I want to raise a bit of a controversial topic, as delicately and dharmically (sp?) as possible. Without going into details (of names, places) there appear to be tensions between practitioners of certain schools that are arising at times here on the Internet. There have been (I will be specific here) especially confrontations at times between Soto Zen Buddhists and some Tibetan Buddhists, at other forums. I don't think there is any need to get more specific beyond that, as it could create trouble for our moderators here.
Anyway, beyond the personalities of people involved it seems to me that just like every other religion on this planet there are "wings" to Modern Buddhism, specifically a conservative and liberal wing. The conservative position is very tradition grounded, takes teachings literally, has a bit of a dualistic right/wrong view of teachings, and at times can be extremely intolerant of the more liberal wing.
The liberal wing, by contrast, is more open-minded and experimental, looks at teachings more interpretively, sometimes gets a bit assertive by calling certain literal beliefs "superstitious" or illogical. When these two wings meet, there can be tensions.
What I wonder is a) how do you view this, b) how should people respond and c) is this a natural tension that should be expected, and d) do you have any suggestions for how this tension might be neutralized or diminished?
I find it strange, actually, seeing this tension, given that there have been numerous situations where teachers within Soto Zen and Tibetan Buddhism have come together. And usually, they get along just fine (see below). Why should we be any different?