Apparently in Myanmar (Burma) one side benefit of the rigid military rule for so long was that it protected the Muslim minority in some areas from being attacked by the Buddhist majority.
This is a pretty bare-bones story, without much background. This recent pillaging was apparently triggered by some disagreement between a Muslim merchant and Buddhist customers.
Is this really an ethnic conflict, rather than a religious one? Can anyone point to a source of background information?
Roddy
Nope, but it doesn’t stop some people, often with Free Tibet shirts, from insisting Buddhism is always peaceful. See Bhutan expulsions. Ikkō-Ikki. The nominally Buddhist Japanese Empire. The Sinhala vs. the Hindu Tamils.
After the tsunami (2004 one I think), I even heard about a monk going full-on Southern Baptist preacher and saying it happened because people were sinful.
I don’t know a whole lot about Burma, although I understand that many ethnic groups are tightly tied into a religion, e.g. the Rohingya. Christianity was also oppressed in Burma (see the documentary, Rambo 4). Keep in mind, and as you suggest, not all crimes between two religions are religiously motivated, e.g. religion is an issue in NI, but it would be a mistake to say that it is currently religiously motivated.
Buddhists are people.
People are mostly selfish, narrow minded, egotistical, xenophobic and occasionally violent.
Therefore, Buddhists are mostly selfish, narrow minded, egotistical, xenophobic and occasionally violent.
Apparently there’s a Buddhist guru who does a lot of speaking engagements. Hell get on the stage, pour himself a glass of whiskey, and light up a cigarette. Then he says “What? I’m a Buddhist, but I’m still a human.”
Heh, one of the more incongruous moments in history is the parade of nagatina-armed “warrior monks” trooping through the streets of Kyoto at the end of the Heian period toting a Buddhist icon along with them, on the way to intimidate the government. Not the usual image in the West of the meek and mild unworldly Buddhists …
Not literally, no. I don’t have a cite for this, but as mentioned above there is a widespread notion on the internet that, among religious adherents, Buddhists are the least likely to resort to violence to achieve (apparently) religious ends.
Roddy
I seem to recall a multi-part documentary about a Buddhist who wandered through the 19th Century American West, beating the crap out of half a dozen people in every town he visited.
Just Google “buddhism peace” or similar, I’m not doing your homework.
And seriously, how long have you been on the internet? Never heard of Yahoo! Answers or 4chan? Never ran into a SDMB guest who worships the TimeCube or something? And if you’re quibbling over “always,” then it is unlikely, but a disingenuous argument as most people have nuance to recognize exceptions and don’t believe always, but it doesn’t then follow that absolutists don’t exist.
The only way I can answer the second sentence is with :rolleyes:. I’ve spoken with people who think fluoride is poison, who believe in crazy conspiracy theories, but online), who think Lyndon LaRouche is the best hope for America. There are people who think that Xenu bombed Hawaii or that a guy named Yakub created the evil white race. Is it really that far of a stretch that Buddhism apologists exist?
I’m not quibbling over “always” I’m taking the OP’s claim on its face. If he meant something else he should have said something else. What you’re saying about nuance applies to spoken contexts, not written contexts. (Or anyway, written contexts more formal than a text message.)
The OP already explained why he wrote what he wrote-- which was an ironic comment on a popular perception which I’m sure even you are aware of— so at this point you’re just being contentious and pedantic.
It would be amusing to watch you consume a hat, though, so I encourage **thelurkinghorror **to provide the requested cite.
