May 29, 2013

"Buddhist Mobs Burn Mosque and Muslim School in Myanmar."

"... a sign that radical strains of Buddhism may be spreading to a wider area of the country."

177 comments:

Strelnikov said...

Additional proof, as if any were needed, that no matter where they are, Muslims are being victimized.

Chip S. said...

My karma ran over your fatwa.

Michael said...

OmJihadOM

Rose said...

The day is coming when you will see a worldwide effort to eradicate Islam, because of the radicals, whom the moderates refused to denounce and stop.

It will happen in France, in Sweden, in Norway, in Britain, in the US...

How bad does it have to be to get Buddhists to take these kinds of actions.

Jay Retread said...

I am just glad that this kind of extremist behavior has never been done by Christians. It is just the Muslims.

Now go buy some toilet paper through the portal you Althouse Hillbillies!

Mike and Sue said...

Wow. Wonder what it takes to piss off a Buddist?

Ann Althouse said...

"Additional proof, as if any were needed, that no matter where they are, Muslims are being victimized."

No, it's additional proof that there is a violent place to which any religion might go. There is nothing in the doctrine of any religion that ensures that this kind of vicious power-seeking won't happen.

Ann Althouse said...

"Wow. Wonder what it takes to piss off a Buddist?"

The sentimentalism toward Buddhism seen in the United States is egregious.

X said...

In Complete Turnaround, Mob Ethnic Makeup And Motivation Suddenly Knowable By New York Times

I Callahan said...

I am just glad that this kind of extremist behavior has never been done by Christians. It is just the Muslims.

Nowadays, that statement is true.

Now go buy some toilet paper through the portal you Althouse Hillbillies!

Grow up.

Kevin said...

Is it vicious power-seeking or self-defense?

Inga said...

"Additional proof, as if any were needed, that no matter where they are, Muslims are being victimized."
-------------------------
"No, it's additional proof that there is a violent place to which any religion might go. There is nothing in the doctrine of any religion that ensures that this kind of vicious power-seeking won't happen."
------------------
Amen Sister Ann!

TMink said...

Yikes. I do not see this as something that the followers of Islam deserve, but as the spread of hate and violence. God help us turn from murder and give us love and peace.

Trey

bgates said...

Why is this a sign that radical strains of Buddhism may be spreading, and not the act of isolated Burmese who might have any of a thousand other grievances?

bpm4532 said...

The moderate Muslims need some incentive to cull their own herd.

X said...

No, it's additional proof that there is a violent place to which any religion might go. There is nothing in the doctrine of any religion that ensures that this kind of vicious power-seeking won't happen."

kind of like fascism descending on America and landing in Europe.

Colonel Angus said...

Maybe the Buddhists are just beating then to the punch because they simply recognize Islam does not play well with others.

I Callahan said...

"No, it's additional proof that there is a violent place to which any religion might go. There is nothing in the doctrine of any religion that ensures that this kind of vicious power-seeking won't happen."

I'm sorry, but I believe this to bee too simplistic. The fact is that Christianity and Judaism are NOT going to that violent place now. Islam is.

You're using this exception to prove the rule.

X said...

it does fit the classic definition of news

I Callahan said...

There is nothing in the doctrine of any religion that ensures that this kind of vicious power-seeking won't happen

It may not ensure it, but the old "Thou Shalt Not Kill" kind of helps, doesn't it? Other religions (including Islam) don't have that as part of it's doctrine.

Michael said...

"There is nothing in the doctrine of any religion that ensures that this kind of vicious power-seeking won't happen."

No doctrine ensures a negative. There are, however, religions whose texts command power-seeking and advise the use of violence to achieve it.

Nomennovum said...

[I]t's additional proof that there is a violent place to which any religion might go.

True in the general sense, because we are all human and therefore subject to our natures, but why not simply say that "it's additional proof humanity is subject to violence? Why single out religion? Are you excluding the fascists and the communists from this? Why? They've certainly done a better job than any of the traditional religions as far as mass violence, death, and destruction go.

However, the Times' saying that this is evidence of a growing Buddhist radicalism neatly neglets the fact that most religious violence always seems to involve the Religion of Peace somehow.

But zen we all know that. This is what makes us hillbillies so darn racist.

Colonel Angus said...

The moderate Muslims need some incentive to cull their own herd.

The problem may very well be the moderate Muslims are those that don't necessarily take up the suicide vest or meat cleaver of their jihadist breathern, but they don't condemn it either.

The German Nazi Party was composed of few Germans but nevertheless enjoyed the tacit support of a significant percentage of the population.

Mitchell the Bat said...

Piss Buddhists off

They'll start a riot

So use your head

And never try it.

Burma Shave.

Smilin' Jack said...

No, it's additional proof that there is a violent place to which any religion might go. There is nothing in the doctrine of any religion that ensures that this kind of vicious power-seeking won't happen.

People who believe stupid shit fighting people who believe stupider shit. Pass the popcorn.

Colonel Angus said...

There is nothing in the doctrine of any religion that ensures that this kind of vicious power-seeking won't happen

I'm an atheist and still know enough about the New Testament to know the above sentence is absurd.

Pogo said...

I have my doubts the mob was Buddhist. How the hell did they know that?

One part of the article said "80 Buddhist monks ..gathered outside the police station," protesting a Muslim attack.

But "Buddhist" seems to be assumed. Doesn't fit with "Groups of men gathered in the market 'shouting, cheering and singing Burmese nationalist songs' as they destroyed shops."

Pro-nationalist attacks in a majority-Buddhist region is about all they could reasonably claim.

Mary Beth said...

Groups of men gathered in the market ‘'shouting, cheering and singing Burmese nationalist songs'’ as they destroyed shops, he said.

Makes me think it's more about nationalism and anti-immigration than religion.

Pogo said...

"There is nothing in the doctrine of any religion that ensures that this kind of vicious power-seeking won't happen"

There is nothing in any doctrine anywhere that ensures that this kind of vicious power-seeking won't happen.

We're talking about war, a human wont, with or without religion (see Mao, Stalin, etc.).

Chip S. said...

This NYT story is bad even by the degraded standards of the NYT. What's going on in Myanmar appears to be a territorial dispute in the province that abuts Bangladesh, not the rise of some new "radical strain" of Buddhism.

Minority Buddhists from Bangladesh began migrating to Myanmar shortly after Muslim rioters – who were reportedly enraged when a young local Bengali Buddhist posted a photo to Facebook deemed offensive to Islam – torched and vandalized at least 19 Buddhist temples and scores of houses along southeastern Bangladesh last September.

link

Nomennovum said...

"Myanmar."

What's with this name? I thought we could go back to calling it Burma. What happened? Did the The New York Times not get the memo? Or was there a follow-up memo that I missed?

I also like to call its capital "Rangoon*."

-----------
*which apparantly means "end of strife." Ha ha.

cubanbob said...

If things continue to escalate in Burma it would not surprise me if it spreads to Thailand and possibly the Philipines.

Jay Retead I will be happy to buy a years supply of toilet paper from Ann's Amazon portal if it has your likeness printed on it. What better than using the likeness of an asshole to wipe one's asshole?

damikesc said...

I'd feel bad...but it's not like Islam has a history of co-existing with anybody.

dmoelling said...

There is a more significant Muslim minority in Thailand that has been increasingly aggressive in attacks on Buddhists and Christians. They live in an area close to Muslim Majority Malaysia and are increasingly being seen as a national security threat to Thailand. Lots of Beheadings etc. by Muslim gangs. This looks like a similar situtation is developing on the Burmese border with Bangladesh (the former East Pakistan)

Chip S. said...

But I suppose as long as you include "may be" in your story, you're technically correct.

In the same way that Althouse is technically correct when she says "There is nothing in the doctrine of any religion that ensures that this kind of vicious power-seeking won't happen."

Just as there's also nothing in the doctrine of any religion that ensures that greed, sloth, or lust won't happen. So they're all the same, really. Just like the Buddhists and the Moslems.

Ann Althouse said...

National Anthem of Burma.

Strelnikov said...

"There is nothing in the doctrine of any religion that ensures that this kind of vicious power-seeking won't happen."

Giving the New Testament a cursory reading might help you with this concept. And don't give me that crap about the Inquisition and the Crusades. Check the calendar. It's the 21st century.

Carl said...

There is nothing in the doctrine of any religion that ensures that this kind of vicious power-seeking won't happen.

A correct statement as framed, since mere doctrine can ensure absolutely squat about the behaviour of the human followers.

Or have you not noticed that, despite having a First Amendment -- what you might want to call a doctrine -- the ideal of free speech is routinely violated by state actors? Or that, despite having stiff laws against murder on the books -- not mere doctrine, mind you, but rules with savage punishments attached to their transgression, up to and including death -- we, mirabile dictu, have thousands of murders a year?

I dunno. What is it about human beings that makes them not 100.00% compliant with doctrine? Weird, innit? Almost makes you wonder if...there might be...something...more...to civilization than doctrine and law...

Nah! Crazy thinking! Clearly all that this indicates is that we have to strive harder to discover the ultimate pure foolproof doctrine that will carry us through to Utopia. Forward!

Ann Althouse said...

"it's additional proof humanity is subject to violence? Why single out religion? Are you excluding the fascists and the communists from this? Why? They've certainly done a better job than any of the traditional religions as far as mass violence, death, and destruction go."

Read the history of the violence in the world. Religion has played a central role.

Communism works as a religion substitute, ousting religion and taking over the place in the mind that is traditionally occupied by religion.

Fascism is similar.

These are big belief systems that dominate the individual mind and demand faith and dogged adherence.

Rich Rostrom said...

This is ethnic violence with religious labels. It's about who is dominant, and how dominant. It's what went on in Northern Ireland for decades. Religious doctrine doesn't really figure.

(While Ian Paisley really does think the Pope is the Anti-Christ, most of the IRA are Marxists, and the UVF aren't especially church-going either.)

"Sectarian" violence by Hindu supremacists in India has become common in recent years.

And as far as Buddhism and militancy go - some famous Zen masters were deeply complicit in the militarist regime of WW II Japan.

AprilApple said...

When you piss off the Buddhists -

Jay Retard needs to go back in time to make a point. He is unable to make a valid relevant modern point about Christians because it doesn't fit the narrative. zzzzzz.

rhhardin said...

The sentimentalism toward Buddhism seen in the United States is egregious.

PUERILE 2. I'd like to see ... [an] experiment in which callers describe the [TV] show just seen in three adjectives. Within reason of course. ("We have a Mr. Buckley here who finds Laverne and Shirley EGREGIOUS, PUERILE and JEJUNE.") (D. Cavett, of NEA, "Television Wasteland Revisited," Norman [Okla.] Transcript, 6/23/76. p.6)

_The Quintessential Dictionary_ p.342

Ann Althouse said...

"Giving the New Testament a cursory reading might help you with this concept."

That's on the level of "Islam is a religion of peace" arguments and pointing to that line about how killing one person is killing everyone. It's not the text, it's what real-live people do with it.

"And don't give me that crap about the Inquisition and the Crusades. Check the calendar. It's the 21st century."

Did Germans check the calendar in 20th century? You're speaking the language of denial.

Ironically, you'd like to do that so that you can fix blame on others, but fixing blame on others is the nature of problem under discussion.

Also, your style of argument -- "cursory reading," "check the calendar" — is demagogic and dehumanizing, that is, characteristic of the very problem under discussion.

rhhardin said...

Is Buddhism the "Make me one with everything" pizza joke, or is that another religion.

rhhardin said...

To head off violence, a culture of bar bets has to be instilled in the world's population.

Rusty said...

Wake me up when they piss off the Amish.

rhhardin said...

Hit the other guy on the head and take his stuff is a stable economic organization.

It has a standard of living about a hundred times lower than free markets and rule of law, but it's stable.

Obama favors it.

Paddy O said...

"And don't give me that crap about the Inquisition and the Crusades. Check the calendar. It's the 21st century."

If you think vicious power-seeking doesn't happen still in churches all over the place, you've been pretty secluded from most churches. Of course, it's not physical violence for the most part, but it's still vicious power-seeking.

Althouse's quote has two elements that are key, I think: "doctrine" and "ensures".

Christianity has doctrine against vicious power-seeking. That's at the very heart of the message. Even the OT can point to such, with a strong emphasis on how powerful people use their power.

But despite far too many assumptions, doctrine doesn't ensure anything. People have a grand capacity to have an expressed theology that is different than their confessed theology. People live a different theology than what they would say they believe. How we live expresses our real theology.

The issue is if or how a discrepancy can be identified, then fixed. The Reformation was, at its core, this adjustment, saying that the Church at the time was involved in, essentially, vicious power-seeking and corrupt practices. It was based on calling the Church back to its core doctrines.

So while doctrine doesn't ensure this won't happen, the doctrine does or does not provide a corrective. I would argue both Christianity and Buddhism have doctrine that offers such a corrective. Islam, in my understanding, does not, as it was itself originally developed and spread through warfare and violence.

Christianity can look to the non-violence of its founder as a continuing model. Islam can't. So we look at the Crusades, or contemporary forms of emotional and psychological viciousness as the aberration.

Marshal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sorun said...

"National Anthem of Burma."

I'm sure something got lost in the translation, but it makes me appreciate the one we have in the US. Commissioning a new politically-correct national anthem would probably not turn out well. Obama would hire one of his hip-hop buddies. "Yo, say can you see.."

Tibore said...

Wow, radical Bhuddists. Never imagined I'd ever see the day.

Chip S. said...

Read the history of the violence in the world. Religion has played a central role.

My reading of history indicates that government has played the primary role in the history of violence in the world. But I don't conclude that if there no governments there'd be no violence. Violence seems to be a basic human proclivity.

Since all adherents of religion are human, I'm not surprised that all religions have had adherents who were violent. An interesting question would be whether the adherents of all religions are equally disposed toward violence.

LarsPorsena said...

"...And don't give me that crap about the Inquisition and the Crusades.."

The only thing wrong with the Crusades was that they failed.

Ironclad said...

These are poor people competing for resources. The Burmese see the Muslim spillover from Bangladesh in the same way the Serbs saw the Albanian muslims colonizing Kosovo. Once they gain a foothold they cant be sent back.

And people in that area have seen the Islamic destruction of Buddhist culture throughout Asia. Remember the Bamiyan Buddhas? The people that built them were certainly not the current group living there. Their culture was destroyed by the same ancestors of the Rohingya. They remember. As do the same Thai Buddhists fighting muslims in the South there.

I Callahan said...

Did Germans check the calendar in 20th century? You're speaking the language of denial.

Godwin alert by our own hostess.

You're really going to conflate the two? Are you saying Hitler killed Jews because he was a Christian?

Absolutely no comparison.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Boo fucking hoo. Now they muslims get a tiny taste of what the copts are getting in egypt now.

I'll take the buddhists over the pedophile worshippers any day when push comes to shove.

Zero sympathy.

I Callahan said...

Violence seems to be a basic human proclivity.

Bingo. That's the lone constant. But some would rather blame religion (or religion substitutes).

James Pawlak said...

Just as Islam is not a religion, but a criminal-terrorist ideology, with a very thin veneer of "religion", Mosques and associated schools are focal points for the training and execution of Jihad attacks.

Attacks on them are essentially defensive in nature.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Let me know when Buddhists behead Americans, crash airplanes into buildings, or plant bombs on marathon routes.

Kill'em all and let Allah sort'em out.

Marshal said...

Ann Althouse said...
Read the history of the violence in the world. Religion has played a central role.


Apparently one part of the world dominated by one religion is just starting to get serious about stopping religious violence.

Breaking news from 1648.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia

Is it really possible to look at the modern world and be confused as to which religions have done a better job marginalizing violence?

Unknown said...

I take it that the Buddhists in Myanmar aren't willing to supinely take the crap that Muslims dish out in every other place on the planet where they have a substantial number of adherents.

Michael K said...

"State television said a Buddhist woman selling gasoline was attacked by a Muslim customer, who was later detained by the police. "

Maybe the Buddhists are tired of Muslim crap. Who knows ? That's ten thousand miles from here and another one of those "superior" cultures.

SJ said...

When Pakistan was created during the Partition of India, with the intent of creating a majority-Muslim region, there were riots. Many riots.

I'm assuming some Buddhists were involved, as were Hindus, Muslims, Jains, and Sikhs.


It may not ensure it, but the old "Thou Shalt Not Kill" kind of helps, doesn't it? Other religions (including Islam) don't have that as part of it's doctrine.


I think Islam does have a prohibition against murder, as does Judaism, Christianity, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Shinto, etc.

Some people get confused over the distinction between murder and killing.

Also, most moral codes contain clauses which allow killing of outsiders, when the existence of outsiders threatens the integrity of the culture and/or religion.

Radical Islam tends to view the existence of non-Islamic nations which have influence on Islamic nations as "threatens the integrity of the culture and religion". Radical Islam may also view the non-existence of a unified Caliphate as "threatens the integrity of the culture and religion".

"it's additional proof humanity is subject to violence? Why single out religion? Are you excluding the fascists and the communists from this? Why? They've certainly done a better job than any of the traditional religions as far as mass violence, death, and destruction go."

Read the history of the violence in the world. Religion has played a central role.

Communism works as a religion substitute, ousting religion and taking over the place in the mind that is traditionally occupied by religion.

Fascism is similar.

These are big belief systems that dominate the individual mind and demand faith and dogged adherence.


Is this religion as a cause, or cultures that use religion as a marker for Insider and Outsider status?

Are religion and culture separable, or two different facets of human nature?

Have we properly identified the material cause, the efficient cause, the formal cause, and the final cause?

The issue is complex, and I think it is better to clarify terms than to argue.

Mary Beth said...

Ann Althouse said...

National Anthem of Burma.

5/29/13, 11:58 AM


"This is our nation, this is our land, and it belongs to us."

It didn't start sounding anthem-y to me until about 40 seconds in.

Chip S. said...

Today's fill-in-the-blank quiz:

_____________ militants attack Red Cross guest house.

[It's a trick question.]

Marshal said...

Chip:

A = Young

Tibore said...

After reading the article, I think there was some poor reporting done. It seems like "Buddist" is used more as a sectarian term than a religious one. Yes, the Buddists are attacking mosques, so there's an undeniable religious element to it, but again, our western notion of religion might be skewing our perspectives here. I'll bet the motivations behind both factions run the gamut that includes religion but is not restricted to it.

If we only single out religion in this event, we'll screw up and miss a lot. It's communal violence, neighbor vs. neighbor, like vs. unlike, and religion is only one of the defining characteristics. I don't see religion as a cause in this case; it's just a description here, a convenient handle for observers to differentiate between the fighters.

chrisnavin.com said...

Myanmar is also emerging from under the brutal oppression of a military regime.

Best to get the facts on the ground.

Men shall always be arguing over first principles, and some of the deepest and most careful thinkers have argued some form of transcendent origins for our knowledge. Whether it must be religious in nature, and involve a transcendent God, I have my doubts, but I don't know.

I take a contrarian stance to most of the Grand Inquisitor scene types I know, just to get our heads clear.

chrisnavin.com said...

Someone's been reading Aristotle.

Rabel said...

Times:

"Like a previous rampage in March in the central city of Meiktila, the violence in Lashio appeared to have been touched off by a relatively minor quarrel. State television said a Buddhist woman selling gasoline was attacked by a Muslim customer, who was later detained by the police."

Sydney Morning Herald:

"Violence has hit a town in eastern Myanmar after a woman was allegedly set alight by a Muslim man..."

I quess it depends on your definition of "relatively minor quarrel."

Tibore said...

"Ann Althouse said...
Read the history of the violence in the world. Religion has played a central role."


I would replace the word "religion" with "ideology" here. Putting religion at the center of the cluster of root causes is too simplistic; some things happen under religious banners but for very secular aims, others only use religion as a way to differentiate sects, and so on. To say that religion is a cause of any given conflict would require that the stated purpose is a religious one, as opposed to a racial, cultural, or sectarian reason. Using Germany and WWII: The singling out of the Jewish was specifically for their race. Sure, the Nazi's conflated their religion with their race, but the goal of the Reich was not to stamp out a religion, it was to stamp out what they perceived to be an inferior and problematic race. Religion becomes a descriptive characteristic rather than an active factor in that case. I don't recall the Nazi propaganda centering on things about the Talmud as much as it was on the cultural stereotypes of Jews and money, as well as their general effect on society.

We need to correctly differentiate between when religion is an actual cause and when it's merely the label for the participants.

Synova said...

Blaming ethnic violence on religion is short hand for "don't listen to me, I'm an idiot."

Always will be, too.

And explaining the violence of fascism and communism on their "religion substitute" nature is about the same.

And one of the most famous "religious" conflicts of modern times... the one in Northern Ireland... takes only the barest investigation to identify as an economic conflict rather than a religious one. Religion has nothing more to do with it than a handy way to determine which side you're on.

The genocides in Iraq illustrate the role of religion in conflicts very well... when it's Sunnis against Shi'a it's religious... when it's Arabs gassing Kurds it's... not. When it's Arabs against Marsh Arabs it's... who the heck knows, huh? And which way will it fall between Arabs and Persians... on the side of religion or on the side of ethnicity? Or is it enough to just hate the Jews?

The motivation for conflict between people groups is economic. Always.

The identification of which group is which involves a mix of custom, ethnicity, religion and History. And in most cultures you're expected to pass on good fortune to those in your own group... jobs and political favor to your own group... or your own group eats you alive and puts someone else in power.

The United States is not NORMAL.

edutcher said...

Have to go with bgates, this sounds more Burmese than Bhuddist.

Jay Retread said...

I am just glad that this kind of extremist behavior has never been done by Christians. It is just the Muslims.

Not never, but we outgrew it about 500 years ago.

Too bad the Lefties haven't.

Now go buy some toilet paper through the portal you Althouse Hillbillies!

And you can only do that in a capitalist country. Something else where the Lefties have failed.

Oh, and that "quickly recovering economy"?

Disability is now the 8th largest state.

Ann Althouse said...

it's additional proof humanity is subject to violence? Why single out religion? Are you excluding the fascists and the communists from this? Why? They've certainly done a better job than any of the traditional religions as far as mass violence, death, and destruction go.

Read the history of the violence in the world. Religion has played a central role.

Communism works as a religion substitute, ousting religion and taking over the place in the mind that is traditionally occupied by religion.

Fascism is similar.

These are big belief systems that dominate the individual mind and demand faith and dogged adherence.


So it's less religion as such, than any dogmatic "belief".

Blood is thicker than water.

Black Is Beautiful.

God Must Be An Englishman.

phx said...

I'm sentimental about Buddhism in that I'm sorry to hear about something like this happening, esp. from Buddhists. But I don't have any illusions about human nature.

Self-importance is fairly universal and Buddhists, though ostensibly in the fight against the ego as part of the doctrine, are also susceptible.

I'm always rooting for the Buddhists to win the war - the war against the self.

traditionalguy said...

The attack on Jews has always been an attack on their representing one God of one tribe (Hebrews) to be the sole God.

Jews would not accept other gods. That was and is their only crime against humanity.

Hitler and his friends were up to their neck in pagan tribal gods that would support one ethnic group (the teutonics) against all the many other weaker pagan gods and other ethnic groups such as Slavs.

The goal of the new age Magicians that Hitler arose from was the reinstatement of the pantheon of lesser ethnic gods ( E.g.,those from Eqypt and scandinavia that wrote powerful magic chants in heiroglyphs and runes.

Ergo the one God teaching of Jews and the Jewish sect called Christians was in need of extermination so the 1000 year reich could do its thing in a pure bred humanity not polluted by the writings of Moses and Jesus' followers saying there is only one God.

phx said...

I just never heard of the Nazis calling for the extermination of Christians.

John Lynch said...

Nationalism. Worst ideology ever.

Fascism and Communism (in practice) were derivative of the idea that empires are bad and states must be pure. National self determination is a nice phrase that hides the reality of murder. The aftermaths on WW1 and WW2 in Europe were a bloody mess, followed by the bloody mess of decolonization that continues to this day.

Empires aren't so bad when the alternative is murdering and driving out everyone who isn't the right race or religion because they live on the wrong side of a line on a map. That's a terrible way to define a state.

States shouldn't belong to nations. All the big powers on the planet are multinational empires. The USA, the EU, the PRC, and India are empires in one form or another. The better empires do their best to contain nationalism and define themselves by different ideals than national identity. It's the small and insecure states that mass murder to define themselves.

AReasonableMan said...

Synova said...
The motivation for conflict between people groups is economic. Always.


And fear. I'm always impressed by the power of fear to get people to do things that are not in their long term best interests.

Brew Master said...

"No, it's additional proof that there is a violent place to which anyone might go. There is nothing that ensures that this kind of vicious power-seeking won't happen."

FIFY

phx said...

The motivation for conflict between people groups is economic.

No way. Maybe Marx thought so but not true.

Colonel Angus said...

Giving the New Testament a cursory reading might help you with this concept."

That's on the level of "Islam is a religion of peace" arguments and pointing to that line about how killing one person is killing everyone. It's not the text, it's what real-live people do with it.


Um..no, no its not. The New Testament is the basic doctrine of Christianity. The religion of peace crap, is just that.

Synova said...

phx, if the Nazis were Christians upset about Jews why did they hate Gypsies? Why did they kill the mentally and physically infirm?

Was it any more complex than... "Your life sucks because... Jews."

Was it?

If one religious group outlaws money lending and another religious group allows lending for interest but only to the other group... is it a religious conflict or is it an economic one?

John Lynch said...

The root cause of violence is violence. A state has to suppress violence to be legitimate. States that are in trouble are the states that can't or won't impose peace.

What really happens with violence, from crime to war, is that people decide to kill and then find an excuse. Don't provide an excuse, and impose consequences.

phx said...

@Synova I didn't make that argument. I said economics isn't the only reason why groups of people fight each other.

edutcher said...

phx said...

I just never heard of the Nazis calling for the extermination of Christians.

You weren't listening then.

Jehovah's Witnesses? Right there at Auschwitz.

Catholics? Hermann Goering, as head of the Gestapo, on the night Hitler was made Chancellor, promised to eliminate "The Red And The Black".

The motivation for conflict between people groups is economic.

No way. Maybe Marx thought so but not true.


Dig deep enough and you'll find somebody's ox getting gored.

Synova said...

phx, if the Nazis were Christians upset about Jews why did they hate Gypsies?

Gypsies, though Indo-Aryan racially, were regarded as untermenschen.

Dave said...

_____________ militants attack Red Cross guest house.

Operation Rescue.

edutcher said...

PS for Retread: for a "quickly recovering economy", a lot of people are worried.

PPS And it's looking like the IRS scandal just keeps going higher up the food chain.

Deirdre Mundy said...

The Buddhists have a long history of waging violent, bloody wars on non-buddhist. Most American so-called Buddhists know nothing of Buddhism except what they've read in some celebrity magazine.

Brew Master said...

Read the history of the violence in the world. Religion has played a central role.

This is an extremely simplistic and adolescent reading of history. Not only does it discount human nature, but tries to paint with to wide of a brush.

It is not religion that causes violence in the world, it is the use of religion by humans as an excuse for violence that is the problem. As plenty of others have pointed out, doctrine of relgions can say 'Thou shalt not kill', but that is no garauntee that a follower of that religion will not kill.

The only constant in all religious themed conflict is there desire to dominate others. Which religion used as an excuse is immaterial to any conflict. It is the desire to impose by force that is the root of conflict, tyranny. Religious people can/will have this desire just as much as Atheists.

Michael said...

Phx. "@Synova I didn't make that argument. I said economics isn't the only reason why groups of people fight


"The motivation for conflict between people groups is economic. "

Phx wrote: "No way. Maybe Marx thought so but not true."

How did you not make that" argument?" You clearly made it.





Nomennovum said...

Are you saying Hitler killed Jews because he was a Christian? Absolutely no comparison.

I think Ann is saying that Nazism was a religion.

Smilin' Jack said...

Communism works as a religion substitute, ousting religion and taking over the place in the mind that is traditionally occupied by religion.

Fascism is similar.

These are big belief systems that dominate the individual mind and demand faith and dogged adherence.



And they are all stupid shit. People believeing stupid shit is the source of all the trouble in the world.

damikesc said...

Read the history of the violence in the world. Religion has played a central role.

Communism works as a religion substitute, ousting religion and taking over the place in the mind that is traditionally occupied by religion.

Fascism is similar.

These are big belief systems that dominate the individual mind and demand faith and dogged adherence.


Holy cow. She totally gets it. I've said, for years, that nonsense like Communism is a religion since reason and facts show it is an abject failure when tried.

Not a ton of people agree. But Ann nails the argument.

And fear. I'm always impressed by the power of fear to get people to do things that are not in their long term best interests.

No joke. Obama won in 2012 on a campaign trying to terrify low-info voters about the evils of not voting for him...and, fuck, voting for Obama isn't in anybody's best interests who isn't a close confidante of his.

traditionalguy said...

The Nazi regime was using Christians and Catholics as its soldiers and work force, so they were not on an immediate extermination list as the Jews. But their religion had been taken over by the Nazis and ordered to worship Hitler as a god as the Roman Empire's Caesars had done.

Bonhoeffer was a good example of being a believing Christian in the Third Reich...held under a sort of house arrest until a convenient time to be killed as enemies of the State and Himmler's SS Occult Administration.

hombre said...

Althouse: "There is nothing in the doctrine of any religion that ensures that this kind of vicious power-seeking won't happen."

Sort of a recitation of the irrelevant obvious, isn't it? There is nothing in any doctrine or creed, religious or otherwise, capable of preventing "vicious power-seeking" - if that is what was happening in Myanmar.

The more important question is: Is there anything in the doctrine that promotes, encourages or condones such behavior.

Inga said...


"It is not religion that causes violence in the world, it is the use of religion by humans as an excuse for violence that is the problem. As plenty of others have pointed out, doctrine of relgions can say 'Thou shalt not kill', but that is no garauntee that a follower of that religion will not kill.

The only constant in all religious themed conflict is there desire to dominate others. Which religion used as an excuse is immaterial to any conflict. It is the desire to impose by force that is the root of conflict, tyranny. Religious people can/will have this desire just as much as Atheists."

5/29/13, 1:19 PM

Hallelujah Brother Brew Master!

phx said...

How did you not make that" argument?" You clearly made it.

Actually I didn't make an argument of any kind here - although I did contradict Synova who said "The motivation for conflict between people groups is economic."

I said that was totally wrong, but I didn't actually back it up with an argument.

I will if I have to, but don't make me have to.

Mark Jones said...

"Wow. Wonder what it takes to piss off a Buddist?"

Human beings respond to incentives. Muslims rioting in the streets and burning cars night after night? Nothing. Local citizens organize to defend themselves and their property from the angry yutes? The "vigilantes" gets arrested en masse.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what kind of behavior gets respect and what doesn't.

Human beings respond to incentives. Even perverse incentives.

phx said...

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what kind of behavior gets respect

Buddhists shouldn't be interested in "respect" IMO.

Michael Haz said...

There is nothing in the doctrine of any religion that ensures that this kind of vicious power-seeking won't happen."

Just last night I was reading about the violent Quakers and the attacking mercenary hordes of Amish.

Synova said...

phx, I think that it's possible that one group could fight another for reasons that aren't economic. But I think that, eventually, any conflict reduces to an economic one. Even a cultural expectation of taking your armies out to conquer the next kingdom over... say all the little kingdoms in the ancient middle east... was about getting them before they got you. If you weren't getting wealthier, you were becoming weaker.

Now, maybe Crusades really were about freeing a holy city from occupiers, but at some point working backward, the armies expanding territory were doing so for economic reasons. Maybe animal rights terrorists are ideologically driven. Maybe the Weather Underground worshiped the romance of conflict and destruction.

And certainly, yes, nations go to war to defend themselves, to "get them before they get you".

It's actually easiest to see the economic basis of conflicts that are "religious." The Reformation was supported by German princes who were more interested in not having to send their wealth to Rome than they were about doctrine.
The inquisition/s were about legal theft of property often as not.

pduggie said...

"There is nothing in the doctrine of any religion that ensures that this kind of vicious power-seeking won't happen."

What if you start a religion that states as doctrine

"any of you that engage in vicious power seeking are not truly a part of this religion"

hombre said...

"Religious people can/will have this desire [to dominate others] just as much as Atheists."

The body counts under twentieth century atheist regimes, however, suggests a greater willingness amongst the godless to commit murder to fulfill this desire.

phx said...

I think you might be saying there is always an economic component to war and conflict. But in my opinion, there are many other motives that are often central and should be taken into account.

phx said...

Just the freaking heat in the mideast is enough to motivate conflict.

Michael Haz said...

Religion is about man's relation to God. Man has been given free will and choses to follow or not follow the laws God has handed down.

Man may commit war or other violence in the "name" of God, but it is absurd to presume that God concurs, and that the human twisting of the meaning of religion is exactly what God meant.

Muslims, for example, can assert that God wants them to behead all non-Muslims, but until God (in person, not through a "prophet")actually speaks agreement, it is just a guess. A self-interested guess, at that.

It's a fool's bet to presume to know the will of God, in wars or otherwise.

ken in sc said...

When I was in South Korea, two groups of Buddhist monks had a dispute over control of a certain temple. They pulled down an iron fence and used parts of it to assault one another. It was on Korean TV. Ann is right about American's view of Buddhists.

phx said...

Nothing is funnier or sadder than the number of American Zen Buddhists squabbling over teachers who hit on students, etc. Zen wars.

Inga said...

"Religion is about man's relation to God. Man has been given free will and choses to follow or not follow the laws God has handed down.

It's a fool's bet to presume to know the will of God, in wars or otherwise."

5/29/13, 2:04 PM

Preach it Brother Haz!

EDH said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
EDH said...

Kind of like "Hell's Grannies" from Monty Python.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygy7UDADXDg#t=42s

edutcher said...

ken in sc said...

When I was in South Korea, two groups of Buddhist monks had a dispute over control of a certain temple. They pulled down an iron fence and used parts of it to assault one another. It was on Korean TV. Ann is right about American's view of Buddhists.

Yes, but the Koreans are also known as the Irish of the Orient.

That might have something to do with it.

Big Mike said...

Quick! Send a pile of "Coexist" bumper stickers to Myanmar!

Calypso Facto said...

Communism works as a religion substitute

Althouse claims any ideology can be a "religion substitute", thereby making her point about religious violence a truism.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

I don't think we need to send coexist stickers to Burma, I think a much better idea is to have more of these buddhists in Cambridge.

Colonel Angus said...

I just never heard of the Nazis calling for the extermination of Christians.

Thats because they focused on exterminating those ethnic groups they believed were inferior not because of your religion. The term untermensch is your the first clue.

Poland is a Christian nation where six million Poles, not counting combat deaths, were murdered.

edutcher said...

Colonel, I believe they were going in order of the most dangerous (in their view).

Calypso Facto said...

Communism works as a religion substitute

Althouse claims any ideology can be a "religion substitute", thereby making her point about religious violence a truism.


Does that include racism, sexism, and, ethnocentrism?

Colonel Angus said...

Althouse claims any ideology can be a "religion substitute", thereby making her point about religious violence a truism.

So in other words she gets to redefine religion in order to validate a bullshit assertion.

Noted.

ironrailsironweights said...

Christians, at least in the West, are mortally afraid of Muslims, but Hindus and Buddhists are not.

Peter

Colonel Angus said...

Just the freaking heat in the mideast is enough to motivate conflict.

Well if I was prohibited from eating BBQ ribs, dr., bacon, drink beer and women were coveted head to toe in bedsheets I would probably want to kill someone too.

edutcher said...

ironrailsironweights said...

Christians, at least in the West, are mortally afraid of Muslims, but Hindus and Buddhists are not.

Lefties are mortally afraid of Moslems.

FIFY

I don't think most Christians are.

Hindus and Buddhists have many scores to settle.

PS Agreed with your comment last Sunday about Pierce Brosnan's wife.

She is a looker.

damikesc said...

I just never heard of the Nazis calling for the extermination of Christians.

Largely because Germany was quite Catholic and they were working hard to try and stop that. Hitler Youth was a direct attack on Catholicism and the Church's traditional role in instilling values in the youth.

They had few qualms about attacking the Church. Liquidation just wasn't a viable option at the time for them.

Calypso Facto said...

Does that include racism, sexism, and, ethnocentrism?

I don't view those as ideologies (tenets, perhaps), but you'll have to ask the hostess, who likes to make up the rules/definitions as she goes along.

Unknown said...

Dear Moderate Muslims, for your own safety I suggest that you advise your more rambunctious coreligionists to confine their enthusiasms to places where the population at large is kept well under control. Boston or London, for example. When they operate in locations where the rest of the people are not so much given to decorum, like Myanmar, trouble for the moderates ensues.

Alex said...

Steve Jobs was a Buddhist. Just sayin'.

Michael said...

PHX: There are many things funny about American buddhism. See "Shoes at the Door"

Alex said...

Slather on the BBQ sauce. All over them ribs, chops and burnt ends. Give me some of them fixins too. You know what I'm talkin' about. Cole slaw, corn bread, french fries, tater tots, onion rings, chili. You know what I'm on about.

Chip S. said...

Cannibalism?

Tibore said...

Instead of religion or ideology, I wish there would be sectarian strife amongst different philosophical schools. I'd probably not enjoy having to fight a bunch of Nietzscheians, but I think seeing Dadaists in combat would be a hoot.

rhhardin said...

Coleridge wrote in an op-ed in 1800

``A new religion had fanaticised whole nations. Men bred up in the habits of a wild and roaming freedom, had been brought together by its influence, and taught to unite the energies of a savage life with all the harmony and calculable coincidencies of a machine. But this religion was deadly to morals, to science, to civil freedom : no society could be progressive under its influence. It was favourable to superstition, cunning, and sensual indulgence; but it bore no fruit, it yielded no marriageable arms to the vine, it sheltered no healing plant. The soil was grassless where it grew ; the fox made its nest at the root, and the owl screamed in its branches - Such was the religion of Mahomet.''

_The Morning Post_ April 16, 1800.

exiledonmainst said...

"Thats because they focused on exterminating those ethnic groups they believed were inferior not because of your religion. The term untermensch is your the first clue."

Exactly. Nazism was based on spurious race theory. It didn't matter if a Jew was religious, secular, or a convert to Christianity (ie Edith Stein, a born Jew who became a Catholic nun and died in Auschwitz) - there was nothing a Jew could do or not do to be considered worthy of life by the Germans. The Christian Slavs were considered slightly less foul, but were still untermenschen in Nazi eyes.

Synova said...

"Nazism was based on spurious race theory."

Based on newly discovered science about genetics and an *ideological* compulsion to shut down anyone who wasn't pro-science.

Gotta be pro-science, you know.

Germany was to eugenics like Gosnell is to abortion... all hurt and confused that anyone minded when the ideology they pushed was taken to it's logical conclusions and suddenly everyone decides you're the Bad Guy when what did you do that they all didn't clearly approve of and promote?

Clyde said...

If you incentivize behavior, you get more of it. If you kowtow to headchoppers from one religion, it's only logical that others may choose the same path.

Synova said...

Germany killed blond, blue-eyed Germans with defects... cleaned out their hospitals. In the US we just sterilized those people.

phx said...

PHX: There are many things funny about American buddhism. See "Shoes at the Door"

This does look like a good read [and folks, check it and pay for it through the Althouse portal, will ya?].

I would recommend comrades in the war against the self not be too distracted by the Zen Wars however.

Unknown said...

Since our gracious hostess has let the Godwin genie out of the bottle, perhaps it is worthwhile to discuss what Hitler himself said about the Jews.

Hitler described his philosophy as "scientific antisemitism". That is why there was no escape by conversion to Christianity as there had been centuries earlier in Spain. Hitler's plan was to create create a race of pure Aryan people and, while he viewed Germans as the best gene pool of breeding stock to begin on that project, he saw them as a long way from the goal.

With programs like "mother's medals" and SS breeding facilities, he looked to improve the stock the way a farmer might try to improve the qualities of his dairy herd.

Lesser breeds like Slavs were to be culled and Jews were regarded as not so much inferior as a race of parasites who by their very nature damaged any country in which they resided.

Carl Bosch, the head of IG Farben spoke with Hitler about the desirability of government subsidies for his gasoline and diesel from coal plants as well as development of an artificial rubber industry and found Hitler receptive and able to follow his presentation and ask intelligent questions. When Bosch raised the issue of keeping his Jewish scientists and engineers to help in these programs, Hitler switched from calm and reasonable and started ranting. He then threw Bosch out and the two men never spoke again.

Cedarford said...

All through hominid evolution, humans or proto-humans organized to predate on others, or to be protected from predators, including human ones.

The liberal idea that the begining state of hominids was peaceful harmony with women having same rights and it only got "spoiled" when evil penis-wielders wrongly coveted things and then introduced "violence" through male ideas IS A BIG FUCKING JOKE!!

Hominid tribes as they killed competition, hunted, lived togather and needed violence to ensure tribal behavior that permitted reproduction and survival developed rules and norms. As things got more complex, more elaborate regulations, penalties, and taboos were understood by all. As the tribes developed further and got to trading, organizing around agriculture, the rules and norms evolved into mini or full-blown ideology and law - and religion became a powerful part of societal control and reinforcement mechanisms.

All through time, until idiots started talking about total religious tolerance under the US Sacred Parchment or Europe realizing they had gone too far in bloodshed over minor religious variants as a threat to the societal control and reinforcement mechanisms - there was nothing untouchable about religions thought to be bad.

They should be wiped out - the thinking went. And the ones that threatened the prevailing wisdom were wiped out. Morloch, Ba'al, the Assasins Cult, the human sacrifice religions of the Pacific,S America, Central America wiped out and humanity the better for it.
The false religions of Nazism, Shinto Buddhism wiped out by war. Communism by discrediting it as an effective means to order a society.

What we have now is an aberration, there is no sensible "duty to tolerate" under any Sacred Parchment - any fucking ideology or religion that threatens a civilization, or society. Instead, there is a duty to get rid of it, for the sake of the people. The only question is if the risk assessment is proper.

The Brits were right to end the Thuggee cult of worshippers.
The Russians were right to see the worship of Stalism was bad.
One day the descendents of the NORKs will scorn those that worshipped the Kim Family.
And one day, the West may have to rid itself of all who practice Islam.
Burma may have it right..

Revenant said...

it's additional proof that there is a violent place to which any religion might go

The problem isn't religion per se; the problem is systems of thought which sort people into Bad and Good categories. Most religions do that, of course, but other things do as well (e.g., communism, fascism, radical environmentalism). Once you establish that Those People are a bunch of scum, giving Those People a good kick is a natural human urge.

The belief systems which avoid this are the ones that hold that use of violence against others IS what makes a person bad.

Drago said...

Have the muslims taken this opportunity to ask "why do they hate us" and then try some outreach to the Buddhists?

No?

phx said...

They should be wiped out - the thinking went. And the ones that threatened the prevailing wisdom were wiped out. Morloch, Ba'al, the Assasins Cult, the human sacrifice religions of the Pacific,S America, Central America wiped out and humanity the better for it.

Something tells me it's NOT an improvement to wipe out the religions that threaten the prevailing or default wisdom. The entire risk assessment question is indeed significant, and frankly very few societies are up to the task, IMO.

phx said...

Revenant on the money @5:29 pm 5/29.

Drago said...

Jay Retread: "I am just glad that this kind of extremist behavior has never been done by Christians. It is just the Muslims."

Notice the tenses used by JR.

Bottom line in JR's world, all Christians are guilty of any actions taken by any Christians at any time in the past or present.

Simultaneously, muslims today are not even responsible for their actions taken today.

Pretty much sums up the lefty view of the world.





Synova said...

"Once you establish that Those People are a bunch of scum, giving Those People a good kick is a natural human urge."

I don't often disagree with you but I will on this.

Human nature and the natural human urge to favor your own survival over others, comes before the excuse, not after the excuse.

Illuninati said...

Althouse said:
"No, it's additional proof that there is a violent place to which any religion might go. There is nothing in the doctrine of any religion that ensures that this kind of vicious power-seeking won't happen."

Ann, if you are proposing a moral equivalency between the Buddhists and the Muslims I must respectfully disagree. There is a difference between violence in self defense vs. unprovoked aggression. For example, during WWII the Jews in the ghetto used violence against the Germans who were sending them to the death camps, but few people would propose a moral equivalence between the Jews and the Nazis.

"Read the history of the violence in the world. Religion has played a central role.

Communism works as a religion substitute, ousting religion and taking over the place in the mind that is traditionally occupied by religion."

Your point is well taken but perhaps we should find a new better term which includes deeply held beliefs which include religion and also non-religious ideologies such as fascism, Marxism and socialism. It is hard to call an ideology which rejects the existence of God a religion.

"That's on the level of "Islam is a religion of peace" arguments and pointing to that line about how killing one person is killing everyone. It's not the text, it's what real-live people do with it."

It is impossible to understand any religion or ideology without actually studying it. I will present a couple of texts from the Bible, and will look forward to you proving your point that the religious books are equivalent by presenting similar texts from the Koran.

That's on the level of "Islam is a religion of peace" arguments and pointing to that line about how killing one person is killing everyone. It's not the text, it's what real-live people do with it.

So it doesn't matter what Allah says, it is just what people do with it? Are you serious? It doesn't matter what a religion teaches?

I challenge you to find anything remotely similar to these two verses in the Koran or the Hadiths.

Matt 5:44
44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
NIV

1 John 4:8
8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
NIV

1 John 4:8
8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
NIV

edutcher said...

Nomennovum said...

Are you saying Hitler killed Jews because he was a Christian? Absolutely no comparison.

I think Ann is saying that Nazism was a religion.


It was set up that way once they took power.

Il Duce, not so much.

Same can be said for the Commies under Stalin and Mao.

Synova said...

Germany killed blond, blue-eyed Germans with defects... cleaned out their hospitals. In the US we just sterilized those people.

Some were killed; originally, they were sterilized.

Sterilization was extremely unpopular when word leaked out and had to be shut down.

Another reason why the Final Solution wasn't advertised.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

X,

In Complete Turnaround, Mob Ethnic Makeup And Motivation Suddenly Knowable By New York Times

Yep. Well said.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Nomennovum,

What's with this name? I thought we could go back to calling it Burma. What happened? Did the The New York Times not get the memo? Or was there a follow-up memo that I missed?

So far as I can gather from NPR Morning Edition, the new official name of the nation is "Myanmar, also known as Burma" :-)

Chip S. said...

"Burma" is its stage name.

Methadras said...

On the bright side, it wasn't those damned pesky daoists.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Rabel,

I quess it depends on your definition of "relatively minor quarrel."

Yes, for most of us there's some gap between "he attacked her" and "he set her on fire."

Lucien said...

If that headline makes you smile, is that "Jihadenfreude"?

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

damikesc,

Largely because Germany was quite Catholic and they were working hard to try and stop that. Hitler Youth was a direct attack on Catholicism and the Church's traditional role in instilling values in the youth.

Germany was (and still is, by our standards) a relatively young nation. Parts of it were Catholic -- the southern parts mostly (e.g., Bavaria). Other parts were Protestant, militantly so (e.g., what had been Prussia). I don't know what the proportions were. But the usual effect of throwing a bunch of people with massive differences in opinion into one tub seem to have kicked in fairly soon in Hitler's reign. The Catholics weren't, for example, particularly keen on Hitler's euthanasia programs.

Strelnikov said...

"Did Germans check the calendar in 20th century?"

The Nazis were not Christians acting in the name of Christ. You must have missed that in your careful reading of history.

"Also, your style of argument -- "cursory reading," "check the calendar" — is demagogic and dehumanizing, that is, characteristic of the very problem under discussion."

I didn't realize there were style points to be had. Generally, I neither award nor expect those. By the way, it's called "snark".

Strelnikov said...

"Christianity can look to the non-violence of its founder as a continuing model. Islam can't. So we look at the Crusades, or contemporary forms of emotional and psychological viciousness as the aberration."

That was my point, although you state it better. Gee, maybe my style is overwhelming.

Strelnikov said...

"I think Ann is saying that Nazism was a religion."

Oh, now I see. Then my response is just, "Bullshit".

Strelnikov said...

"I challenge you to find anything remotely similar to these two verses in the Koran or the Hadiths.

Someone, I forget who at the moment, summed it up thusly:

Jesus said lover thy neighbor.

Muhamad said to kill him.

Lyle said...

I wonder what Richard Gere thinks of all this.

Mark said...

If you think Buddhists abhor all violence you've never been to a kickboxing match in Thailand.

Illuninati said...

Strelnikov said...

"Someone, I forget who at the moment, summed it up thusly:

Jesus said lover thy neighbor.

Muhamad said to kill him."

If we take Althouse's statement seriously, she has argued that peoples' most deeply help beliefs, beliefs they are willing to die for, have no effect whatsoever on their behavior. Either that or she is saying that there is no essential difference between the message in the Bible and in the Koran and the hadiths. If she is saying the latter, I challenge her to support her position with real evidence.


AllenS said...

Mark said...
If you think Buddhists abhor all violence you've never been to a kickboxing match in Thailand.

The kickboxing match that I was at in Thailand had a lot of Buddhist monks present.

Roux said...

Or maybe they're just tired of the moolsim bull shit.

Eric said...

Read the history of the violence in the world. Religion has played a central role.

Communism works as a religion substitute, ousting religion and taking over the place in the mind that is traditionally occupied by religion.

Fascism is similar.


Eh... what? Religion certainly plays a central role in historical violence if you're prepared to include movements that aren't religions. I get your point, but this is sloppy language.

Saint Croix said...

The problem isn't religion per se; the problem is systems of thought which sort people into Bad and Good categories. Most religions do that, of course

No, that's sloppy. Christianity does not sort "people" into bad and good categories. Christianity sorts actions into bad and good categories.

The belief systems which avoid this are the ones that hold that use of violence against others IS what makes a person bad.

One of the most dangerous techniques is not to say that so-and-so are "bad people," but to deny their humanity altogether. A religious crusade filled with angry, emotional people is nothing compared to the calm, cool and efficient disposal of human beings when you feel nothing for them and refuse to recognize their humanity in the first place.

R. Chatt said...

The quote in the Koran about murder everyone (including Althouse) thinks admonishes Muslims from being violent actually refers to the Jews and Jewish doctrine which governs Jews.

5:32 "On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”

Whereas the next verse 5:33 directs the actions of Muslims:

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle (Mohammed), and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter"

David Davenport said...

The only thing wrong with the Crusades was that they failed

The Crusaders' big mistake was trying to retake Jerusalem and the Holy Land while leaving Constanipolis and the former Eastern Roman Empire to the Turks.

Whenever you hear someone opine that Jerusalem and nearby parts of the West Bank belongs to the Palestinians, I suggest that you respond by asking when Istanbul will be returned to Christendom.

phx said...

No, that's sloppy. Christianity does not sort "people" into bad and good categories.

You are right. But Christians, like everybody else, do that.

tiger said...

Professor Althouse wrote:
'"And don't give me that crap about the Inquisition and the Crusades. Check the calendar. It's the 21st century."

Did Germans check the calendar in 20th century? You're speaking the language of denial.'

This is utter and complete bullshit.

Hitler called himself a 'Christian' and used some trappings of it but his actions were anathema to what actual Christians believe.

The one mistaken here is you.

DEEBEE said...

Always fascinating to watch humans be surprised at humanity, given the right (wrong?) circumstances, behave in manners that we seem to file away in the stereotype folders of our minds.

Nini said...

Strelnikov: "Additional proof, as if any were needed, that no matter where they are, Muslims are being victimized."

Althouse: No, it's additional proof that there is a violent place to which any religion might go. There is nothing in the doctrine of any religion that ensures that this kind of vicious power-seeking won't happen.



Additional proof that so long as duality, co-eternal binary opposition, is a feature of reality, then we will see good and evil, light and dark, active and passive, motion and stillness, etc.

Nini said...

Althouse: It's additional proof that there is a violent place to which any religion might go.

Nomennovum: True in the general sense, because we are all human and therefore subject to our natures, but why not simply say that "it's additional proof humanity is subject to violence? Why single out religion? Are you excluding the fascists and the communists from this? Why? They've certainly done a better job than any of the traditional religions as far as mass violence, death, and destruction go.


Althouse is totally ignorant of history. Pathetic.

How many were killed by totalitarian/communist regimes in the name of ideology? Atheists have killed more people than any other religions combine

Nini said...

rhhardin said...
Is Buddhism the "Make me one with everything" pizza joke, or is that another religion.

It's buddhism. You are spot on.

Revenant said...

I don't often disagree with you but I will on this. Human nature and the natural human urge to favor your own survival over others, comes before the excuse, not after the excuse.

Personal survival is definitely *a* part of human nature, but we're a naturally clannish species. We gravitate towards protecting people we consider part of our group and hurting people we consider NOT part of our group.

Human history, up until relatively recently, consisted of unending violence between relatively small groups.

Revenant said...

No, that's sloppy. Christianity does not sort "people" into bad and good categories. Christianity sorts actions into bad and good categories.

Christianity doesn't do anything. It is just an ideology.

People do things, and Christians absolutely DO sort people into "bad" and "good" categories. Sometimes based on their actions, sometimes just based on their failure to be Christian.

viator said...

"The overwhelming majority of fault line conflicts, however, have taken place along the boundary looping across Eurasia and Africa that separates Muslims from non-Muslims"
Samuel Huntington

The borders of Dar al-Islam, the world of Islam, are everywhere consumed by conflict. Only the ferocity of the internal conflict where Shias and Sunnis kill each other with a will overshadow numerous wars stretching from the Strait of Gibraltar to the western Pacific.

Unknown said...

"David Davenport said...

The only thing wrong with the Crusades was that they failed

The Crusaders' big mistake was trying to retake Jerusalem and the Holy Land while leaving Constanipolis and the former Eastern Roman Empire to the Turks.

Whenever you hear someone opine that Jerusalem and nearby parts of the West Bank belongs to the Palestinians, I suggest that you respond by asking when Istanbul will be returned to Christendom.

5/29/13, 11:12 PM"


Jerusalem was captured from Fatimid Egyptian Muslims by Crusaders during the First Crusade in July, 1099.

Acre, the last major city held by the Crusaders fell to the Muslims in May, 1291.

Constantinople fell to the Turks in May, 1453.

Given this time line, do you see any problem with your theory?

Richard said...

I have a strange new respect for Buddhists.

Richard said...

I have a strange new respect for Buddhists.