All the articles lead to just a handful of monks and a small group of their followers all of whom are military backed. It IS NOT wide-spread.
I can read and watch and understand what these militant monks have been saying and doing while you haven't so your ASSUMPTION is again coming from absolute ignorance as are your arguments.
I'm not assuming, I'm going by the information that has been made avaible. Like here:
This violence has often been supported by factions within the Buddhist monastic community in Myanmar. Buddhist sermons regularly include Islamophobic messages such as unsubstantiated rumors of Muslim violence against Buddhists or Muslim plots to take over the country and destroy Buddhism. Thousands of monks have participated in anti-Muslim demonstrations, increasing interreligious tensions in the region. These elements of the Buddhist community have justified their actions using Buddhist theology, claiming that violence is acceptable if it is done in defense of their religion.
Regardless, there is no doubt that much of the Buddhist religious leadership of Myanmar has promoted violence against Muslims in the region.
I can read and watch and understand what these militant monks have been saying and doing while you haven't so your ASSUMPTION is again coming from absolute ignorance as are your arguments.
This seems to directly contradict you.
As a side note, I find this part interesting:
The ethnic and religious violence in Myanmar is incredibly complex; the traumas of colonialism, poverty, the recent transition from a military government to a more democratic state, and the global war on terror all play major roles in shaping the conflict. However, the role of Buddhism in this conflict is clearly no less complex. While many monks in Myanmar seem to support and even advocate for violence against their Muslim neighbors, there are others who are constantly working to end the violence. Both believe their actions to be deeply inspired by Buddhism, and both use theology to justify their claims.
Maybe you will habe to just accept that there is no such thing as an easy truth here.
Listen, I understand your anger. I identify as a Buddhist and I am not happy to acknowledge that, in this case, the religion was at least used as an excuse for spreading violence.
Non the less, I don't think talking around it is sensible. Sometimes we just have to face reality, even if it's hard to swallow.
By your logic (if I understand you correctly, and by all means please correct me if not), something like the crusades could not be blamed on Christians. After all, they were politicaly motivated and the Pope only used the "Holy War" excuse to rally up troops.
I also don't think it's necessary to quote teachings in order to qualify the statement that "Buddhism was used to get people to commit a genocide". Even if all they said was "we have to get rid of them, because they threaten our identity as Buddhists" that, in my opinion, is enoth to qualify the above statement.
And of course non of us knows of they quoted teachings. I assume you weren't present, an I for sure was not. So they might have, or not have. Given the context of what happend it is at least a valid possibility.
You are right that I am not familiar with the detailed context and I thank you for adding it.
It remain an unfortunate truth, even after reading your post, that Buddhism has been used here as a weapon to spread hate. And even if it was only a minority of the population that fell for this hate, it remains true non the less that Lord Buddhas teachings have been used here in such a way.
So, even with this context, my main point stands: Every idea can and will be twisted in a hateful way by humans.
Buddhist extremist monks have used hate speach in Myanmar for years to drive a genocide against the Rohingya, who they claim are a thread to the Buddhist identity of Myanmar.
I am a Buddhist myself, and I have to disagree with the "most peacefully religion ever" part. As the above example shows, every idea can be perverted and used for hate by humans.
Other examples against the idea of Buddhism beeing peaceful are Samurai beeing Buddhists, or that many people in Buddhist countries see disabled people as beeing at fault for their disabilities (the idea here is that the disability is the result of a karmic action in a past life).
Buddhism beeing overly peaceful is a misconception in the minority world ("the West"), possibly because it was introduced to Buddhism by New Age Hippies in the 70s, that worked it into the "Love and Peace" mindset that they already brought with them when encountering Buddhism.
I learned about Buddhism by one of the Lamas (Teachers) whon had encounter such Hippies and had been able to get enoth experience with "Westerners", to be able to teach about the religion in a way that I could understand and connect from my point of view, while destroying the faulty concepts many of us have about Buddhism in the Minority World.
If they were talking with somebody standing next to them, would you do the same? Ask them to please shut up? If not, why is this different?
Asking out of real curiosity. I don't mind if people talk close to me in a puplic place, as I don't demand silence around me. Never cares for if it's on the phone or in person.
It's true that all deaths on both sides were caused by people with JEWISH names. Coincidence? Not likley. Hitler killed less people. Elon is god. Sieg. Sieg!1!!!1
You're right. This survey lists 29 % of Americans as "Religiously unaffiliated". Of those 5 % are Atheists, 6 % Agnostic and 19 % "Nothing in particular".
A friend of mine has to two. Storming the feels like touching a cross between a peach and a scrotum. There surprisingly warm and soft. It's... Something.
Wasn't that introduced to counter ideas about geoengineering against climate change?
Like solar engineering and stuff like that? It makes sense from the perspective of somebody who denies man-made climate change to not have people tamper with this.
I don't think the claim of this resent event beeing an geoengineering attack and the bill you refer too are connected. At least not as far as I understand it.
Sometimes, if I am looking for information, I visit reddit, but I treat it like any other random forum I look up something, take the info and fuck off again.
I use YouTube, if you wanna count that. I don't comment there and use Newpipe or PipePipe, so only consuming and no participation there too.
I haven't used any other social media, like Facebook or Instagram, so nothing hardcore for me in just continuing not to do so.
Gloomy @ Gloomy @mander.xyz Posts 2Comments 428Joined 2 yr. ago
I'm not assuming, I'm going by the information that has been made avaible. Like here:
https://rpl.hds.harvard.edu/religion-context/case-studies/violence-peace/conflict-myanmar
This seems to directly contradict you.
As a side note, I find this part interesting:
Maybe you will habe to just accept that there is no such thing as an easy truth here.