Bigfella

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.

__________________
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

7thsfsniper

In the case of the buddists, were they not persecuted because they wouldn't convert?

__________________
Don't run, you'll only die tired!

Bigfella

Persecution was a 2 way street Sniper. Buddhist kingdoms persecuted Hindu ones, Hindu ones persecuted Buddhist ones, Buddhist persecuted Buddhist & different Muslim kingdoms fought both of the above.

The destruction of temples at Ayutthaya, for example, was done to Thai Buddhists by Burmese ones. Similar story for the ancient Khmer capotiol north of Phnom Penh, trashed by Thais.

Some would argue that these wars were not 'religious'. These things are always a matter of interpretation, but in an era when Kings were literally gods & religious buildings were particularly targetted the interpretation fits, especially when compared to definitions used to list sins supposedly committed by 'Islam' (people on these threads actually use crimes committed by Ba'athist & other avowedly secular regimes as proof of Islam's general nastiness).

Adux

Bigfella,

Islamic countries, as well islamic movements and kingdoms in the medival times havent committed any 'supposed' crimes? Mohd of Ghazni and Aurangazeb were saint's i suppose!!!

7thsfsniper

Thanks, I'll study this some more. I was only familiar with the Shaoulin of Henan. They were called upon frequently to battle warlords or solve certain problems for the provincial governor. I guess it could be used as example that extremism could be looked at regionally. Some good, some bad. It looks as if they are all capable of nastiness sooner or later. I have to say I am particularly amused when they kill each other. Something I really have no problem with.

Tronic

Bigfella, I don't think a lot of the wars were religious. Even the Islamic invasions into South Asia had more to do with political expansion then religion. However, you must look at the treatment of religions after the wars. All Mughal kings were not religious fanatics; some even founded their own religion to compensate for the difference of beliefs among their subjects. But the fanatics did rule and the persecution which all religions suffered under certain fanatic Islamic rule is incomparable to anything alike suffered by the populace there in the past. Imagine the extent to which the persecution must have been that it united all the different schools of religious thought in the Asian subcontinent to look out after each other. Now this is not to say that persecution of religions was a constant event; throughout history, many Muslim, Hindu and Sikh kingdoms were in bed with each other.

__________________
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory

Agnostic Muslim

Adux -

1. I have provide poll data from 2008. I conclude that it indicates that an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis reject extremism, reject terrorism, reject OBL, reject AQ

I conclude that an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis want democracy and economic growth.

Based on the polling data from 2008 (see post #194) why do you disagree?

2. I have outlined some of the major progress Pakistan has made (The Nerve of These Guys!...) compared to the Zia years. I conclude based on that progress that while Pakistan is by no means perfect, it has moved towards rejecting laws and attitudes that are discriminatory and intolerant.

The attitudes of Pakistanis as measured in the polls (The Nerve of These Guys!... ), in conjunction with the progress we have made towards becoming a moderate, liberal and tolerant nation in the past 20 years, leads me to believe that your assertion of "widespread intolerance and dislike for interfaith dialog" is incorrect.

__________________
Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah

Agnostic Muslim

7thsfsniper:

I'm afraid I don't quite get what you are referring to?

7thsfsniper

I have made no assumptions, muchless incorrect. I don't analyze this thing as you guys. You all can talk about it all you want but actions speak louder than words. When these countries get thier act together and behave as civilized humans, I'll believe then. Talk is cheap and I don't believe half the things people say anyway. And when it comes to politics and religion its usually lies for the most part.

brokensickle

Let's talk today, 21st century please...

Whether for the Muslim's be their violence political or religious, I don't care. Whether the communist is killing in the name of atheism to exterminate dissenters or the religious, I don't care. Inhumanity and brutality is just that.
Protecting against its probable impact in my land and other freedom loving lands.

I don't care what "religion" or "religious atheism" someone is. Men kill for a number of various reasons, even in mass numbers. I can't help that, but I can protect my family, my country from Inhumanities with violence and be justified. I can't say how that will be interpreted in the future, but I can tell you how I interpret it...TODAY!...SELF PRESERVATION!

You muddy the freaking waters with 'red herring' arguments to the disadvantage of the present day situation. You bring up history to compound the arguments for the present. In some cases we can learn from history many things I agree. But our decisions must be made by what we know now.

When in many of the nations and countries of the world, Islam or communism is killing people for religious or none religious reasons TODAY!
Then I care. Today is when I live. I don't know the intent of the crusaders except what history tells me. But the important thing for me, my country, TODAY!is what Islam is doing and how can we protect from their violence and threats today. It is the Muslim's job to clean their house, today.

In view of what is happening TODAY, is my job as a man to see what is happening and make my judgments to survive the possibility of MUSLIM EXTREMISM TO-FREAKING-DAY!




lov'n you man
Ivan

__________________
"Evil opposes freedom and uses those who pervert it as pawns to destroy it."

7thsfsniper

WELL SAID SICKLE! Couldn't agree more. Pretty much the bottom line I would say!

brokensickle

Thank You Snipe,

There seems to be a level of insanity enjoyed by some people today that enables them to overlook the obvious. In terms you could really relate with, their shooting everywhere but the target.

I think some people think the problem will just go away. And others who post these old worn arguments might be out of touch or stealth Muslim's pretending to be reasoning Westerners.

Check out this link. UK Mag: Islamic London Will Be A Better Place | Sweetness & Light And read some of the comments below the story. Peruse the many stories and patrons comments. It's very enlightening. I came acrossed the link when lead to the story of Geert Wilder on Foxnews.




Ivan

entropy

brokensickle has a good point there. Yes, other religions were violent. But I don't remember anyone I know having performed a journey to the Holy Land to kill saracens last summer.


Oh yes, I've seen some things being used in a wrong way here. Some Christian conquerors used religion to grant them power, today's radicals use power to spread their religion.

__________________
If memory serves...