are some branches, such as Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah, and al Irsyad. However, they are basically Sunni. Yet even so, there was a conflict among us. I can say that it was not a big conflict. We could deal with it.

When I was in elementary school, there were some non-Moslems students and one Christian teacher that we had at school. At that time, it didn’t benefit me to think about tolerance because we didn’t have any problem among us. I think when we have never experienced a problem because of the differences, it doesn’t encourage us to think more about it.

I try to think much deeper how I understand Islam in Indonesia especially in my region, I can say that Islam as I understand it doesn’t have a political will; I have never been taught about politics. Islam as I understand it is much more cultural than political. As a Moslem, it sometimes challenges me to explore what the real Islam is. However I can say that the Islam that I understand can co-exist with other beliefs.

I remember when one of our Islamic scholars, Gus Dur, said that it is so important to maintain the tolerance in Indonesia. He really opposed the idea to include Islamic Law in our jurisprudence. For him, as long as Moslems can practice their belief, it is enough for us. Islam doesn’t have to be the source of the law officially because he thought it would be against the spirit of pluralism among us as Indonesians.

I can feel the importance of being tolerance when I am in the USA. Living in the country which is from difference groups of religions, ethnicities, cultures and languages teach me to put tolerance as a guide to live peacefully. As a minority in this country, I become aware that I should always maintain the tolerance in my country because I know from this fact non-Moslems in my country feel as I do now.

Jews for Jesus

Yesterday was a magical day for Union Square. There were tons of butterflies flittering about, and one of them decided to land on my finger for about ten minutes, just kinda hanging out.

As I'm sitting there with this creature on my hand, I see this bright red pamphlet suddenly being put in front of me, that says, "WHAT THE HELL?" I looked up and someone working for Jews for Jesus said, "Do you believe in Jesus?" I said "I think Jesus did some really wonderful things, but I myself am a Buddhist." "Oh," he said, "did you convert to that, or were you born into it?" I told him about studying Buddhism at Hampshire and all that, and we chatted for a couple minutes, but he said, "Well, I just wanted to tell you about Jesus and give you the good news of the Bible." I wanted to talk to him more about his organization, but I think he had to keep going. So, I figured I'd look at his bright red pamphlet anyhow.

Man, was it a downer.

Basically, it was talking about how people go to hell for their sins, and even if you don't believe in hell, you'll still go there, unless, of course, you seek Jesus as your personal savior. I figured, for as cheery as this guy sounded, and given the fact that he mentioned that the Bible was 'good news,' that the subsequent information on Jews for Jesus would be likewise, somewhat positive. It was, unfortunately, more about how everyone is a sinner, and everyone will probably be going to hell, unless, of course....

One last thing: the term 'personal savior' is one I've been having some issues with lately. I figure that term means that you come to an individual decision to accept Jesus Christ as your savior. And while other people and events can influence that change, it seems that the point with a lot of proselytizing is for them to make that decision in your mind for you. I really feel that in the end, you, yourself have to make the decision to accept anyone as your savior, or not. Hence the 'personal' in 'personal savior,' right? Real, genuine, long-lasting change has to come from inside; these sorts of important feelings and notions can't be sorted out by anybody else.

America as a rogue super power?

This morning, I found an interesting, but dreadful editorial article in Times which talks about a recent poll of global attitudes toward US. Please see below, and related statistics (I think many of you frequently use Pew's website, but if not, I would recommend you to check these website regularly. There are tons of interesting polls and statistics there).

As a staff of Religions for Peace - USA, which also has an area of activities, "advocat[ing] for responsibility of the U.S. as a citizen of the global community with particular regard to peace, human rights, and development," I cannot ignore the result of this poll. Image of America rottens so badly now.

The only good thing among the worsts is that, as Times discribes, people answering this poll seem to separate US politics and US citizens. American people themselves are not bad, but US politics is. This is what they want to say.
If you want to be seen favorably, you have to show kindness to others and understand others in deep. Only after that, people would see you in a favorable way. I think it applies everything, e.g., to our daily lives and foreign affairs.

What US politics has done for the last several years, not to mention Iraq War, might be totally opposite, pushing its self-determined value and ego onto others. No wonder people living in the other countries have suspicious eyes to US now.

I almost wholeheartedly support the idea of "soft power" invented by Professor Joseph Nye. It's so funny that US which Nye belongs to is struggling bad images of its conducts. It's so sarcastic...


http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=256

http://pewglobal.org/commentary/display.php?AnalysisID=1019

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/03/opinion/03tue3.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print


Through Others’ Eyes

The central finding of the latest Pew global opinion poll is, alas, drearily familiar: President Bush and his misguided war in Iraq have dragged the United States far, far down in the world’s eyes.

The only good news — and it’s not much comfort — is that most countries give higher ratings to the American people than to the country. That means a change of government could bring a change of attitude toward America. But there is a long way to go, especially to correct the perception that the United States promotes its values globally not because they are universally good, but because they are good for American interests.

The survey found that majorities or pluralities in 33 of the 47 countries polled expressed a dislike of American ideas about democracy, with the hostility highest in three allies: Turkey, France and Pakistan. The poll also showed a widespread perception that Washington acts without considering the interests of other countries. And strong majorities everywhere saw the United States as the worst culprit in “hurting the world’s environment.”

What the Pew poll reflects is a profound disappointment in America’s failure to live up to its own ideals and standards.

Ponder this: two-thirds of American respondents said it was good that “American ideas and customs were spreading around the world.” Yet two-thirds or more of the respondents in 26 other countries, and majorities in another 10, disagreed, including former pro-American bastions like Britain, Poland, Turkey, Kuwait and Indonesia.

Mr. Bush and his team are famous for not listening to anyone but themselves. But they need to listen to what the rest of the world is saying when they refuse to plan for a rational exit from Iraq or block serious efforts to control global warming or insist that the time is still not right for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement. It’s not just their reputation that is suffering. It’s America’s.

Heaven? Why bother?

In my last post, I mentioned my old Pentacostal friend, and how we would often get into intense theological arguments. I recently made contact with this friend, and he shared some more thoughts about Christianity with me. He told me that from his Christian standpoint, the only way to truly guarantee you will get to heaven is to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, and to love God unconditionally. I want to stress right here that this is by no means the ONLY view that ALL Christians take.

Whether I agree with this or not seems fairly moot. I have no substantial grounding in Christian theology, so how can I really make any informed decision on the truth of his words? I certainly don't even know if there is a heaven, let alone if accepting Jesus as your personal savior will get you there. I haven't a leg to stand on, so I should probably keep my mouth shut on that point. But, knowing me, I probably won't. I would like to believe that people can get to heaven (if they believe in a heaven) simply by virtue of positive deeds performed...deeds that arise naturally from a compassionate state of mind.

What I do have a fractionally better understanding of are Buddhism and Buddhist philosophy. The goal of Buddhists is certainly not going to heaven. There are six realms that one can be reborn in. From the lowest to the higest, they are: the hell realms (there are several), the hungry ghost realm, the animal realm, the human realm, the demi-god realm and the god realm. To clarify, the demi-gods have a nice, posh lifestyle, but it's not quite as nice as the gods, so they're always warring with them, trying to get what they have. The hungry ghosts are beings consumed with their desires and wants, usually depicted with huge mouths, huge bellies and tiny tiny throats. It is said that there is no amount of water to quench their thirst, and no food to quell their hunger.

I suppose that the word 'heaven' would most easily translate to the god realm, but even that is a stretch, I think. And here's the rub: if you get to the demi-god or god realms, chances are in the next rebirth, you'll have a pretty lousy time in the hells or hungry ghost realms. Because there are no needs or wants in the god realm, there is no opportunity to practice the teachings of the Buddha (Dharma). No one suffers, no one feels pain, no problems arise and subsequently, no one can perform acts of good will and merit. The beings in the god realm burn off their positive karma, and then head straight into the lower realms to burn off their negative karma so they can be reborn in a higher realm. That is why the human realm is said to be the best realm for practicing the Dharma. In this realm, we have the most potential for attaining Enlightenment, and getting out of the ocean of cyclic rebirth.

So...all that is going a long way to say that for Buddhism, heaven is not the main goal. Heaven is a nice haitus with a bad reentry, at best. I've even encountered Tibetan Buddhist monks who say they don't want to attain Enlightenment...they just want to keep being reborn as a human. So, my friend's statements about Jesus being THE WAY to getting into heaven...well...it's like comparing apples to oranges in some instances; his argument simply doesn't apply in the Buddhist context.

But...

In other contexts, like in religions where heaven IS the goal, I can imagine that my friend's comment would be fairly insulting. What are the theological ramifications of such a statement? They'd probably be something along the lines of, "You can't get to heaven in your non-Jesus religion, even if it is your goal...so...your efforts are wasted until you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior." Something like that?

Well, that sounds pretty rough. And inconsiderate.

I'm not sure if he'd agree with that (I should ask him), but I'd say this is pretty well in line with the Canon of Westminster's approach.

Yikes.