thewebsite of the Tibetan Government in Exile says: "Payment ofthe voluntary contribution is a condition to gain the right to votein parliamentary elections." But if it is voluntary, how itmay to conditionate something? And the Buddhist concept of giving,which has its maximum expression in Dana Paramita, the Perfection ofGenerosity?So I ask: How can the Dalai Lama defend human rights and religiousfreedom, while engaging himself in systematic violation of themregarding the practice of Dorje Shugden?How can he defend governments, democratic values and principles,operating in exile the same kind of autocratic theocracy of ancientTibet?How he can continue to charge the "tax of independence" andreceiving donations via "Free Tibet", if he hasunilaterally abandoned the idea of Tibetan independence years ago?Another attitude from Dalai Lama which displeased me greatly relatesto his statements on homosexuality. As a gay (and Buddhist)convinced, I can not agree with them.In the article "The Gay Buddha", which I wrote in 2012(see:http://espiritualidadeinclusiva.blogspot.com.br/2012/08/o-buda-gay-um-estudo-amplo-sobre-visao.html),I presented the contradictory statements of the Dalai Lama:"In a 1994 interview, he said: If anyone comes to me andasks whether homosexuality is good or not, I'll ask: 'What is yourcompanion's opinion?' If both agree, then I think I would say 'if twomales or two females voluntarily agree to have mutual satisfactionwithout implication of harming others, then it is good.'However, in his book 'Beyond Dogma' (1996), he states, A sexualact is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended forsexual intercourse and nothing else ... homosexuality, whetherbetween men or between women, not is improper in itself. What isimproper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate forsexual contact.The Dalai Lama said that before he was unclear about whether arelationship even non-abusive sex and mutual agreement would beacceptable within the general principles of Buddhism. When havingdifficulty in imagining the mechanisms of homosexual sex, saying thatnature had arranged male and female organs "in a way that isvery suitable... same-sex organs can not function well", theDalai Lama has repeatedly said to the LGBT groups he can not rewritethe texts. The same thing say fundamentalist priests and Christianpastors on biblical texts.In 1999, in an interview with Alice Thompson, he declaredemphatically: "They want me to tolerate homosexuality. But,I'm a Buddhist and, to a Buddhist, a relationship between two men iswrong. Some sexual behaviors in marriage also are wrong.",talking about masturbation and oral sex. He also said that "Ifa person has no faith, is a different matter"... "If twomen really love each other and are not religious, then, is OK withme." A modern discourse of exclusion? After all, what theDalai Lama makes clear is that if LGBT people want to be as they are,but are not Buddhist religious, all OK. The encouragement is that itis not the word of all Buddhists - teachers, monks and lay people -in the world.(...) Once the Theravada Buddhist monk Ajahn Brahmavamso wrote forthe West Australian newspaper, responding to an article publishedthere, where the Dalai Lama was quoted as saying that homosexualitywas immoral. Here's what he wrote to the newspaper:Dear Sir/Madam,The Dalai Lama was out of line when he said(according to your article in the West, April 15, Page 7) if