I doubt you’ll get a response. You’ve made your position clear in your statement: any actrocities referenced will be declared an act by a terror group outside the norm.
i mean, to some degree, any act of terror can be deemed outside the norm specified. I think realistically. As long as a group has a tangential terror rating lower than the average human populous that’s probably a good thing.
What do you mean, how is that even a position? There have been crusades lead by Christians numerous times though, Islamic conquest, Jewish Zionist terror groups, a lot of history to be referred to, when within Buddhism it is much rarer. One historical tale is of Ashoka, a powerful emperor in the Indian subcontinent who supposedly after converting to Buddhism spent most of his efforts spreading teachings about kindness and non-violence. Buddhist principles of harmony and non-violence helped unite Japan, bringing about relative peace after centuries of conflict.
Buddhists in Tibet have been involved in perpetrating atrocities, both against each other and individuals of other religions. The historical context reveals instances of violence and oppression within Tibet, including the feudal serfdom system that subjected serfs to harsh conditions and exploitation by their owners, who were often monks and aristocrats.
Moreover, the involvement of Buddhists in violence is not limited to Tibet but extends to other regions as well. For example, during the Cold War era in Southeast Asia, Thai Buddhists were complicit in anti-communist mass killings under a nationalist ideology that aligned with Buddhism’s principles. This involvement in political violence highlights how Buddhism has been weaponized by political authorities to consolidate power. The history of Buddhist violence underscores the complex relationship between religion and politics, showcasing how religious beliefs can be manipulated to justify or incite acts of aggression. Some notable examples include the mass killing of Ajivikas in India, the violence in Myanmar against Muslim Rohingyas.
I guess what you were trying to say was that Buddhism wasn’t as powerful as Christianity to reach the scale of Crusades.
You are correct that what I said could just reflect the fact that Buddhism hasn’t reached the same level of political consolidation as Christianity. But there have been Buddhist empires throughout history.
You do point out another aspect that I was reflecting on though, that these religions are used as tools by nationalists or other political authorities. In my view it is not the religion itself that enables or supports these atrocities but the centralized power that these organizations are able to hold. Human societies have had religion for all of known history so it is difficult to thoroughly prove that these societies would be more or less violent without religion of any type. If they didn’t have a religious group driving the masses to be pawns of their violence, it could be a trade group like the Dutch East India Company.
I doubt you’ll get a response. You’ve made your position clear in your statement: any actrocities referenced will be declared an act by a terror group outside the norm.
i mean, to some degree, any act of terror can be deemed outside the norm specified. I think realistically. As long as a group has a tangential terror rating lower than the average human populous that’s probably a good thing.
What do you mean, how is that even a position? There have been crusades lead by Christians numerous times though, Islamic conquest, Jewish Zionist terror groups, a lot of history to be referred to, when within Buddhism it is much rarer. One historical tale is of Ashoka, a powerful emperor in the Indian subcontinent who supposedly after converting to Buddhism spent most of his efforts spreading teachings about kindness and non-violence. Buddhist principles of harmony and non-violence helped unite Japan, bringing about relative peace after centuries of conflict.
Buddhists in Tibet have been involved in perpetrating atrocities, both against each other and individuals of other religions. The historical context reveals instances of violence and oppression within Tibet, including the feudal serfdom system that subjected serfs to harsh conditions and exploitation by their owners, who were often monks and aristocrats.
Moreover, the involvement of Buddhists in violence is not limited to Tibet but extends to other regions as well. For example, during the Cold War era in Southeast Asia, Thai Buddhists were complicit in anti-communist mass killings under a nationalist ideology that aligned with Buddhism’s principles. This involvement in political violence highlights how Buddhism has been weaponized by political authorities to consolidate power. The history of Buddhist violence underscores the complex relationship between religion and politics, showcasing how religious beliefs can be manipulated to justify or incite acts of aggression. Some notable examples include the mass killing of Ajivikas in India, the violence in Myanmar against Muslim Rohingyas.
I guess what you were trying to say was that Buddhism wasn’t as powerful as Christianity to reach the scale of Crusades.
You are correct that what I said could just reflect the fact that Buddhism hasn’t reached the same level of political consolidation as Christianity. But there have been Buddhist empires throughout history.
You do point out another aspect that I was reflecting on though, that these religions are used as tools by nationalists or other political authorities. In my view it is not the religion itself that enables or supports these atrocities but the centralized power that these organizations are able to hold. Human societies have had religion for all of known history so it is difficult to thoroughly prove that these societies would be more or less violent without religion of any type. If they didn’t have a religious group driving the masses to be pawns of their violence, it could be a trade group like the Dutch East India Company.