Religiou Troubles...

[anic 0]

This post is inspired by one called 'Bali Tragedy' in the General Pattaya Board. It refers to other conflicts of religious background and asks "Why can't we all be Buddhists?"

 

Just a simple answer: It's not a religion for the masses - and many doubt, it's a religion at all.

 

On top of the basic idea of giving up all your desires except compassion (which means no less than 'to die while you live'), there's sets of rules translating that idea into daily life: One set for any human (incl. "not to kill"), one for normal buddhist believers (incl. "to reduce your sex drive, at least have no sexual contact with prostitutes") and one for monks (incl. "not to have food after noon").

 

This is not for everyone, you'll agree. And that's why even in so-called Buddhist societies, like Thailand, Japan and ... Bali, only some a small elite will be 'real' buddhists. Simply because with the sufferings of a daily life, it's sooo far. In Thailand, for example, you'll notice those small donations to the spirits along the road (or wherever).

 

That's as little Buddhist as the japanes way of buying charms in a temple for good luck - one for passing an exam, another one for finding a new love etc. It's a blend Buddhism does with the local background, a bit like christianity did in Africa, South/Central America, North America and: ancient Greece/Europe(!), all of which are quite a way from the 'real Thing' which a certain Jesus of Nazareth created from his jewish background (or was it his followers, St. Peter most of all? ...)

 

'The real' Buddhism however does live in all these places, in the temples as well as with certain individuals - in an elite.

 

Okay, enough for this place. Knowing that more has been written about Buddhism than Christianity, you might try to explain "why can someone be christian" in e few words and estimate how much is missing here.

 

However, what would it mean? Getting back to our initial religious conflicts, I feel they are not actually that: In Yugoslavia, the religions have been living together. Not just have tensions been suppressed by 'the iron fist of Tito' but people actually lived together working, being friends, marrying. Just sometime later, somebody (Milosevic) equiped one group with guns and told it about it's superiority and a holy mission to get rid of 'the others'. And from there, violence and counterviolence escalated, despite some people trying to hold on to what they had before.

 

Germany, before 1930, even more 1914: After the middle ages, the age of enlightenment had brought an integration of the jewish culture. In fact, most of the elite was jewish and hardly anybody noticed. Then, with economic downturn one group decided "we need a culprit - and it can't be our lovely politicians who started that bloody war, of course". So how about the Jews, who crucified our Christ anyway? Let's forget he was a jew himself for a moment...

 

Northern Ireland: I don't know for sure, but i feel it's more about access to education and political powers, about having 'our father's land', about not being discriminted by those ugly drunken orange marchers - yes, about divorce and abortion - and most of all a "fair" police force than about praying to mary or not, having saints or not, having the religious headquarters in Westminster or Rome.

 

Just two more: Arabs in pre 9-11 USA. Were they actually integrated, in the melting pot? What changed since then? And farangs and Arabs throughout the world - is it about the gods really? After all, Allah is the fucking same guy as Jahwe/Jehova/God! So what could it be?

 

Basically, I feel the religions are not the problem. Moses, accepted as a prophet by all three monotheist religions, got a "Thee shall not kill! " from his god, the common god of Muslins, Christians, Jews. Four simple words, correctly translated into about any language. And not to be misunderstood really, am I right?

 

So if there's one thing i blame these religions of, it's that they don't educate their followers to think for themself. Or is the religions? Or the organisations, churches, whatever?

 

Now, what would happen if a buddhist leader calls out war? Japan did, China, Korea and Pearl Harbor remember. Yes, it was a Shinto government, but I didn't hear about any Buddhist opposition. Might be my lack of information, but my understanding is that a Buddhist WOULD NEVER kill someone else - but also hardly ever opposes something.

 

And Thailand? It seems, the present king is a real wise man who avoids war and killings from his heart, actually does a buddhist policy. But: what if the king was someone else, maybe a dictator of Pol Pot type? Or Soharto? And: even there, a lot is left to do. Or how do you feel about a situation in which the young girls have to 'work' with (sometimes not as nice as you and me) farangs to feed a real large family?

[sprinter 1]

Anic,

"You" asked the question (in the "Bali Tradgedy posting") and now you're posting this piece of shit as an answer to your own question. Look at your quote

Basically, I feel the religions are not the problem

. No not at all!!! I have never said this on a public forum before but "fuck off you imbecile".

[Guest]

yeah. what a load of liberal crap.

religions are not the problem?

did you not study history at school?

[dode 2]

Religions not the problem  ??? Your comments on the troubles in Northen Ireland just confirm the fact that you're on a different planet my friend !

 

Maybe you could send the religious fanatics out there some of the medication you're taking. That should pacify them for a while .

 

Dode

[andy 0]

I'm sorry, but anic is right.

Religions are not the problem, nor have they ever been. The real problem is that members of the same religion tend to form themselves into distinct social groupings, with thier own preconceptions and ideals. These groups eventually aquire a political presence which has nothing to do with religion.

Usually, the leaders of these groupings, elected or not,try to do the best that they can. There are, however, others who claim to speak and act for these groups who are so filled with hate that they lead others to acts that are so inhuman that they use God to justify them.

These are the heretics. They are breaking God's laws in the persuit of their own interests.

Let us not also forget that during the First World War, the allied powers knew that God was on thier side because they were right,and that many German regiments had belt buckles with the insignia "Gott mit Uns"(God with us).

Let us concentrate on getting rid of the cunts who are responsable for these troubles rather then presecute ordinary people who do not share the same view of life as ourselves.

regards.

Andy

[Guest]

thats fucking shit.

nearly every war or conflict through out the ages, back to the  year dot, you can point the finger at religion.

[andy 0]

NO, YOU STUPID BUGGER!!!

It's the people who use religion as an excuse!!

 

Saddam(expansion)

Hitler(Scapegoat)

Pol-Pot (induce Fear)

 

The list goes on and on.

Just think about it for a while and I'm sure that you will get the idea.

[sprinter 1]

Come on Andy!! So if you take the people/members out of religion what are you left with........absolutely nothing! No people=no religion.  

The real problem is that members of the same religion tend to form themselves into distinct social groupings, with thier own preconceptions and ideals

So this isn't religion?  ???Huh!!!  

[andy 0]

Thanks, Sprinter.

You have just made my point.

It's not the religion that causes the problem, and not the vast proportion of the followers of any religion. It is a small number of people who want to do something which most people would find repugnant.

They find thier "faith" provides a useful hook,regardless of what thier religion teachs them. The really horrifying aspect of these terrorist activities is that they polarise communities across the world. If we allow this to happen, we stand a good chance of losing.

Regards,

Andy

[Guest]

stupid bugger eh?

well comin back atcha andy.

youre the one thats brain dead. you must be living in cucko land.

you sure your not smoking shit avery night with danielbud?

[Sved 0]

Religion might not be the cause per se, but far too often it provides its believers with the moral arguments and justification that is needed. A great example of this would actually be the Crusades which were pretty much about power and money. But the religion issued a carte blanche that no other substitute could have made.

 

It should also be noted that religion as opposed to philosofy by its very nature is based upon tradition and therefor not always reliable when taken out of its historical context. For example in the bible you can find Paul stating that the jews "displease God and oppose all mankind" (1:Thess 2:15 ESV). Just one of "Gods words" that are useful to justify harrassments of Jews.

 

As for someone saying Buddhism is not for the masses is just plain uneducated. Anyone who spent some time in Thailand with the locals and I bet most of us have  ;D will probably have seen how large impact Buddhism in fact have.

 

Saying that you have to be a monk or similar to be a "real" Buddhist is simply wrong and not in accordance with the principles. Its just like saying you have to be a monk or priest to be a "real" Christian.

 

Actually both Judaism and Islam insists on reading "Thou shalt not kill" as "Thou shalt not murder" which is a big difference if you´re at war. Maybe a holy war? If you read the bible or a history book I would say its pretty clear that Christians kills also, sometimes they even murder. If that action can be justified for a greater cause.

 

And I wouldnt draw too many conclusions on the fact that Islam, Judaism and Christianity "worships the same god". While the three religions do have a common past they are enough significant differences to make the history just that: history.

 

"People using the religion as an excuse"

Its obvious to me that religion is a carrier of enough tradition and vaules that can be used and I therefore believe religion itself to be both contagious and potential dangerous. Its not about preconceptions and ideals of the social groupings that are the problem. Its the over-preconception, the religion, that is feeding them that is the problem. As is obvious in the history and as is obvious today.

[andy 0]

Hey Baz,

I'm sorry that I shouted at you, but it was just to show how easy it is to escalate anything. I'm from the north of England and that term is considered mild here. I would also like to point out that I come from a land which has suffered from terrorism for the last thirty years. This does not make me an expert but has given me plenty of time to think about it.

Please believe what you will and allow me to do the same.

Regards,

Andy

[nidnoyham 30]

As the one who made the statement "why cant we all be Buddhist ? I was merely trying to point out the fact that the other religions, sorry- people from the other religions are the ones that are causing the present threat to every human being on this planet. the turn to terrorism means that everyone is a potential terrorist, if you dont think so try walking on an aircraft without being scanned for weapons. It will get worse I feel now that the whole world is on the move, the troubles in N.I

are perpetuated by people who live in the same community, but are of a different religion, they go to different schools, they do not mix socially, and now we are getting in the U.K and America/ Canada, large numbers of Moslims Seikhs Hindus, who want their own schools and their own political parties, again differential and seperation breed distrust.But at the same time they want to be "British" but can they really be the same as the indigeonus population? I put it to you if you were a squadie in the British Army in the field with a Moslem foe, how would you feel about having a Moslem fellow soldier watching you back?  Perhaps thats a bad example, but it one that occurs to me.  But my main reason for my qoute, is that Buddhists arn't trying to rule the world, unlike the other lot , and I am immpressed with the Thai peoples outlook on life, laid back and tollerent, we could do with a bit more of that in this world  

[Guest]

an intresting point.

but i do not believe that for one moment the buddhists are any better than any other religion.

if push came to shove and thailand was at conflict with another country, they would behave in a manner not any different from any other.

yes thais may have a nice general outlook on life, but they are no different from anyone else, they rob, cheat,murder and commit all the crimes we do in the west.

i think you make the mistake of looking at thailand through rose tinted spectacles.

[Sved 0]

In some ways Buddhism are actually worse then other religions. For instance its silent approval of a pretty much non equal society.

[Marky 0]

Sprinter - think your post was extremely harsh.  Do you have a personal issue with Anic?  It was a thoughtful piece by Anic and he's entitled to his views.  Lets play nice and be polite even if you disagree.

 

For the record I certainly agree religion is at the heart of many conflicts.  Having said that if I had a choice it would be Buddhism all round.  It's approach certainly seems better than some other religions I could name.

 

And Sved you take issue with Buddhism's "silent approval of inequality".  Better I think than detonating car bombs.

[sprinter 1]

Hey PaulC,

No PaulC, I don't have an issue with Anic only what was posted.  I may have responded in a harsh manner and for that I apologise to Anic....Sorry Anic.....but I do find it incomprehensible that anyone could believe that

religions are not the problem

. .  According to Islam (as quoted by a cleric Abdul el Raghead...didn't catch his real name on a T.V interview here in Australia the other night)  If a non-muslim attacks Islam than they have "rules to deal with the attackers" (i.e. eliminate them).  Islam also has rules for "attackers" within the faith which basically has the same result.  This religious practise was raised in a recent court case here in Oz when a number of Lebonese Muslims were charged and convicted of a number of gang rapes against white Australian girls.  The accused stated that if they raped their own and were caught their faith demanded their elimination so it was easier to rape "white trash". So religion isn't a problem!! ???  Having said that, Anic was probable right if you look at the word religion by itself but you can't!!! Religion encompasses beliefs, practises, traditions and rituals.  Without action there is no religion.

Ronnie

[Sved 0]

PaulC

 

Buddhism is certainly more pleasent in many ways then other religions, I was only pointing out that it indeed have darker sides as well, where other religions take a much better stand.

 

Another example would be that Buddhism does not emphazise the importance of telling the truth the same way as most people from the pseudo christian world are used to (thats us falangs).

 

Those two examples are still not as bad as killing someone but they are not good are they?

 

Just because something isnt "as bad as xxxx" doesnt make it right or justified.

 

As for religion once should not forget the many good things it does as well. Altough I see no particular reason why one should not prefer a more liberal alternative. Non theist that is.

[Marky 0]

Sved - I actually am not in any way a fan of religion and am a complete non-believer.  Yep I agree Buddhism has some down fallings but as you implied it does seem to produce better devotees than Islam.

 

Sprinter - as an Australian it is undertandable that you are feeling particularly aggrieved at the moment at the apparent belligerant stance of some self styled religious leaders.  However do bear in mind that the majority of religious devotees are actually very peaceful and condemn any violence.  It is only the relatively few who have perverted their religion to justify the outrages we are all familiar with.  I guess it comes down to education.  These people have essentially been brainwashed by elements in their community to believe that killings falangs is a good and admirable thing and at the heart of that is a religious belief.  The West can make a difference and I for one hope it does.  The freeing of Afghanistan and the knock on effects of liberalising the country will make the cultivatiuon of religious fanatics there who would (eg) bomb Westerners less likely.  I for one hope to see this process continue so that we can have a more peaceful world.  A religion-free world would do me - anyone agree?

[Sved 0]

Paul C

 

Well actually a religion free world would probably not be, forgive me the expression, heaven. But it would certainly be a step in the right direction.

[sprinter 1]

Totally agree PaulC ... very well written post.

[monkeyman 1,578]

Religion is the opium of the masses.

 

Nuff said.

[Papa 0]

Always consider the source. A Marxist atheist's take on religion is likely to be as far off as his view that Communism is the best form of Government.

 

Papa Tom

[Sved 0]

Papa

 

Atheism is just that atheism. Just like theists you will find that some are right wind, some are left wing and some are not interested in politics at all. I personally would consider a atheist marxist to have a good view of the first issue but not on the second.  ;D

[RayW 1]

As a devout heathen I want to add that I agree yet again with the eloquent Baz.  Religions are the biggest cause of wars throughout man's history.

 

I respect everyone's beliefs as that is their right, but why can't folks keep it to themselves and accept others have different beliefs.  Religious groups should rightly be allowed to exist but should be NO PART of any Government or Ruling body.  Rules and laws should be based on the democratic will of the people not reliousity.  We just need to tolerate others who follow different beliefs.  Trouble is religions are about power and control and not about love and caring, so lets get real here.  >  

 

I for one would never fight in any war that was about religion.  I would fight only for my freedom and the self determination of every world citizen.  Crap or good sense  ???