Violent Buddhists in Myanmar?

[Manopolus]

I think we'd all be a bit better off if instead of killing each other off to "relieve the tension" more people just screwed each others brains out

Eh, perhaps that would work too. It'd be fun, in any case.

 

[Dog Breakfast]

That's almost a religious position in its own right. Personally, I think that strife is actually occasionally necessary -- don't ask me to support that; it's just my intuition speaking. I generally tend to avoid physical violence in my own life. I don't even mean this in the sense of right prevailing over wrong... I just mean the strife itself is necessary in some way for a healthier society... like to release some sort of tension that builds up otherwise and doesn't go away or something.

Maybe you're right about strife, but of all its forms, I don't know if violence can every produce a healthier society. Not that I'm asking you to support anything

 

[The Norseman]

While I myself have not read it apparently Teeth and Claws of the Buddha is a good history of militant Buddhism in Japan. I do not know if it goes into the political fighting between Shinto and Buddhism, which could also get quite violent at times.

Interesting you mention this book -- I just got it a few days back, but alas, have not begun to read it yet.

 

[Dog Breakfast]

Interesting you mention this book -- I just got it a few days back, but alas, have not begun to read it yet.

I hope your book report turns up on this thread.

 

[Humes fork]

Like the conflict in Sri Lanka (which also involved militant Buddhists), the violence is at least as ethnic as it is religious. Like the Hindu and Christian Tamils, the Muslims of the Rohingya minority in Burma are not just different religiously from the Buddhist majority, but ethnically as well.

This may well be correct, but as Dawkins has pointed out, the religious division should exist in the first place. It serves to intensify the conflict and is based on demonstrable falsehoods.

 

[The Norseman]

I hope your book report turns up on this thread.

Do I get extra credit?

 

[Dog Breakfast]

That shall depend upon your work!

 

[The Norseman]

Okey dokey then! It'll be my pleasure!

 

[joesixpack]

With the prevalence of violence by Buddhists, we must conclude that there is something about their teachings that makes them so. I mean, really, the suicide bombers during the second world war should have been an indication to the west of their murderous nature and disregard for human life.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Do I get extra credit?

That shall depend upon your work!

Okey dokey then! It'll be my pleasure!

 

[Jon.]

With the prevalence of violence by Buddhists, we must conclude that there is something about their teachings that makes them so. I mean, really, the suicide bombers during the second world war should have been an indication to the west of their murderous nature and disregard for human life.

If you're referring to the kamikaze, they were mostly Shinto, IIRC.

 

[The Norseman]

 

[joesixpack]

If you're referring to the kamikaze, they were mostly Shinto, IIRC.

Don't bother me with facts.

 

[A'isha]

This may well be correct,

How is it not correct?

but as Dawkins has pointed out,

Dawkins is a tool, and I really don't care what he thinks outside of his work on evolution.

the religious division should exist in the first place.

Did you mean "shouldn't" there?

It serves to intensify the conflict and is based on demonstrable falsehoods.

Or the ethnic division is serving to intensify the conflict and is based on demonstrable falsehoods, since (as has been pointed out) Buddhism certainly has its own violent streak, one that could certainly be exacerbated by ethnic tensions.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Theravada Buddhism as practiced in Thailand, Myanmar, Cambodia and much of Laos has such overwhelming demographics that you'd probably be best thinking of Buddhism along the lines of the "Big Holiday Christians" who are likely the overwhelming number of USA (and even European) Christians. E.G., they go to church on Christmas and Easter and maybe for a wedding, funeral or christening and carry on with their lives with little or no attention to underlying "Christian" philosophy at all other times.

Also, as a Buddhist who was just about to kick someone's ass for bullying the counter help in a 7/11 in Hong Kong once said, "You are under a mistaken impression, Grasshopper. Buddhism is non-violent - not pacifist."

95% of Thais and Burmese self-identify as Buddhists. That's probably pretty widely spread among the war-mongering military and the decent officers, the corrupt cops and the good LEOs, the muggers and their victims, the murderers, the paedophiles, the accountants, and the coffee shop patrons. Some of them are obviously going to be a little more non-violent than others. In the US, how many self-identifying Christians (around 70% of the country, I believe) actually "turn the other cheek", for instance?

 

[Humes fork]

Dawkins is a tool, and I really don't care what he thinks outside of his work on evolution.

A tool for what? Or for who?

Did you mean "shouldn't" there?

Yes I did.

Or the ethnic division is serving to intensify the conflict and is based on demonstrable falsehoods, since (as has been pointed out) Buddhism certainly has its own violent streak, one that could certainly be exacerbated by ethnic tensions.

Wow... in every thread someone claims Islam is violent you bend over backwards with special pleading to make the case that it isn't, but with Buddhism, you have no problem in saying that Buddhism has a "violent streak".

What you have here is two ethnic groups, that is, peoples with different languages and cultures. That itself may unfortunately cause tensions. But the religious beliefs are demonstrably false and shouldn't be there in the first place. You can hardly say that language and culture shouldn't be there in the first place, as they are necessary for human society, religion is not.

 

[A'isha]

A tool for what? Or for who?

"Tool" is US slang that has several different meanings, but right here I'm using it as a word for someone who is a dick, a jerk, a douchebag, an *******, a pillock, a knob, a git. He is a fantastic evolutionary biologist, but nothing he says is worth paying even the slightest bit of attention to when it comes to this subject.

Wow... in every thread someone claims Islam is violent you bend over backwards with special pleading to make the case that it isn't, but with Buddhism, you have no problem in saying that Buddhism has a "violent streak".

All religions have a "violent streak", including Islam. What I take issue with are assertions that Islam is unusual or unique in this regard.

What you have here is two ethnic groups, that is, peoples with different languages and cultures. That itself may unfortunately cause tensions. But the religious beliefs are demonstrably false and shouldn't be there in the first place.

Tensions between different languages and cultures are also based on falsehoods and shouldn't be there in the first place.

You can hardly say that language and culture shouldn't be there in the first place, as they are necessary for human society, religion is not.

Religion is as much a part of human society as language and culture.

 

[tsig]

"Tool" is US slang that has several different meanings, but right here I'm using it as a word for someone who is a dick, a jerk, a douchebag, an *******, a pillock, a knob, a git. He is a fantastic evolutionary biologist, but nothing he says is worth paying even the slightest bit of attention to when it comes to this subject.



All religions have a "violent streak", including Islam. What I take issue with are assertions that Islam is unusual or unique in this regard.



Tensions between different languages and cultures are also based on falsehoods and shouldn't be there in the first place.



Religion is as much a part of human society as language and culture.

Have you studied all religions? Can you cite portions of their teaching that induce to violence? How can you tell that it's the religion that is violent and there's not some geo-political reason for the actions? Have you read at least eight books explaining each religion? If not then how can you demand the same when you defend Islam?

 

[angrysoba]

Good article here by David Aaronovitch in the Jewish Chronicle:

In western Burma there are hundreds of thousands of "Rohingya" Muslims, originally from Bengal. The majority population is Buddhist and ethnically Burmese and for years Burmese governments have refused to recognize the Rohingya as Burmese citizens. They have, however, nowhere else to go and have built lives for themselves in the Arakan province.

For years there has been a campaign against them by Burmese nationalists, including that strange phenomenon, Buddhist extremists. But what have been dubbed "tensions" have become something else. In the last few months, in what can only be described as pogroms, Rohingyas have seen mosques and shops taken over and their houses burned. Some have been murdered. Hundreds of thousands have been displaced, many to internal refugee camps.

But what must worry any Jew with a memory is the language of the persecutors.

 

[angrysoba]

Have you studied all religions? Can you cite portions of their teaching that induce to violence? How can you tell that it's the religion that is violent and there's not some geo-political reason for the actions? Have you read at least eight books explaining each religion? If not then how can you demand the same when you defend Islam?

Oh give it a rest, won't you?

Did you not read the bit that you carefully didn't bother to highlight?

All religions have a "violent streak", including Islam