Lahore's only Hindu temple razed

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Buddhist intolerance: It is true that there has been Buddhist intolerance. The early history of Tibet included bloody struggles between shamanists and different buddhist schools. But on the whole Buddhism and its arrival in those countries' where it is practiced was REMARKABLY more peaceful than the similar movements of Christianity and Islam. Compare the arrival of Buddhism to... Japan

You mean the struggles between Buddhist-supporting clans (Soga) and Shinto-supporting clans (Mononobe, Nakatomi) that led to the tossing of the first Buddhist statue in Japan into a river, a pair of wars between the Mononobe and Soga that eventually brought the Soga to power and the eventual overthrow of the Soga and the butchering of their leader in front of the Empress?

And that's pretty tame compared to some of the other Buddhist-related violence in Japanese history.

Buddhism was mainly a religion designed by an Indian for Indians . It was a reform of the old system which had grown too rigid , with the orthodox priesthood turning oppressive , and ascetism turning into elaborate self-torture . In India , its history was remarkably peaceful - both the ascent and the total eradication of Buddhism ( after it had achieved its aims ) were peaceful .

Its spread outside India was not supposed to happen , because it was not designed for outside . Violence is what happens when a religion tries to overstep its culture's borders ( witness the horribly violent destruction of paganism by Christianity ( which was supposed to be like Buddhism in its idea of reforming Judaism ) , or the destruction of all the major Hindu temples of North India by Muslim invaders ) . The only time when a religion can spread outside its borders without violence is when it is preceded by its mother culture , for example as happened in Indonesia , when Hinduism and Buddhism subsumed the older nature-worshipping religions .

[Sikander]

So Buddhism was spread violently throughout Central and East Asia while Christianity was spread violently through Egypt and Ethiopia?

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't think you can really argue that Buddhism was spread violently through East Asia. There was certainly some violence associated with the social changes it ushered in, but it wasn't spread via the sword.

The spread of Christianity and (Mahayana) Buddhism actually share some similarities. Both owe their large geographic reach to their adoption by large regionally hegemonic empires that dominated the cultural scene in their respective areas (Rome in Europe, Sui and Tang Dynasties in China), among other things.

[Seeker]

I wasn't saying there was no violence drake; I was comparing the level of massacres/violence. Christianity has more deaths on its hands.

And new archeological evidence suggests that the creation of Tibetan buddhism was one of the most violent episodes in buddhist history, resulting in the total destruction of one kingdom.

Christianity and buddhism are both organized religions; and thus both ways of abdicating personal responsiblity for your actions...but I think the record shows that of the two violent systems of indoctrination, Christianity was more violent.

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't really see how any religion has "death on its hands". People are the ones that did the killing; doesn't really matter whether religion or nationalism or reunifying the empire was their excuse...

[Elok]

Precisely. Note that, for all the years that various religions were in charge of political affairs, there was an endless series of atrocities because of their absolute power and refusal to compromise or tolerate diversity. When passionate believers in secular ideologies were in charge (which has only happened in the past ~250 years)...there was an endless series of atrocities because of their absolute power and refusal to compromise or tolerate diversity. But, since we've had much more historical experience with religious tyranny, we ostensibly know for a fact that "religion is the root of all evil," or whatever it was St. Leo's avatar used to say.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I don't really see how any religion has "death on its hands". People are the ones that did the killing; doesn't really matter whether religion or nationalism or reunifying the empire was their excuse...

Well you could then say that religion hasnt done any good either, since its people who give charity, love each other, build cathedrals, etc. And I think that would be kinda silly - reductionist, to get technical. Ideas exist, and have consequences.

[Elok]

Yes, they do, but one of the reasons the crusade, inquisitions, etc. are so memorable is that they contradict the religion they were done in the name of. The hypocrisy of it all was staggering. So, until you find a verse in which Jesus said, "and you shall take the Jews, and apply the hot metal tweezers unto their reproductive organs," I don't see how the actions were really consequences of the ideas.

[Drake Tungsten]

Well you could then say that religion hasnt done any good either, since its people who give charity, love each other, build cathedrals, etc. And I think that would be kinda silly - reductionist, to get technical. Ideas exist, and have consequences.

The difference is that most religious doctrines encourage acts of charity, loving each other, etc. They don't, on the other hand, call for the violent spreading of the religion by the sword or the killing of non-believers. The former is actually living out the tenets of the religion; the latter is just using it as an excuse for you to carry out your own violent actions.

BTW, I know that some religions may not fit this pattern (Judaism, Islam), but it certainly fits for Christianity and Buddhism.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Seeker
I wasn't saying there was no violence drake; I was comparing the level of massacres/violence. Christianity has more deaths on its hands.

Except that most of the casualty figures for Xtian incidents are widely exaggerated...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Straybow


Back to reality...

The concept of Dar al Harb is not one of conversion, but one of righteous conquest inherent to Mohammed's teachings. Idolatrous Arabs were to convert or die to purify the race. The Arab Muslims (those who submit) are favored by Allah to rule over all.

Except there's no evidence they possessed the modern notion of 'race'.

At the start of the Crusades the peasants living in Muslim-held lands were still overwhelmingly Christian. Non-Arabs weren't allowed to convert to Islam for nearly two centuries, and weren't encouraged to convert except through Muslim men taking non-Muslim wives for at least a couple centuries more. Proseletyzing of the Christian peasants was sporadic at best.

What's your evidence for this assertion that the 'majority' of peasants in Islam were non-Muslim at the beginning of the Crusades in the Levant in 1097 ?


And what decree or edict forbade non-Arabs to convert for nearly two centuries ?

The Ummayyads were concerned at losing a tax base as non-Muslims were taxed differently from Muslims, but the Abbasid Dynasty saw the beginning of the alteration of Islam from being an Arab-dominated entity to being a non-Arab dominated entity.

It was an Iranian Muslim, Abu Muslim, who toppled the Ummayyads in Damascus, and the Kharijites had already attracted large numbers of non-Arab converts to Islam.

I'd go so far as to disagree with the Arabic part . It was a system concieved of purely by the Hindus , without any outside intervention . Why they are called Hindu-Arabic numerals is beyond me .

aneeshm


Actually, the system we use in the West wasn't conceived of purely by the Hindus.

Al Khwarizmi wrote 'On Calculation With Hindu Numerals', but what we in the West refer to as Arabic numerals derive from the Hindu-Arabic forms inscribed on the counters of the apices (a type of abacus) used in Europe since Roman times, the numbers V & VI as written in Visigothic script and the abbreviation for the number 8 (octo) in Latin, with the last letter written over the first.

[Mr. Harley]

LOTM - I was tired after working a graveyard and scrabled years - I've posted 1967 multiple other time.

We have posted on Zionist principles before - which is a version of Jewish extremism/intolerance. To create a Jewish state in the mideast, versus a secular state with a mixed Arab and Jewish population, required ethnic cleanising for the demographics to work. Period. The Zionists engaged in the founding of Israel were fully aware of that, wrote about it, and then did it. In fact the moderate founders of Israel stopped their more extreme ideas, like razing the Mosque whose name escapes me in Jerusalem and rebuilding I guess it would be the third temple. Now that would have been "interesting".

Why you have trouble admitting that there was ethnic/religious cleansing in the foundation of Israel is beyond me. It's like the US posters who have refuse to admit the raw deal, and continued abuses in the US courts, that we've shoved down the Native Americans throats. As I've noted, the USA is built on substanstially worse ethnic cleansing, including genocide, and the US Courts are still stomping on Native American property rights. I post even more strongly about that. Other posters have already done my work for me on extremist Christians. The only reason you and I get into an argument is you justify the expelling/creating refugees of people, in this case Arabs, who were dispossessed so that a Jewish state could be founded. I'll disagree with any justification for that kind of activity, and since so many people in the USA hold up Israel as a sterling example of democracy in the Middle East - I'll comment on it without fail.

"They just didn't let them return," when they faced a war, and possible extermination from the Arab governments - not THEIR governments, they were not elected by the Arabs who chose to flee - is a cop out. Israel is founded on ethnic cleansing. Like every other "new" country with an altered demographic since probably about 12,000 AD when the last human migration into unpopulated areas occurred, with a couple of exceptions due to islands. Until Isael admits that, and deals with it - and I must grant at least you, unlike many Isrealis, are talking reparations (and then there are the Swiss - maybe just bill them now that Germany is making de facto death certificates available) - then you will have a Northern Ireland situation. Hell, it's taken them over three centuries to even start to deal with it, and the Orangemen have excuses that could come directly from your arguments, adjusted for time and place. Since one of my ancestors was a Methodist Irishman who left in the early 1800's - for obvious reasons - I've followed that conflict all my life. That conflict was of course all done in the name of Christ.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah, this is amusing. Aneeshm, once again wanting to blame Islam for something explained by simple corruption (and if aneeshm knew anything about Pakistan, he'd realize how much corruption goes on there).

[Arrian]

and if aneeshm knew anything about Pakistan, he'd realize how much corruption goes on there...

Must be a Muslim thing.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Mr. Harley
"LOTM - I was tired after working a graveyard and scrabled years - I've posted 1967 multiple other time.

We have posted on Zionist principles before "

And you continue to misunderstand what they are, how they evolved, and how they were applied.



" which is a version of Jewish extremism/intolerance. "

No, they are simply Jewish nationalism, and a desire for a homeland in the ancient home the Jewish people. Not all Zionists were even focused on a state - I suggest you read more about Achad Ha Am and cultural Zionism.


"To create a Jewish state in the mideast, versus a secular state with a mixed Arab and Jewish population, required ethnic cleanising for the demographics to work."

Not at any time before WW2, when there were still millions of Jews in eastern europe interested in migration. It was quite possible to envision a Jewish majority in the entire land between the Jordan and the sea. Dont project modern demographics to a different era.


" Period. The Zionists engaged in the founding of Israel were fully aware of that, wrote about it, and then did it."


They didnt. The most famous piece of evidence by the post Zionist historians is the eviction from Lod - which, oddly, involved the movement of arabs from one area under Israeli control to another area under Israeli control.

" In fact the moderate founders of Israel stopped their more extreme ideas, like razing the Mosque whose name escapes me in Jerusalem and rebuilding I guess it would be the third temple. Now that would have been "interesting"."


Its never been a suggestion of the mainstream secular right, which was the principle opposition to the moderates in the 1940s. The third temple movement has arisen since 1967, and is a fringe element on the Orthodox right. Its a red herring.

"Why you have trouble admitting that there was ethnic/religious cleansing in the foundation of Israel is beyond me. "

Maybe you should consider that I honestly believe you are wrong.

" It's like the US posters who have refuse to admit the raw deal, and continued abuses in the US courts, that we've shoved down the Native Americans throats. As I've noted, the USA is built on substanstially worse ethnic cleansing, including genocide, and the US Courts are still stomping on Native American property rights. I post even more strongly about that."

Whatever you post about that does not make incorrect statements by you about Israel into correct ones.

" Other posters have already done my work for me on extremist Christians. The only reason you and I get into an argument is you justify the expelling/creating refugees of people, in this case Arabs, who were dispossessed so that a Jewish state could be founded. "

The reason we get into an argument is because we disagree about what happened.


"I'll disagree with any justification for that kind of activity, and since so many people in the USA hold up Israel as a sterling example of democracy in the Middle East - I'll comment on it without fail. "


Israel is NOT perfect, and im probably more familiar with many of its imperfections than you are.


And of course you can comment on Israel without fail. You live in a democracy. If you lived in Israel, you could also criticize Israel without fail, and you could do so even if those critiicsms were false and unfair.




""They just didn't let them return," when they faced a war, and possible extermination from the Arab governments - not THEIR governments, they were not elected by the Arabs who chose to flee - is a cop out. Israel is founded on ethnic cleansing. Like every other "new" country with an altered demographic since probably about 12,000 AD when the last human migration into unpopulated areas occurred, with a couple of exceptions due to islands. Until Isael admits that, and deals with it - and I must grant at least you, unlike many Isrealis, are talking reparations (and then there are the Swiss - maybe just bill them now that Germany is making de facto death certificates available) - then you will have a Northern Ireland situation. Hell, it's taken them over three centuries to even start to deal with it, and the Orangemen have excuses that could come directly from your arguments, adjusted for time and place. Since one of my ancestors was a Methodist Irishman who left in the early 1800's - for obvious reasons - I've followed that conflict all my life. That conflict was of course all done in the name of Christ.

"


Whatever one thinks about NI (and the complexities of it warrant a thread of its own) it in no way indicates that Israel should admit to something that isnt true.