Quote:
Originally Posted by Elbmek
There is not a religion on earth, (well apart from Buddhism) that has a bloodless foundation. The worst by far is christianity. But Islam seems hell bent on catching up - fast. I do not care what the Quaran says, or does not say, nowhere will it advise followers to go around blowing up, beheading or any other form of killing. People, and I use the term loosely, will always see what they want to see in the written word and interpret it to suit their own sadistic desires.
|
I few points here:
1) I would argue that a lot of religions (Christianity included) have a bloodless beginning. They tend to catch up when they expand & start to become linked to political power. Unfortunately Buddhism is no different. In Sth East Asia there were wars between Buddhists, Hindus & Muslims in which ethnicity & religion were overlaid. You only have to see the defaced buddhas at Angkor in Cambodia or the ruined temples at Ayutthaya in Thailand to see that Buddhists were involved in religious wars too (I don't know enough about the histories of Mahayana kingdoms in the Himalayas & thereabouts, but I'm betting the same thing went on there too).
2) If Islam is bent on catching up it is doing a remarkably poor job. Have a look at the veritable mountain of corpses piled up over the past 200 years & check out how many are the result of Muslims doing the killing. I'll give you a tip: That fine speciman of Christian manhood King Leopold of Belgium was responsible for the deaths of more people in the Congo than pretty much the entire death toll racked up by Muslims in the C20th.
3) You are right. Sadly people who want an excuse to use violence to achieve their ends will find it anywhere - be it the Religion of 'love', the religion of 'peace', the religion of worldy denial or the unreadable writings of a second rate middle aged German economist.