Buddhism: the religion of peace

[Roudy]

Roudy -


How many countries with a large Hindu population have not suffered violence recently?

How many predominantly Buddhist countries have not suffered violence recently?

The fact that there are 40 or so Muslim countries and only perhaps 3 Hindu and 6 Buddhist countries may have skewed your judgement.

Wrong again. Hindus and Buddhists do not have problems with Christians, Jews, Bahaiis, Sikhs, and people of other faiths. Except for Islam and Muslims. Now why is that? Hmmmm...lemme think...probably because Muslims are pulling the same usual shit they have been all over the globe.

You did not answer the question - obviously.

Why not just be honest and open and accept that EVERY country with a large Hindu population and the majority of countries with a large Buddist population had also experience internicine violence during the past decade or so.

Hence, the violence appears to be more regional than religious.

I answered it but you're obviously too stupid to understand.

 

[Saigon]

I answered it but you're obviously too stupid to understand.

I'm smart enough to know that you cannot discuss any subject without personal abuse.

Meanwhile, the level of sectarian and internicine violence in Hindu-dominated India is arguably higher than in Muslim Bangladesh; while Buddhist Cambodia is more violent than Muslim Malaysia; Christian Cote D'Ivoire is more violent than Muslim Senegal - how do we explain that if religion is the key factor?

What evidence exists that region is not a factor in violence?

 

[Roudy]

I answered it but you're obviously too stupid to understand.

I'm smart enough to know that you cannot discuss any subject without personal abuse.

Meanwhile, the level of sectarian and internicine violence in Hindu-dominated India is arguably higher than in Muslim Bangladesh; while Buddhist Cambodia is more violent than Muslim Malaysia; Christian Cote D'Ivoire is more violent than Muslim Senegal - how do we explain that if religion is the key factor?

What evidence exists that region is not a factor in violence?

But it's mostly against Muslims. Gee I wonder why? Ya very smart...

 

[Coyote]

Wrong again. Hindus and Buddhists do not have problems with Christians, Jews, Bahaiis, Sikhs, and people of other faiths. Except for Islam and Muslims. Now why is that? Hmmmm...lemme think...probably because Muslims are pulling the same usual shit they have been all over the globe.

Hindus have committed violence on Sikhs and Muslims - there's been plenty of back and forth violence there. They've also attacked Christians. You might need to study up on that part of the world.

Buddhists are similar: Buddhism and violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Didn't Mother Teresa spend decades in India helping the poor and needy? Nobody is claiming "there is no violence towards people of other faiths, period" But overall, Hindus are very tolerant of non Hindus, and I know this from personal experience. Many Jews that fled Arab countries, settled in India and South Asian Buddhist countries. There was absolutely no problem whatsoever in India or any of those countries.

The vast majority of the violence and friction exists between Hindus and Muslims or Buddhists and Muslims because Muslims invaded their lands and killed them by the millions, and all they are doing now is trying to preserve their country, culture, and identity from being destroyed and go the way of other lands invaded by Muslims. I think maybe you should study up on that part of the world a little:

Religion in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Constitution of India declares the nation to be a secular republic that must uphold the right of citizens to freely worship and propagate any or no religion or faith.[9][10] The Constitution of India also declares the right to freedom of religion as a fundamental right."

The Muslim invasions were centuries ago. Attacks and violence committed by Buddhists and Hindus are also not been limited to attacks on Muslims. Jews fled to India. Many Jews who fled Christian countries fled to Arab countries because they were more hospital at that point in time. So that really doesn't mean anything.

India has a good constitution - better than most, but once you get out of the educated urban areas into rural villages you'll find tolerance much thinner and sectarian and religious issues closer to the surface.

 

[Roudy]

Hindus have committed violence on Sikhs and Muslims - there's been plenty of back and forth violence there. They've also attacked Christians. You might need to study up on that part of the world.

Buddhists are similar: Buddhism and violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Didn't Mother Teresa spend decades in India helping the poor and needy? Nobody is claiming "there is no violence towards people of other faiths, period" But overall, Hindus are very tolerant of non Hindus, and I know this from personal experience. Many Jews that fled Arab countries, settled in India and South Asian Buddhist countries. There was absolutely no problem whatsoever in India or any of those countries.

The vast majority of the violence and friction exists between Hindus and Muslims or Buddhists and Muslims because Muslims invaded their lands and killed them by the millions, and all they are doing now is trying to preserve their country, culture, and identity from being destroyed and go the way of other lands invaded by Muslims. I think maybe you should study up on that part of the world a little:

Religion in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Constitution of India declares the nation to be a secular republic that must uphold the right of citizens to freely worship and propagate any or no religion or faith.[9][10] The Constitution of India also declares the right to freedom of religion as a fundamental right."

The Muslim invasions were centuries ago. Attacks and violence committed by Buddhists and Hindus are also not been limited to attacks on Muslims. Jews fled to India. Many Jews who fled Christian countries fled to Arab countries because they were more hospital at that point in time. So that really doesn't mean anything.

India has a good constitution - better than most, but once you get out of the educated urban areas into rural villages you'll find tolerance much thinner and sectarian and religious issues closer to the surface.

That means that Indians are tolerant of other faiths, not only Jews. Currently India has about 300 million Muslims who are thriving and live proudly as Indians. How can you call Hindus "intolerant" considering that number? You.can't.

Muslim invasions did not occur "centuries ago", it is still occurring as we are speaking, in some cases demographically. When was the country of Pakistan created? These flare- ups are happening because Hindus and Buddhists are trying to preserve their way of life, cultural, national, and historic identities. In other words stopping the Islamization. Only they aren't handling it the way Westerners are, they are giving the Muslims a taste of their own medicine.

 

[Coyote]

Didn't Mother Teresa spend decades in India helping the poor and needy? Nobody is claiming "there is no violence towards people of other faiths, period" But overall, Hindus are very tolerant of non Hindus, and I know this from personal experience. Many Jews that fled Arab countries, settled in India and South Asian Buddhist countries. There was absolutely no problem whatsoever in India or any of those countries.

The vast majority of the violence and friction exists between Hindus and Muslims or Buddhists and Muslims because Muslims invaded their lands and killed them by the millions, and all they are doing now is trying to preserve their country, culture, and identity from being destroyed and go the way of other lands invaded by Muslims. I think maybe you should study up on that part of the world a little:

Religion in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Constitution of India declares the nation to be a secular republic that must uphold the right of citizens to freely worship and propagate any or no religion or faith.[9][10] The Constitution of India also declares the right to freedom of religion as a fundamental right."

The Muslim invasions were centuries ago. Attacks and violence committed by Buddhists and Hindus are also not been limited to attacks on Muslims. Jews fled to India. Many Jews who fled Christian countries fled to Arab countries because they were more hospital at that point in time. So that really doesn't mean anything.

India has a good constitution - better than most, but once you get out of the educated urban areas into rural villages you'll find tolerance much thinner and sectarian and religious issues closer to the surface.

That means that Indians are tolerant of other faiths, not only Jews. Currently India has about 300 million Muslims who are thriving and live proudly as Indians. How can you call Hindus "intolerant" considering that number? You.can't.

How can you not call Muslims tolerant given that number?

Hindus are more tolerant than many Muslims or Christians, historically - but they are not a religion of peace and the inter-religious violence has cut both ways.

Muslim invasions did not occur "centuries ago", it is still occurring as we are speaking, in some cases demographically. When was the country of Pakistan created?

The Muslim invasion of India took place between the 13th to the 16th centuries.

These flare- ups are happening because Hindus and Buddhists are trying to preserve their way of life, cultural, national, and historic identities. In other words stopping the Islamization. Only they aren't handling it the way Westerners are, they are giving the Muslims a taste of their own medicine.

They've been on going for a long time - it's only lately they're using that as an excuse. The different religions have lived together long enough - centuries - that the only real difference is religion not way of life or culture. In some cases the conflicts aren't even religious but ethnic.

The religious demographics of Burma are 89% Buddhist, 4% Christian, 4% Muslim. That is such a tiny minority that it is laughable to buy the excuse that they are trying to "preserve" a way of life.

Interesting, what this article has to say:

Too few of Burma's majority Buddhists are willing to challenge extremist views from some religious leaders, said Matthew Walton, professor of political science at George Washington University.

"Particularly when monks are out and leading, it can be very hard for people to resist or to criticize this argument that you have to protect Buddhism and, that to do it, you have to commit some sort of violence or discriminate against a certain community."

Walton added Muslims are one group that has historically been targeted as scapegoats in Burma when feelings of insecurity arise. And, with the country's dramatic changes, he said many are uncertain about the future and looking for someone to blame.

"We can see their lack of awareness in the fact that they give credence to these rumors or fears of, you know, a sort of Muslim expansion or Islamic extremism in the country where we really see virtually not evidence of any of that," Walton said. "And, the idea that Islam poses a threat to Buddhism in Myanmar, you know, seems almost laughable to most of us who have spent a lot of time in the country."

The point that remains consistent throughout is that in many of these areas religious and ethnic minorities are often at risk during tense times.

 

[Saigon]

I answered it but you're obviously too stupid to understand.

I'm smart enough to know that you cannot discuss any subject without personal abuse.

Meanwhile, the level of sectarian and internicine violence in Hindu-dominated India is arguably higher than in Muslim Bangladesh; while Buddhist Cambodia is more violent than Muslim Malaysia; Christian Cote D'Ivoire is more violent than Muslim Senegal - how do we explain that if religion is the key factor?

What evidence exists that region is not a factor in violence?

But it's mostly against Muslims. Gee I wonder why? Ya very smart...

I am pleased to see that you can admit that Muslims are most often vitcims and not perpetrators.

The violence is mainly against Muslims because they are a visible minority.

We know this, because other visible minorities have also been targetted in Sri Lanka, Burma and Bangladesh; such as homosexuals, Sikhs, etc.


btw. Please stops sending me abusive personal messages. All further PM's received from you will be forwarded directly to Moderators. Please also check the rules on neg repping.

 

[Roudy]

I'm smart enough to know that you cannot discuss any subject without personal abuse.

Meanwhile, the level of sectarian and internicine violence in Hindu-dominated India is arguably higher than in Muslim Bangladesh; while Buddhist Cambodia is more violent than Muslim Malaysia; Christian Cote D'Ivoire is more violent than Muslim Senegal - how do we explain that if religion is the key factor?

What evidence exists that region is not a factor in violence?

But it's mostly against Muslims. Gee I wonder why? Ya very smart...

I am pleased to see that you can admit that Muslims are most often vitcims and not perpetrators.

The violence is mainly against Muslims because they are a visible minority.

We know this, because other visible minorities have also been targetted in Sri Lanka, Burma and Bangladesh; such as homosexuals, Sikhs, etc.


btw. Please stops sending me abusive personal messages. All further PM's received from you will be forwarded directly to Moderators. Please also check the rules on neg repping.

You got that wrong, the violence is mainly against Muslims, because they try to impose their ideology, culture, and way of life upon their hosts, by violence if necessary.

 

[Roudy]

The Muslim invasions were centuries ago. Attacks and violence committed by Buddhists and Hindus are also not been limited to attacks on Muslims. Jews fled to India. Many Jews who fled Christian countries fled to Arab countries because they were more hospital at that point in time. So that really doesn't mean anything.

India has a good constitution - better than most, but once you get out of the educated urban areas into rural villages you'll find tolerance much thinner and sectarian and religious issues closer to the surface.

That means that Indians are tolerant of other faiths, not only Jews. Currently India has about 300 million Muslims who are thriving and live proudly as Indians. How can you call Hindus "intolerant" considering that number? You.can't.

How can you not call Muslims tolerant given that number?

Hindus are more tolerant than many Muslims or Christians, historically - but they are not a religion of peace and the inter-religious violence has cut both ways.



The Muslim invasion of India took place between the 13th to the 16th centuries.

These flare- ups are happening because Hindus and Buddhists are trying to preserve their way of life, cultural, national, and historic identities. In other words stopping the Islamization. Only they aren't handling it the way Westerners are, they are giving the Muslims a taste of their own medicine.

They've been on going for a long time - it's only lately they're using that as an excuse. The different religions have lived together long enough - centuries - that the only real difference is religion not way of life or culture. In some cases the conflicts aren't even religious but ethnic.

The religious demographics of Burma are 89% Buddhist, 4% Christian, 4% Muslim. That is such a tiny minority that it is laughable to buy the excuse that they are trying to "preserve" a way of life.

Interesting, what this article has to say:

Too few of Burma's majority Buddhists are willing to challenge extremist views from some religious leaders, said Matthew Walton, professor of political science at George Washington University.

"Particularly when monks are out and leading, it can be very hard for people to resist or to criticize this argument that you have to protect Buddhism and, that to do it, you have to commit some sort of violence or discriminate against a certain community."

Walton added Muslims are one group that has historically been targeted as scapegoats in Burma when feelings of insecurity arise. And, with the country's dramatic changes, he said many are uncertain about the future and looking for someone to blame.

"We can see their lack of awareness in the fact that they give credence to these rumors or fears of, you know, a sort of Muslim expansion or Islamic extremism in the country where we really see virtually not evidence of any of that," Walton said. "And, the idea that Islam poses a threat to Buddhism in Myanmar, you know, seems almost laughable to most of us who have spent a lot of time in the country."

The point that remains consistent throughout is that in many of these areas religious and ethnic minorities are often at risk during tense times.

Pakistan, Burma, Sri Lanka, etc these are countries that were carved out of the British Empire beginning in the 1940's. Once they were carved out, then the struggle to regain their historical identities as non Muslim / non Arab influenced began (except for Pakistan of course).

300 million Muslims in India is a testament to the tolerance of people and culture of India, NOT to it's Muslims. On the other hand, their next door neighbors in Pakistan have little or ZERO tolerance towards all non Muslims. Heck they even routinely massacre their own fellow minority Shiite Muslim brethren. Seems like you have everything upside down and inside out.

 

[Coyote]

That means that Indians are tolerant of other faiths, not only Jews. Currently India has about 300 million Muslims who are thriving and live proudly as Indians. How can you call Hindus "intolerant" considering that number? You.can't.

How can you not call Muslims tolerant given that number?

Hindus are more tolerant than many Muslims or Christians, historically - but they are not a religion of peace and the inter-religious violence has cut both ways.



The Muslim invasion of India took place between the 13th to the 16th centuries.



They've been on going for a long time - it's only lately they're using that as an excuse. The different religions have lived together long enough - centuries - that the only real difference is religion not way of life or culture. In some cases the conflicts aren't even religious but ethnic.

The religious demographics of Burma are 89% Buddhist, 4% Christian, 4% Muslim. That is such a tiny minority that it is laughable to buy the excuse that they are trying to "preserve" a way of life.

Interesting, what this article has to say:

Too few of Burma's majority Buddhists are willing to challenge extremist views from some religious leaders, said Matthew Walton, professor of political science at George Washington University.

"Particularly when monks are out and leading, it can be very hard for people to resist or to criticize this argument that you have to protect Buddhism and, that to do it, you have to commit some sort of violence or discriminate against a certain community."

Walton added Muslims are one group that has historically been targeted as scapegoats in Burma when feelings of insecurity arise. And, with the country's dramatic changes, he said many are uncertain about the future and looking for someone to blame.

"We can see their lack of awareness in the fact that they give credence to these rumors or fears of, you know, a sort of Muslim expansion or Islamic extremism in the country where we really see virtually not evidence of any of that," Walton said. "And, the idea that Islam poses a threat to Buddhism in Myanmar, you know, seems almost laughable to most of us who have spent a lot of time in the country."

The point that remains consistent throughout is that in many of these areas religious and ethnic minorities are often at risk during tense times.

Pakistan, Burma, Sri Lanka, etc these are countries that were carved out of the British Empire beginning in the 1940's. Once they were carved out, then the struggle to regain their historical identities as non Muslim / non Arab influenced began (except for Pakistan of course).

300 million Muslims in India is a testament to the tolerance of people and culture of India, NOT to it's Muslims. On the other hand, their next door neighbors in Pakistan have little or ZERO tolerance towards all non Muslims. Heck they even routinely massacre their own fellow minority Shiite Muslim brethren. Seems like you have everything upside down and inside out.

Burma was never Muslim majority - not even close. India has had it's share of religious violence from Hindus against Sikhs and Muslims and vice versa - sure, compared to Pakistan it is tolerant but there is also a very diffferent culture between two. Sri Lanka is similar, with such a lopsided majority: Buddhist 69.1%, Muslim 7.6%, Hindu 7.1%, Christian 6.2%, unspecified 10% (CIA Factbook) The only thing these conflicts prove is that tolerance is easily turned to intolerance when it comes to ethnic and religious minorities.

 

[Coyote]

Trolling posts have been removed - take the fisticuffs to Flame Zone please. There will be no further warning.

 

[Saigon]

Pakistan, Burma, Sri Lanka, etc these are countries that were carved out of the British Empire beginning in the 1940's. Once they were carved out, then the struggle to regain their historical identities as non Muslim / non Arab influenced began (except for Pakistan of course).

Burma has never had a large Muslim population.

Nor has Cambodia, Viet Nam or Laos - all of which were "carved out" of the French Empire. All have seen attacks against Muslim minorities.

300 million Muslims in India is a testament to the tolerance of people and culture of India, NOT to it's Muslims.

And yet one of the largest political parties in India is a Hindu Nationalist party known for its intolerance. Can you think of another country where senior political figures have been directly involved in desecrating sacred sites?