What are some kind, wholesome, skillful, wise and helpful responses and views to the following various claims of body ownership: “The United States government claims 100% ownership over all your DNA and reproductive rights. This astonishing revelation has emerged from the fact that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office claims the power to assign ownership of your DNA to private companies and universities who apply for patents on your genes. To date, more than 4,000 genes have been assigned ownership to corporations and universities by the U.S. patent office. Such an assignment of ownership proves that the government believes it owns 100% of all human genes -- you cannot transfer ownership of something unless you first own it yourself. To date, 20 percent of your genetic code is owned by someone else. About two-thirds of these patents belong to private companies, and one-third belong to universities. The company that owns the most patents is called Incyte, a drug company based in California which "owns" the patents on 2,000 human genes.” Via https://www.naturalnews.com/040400_gene_patents_genetic_slavery_human_DNA.html And from 2012 via http://anh-usa.org/fda-new-claim-body-is-a-drug/ : ...[The] FDA says your own stem cells are drugs—and stem cell therapy is interstate commerce because it affects the bottom line of FDA-approved drugs in other states! We wish this were a joke, but it’s the US Food and Drug Administration’s latest claim in its battle with a Colorado clinic over its Regenexx-C™ procedure, a non-surgical treatment for people suffering from moderate to severe joint or bone pain using adult stem cells. The FDA asserts in a court document that it has the right to regulate the Centeno-Schultz Medical Clinic for two reasons: 1) Stem cells are drugs and therefore fall within their jurisdiction. (The clinic argues that stem cell therapy is the practice of medicine and is therefore not within the FDA’s jurisdiction!) 2)The clinic is engaging in interstate commerce and is therefore subject to FDA regulation because any part of the machine or procedure that originates outside Colorado becomes interstate commerce once it enters the state. Moreover, interstate commerce is substantially affected because individuals traveling to Colorado to have the Regenexx procedure would depress the market for out-of-state drugs that are approved by the FDA. A similar principle applies across industries—whether it's medical treatments or consumer products like Miami Blinds , interstate movement and consumer behavior can directly impact regulatory oversight and market dynamics.” [note: full articles linked here link to source documents]

What lesson did the Buddha teach concerning the singling-out of a group in society based on their perceived transgressions?

In an election scenario, a Buddhist may face a dilemma when deciding whether to vote for leader X, who aligns with their values in most areas but contradicts them in one specific aspect. Conversely, the opposition leader Y is perceived by the Buddhist as being misaligned with Buddhist teachings across all areas. Given that these are effectively the only two choices for leadership, would it always be wise for the Buddhist to abstain from voting for leader X due to this one inconsistency, or does such a purist stance represent a loss of wisdom? What is the inconsistency? Being a moderate in the abortion issue but I wonder how this would work with other issues as the inconsistency.

If you have means, Buddhist notions are much easier to live by. If you do not, you may have to break the precepts in order to survive. This is particularly true for women and other vulnerable peoples. Is true Buddhism an elitist ideology?

How do you reconcile Buddhist concepts/faith in a non-Buddhist society? For example if you live in a society where you are to kill(stray or sick animals) or expected to lie as part of your livelihood? If you aren't able to leave, how does participating in these forced actions effect your karma?

Quick question. How do I deal with the kind of people who do not know THE first thing about a topic and they would pretend as if they are experts in it; and **impose** their opinions on the conversation while ignoring mine even when I am indeed an actual expert there. Eg: my father will assert things about physics (sometimes absurd and laughable), which is high school level at best. When I tell him calmly "the correct thing is actually not this because so and so... ", he refuse to believe/listen ( doesn't even inquire into it). This is even though I am a current PhD student, in physics no less. Similarly a cousin and some friends, not knowing a thing in that field try to be experts when I actually for a fact know those things. This kind of gets me mad and I become passive aggressive. What is a way to deal with these people and avoid bad karma simultaneously. In general we are supposed observe the feelings, but then physically, am I to always remain quiet? If I don't, there's no way I don't get subtly angry. Other option is to stop hanging out with people like that? But then isn't that coming from aversion - we are aiming for harmony and remaining undisturbed in the face of things rather than avoiding them? This is one of those things where I am quite unsure of the path. Please give insights and practical tips, other than 'just meditate more' - that I know. Any responses are appreciated, Thank you

For most people identifying as Buddhists in very Buddhist countries (Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand), what are the most significant ways in which being a Buddhist affects their lifes? For instance, how common is - visiting the temple service at least once a month? - saying grace before eating? - intense meditation? My current image is that unless one's a monk, being a Buddhist is a formality for most people in South East Asia, mostly manifesting in Buddhism classes in schools, weddings and funerals.

>"I feel there is tremendous convergence and a potential for mutual enrichment through dialogue between the Buddhist and Christian traditions, especially in the areas of ethics and spiritual practice, such as the practices of compassion, love, meditation, and the enhancement of tolerance. I feel that this dialogue could go very far and reach a deep level of understanding. But when it comes to a philosophical or metaphysical dialogue, I feel that we must part company. The entire Buddhist worldview is based on a philosophical standpoint in which the central thought is the principle of interdependence, how all things and events come into being purely as a result of interactions between causes and conditions. Within that philosophical worldview it is almost impossible to have any room for an atemporal, eternal, absolute truth. Nor is it possible to accommodate the concept of a divine Creation. Similarly, for a Christian whose entire metaphysical worldview is based on a belief in the Creation and a Divine Creator, the idea that all things and events arise out of mere interaction between causes and conditions has no place within that worldview. So, in the realm of metaphysics, it becomes problematic at a certain point, and the two traditions must diverge (81-82).". *By The Christian Research Institute* - **If and when the two traditions don't diverge, is that necessarily problematic to Buddhism also?** - **If and when the two traditions don't diverge, is that necessarily problematic for all people?** - **Are Christian concepts pointing at the same things that Buddhism is pointing at but with different approaches?** - **How well does the Christian Research Institute understand Buddhism?**

1. Is there advice in the various Buddhist scriptures that a leader could use in this Coronavirus situation? 2. Is there advice in the Buddhist scriptures that a lay-person could use in this Coronavirus situation? 3. What are Buddhist leaders doing about this Coronavirus situation?

Is "[Racial color blindness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_color_blindness) " covered in the Buddha's teaching? What would be the closest Buddhist concept that covers it? Is there a scripture that teaches colorblindness? Could it have originated from the Buddha's teaching, Christianity, both or somewhere else? Does anyone know what Thích Nhất Hạnh taught MLK about colorblindness?

I read the following on the internet: > In my opinion, Buddha looks at sex from four angles. > - Hindrance to attain Nibbana or even one-pointedness > - Generally accepted social norms. > - Kindness towards powerless. (children, poor people, women in Buddhas time) > - Law of the land. > > If the above is not violated, laypeople are allowed to have sex as > they wish. Are accepted social norms and the law of the land moral sexual conduct according to Buddhism?

Actually from [another question](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/41786/19889) before, but since all are part of certain communities here, good to work out seperate: **"Does the Buddha have any practices for groups and societies that would lead society to less suffering?", or say to prosperty, not to decay.** May the advices, as seen coming from the Sublime Buddha, elders, monk, Brahmans, Insider, are also of good for you community here and elsewhere. (And since this all about Buddhism is a steady encouragement in practical way, a meta with metta issue, also the link to the current place of practice and reflection of yours: [2020 Community Moderator Election](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/election?cb=1) , since where do you like to run again away and consume further without to pay as your past merits run out... and not free from desire, craving yet?) *[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchanges, other world-binding trades and entertainments but for going on, going forth, escape from this wheel]*

>>Has the Buddha taught anything about how one should approach fixing society? >>Does the Buddha advocate for striving to make society better? >>Does the Buddha have any practices for groups and societies that would lead society to less suffering? >>Does the Buddha have any teachings about Justice and Social Justice?

This post is a revision of https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/39546/buddhism-or-christ which already closed. I posted that _Buddhism or Christ?_ question on a Christian forum too, and after quite a response from them, I felt I have some clues. I used to be a loyal person and have been studying Buddhism for 6 years. Indeed it helps me a lot to be a better person and almost 100% of my doubt and direction can be found from the legacy of Buddha. Now I have been in Church as an observer for 1 year. I have an influential and high-level family of Christ that is eager to invite me into Christianity. They even speak at country council level for all the Christian activities. But, I really miss so much of Buddha's teaching and I really want to do something for Buddhism before I turn to Christianity. But it will create a lot of complications; but I found the below is necessary to clear the misconception and Buddha's name. I believe all Buddhist has responsibility on the below. 1. There are too many misconception especially to Buddhism and Taoism -- [Top 10 MISCONCEPTIONS about BUDDHISM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYlQ0UZ1C2I) . Many Buddhism or Taoism disbelief the belief because they don't even know who is Siddhartha Gautama but claimed is a Buddhist. Most of them go to temple, pray something in return, which I believe is inappropriate. What Buddha wants us to do is practice way of life and not actually praying Buddha as an idol.  2. How they view Buddhism and other religion -- [4 Ways Christians can respond to a Satanic statue](https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/4-ways-christians-can-respond-to-a-satanic-statue) . "Buddha is a Satan" wording is really "hurts". They will see Buddha is opponent and some really harsh wording from many Christian seniors is really hurting us as Buddhism Student. My sister went to Church for few months, back to house and screaming like a mad woman to request us to throw away all the Buddhism and Taoism statues.  3. Respect and be tactful to those Buddhist visitor to Church - I wish to have a lot of social media sharing, discussion and Church sharing on how to handle the 2 above. [This URL](https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/buddhism/) for example speaks well on how to handle this.   > You must learn to distinguish original Buddhism from modern variants, in addition to determining which school of Buddhism your friend embraces. When in a discussion, do not be afraid to ask respectful probing questions. My #2 issue above was shared online today during their Church service and it really touched my heart. I didn't request them to do it during Church services too, but I did share many of the above to them. I am not sure Bodhisattva or Jesus (God) sent this high level Christ family as messenger to me. Question: Let me know your thought for my action for item #3. What i really wish is the those huge religion community to publish an apology online letter on the web site for against the Blasphemy Law and immediately remove the content (i.e. Buddha is Satan, Buddhist will go to hell , etc). That's the basic manner of human being. Cheers,

Our own thoughts make something wholesome or unwholesome. Not what other's think. So, is there a need to ***care*** about what others think regarding a certain thing? We can do good for others, but they might think that we do something bad for them. Isn't it their responsibility to think in a wholesome manner? The title of this question should be "Should we care about what others think?", but I found a related question here: However, it doesn't have any answers regarding this case (karma). Kind regards

Should we care about what others think? If so, to what level? (Most of the time, those thoughts creates suffering).

How to respond appropriately to people that are significantly older than me if they demand respect because of their age yet are conceited (and typically also conceited about not being conceited)? Often old folks use their age to gain respect, and then build their authority on top of it to spread false teachings. How would a passionate person handle such situations, not wanting to offend against the Dhamma by insulting the older/elderly person, yet preventing them from getting away with conceit and/or false teaching? How would the Buddha have handled such situations? I think a lot of Christian folk use such coercive tactic to gain authority and following, so I think it’s a practical question in the western world.

If some one is a anti-social person , there is no reason to get angry, to be jealous, to have conciet .... All those problems arise when people socialize. So, Is it necessary to be socialize ? 1. If it is, Why buddha said, go to a forest to meditate ? Get a free and quite time ? 2. If it isn't How do I recognize those thoughts ? (If we have no reason to get those feelings, we might think we haven't those thoughts) 3. Or should I not think about that ? (Being social or not being social is out of my control ?)

I read somewhere that Dhamma should only be taught to people who are interested and attentive to the knowledge, but why aren't more people interested in the first place? Dhamma could lead to the end of suffering, which is something most people would be interested in right? Is this because of indifference and thus ill-will and aversion? Is it because of delusion? Laziness and lethargy, or other parts of the five hindrances? And why do people react so hostile when discussing achievements such as having better concentration, more equanimity etc.? Why don't they see it as an opportunity to learn something new? Why is there such a lack of enthusiasm and a drive to search for wisdom?

According to the Buddha's teaching in the Buddhist scriptures, when is it appropriate: >To assist in creating the structures of a group or society? >To embrace the established structures of a group or society? >To defend others by enforcing the established authority of a group or society? >To push away or overthrow the established structures of a group or society? >To defend others by pushing away or overthrowing the established authority of a group or society?