The Way of War

[thelerner]

I'll add:

 

The nature of War is This:

 

I can accomplish good

by killing or raping

the other.

[Aetherous]

killing or raping

 

In some (many) cases, there's a vast difference between the two.

 

Consider the person "killing" out of self defense. That's not anywhere near rape. Not whatsoever. And there is never a good reason to rape someone, obviously.

 

I don't mean to be offensive, but apparently the nature of war is something that cannot be discussed reasonably by people who haven't been there.

[tulku]

I'll add:

 

The nature of War is This:

 

I can accomplish good

by killing or raping

the other.

 

The Shaolin Monks have this saying. Better to injure than to kill.

 

I don't think one can achieve any good by rapes but if one kill in the name of justice or if one is ordered by the gods to kill, then it will be a justifiable homicide.

 

If the police in every society is given the power to kill and the public accepts it, then why should any religion be condemned for defending themselves against those who wanna destroy such spiritual teachings?

[tulku]

Ripping events from the history books and pinning them on a whole people is the Birthing Mother of atrocities. The right choice is to blame the individual who murder, rape or ordered it done. To blame a whole culture is to play in the same bloody mud hole.

 

 

"Give me a chance to obliterate Hitler when he was just a baby and I would do it."

 

Willing to murder a baby, very impressive. If you can go back in time, don't kill or rape baby Hitler. I get the feeling History and the Powers That Be, don't work that way. Those with godlike powers had better tread carefully in this world. Acts of destruction are easy; prejudice and hatred are easy.

 

Win or lose I'd rather see a more creative, more loving way to deal with the problem (such as bringing the baby to our time). If it failed I'd wager the plan to murder would have too, but at least you acted in the best aspect of humanity.

 

Hold, it I got a Chinese person here, He says he's doesn't think he's bigger then the gods. So at least 1 out of 1.1 billion doesn't. I think if we did a poll, you'd find out most Chinese don't and you've set up a straw dog argument. If you want to blame Emperor Quin or Mao, do it, but you shouldn't consider the whole nation culpable. You can just as easily be in awe of there wise scholars, emperors and immense spiritual heritage.

 

I understand the passion, the cultural revolution unleashed horrible things, the worst upon the Chinese themselves, but that was a specific event in thousand of years of history. Sure its after effects echo on. I see things like the occupation of Tibet is not a 'Chinese' thing, its a human thing; seeing another's land and resources and stealing it.

 

 

I have met many Chinese people too. Good ones. Bad ones.

 

What really pisses me off is that a lot of Chinese people are too heavily brainwashed by their govt propaganda. Especially propaganda against the Japs.

 

Now I am not condoning the Japs for committing such atrocities but at the very least, the Japs show enough respect to the Chinese temples not to destroy them or commit mass murders against the monks.

 

The Chinese on the other hand have committed major destruction of spiritual teachings at least twice in their history. The first major destruction occurred during the Qin Emperor's reign. Second major destruction occurred during the Mao TZe Dong's reign.

 

It is one thing to kill innocents during war. But if you destroy spiritual teachings and kill monks, then you are committing a sin way beyond killing your own parents or your own children.

[tulku]

I thought it might be interesting to examine the historical implications of warfare as it relates to ancient religions many consider to be pacifistic in nature. The notion escaped me for the most part until I did some digging and found numerous accounts of warfare being supported by these same religious institution. If it had been a passing notion, one or two incidents, I would've thought that this was just a random occurrence, but what I found instead was a pathology of religion, if not overtly, covertly supporting violence for the sake of their own nation or religion.

 

My examination is meant to be impartial, but at times it's very hard to be impartial when one hears some of the things that have occurred and been sanctioned by the monastic and religious hierarchy. Perhaps starting with the most recent account in modern history would be a good start and to do that we need to go to Sri Lanka where the state, which calls itself a Buddhist nation is committing genocide against the indigenous Tamil minority that has been seeking independence. Atrocities abound, entire towns laid to waste, children and women raped and killed, all sanctioned by the Theravada Buddhists Church that backs the country.

 

Now to be honest, they're not advocating the rape and murder of innocents, but at the same time they're not speaking out against it either, rather they are supporting the regime full well knowing what is happening, all because they fear that the Tamil might gain control over the nation and banish Buddhism. This is something that's occurring in the here and now, yet most people will never hear about it, and Buddhists refuse to address it, yet it is happening, and the war has yet to end, even though concessions could be made to end it, if one side had compassion for the other.

 

If this seems like an isolated incident, it isn't, Shaku Soen, a well known Zen Master and the teacher of D. T. Suzuki, was one of the first to advocate war as a form of Zen training. In Zen Holy War, Josh Baron examines this relationship, perhaps the most chilling quote from the book comes from Soen himself when he says, "I wished to inspire our valiant soldiers with the ennobling thoughts of the Buddha, so as to enable them to die on the battlefield with confidence that the task in which they are engaged is great and noble. I wish to convince them.... that this war is not a mere slaughter of their fellow-beings, but that they are combating an evil."

 

Baron goes on to say that, "From Soen's point of view, since everything was one essence, war and peace were identical. Everything reflected the glory of Buddha, including war. And since the Buddha's main purpose was to subjugate evil, and since the enemy of Japan was inherently evil, war against evil was the essence of Buddhism. "In the present hostilities," Soen wrote, "into which Japan has entered with great reluctance, she pursues no egotistic purpose, but seeks the subjugation of evils hostile to civilization, peace and enlightenment." (Japan's invasion of Russia was entirely self-serving and hardly reluctant.). To Soen, war was " an inevitable step toward the final realization of enlightenment.""

 

Baron uses the research of Brian Victoria for much of his discussion regarding the Zen complicity in the war effort, amongst the most disturbing of Victoria's findings were the comments made by Sawaki Kodo, one of the great Soto Zen patriarchs of this century. Kodo said that he and his comrades "gorged ourselves on killing people." Victoria includes a later quote from 1942 where Kodo wrote, "It is just to punish those who disturb the public order. Whether one kills or does not kill, the precept forbidding killing [is preserved]. It is the precept forbidding killing that wields the sword. It is the precept that throws the bomb."

 

Victoria continues to examine Kodo's explanation, in which Kodo essentially states that if one kills in a state of Zen or no-mind, then that act comes from a state of enlightenment. He wasn't the only one, in fact many of the Zen Masters at the time stated the same thing, and why wouldn't they? If they had not supported the war effort their temples would've most certainly been shut down, the monks sent back to the lay practice or other monasteries that did support the war.

 

The most reprehensible of this support was to come in during what has become known as the Rape of Nanking. During the capture of Nanking on December 13th, 1937, the Japanese raped, killed, and tortured over 350,000 Chinese. It's still considered one of the most brutal acts of war ever perpetrated by man. Nazi officers present during the invasion actually left the battlefield, unable to watch the brutality.

 

The horrors didn't end on one day though, the Japanese continued to kill the Chinese populace indiscriminately, and the Buddhist religious officiated much of it, watching and condoning the actions, even supporting the state held sentiment that the Chinese were lesser human beings, even less so than dogs and cats. To put this in perspective, more people died in Nanking, raped, tortured, and killed, than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, all under the auspice of the Buddhist monks and Masters. Afterward they used Chinese children as target practice, there are even accounts of boys being lined up to be used for bayonet practice, and officers beheading Chinese men in order to demonstrate the "proper way to behead a man."

 

I could go on, but I don't think many of us would have the stomach for much more, suffice it to say that it took nearly 50 years before the Zen temples were willing to admit their complicity and also the nature of their acts. Hopefully it's a lesson well learned.

 

Before you say, "well that was just the Zen Buddhists!" It might be wise to look further into the past, back to the 17th century, when we find out exactly how the Gelug-pa sect came to rule under the Fifth Dalai Lama. Derek Maher, in an article, explains that the Fifth Dalai Lama praised the Khoshut Mongol ruler, Gushri Khan, in part because the Khan eliminated and supressed the other Buddhist sects in Tibet, helping his own sect come to power. Although not as brutal as what Japanese did during the first half of the 20th century, it's no less disturbing.

 

I could stop there, but there is much more to address, enough to fill volumes in fact, the Ch' ang Buddhist support and aid of the Maoist government during the Korean War is another modern example, as is the Theravada Buddhist Temples support against the Muslim insurgency in Southern Thailand. The similarities between the two different factions is eerily common, both groups provided lodging for the military, and it wasn't uncommon for the monks to participate in active military duty. To the best of my knowledge the Buddhists in both countries still support these actions to this day, under the auspice of compassion.

 

This shouldn't eliminate other religions from their own complicity, of course, I have chosen to use the Buddhist traditions as an example, because for many of us, Buddhism seems to be completely antithetical to the concepts of war.

 

Taoism has a long and bloody history as well, in fact it had less compulsions about waging war than the Ch'ang Buddhists seemed to have. Both historically supported war, particularly against oppressive rulers, but oftentimes supporting oppressive rulers when it seemed fit.

 

The Hindu, another religion most consider to be peace loving, is not without it's own bloody history, with numerous conflicts arising over the last 2,000 years, many of them quite bloody. Even today it's not uncommon for one to hear of a riot occurring in which the Hindus attack the Muslims or visa versa.

 

I didn't write this to point fingers at any one religion, in fact I left out the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and other Eastern Religions, because we are all to familiar as it is with their own bloody histories, rather I wrote this in the attempt to make people aware of the complicity of religion in warfare, how a supposedly righteous and pure ideology can turn evil and sour, if that religion comes under attack by others.

 

We should never forget that religions are abstract concepts, nor that ideas alone are not worth the loss of human life. So long as we value the religion itself over the value of another's life, this will continue. So long as we turn a blind eye to the capacity of man's evil, even under the supervision of the "righteous" we will continue to perpetrate evil acts in the name of compassion.

 

Aaron

 

Aaron, I like to further expound on my previous post.

 

You mentioned before that religions are too violent that they eschew war too much.

 

Now I am talk about a simple truth right now.

 

The true teachings of enlightenment and immortality exists in every culture. The Chinese, the Tibetans, The Hindus, Essenes, Knight Templars, The Japs, etc etc.

 

But every time these teachings begin to flourish, the forces of darknesss will gather and find every means to destroy the teachings of freeing humankind from their bondage.

 

Look at how the Chinese destroyed their own culture and the tibetans. Look at how the Vatican destroyed the Knight Templars. The Essenes were destroyed as well. Jesus was one of the Essenes and look at how he was crucified.

 

If anything, I wish that the past spiritual masters have been more warlike. That way, they will have the means to defend the teachings which can free humankind from those who want to see such teachings destroyed.

 

WHy do you think so many spiritual masters are in hiding now? Because they know that the forces of darkness will use the ignorant humans to destroy them if they ever step forward into the public.

[konchog uma]

I don't think I was advocating that you solve the problem in one post, rather that you avoid solving the problem by absolving blame.

 

"i am not saying that religions are innocent." ever get the feeling youre not being listened to?

 

religions are powerful and religious ideas can be used to stir adherents towards violence, especially when they believe their religion is being threatened. But that does not mean that people who adhere to religions are more violent. Look at Mao. He wanted religion eradicated from the Chinese vocabulary, so he declared war on taoists, buddhists, tibetans, anyone he felt represented religion... so obviously, non-religious people aren't immune to atrocity and acts of darkness.

 

I feel like you are looking selectively at one aspect of religious life, the power of religion to stir up emotions, and the power of those emotions to dominate the groupthink. You seem to neglect to address the idea that religious people have done a lot of good things, or that very few groups in the world DONT adhere to some kind of religion or spiritual philosophy... so back to my suggestion that perhaps its just human nature to be subject to our dark emotions.

 

The Hopi tribe is completely religious, absorbed to the last minute detail of their daily lives in love and devotion to the sacred spirits (kachinas) and to the creator, and they have never resorted to violent means except once in the 1700s when the Spanish tried to bring churchianity to them and convert them. Then they destroyed the mission. But they have a history of non-violence and peaceful lifestyle in spite of being deeply religious.

 

Now i challenge you to name me a non-religious culture who has also this history of non-violence and peaceful lifestyle, without a connection to the divine and the spirits, please.

 

if you can, awesome, i can't think of one, and if you can't please consider that most people form religions. Maybe that in and of itself is worth considering the worth and merit of. And most people at one point or another in their history become engaged in conflict. But those two facts alone simply do not prove a direct causal connection between the two phenomena. that is all.

[ralis]

 

bloody Japs

 

 

 

I don't know what era you are living in but that is an ethnic slur!

[Vmarco]

I thought it might be interesting to examine the historical implications of warfare as it relates to ancient religions many consider to be pacifistic in nature. Aaron

 

A Canadian said, "rallying for peace, is war."

[Aaron]

"i am not saying that religions are innocent." ever get the feeling youre not being listened to?

 

religions are powerful and religious ideas can be used to stir adherents towards violence, especially when they believe their religion is being threatened. But that does not mean that people who adhere to religions are more violent. Look at Mao. He wanted religion eradicated from the Chinese vocabulary, so he declared war on taoists, buddhists, tibetans, anyone he felt represented religion... so obviously, non-religious people aren't immune to atrocity and acts of darkness.

 

I feel like you are looking selectively at one aspect of religious life, the power of religion to stir up emotions, and the power of those emotions to dominate the groupthink. You seem to neglect to address the idea that religious people have done a lot of good things, or that very few groups in the world DONT adhere to some kind of religion or spiritual philosophy... so back to my suggestion that perhaps its just human nature to be subject to our dark emotions.

 

The Hopi tribe is completely religious, absorbed to the last minute detail of their daily lives in love and devotion to the sacred spirits (kachinas) and to the creator, and they have never resorted to violent means except once in the 1700s when the Spanish tried to bring churchianity to them and convert them. Then they destroyed the mission. But they have a history of non-violence and peaceful lifestyle in spite of being deeply religious.

 

Now i challenge you to name me a non-religious culture who has also this history of non-violence and peaceful lifestyle, without a connection to the divine and the spirits, please.

 

if you can, awesome, i can't think of one, and if you can't please consider that most people form religions. Maybe that in and of itself is worth considering the worth and merit of. And most people at one point or another in their history become engaged in conflict. But those two facts alone simply do not prove a direct causal connection between the two phenomena. that is all.

 

I give you Sweden as an example. According to the last estimates between 46 and 85% do not believe in God and less than 2% actually attend regular church services (5% of the Muslims attend regular services). They have a very peaceful culture, one of the highest quality of life indexes and are also well known for their peaceful way of life. They remained neutral in both World War I and II as well, in fact they haven't been at war in nearly 200 years. They have a very low crime rate as well. I don't see them marching off to war anytime soon, so I guess they'd be an excellent example.

 

 

Aaron

Edited April 4, 2012 by Twinner

[Aaron]

A Canadian said, "rallying for peace, is war."

 

 

So what does that have to do with price of beans in Jamaica, or this conversation for that matter? I'm not discussing rallying for peace, but the complicity of religion in warfare. If you had read the OP you might've gotten that message.

 

Aaron

[Aaron]

Aaron, I like to further expound on my previous post.

 

You mentioned before that religions are too violent that they eschew war too much.

 

Now I am talk about a simple truth right now.

 

The true teachings of enlightenment and immortality exists in every culture. The Chinese, the Tibetans, The Hindus, Essenes, Knight Templars, The Japs, etc etc.

 

But every time these teachings begin to flourish, the forces of darknesss will gather and find every means to destroy the teachings of freeing humankind from their bondage.

 

Look at how the Chinese destroyed their own culture and the tibetans. Look at how the Vatican destroyed the Knight Templars. The Essenes were destroyed as well. Jesus was one of the Essenes and look at how he was crucified.

 

If anything, I wish that the past spiritual masters have been more warlike. That way, they will have the means to defend the teachings which can free humankind from those who want to see such teachings destroyed.

 

WHy do you think so many spiritual masters are in hiding now? Because they know that the forces of darkness will use the ignorant humans to destroy them if they ever step forward into the public.

 

I don't think you understand what we're talking about here. You're in left field and we're in right field, and I think you're playing an entirely different game at that.

 

First there is no justification for rape or killing of innocents under any circumstances. Nothing you can say could justify that. I would assume that in your nihilistic juvenile understanding of the world that you have failed to grasp this concept yet, but perhaps with age you will.

 

Aaron

[dwai]

I thought it might be interesting to examine the historical implications of warfare as it relates to ancient religions many consider to be pacifistic in nature. The notion escaped me for the most part until I did some digging and found numerous accounts of warfare being supported by these same religious institution. If it had been a passing notion, one or two incidents, I would've thought that this was just a random occurrence, but what I found instead was a pathology of religion, if not overtly, covertly supporting violence for the sake of their own nation or religion.

 

My examination is meant to be impartial, but at times it's very hard to be impartial when one hears some of the things that have occurred and been sanctioned by the monastic and religious hierarchy. Perhaps starting with the most recent account in modern history would be a good start and to do that we need to go to Sri Lanka where the state, which calls itself a Buddhist nation is committing genocide against the indigenous Tamil minority that has been seeking independence. Atrocities abound, entire towns laid to waste, children and women raped and killed, all sanctioned by the Theravada Buddhists Church that backs the country.

 

Now to be honest, they're not advocating the rape and murder of innocents, but at the same time they're not speaking out against it either, rather they are supporting the regime full well knowing what is happening, all because they fear that the Tamil might gain control over the nation and banish Buddhism. This is something that's occurring in the here and now, yet most people will never hear about it, and Buddhists refuse to address it, yet it is happening, and the war has yet to end, even though concessions could be made to end it, if one side had compassion for the other.

 

If this seems like an isolated incident, it isn't, Shaku Soen, a well known Zen Master and the teacher of D. T. Suzuki, was one of the first to advocate war as a form of Zen training. In Zen Holy War, Josh Baron examines this relationship, perhaps the most chilling quote from the book comes from Soen himself when he says, "I wished to inspire our valiant soldiers with the ennobling thoughts of the Buddha, so as to enable them to die on the battlefield with confidence that the task in which they are engaged is great and noble. I wish to convince them.... that this war is not a mere slaughter of their fellow-beings, but that they are combating an evil."

 

Baron goes on to say that, "From Soen's point of view, since everything was one essence, war and peace were identical. Everything reflected the glory of Buddha, including war. And since the Buddha's main purpose was to subjugate evil, and since the enemy of Japan was inherently evil, war against evil was the essence of Buddhism. "In the present hostilities," Soen wrote, "into which Japan has entered with great reluctance, she pursues no egotistic purpose, but seeks the subjugation of evils hostile to civilization, peace and enlightenment." (Japan's invasion of Russia was entirely self-serving and hardly reluctant.). To Soen, war was " an inevitable step toward the final realization of enlightenment.""

 

Baron uses the research of Brian Victoria for much of his discussion regarding the Zen complicity in the war effort, amongst the most disturbing of Victoria's findings were the comments made by Sawaki Kodo, one of the great Soto Zen patriarchs of this century. Kodo said that he and his comrades "gorged ourselves on killing people." Victoria includes a later quote from 1942 where Kodo wrote, "It is just to punish those who disturb the public order. Whether one kills or does not kill, the precept forbidding killing [is preserved]. It is the precept forbidding killing that wields the sword. It is the precept that throws the bomb."

 

Victoria continues to examine Kodo's explanation, in which Kodo essentially states that if one kills in a state of Zen or no-mind, then that act comes from a state of enlightenment. He wasn't the only one, in fact many of the Zen Masters at the time stated the same thing, and why wouldn't they? If they had not supported the war effort their temples would've most certainly been shut down, the monks sent back to the lay practice or other monasteries that did support the war.

 

The most reprehensible of this support was to come in during what has become known as the Rape of Nanking. During the capture of Nanking on December 13th, 1937, the Japanese raped, killed, and tortured over 350,000 Chinese. It's still considered one of the most brutal acts of war ever perpetrated by man. Nazi officers present during the invasion actually left the battlefield, unable to watch the brutality.

 

The horrors didn't end on one day though, the Japanese continued to kill the Chinese populace indiscriminately, and the Buddhist religious officiated much of it, watching and condoning the actions, even supporting the state held sentiment that the Chinese were lesser human beings, even less so than dogs and cats. To put this in perspective, more people died in Nanking, raped, tortured, and killed, than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, all under the auspice of the Buddhist monks and Masters. Afterward they used Chinese children as target practice, there are even accounts of boys being lined up to be used for bayonet practice, and officers beheading Chinese men in order to demonstrate the "proper way to behead a man."

 

I could go on, but I don't think many of us would have the stomach for much more, suffice it to say that it took nearly 50 years before the Zen temples were willing to admit their complicity and also the nature of their acts. Hopefully it's a lesson well learned.

 

Before you say, "well that was just the Zen Buddhists!" It might be wise to look further into the past, back to the 17th century, when we find out exactly how the Gelug-pa sect came to rule under the Fifth Dalai Lama. Derek Maher, in an article, explains that the Fifth Dalai Lama praised the Khoshut Mongol ruler, Gushri Khan, in part because the Khan eliminated and supressed the other Buddhist sects in Tibet, helping his own sect come to power. Although not as brutal as what Japanese did during the first half of the 20th century, it's no less disturbing.

 

I could stop there, but there is much more to address, enough to fill volumes in fact, the Ch' ang Buddhist support and aid of the Maoist government during the Korean War is another modern example, as is the Theravada Buddhist Temples support against the Muslim insurgency in Southern Thailand. The similarities between the two different factions is eerily common, both groups provided lodging for the military, and it wasn't uncommon for the monks to participate in active military duty. To the best of my knowledge the Buddhists in both countries still support these actions to this day, under the auspice of compassion.

 

This shouldn't eliminate other religions from their own complicity, of course, I have chosen to use the Buddhist traditions as an example, because for many of us, Buddhism seems to be completely antithetical to the concepts of war.

 

Taoism has a long and bloody history as well, in fact it had less compulsions about waging war than the Ch'ang Buddhists seemed to have. Both historically supported war, particularly against oppressive rulers, but oftentimes supporting oppressive rulers when it seemed fit.

 

The Hindu, another religion most consider to be peace loving, is not without it's own bloody history, with numerous conflicts arising over the last 2,000 years, many of them quite bloody. Even today it's not uncommon for one to hear of a riot occurring in which the Hindus attack the Muslims or visa versa.

 

I didn't write this to point fingers at any one religion, in fact I left out the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and other Eastern Religions, because we are all to familiar as it is with their own bloody histories, rather I wrote this in the attempt to make people aware of the complicity of religion in warfare, how a supposedly righteous and pure ideology can turn evil and sour, if that religion comes under attack by others.

 

We should never forget that religions are abstract concepts, nor that ideas alone are not worth the loss of human life. So long as we value the religion itself over the value of another's life, this will continue. So long as we turn a blind eye to the capacity of man's evil, even under the supervision of the "righteous" we will continue to perpetrate evil acts in the name of compassion.

 

Aaron

 

Not religion, nor not-religion will resolve this.

It is ingrained in the human nature. The opposites...the ability to love and to hate. Each one of us must decide for ourselves whether to love or to hate...

 

If you ask me violence is a agent of change. Nature balances things...sometimes quietly, sometimes with a bang. If tomorrow all religions disappeared from our collective consciousness, something else with take its place. There is no solution to be found....only individual development via meditation and introspection (self realization)

[Vmarco]

So what does that have to do with price of beans in Jamaica, or this conversation for that matter? I'm not discussing rallying for peace, but the complicity of religion in warfare. If you had read the OP you might've gotten that message.

 

Aaron

 

If you had grasped the quote, you would not have responded as you did. In fact, your response was war-ful,...full of the "way of war."

[Aaron]

Not religion, nor not-religion will resolve this.

It is ingrained in the human nature. The opposites...the ability to love and to hate. Each one of us must decide for ourselves whether to love or to hate...

 

If you ask me violence is a agent of change. Nature balances things...sometimes quietly, sometimes with a bang. If tomorrow all religions disappeared from our collective consciousness, something else with take its place. There is no solution to be found....only individual development via meditation and introspection (self realization)

 

So religious institutions shouldn't be held responsible if they're complicit in the war? So the Zen monastery's have no responsibility for their actions during WWII, advocating the killing of Chinese because they were considered "less than human"?

 

This is an interesting defense for religion, because it generally says the religion is blameless, only the individual can be blamed, which gives them carte blanche to do whatever they want in regards to government and warfare.

 

Aaron

[Aaron]

If you had grasped the quote, you would not have responded as you did. In fact, your response was war-ful,...full of the "way of war."

 

I grasp the quote... any action that opposes someone else is an act of war... simple quote, but that's not what the topic is about, but rather the complicity of religion in warfare. I can see how this quote might have a very general connection, but not more than that.

 

Aaron

[dwai]

So religious institutions shouldn't be held responsible if they're complicit in the war? So the Zen monastery's have no responsibility for their actions during WWII, advocating the killing of Chinese because they were considered "less than human"?

 

This is an interesting defense for religion, because it generally says the religion is blameless, only the individual can be blamed, which gives them carte blanche to do whatever they want in regards to government and warfare.

 

Aaron

I am not saying that at all. Indeed people should be held accountable for their actions. So go find the instigators of religious iolence and bring them to trial.

In our prebious iscussion on religion vs dharma i had tried to explain the difference. One good statement is "religon is that with which one seeks rewards...dharma is that with which one seeks truth"

 

I have issues with people conflating the two. Religion is groupthink, dharma is individual. So instead of eliminating both, try and change awareness and intelligence of individuals to move towards dharma.

[Aaron]

I am not saying that at all. Indeed people should be held accountable for their actions. So go find the instigators of religious iolence and bring them to trial.

In our prebious iscussion on religion vs dharma i had tried to explain the difference. One good statement is "religon is that with which one seeks rewards...dharma is that with which one seeks truth"

 

I have issues with people conflating the two. Religion is groupthink, dharma is individual. So instead of eliminating both, try and change awareness and intelligence of individuals to move towards dharma.

 

You realize you've just said, don't hold the institution at fault, only the individuals who actually perpetrated the acts. You can use religion and dharma as examples of your argument, but that seems to be the argument.

 

My point isn't that the religions should be cast aside and wiped out, but rather that these institutions often cause harm because they inevitably become tools of the government and rulers. If one is truly going to have a religion that doesn't harm anyone, then the only way to do that is practice tolerance for others and completely exclude religion from government.

 

It astounds me how so many religious leaders gave up their convictions for the preservation of their institutions. It shows to me a lack of faith in those same institutions. If a religion is "true" then it seems like it would continue to exist regardless of what happens, so the practitioner would not need to cow-tow to the ruler's pressure, rather stand on faith alone, if in fact the belief system was inspired by something greater than man.

 

Even without this, admittedly biased opinion, we still need to be aware of the capacity of the institution to do harm, so that we can try to prevent this from happening, not only in the here and now in Thailand and Sri Lanka, but also in the future.

 

Aaron

[konchog uma]

I give you Sweden as an example. According to the last estimates between 46 and 85% do not believe in God and less than 2% actually attend regular church services (5% of the Muslims attend regular services). They have a very peaceful culture, one of the highest quality of life indexes and are also well known for their peaceful way of life. They remained neutral in both World War I and II as well, in fact they haven't been at war in nearly 200 years. They have a very low crime rate as well. I don't see them marching off to war anytime soon, so I guess they'd be an excellent example.

 

 

Aaron

 

nice! i am glad to hear that.. thanks

 

i was having a hard time even thinking of a secular culture to be honest. I didn't know that sweden was so non-religious.

 

I will see your OPs assertion inasmuch as abrahamic religions are dualistic and can be used to rally emotional support for war. But i still think most wars are a matter of resources and the urge to conquer based on xenophobia. Have you ever read guns germs and steel by jared diamond? I like that book, but i have never heard any critique of it one way or the other. He talks about war and colonialism and subjegation in depth, and never really mentions religions.

[dwai]

You realize you've just said, don't hold the institution at fault, only the individuals who actually perpetrated the acts. You can use religion and dharma as examples of your argument, but that seems to be the argument.

 

My point isn't that the religions should be cast aside and wiped out, but rather that these institutions often cause harm because they inevitably become tools of the government and rulers. If one is truly going to have a religion that doesn't harm anyone, then the only way to do that is practice tolerance for others and completely exclude religion from government.

 

It astounds me how so many religious leaders gave up their convictions for the preservation of their institutions. It shows to me a lack of faith in those same institutions. If a religion is "true" then it seems like it would continue to exist regardless of what happens, so the practitioner would not need to cow-tow to the ruler's pressure, rather stand on faith alone, if in fact the belief system was inspired by something greater than man.

 

Even without this, admittedly biased opinion, we still need to be aware of the capacity of the institution to do harm, so that we can try to prevent this from happening, not only in the here and now in Thailand and Sri Lanka, but also in the future.

 

Aaron

I have just sad that i hold the perpetrators at fault for inciting violence and those that follow blindly of stupidity. If an institution is at fault then so be it -- hold it liable. I am very familiar with the handiwork of some religions. They have caused extreme suffering...but some also caused great spiritual emancipation...

 

By your argument we would hold science guilty of mass murder too...right? Isnt there collusion between notable historical sociopaths and science? Would you justify hiroshima/nagasaki with nanking? So hold the zen monks guilty if they are guilty, but also hold the scientific community guilty for their inventions of the tools of war. Should we banish science along with religions?

[Aaron]

I have just sad that i hold the perpetrators at fault for inciting violence and those that follow blindly of stupidity. If an institution is at fault then so be it -- hold it liable. I am very familiar with the handiwork of some religions. They have caused extreme suffering...but some also caused great spiritual emancipation...

 

By your argument we would hold science guilty of mass murder too...right? Isnt there collusion between notable historical sociopaths and science? Would you justify hiroshima/nagasaki with nanking? So hold the zen monks guilty if they are guilty, but also hold the scientific community guilty for their inventions of the tools of war. Should we banish science along with religions?

 

In regards to scientists being held responsible, I would say only if the person who invented the tool declared it righteous and above reproach by mere mortals, then used there influence because of said invention to harm someone, which the monks historically do (you apparently didn't read about the monks actually joining the military force in order to fight in the conflicts and wars, if you doubt this, just do a little bit of research on the Ch'an Buddhists during the Korean War, the Zen Buddhist during the early part of the 20th century and WWII, the Thailand Theravada.... err... well pretty much all of them, to be honest, especially if it was against those pesky white devils... I guess I'll stop there).

 

As far as Hiroshima and Nagasaki goes, the person who decided to drop the bomb should've been held accountable for attacking a non-military target. In my opinion it wasn't justified.

 

Aaron

Edited April 4, 2012 by Twinner

[Aaron]

nice! i am glad to hear that.. thanks

 

i was having a hard time even thinking of a secular culture to be honest. I didn't know that sweden was so non-religious.

 

I will see your OPs assertion inasmuch as abrahamic religions are dualistic and can be used to rally emotional support for war. But i still think most wars are a matter of resources and the urge to conquer based on xenophobia. Have you ever read guns germs and steel by jared diamond? I like that book, but i have never heard any critique of it one way or the other. He talks about war and colonialism and subjegation in depth, and never really mentions religions.

 

 

I didn't read the book but I did watch the three part documentary, which discussed the general principles regarding the development of cultures and such. I will not deny that most wars are based on greed and xenophobia, but I would ask to what degree the xenophobia is fostered by religious differences?

 

I'm not saying religions are the cause of war, at least not in most cases, but rather they are used in collusion to justify it.

 

Aaron

[dwai]

In regards to scientists being held responsible, I would say only if the person who invented the tool declared it righteous and above reproach by mere mortals, then used there influence because of said invention to harm someone, which the monks historically do (you apparently didn't read about the monks actually joining the military force in order to fight in the conflicts and wars, if you doubt this, just do a little bit of research on the Ch'an Buddhists during the Korean War, the Zen Buddhist during the early part of the 20th century and WWII, the Thailand Theravada.... err... well pretty much all of them, to be honest, especially if it was against those pesky white devils... I guess I'll stop there).

 

As far as Hiroshima and Nagasaki goes, the person who decided to drop the bomb should've been held accountable for attacking a non-military target. In my opinion it wasn't justified.

 

Aaron

 

Is it better or worse that people invent ways to exterminate their fellow humans without using the bogey of divine decree?

 

I once made this point to some of my colleagues at work. They said well how are we going to defend ourselves, maintain order in this world if we dont have military power?

I replied do you know these things can be achieved via non violence too...they asked me to give examples. I pointed out indian independence and the american civil rights movement.l.

 

You know whar they said? That wont work anymore....

 

Why not?

[Aaron]

Is it better or worse that people invent ways to exterminate their fellow humans without using the bogey of divine decree?

 

I once made this point to some of my colleagues at work. They said well how are we going to defend ourselves, maintain order in this world if we dont have military power?

I replied do you know these things can be achieved via non violence too...they asked me to give examples. I pointed out indian independence and the american civil rights movement.l.

 

You know whar they said? That wont work anymore....

 

Why not?

 

Hello Dwai,

 

It's neither better nor worse, it just is what it is. My point is that we need to be aware of the big picture. Just as we should always keep an eye out for people who will take a scientific advancement and use it as a tool of war, we should also be aware of those people who will take religion and use it as such, both are equally reprehensible, and as you've stated, and I agree, both science and religion need to be held responsible. If a scientist is researching bacteria in order to create a biological weapon, then they need to be held responsible, just as the cleric or monk who chooses to create a religious dogma to support war needs to be held responsible.

 

My point, though, is that we do need to be aware of it, or it will continue to happen.

 

Aaron

[dwai]

Hello Dwai,

 

It's neither better nor worse, it just is what it is. My point is that we need to be aware of the big picture. Just as we should always keep an eye out for people who will take a scientific advancement and use it as a tool of war, we should also be aware of those people who will take religion and use it as such, both are equally reprehensible, and as you've stated, and I agree, both science and religion need to be held responsible. If a scientist is researching bacteria in order to create a biological weapon, then they need to be held responsible, just as the cleric or monk who chooses to create a religious dogma to support war needs to be held responsible.

 

My point, though, is that we do need to be aware of it, or it will continue to happen.

 

Aaron

Not just be aware...what good will that do?

What else could be done about it?

[Vmarco]

I grasp the quote... any action that opposes someone else is an act of war... simple quote, but that's not what the topic is about, but rather the complicity of religion in warfare. I can see how this quote might have a very general connection, but not more than that.

 

Aaron

 

 

"Rallying for Peace, is War"