After the fall of the myth "Islam is a religion of peace" or "Christian is a religion of love" or ... now we watch the fall of "Buddhism is peaceful".
alarabiya called an Imam in Burma who said: "We need everything, no shelter no food no safety. Some girls committed suicide after they got turned away by the Bangladesh Government. They were driven by fear of torture and rape if they returned to Burma."
Massacres continued when the government announced its intention to give Muslims in Arakan (Rakhine) a citizenship which Buddhism extremists considered a "war" against their religion and race .
THERE IS NO RELIGION OF PEACE.
The only religion of peace I know of is Jainism, it's stupid in it's metaphysics, but the world would be a better place if Jain fundies became numerous.
THERE IS NO RELIGION OF PEACE.
The Baha'i would probably disagree, but that's because they have never had a millenium+ of influence over the people of a territory. Give them that and they'll happily send their followers to war if they believe they are in danger.
Religion is an instrument of power. When the powerful want to pacify their people, religion is "of peace". When they need them for a war, they start a religious crusade or a jihad.
Look up the jains, they won't even kill insects. The gist is that even if you are angered and mad over how your child acts you are not allowed to cause the child spiritual harm, aka, disown. That said, they coexisted with sikhs, who held the muslims in check in the subcontinent. Sikhism seems to me to be the most sensible of religions, ready for war if need be but only if need be. No honor killing, no disowning, that said, the have some ludicrious baggage as well.
Jains are crazy in regards to their practices and cosmology, like the worst of them, but their core tenet of non-violence places them in a special class indeed. In a way they have sheltered themselves from the manipulations of the political powers and yet managed to influence the other religions they "infiltrated".
when I study a group of people, my field is NOT their "text" but their "acts".
I hope that my idea is clear here
I think the Jains are a bit different, being Non-Violence Fundies...
The Thai Buddhists and the Muslims of Southern Thailand also kill each other by the hundreds. Is it religion or politics - police and armies against civilians is the cause not religion.
I am talking about an identity of a "majority" and the persecution of a "minority" in the non-liberal states. why i said religion? is simple because I'm tired of the nonsense of "religion of peace or love".
there is no "religion of peace". people live in the modern century with its complexity and changing. putting texts written thousands of years ago in very different social conditions from our present on the basis that the new re-organization of the society into that texts order will make it "peaceful" is ridiculous. no it will not make it peaceful. the Amish did understand this and they chose to live as close as possible to the social conditions of their religious texts.
For eons, religion was used to sell people into going at war. It was indeed an essential ingredient in convincing families to give up their men.
Richard Dawkins says that, 'Religion causes wars by generating certainty.'
I think that religion had divided people becuse if you look inside the brain of any believer, you'll find this phrase: "God hates them! So, we must hate them too." :P
ironically, Buddhists do not believe in any God(s), but reincarnation, they feel by killing those on the wrong path their souls get recycled, and thus they get a second chance at a righteous life. Which seems more compassionate then they will burn in hell, but is much more terrifying because such a belief would make timid and compassionate people willing to spill blood.
Anybody (else than me) who thinks that my being dead is good for me I label Dangerous.