Are Buddhists the only major religious group not involved ....

[Virginia Dare]

in waging war at the present time? Or am I missing a war someplace? If so, I might seriously consider becoming one soon. :shrug:

[tridim]

1. As an atheist my hands are clean.

[malaise]

2. Ditto

but I think the OP is correct

[bryant69]

3. That must feel nice

As a Christian, I wear gloves.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Raskolnik]

38. Those who lived under Communist atheism might disagree.

Don't you think?

[Dob Bole]

45. Mao alone= 70 million

but that can't be blamed on all athiests. Those kinds of facts are only useful when I'm being broad-brushed myself, like when I get blamed for the Crusades.

Humans kill people, no matter their beliefs or belief systems.

[Raskolnik]

46. Agreed. n/t

[Greyhound]

57. But the atrocities were the results of neither communism nor atheism.

They mis-used their power just the same as the religious leaders do.

[Raskolnik]

59. Dogma is dogma.

The atrocities under Communism were a result of atheism to the same degree that the Crusades were a result of Christianity.

There is nothing inherent in atheism that leads to death and destruction, of course. But, when the powerful use a dogmatic belief (or non-belief)system that allows for no dissent, it results in very bad things. That's what happened, and is happening, under Communist systems around the world.

[Greyhound]

64. Bingo! I was going to use the very same example.

Jesus never, to my admittedly limited understanding, ever said go forth and slaughter in my name.

[RaleighNCDUer]

67. bullshit

The atrocities under communism (meaning leninism/stalinism/maoism)were a result of a twisting of the precepts of communism, not atheism. Atheism had absolutely nothing to do with it. It was about the holding and wielding of power. The crusades, on the other hand, were also about power, but would have never happened except for the exploitation of religious myths. Only someone who has no understanding of atheism could make such a nonsensical statement.

[Raskolnik]

74. No need for unpleasantness.

Putting aside for the moment the issue of whether the atrocities under communism were a result of the "twisting" of its precepts, I believe you misunderstood my post.

I am not arguing that atheism, in and of itself, naturally leads to communist-style atrocities any more than Christianity naturally leads to atrocities. My point was that atheism is subject to being used as inflexible dogma, just as other belief (or non-belief) systems are. Atheism *was* a tenet of communism, particularly under the Soviet system. It was used by those in power to control the minds of the populace, and those who believed differently were subjugated.

I don't think it matters very much whether a family's home is burned because its owners wouldn't pray to Jesus, or because they wouldn't stop praying to Jesus. Either way, it was burned by people using an inflexible, dogmatic system to justify doing bad things to their fellow man.

[Irreverend IX]

61. Stalin and Mao's atrocities were still the result of religion.

Their communist ideology was basically a religion based around worship of the state and the rulers in place of "gods." The same thing can be seen today with the worship of Kim Il Sung in North Korea. Being an atheist does not preclude membership in many religions, including Buddhism and the state-based religions of totalitarian countries. As an areligious atheist, I can say with confidence that no war has ever been waged to promote the mere idea that no gods exist, which is the only definitive characteristic of atheism.

[readmoreoften]

68. Yeah, that's communism, not atheism. It's a political system

I agree. That's like accusing Jews or Christians of the evils of capitalism. The goal wasn't the non-existence of God, it was the consolidation of state power.

[coalition_unwilling]

44. As a Democratic Socialist, my hands are clean (n/t)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

62. Not An Atheist But My Hands Are Clean As Well.

[StellaBlue]

70. I'm an atheist, too, but...

no one is excepmt if we're going down this road. China, anyone? Horrible human rights abuses by "atheists".

[Beelzebud]

83. As an atheist, I don't consider myself a part of a "major religion".

To me atheism is a total void of religious bullshit.

Do you actually consider atheism a religion?

[Bluerthanblue]

4. Quakers, Amish, Mennonites, Jehovah's Witnesses,

are a few groups I'm aware of that do not believe in waging war-
I know there are others, but these are top of my head right now.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. Those are not major religions -

they are relatively minor sects of the otherwise bloody-handed Christian religion.

[Bluerthanblue]

10. The Buddhists have some

blood on their hands as well- although recently they have come out much more consistantly on the side of non-violence. And I applaud, honor, and respect that.

The Quakers are not a small group- they simply don't expend as much time advertising themselves as some of the more high profile "Judeao-Christian" sects. Their energies tend to be more often expended on living their talk, and walking the walk.

Please don't throw everyone in the same wash-basin. That in itself is prejudiced, and bigoted. Judge the individual if you must judge- There is good and bad in everyone. Religious or not- Old or young- 'them' or 'us'-

thanks-
blu

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. I reiterate - they are not major religions. They are sects of one of

the dominant religions. In fact, they are sub-sects, if you consider Catholicism and Protestantism as being two sects of Christianity. Altogether, they total a million, maybe two, out of a couple billion Christians. No matter how you cut it, half of one percent is not a large proportion. However admirably they may live their lives, they are not setting the agenda for their religion as a whole.

And I'm not judging. Just doing numbers.

[Bluerthanblue]

22. I'm not sure what your point is-

but I don't wish to argue with you.
Yes, sadly, the big mouths are the ones who set the perception, and to a great degree the 'agenda'for many people- But being a Quaker is as much like being a Fundementalist Born Again Christian as being a minnow is being like a great white shark.

The minnow has value in an of itself- and may very well influence the world in a more profound way than the GW ever could.

Just a little sensitive I guess, about being clumped in with the vocal angry vengefull hatefilled loudest voices.

Individuals matter- at least I beleve they do- And the Democratic party has been the party that seems to give place to this belief- but maybe I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. I'm just staying with the OP's post -

it was about major religious groups, not individuals.

Buddhism is, essentially, the only major religion that does not call for war from the pulpit. Granted, there are pacifist minorities in all of them.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

51. well according to most hindus, buddhism is a subsect of hinduism

and i tend to agree with that reasoning

[liberalitch]

24. All faiths (major or not) usually have blood on their hands....

Including Buddhists.....
Nothing is permanent, Karma is important..... why be violent for reasons that really mean nothing. Avoiding violence increases the possibility that everyone moves closer to Nirvana.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

53. Well, there's a bastardized Buddhism in China...

Where they want to be in control of it. Tibet has resisted, and well, you know how that turned out for the Dahli Lama. He's in hiding. That's not the real Buddhism, the one that has the blood on it's hands.
Duckie

[Warpy]

6. Right, and membership in any of those churches

qualifies a kid for an automatic CO status shold a draft be reinstituted.

(Pssst! I suggest the Quakers. Less baggage.)

Buddhist sects have been known to get into squabbles that turn violent, but mostly it's limited to fisticuffs and result in the disrobing of amy monks who engage. Violence is extremely frowned upon at all times.

[kineneb]

7. violence increases suffering

Buddhism is all about recognizing and ending suffering.

I like Thich Nat Hanh's take on the Precepts:

-First Training-

Aware of the suffering caused by the destruction of life, I am committed to cultivating compassion and learning ways to protect the lives of people, animals, plants, and minerals. I am determined not to kill, not to let others kill, and not to condone any act of killing in the world, in my thinking, and in my way of life.


from:
http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/precepts.html

[Bluerthanblue]

9. I Too, admire Thich Nhat Hanh, however, his teachings cost him-

"Thich Nhat Hanh was virtually excommunicated from his temple, his land, and his people because he not only talked about ideas, but also turned his volition into action. He not only spoke out about going to the people who suffered because of the war that tore through his country, but to use their backs and hands to rebuild, to educate, to be a part of society as it grew.

From the Newsletter of Pine Gate Sangha
Vol.3 Issue3:Fall 2004"

Just as Daniel Patrick Berrigan, William Sloane Coffin, Martin Luther King jr. and others-
Were looked down on, and shunned for their stand for the truth of the teachings of Jesus-

[liberalitch]

26. That doesn't mean avoid reality.... Rotten mango story....

A young monk, obcessed with the idea that all life is important and should be protected at all costs was walking sleeping quarters one night in the darkness.
SQUASH!!!!! He stepped on something he just knew to be a toad..... He just knew he had taken a life. Terribly upset he ran back to his bed and did not sleep at all thinking of the toad. The next morning as the sun came up he ran back to the spot where he thought he had crushed the toad. There was a crushing alright!
What he had destroyed was not the life of a toad, but an already rotten mango.

lesson: follow the path..... but keep your wits about you!

[deaniac21]

41. However they aren't too keen on Pakistanis.

[Virginia Dare]

23. The Amish are some brutish people....

they abuse both children and animals. I WILL NEVER AGAIN knowingly support the Amish community monetarily.

[patcox2]

8. Read up on the violence in Sri Lanka.

Buddhism is the official state religion. Buddhist extremists and government troops are estimated to have killed 65,000 non-buddhists in sectarian violence over recent years.

[htuttle]

13. I just can't get my head around the idea of a 'Buddhist extremist'...

Do they shout stuff at people like,"CALM DOWN OR I'LL KILL YOU!!"

??

[Virginia Dare]

14. Oh well, I gave it a shot...

this is so damn depressing...:-(

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. The violence in Sri Lanka is more ethnic than sectarian.

[liberalpragmatist]

21. Yeah, but religion is a part

You're right that it's more of an ethnic conflict, but that's often true of religious conflicts in general; typically there are other distinctions besides religion, but religion becomes a convenient summation of the other side's differences.

[Critters2]

56. Religion is usually just part of a conflict

as one of my poli sci profs used to say, "Wars are always political. Religion is just how you know the players on your side."

[sweetheart]

50. all war is civil war

all war is class war
what buddhists?

[Cleita]

11. Pagans aren't either.

However, you are painting with a broad brush. There are sects within Islam like the Sufis who are peaceniks as there are among Christians mentioned above. I like the Quakers. Most Judaism is peaceful. Those who preach annihlism of Arabs are extreme.

[Virginia Dare]

15. Good points...n/t

[LWolf]

25. There are some war-mongering pagan sects, as well.

Asatru, for one.

My apologies to any followers if that is a mischaracterization of the whole; perhaps there are non-aggressive, non-war-loving Asatru practitioners out there. I'm only going by those I've had in-person interactions with.

[Cleita]

30. By Pagans I meant our Wiccans.

They can't wish any harm to anyone because they believe they will get the same back three times as bad.

[LWolf]

37. Yes,

although that doesn't hold for all Wiccans, either. I lived in a community that endured several cycles of "witch wars" between Wiccan factions, and some of them were surprisingly willing to set aside the Rede in favor of "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." They excused some harmful practices by saying that the "harm" they were doing was going to prevent a "greater" harm, so they were willing to take on the karma. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Interestingly enough, the greater community had no clue what was going on; Wiccans are extremely good at operating under the general public's radar, for good reason.

In the end, the pagan community ended up breaking into several groups that no longer interacted with each other, or only interact on a polite surface level.

[Cleita]

52. Wouldn't you say that they weren't really true Wiccans but

those who called themselves that like our Christians who want to kill any Arab because of 9/11? These people have adopted the belief that the means justifies the ends and that is never right in any place whether politics, religion or business.

This should really be one of the Ten Commandments:

The ends never justify the means if the means involve, cheating, stealing, lying and murder.

[LWolf]

63. I would agree.

They would disagree, and stoutly proclaim disdain for "fluffy bunnies."

Not much different, though, from the christians who make a mockery of christ's teachings. There's just so many more of them!

[Bridget Burke]

80. Does that mean there are Orthodox, Conservative & Reform Wiccans?

Here's some good news: The Hassidic Druids of North America (1974-1978) were an intriguing Jewish-pagan-alternative lifestyle offshoot of the Schismatic Druids of North America (founded by Isaac Bonewits), which were an offshoot of the New Reformed Druids of North America, and the group is being revived.

www.geocities.com/mikerdna/missalany20.html

(Alas, far too many Druids take credit for things done far before the "Celts" arrived in the British Isles. A sense of humor would help.)

[RaleighNCDUer]

69. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."

That's Anton LeVey's creed - not wiccan.

[LWolf]

75. Right.

For anyone who cares to look that closely, anyway. I'm saying that there are those who claim to practice Wicca whose path more closely resembles others. That's not a surprise to me; we see it in most faiths. There are those who walk the path, and those who usurp parts and relabel what they do by that path.

What was interesting for me: That happened in a hard-core republican, rw community. At first I was really surprised by the local pagan mindset. After awhile, it dawned on me that most of these people, regardless of their religion of choice, "belonged" to the area politically. They were republican bush supporters. It took me a long time to reconcile that with what I personally knew about pagan faiths, until I looked at liberal christian practice vs rw christian practice, etc.. Then these people didn't seem so strange; they are able to twist and deform the tenets of their faith just like so many others.

It left me thinking that people, regardless of faith, need to be healed of their fear-based insecurity, hate and aggression. Otherwise they take it into their faith, their politics, and their life regardless of the path they are on.

[Lilith Velkor]

78. You are mistaken - it's Aleister Crowley

"Love is the Law, Love under Will."

[RaleighNCDUer]

82. Whoops, you're right.

My error.

[Bridget Burke]

79. Actually, that's part of Aleister Crowley's creed.

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"

Also: "Love is the law, love under will"

My favorite: "Every man and every woman is a star"

[Virginia Dare]

32. The rise of Asatru is scary...

I don't know how big a problem it is, it might just be an anomaly, but I was just reading an article this morning about a guy in Virginia who is due to be executed for murder. Supposedly his Asatru beliefs drove him to it. That particular "religion" appears to be attractive to the skin-head supremacist types.

[LWolf]

34. That was my take.

I have to qualify that, though, by saying I've only known a handful. The fact that their leaders came off as racist and violence-loving gave them a bad flavor with me, so to speak.

[Cleita]

48. The ones I knew up in Idaho were into Aryan Jesus.

They are very anti-semitic and someone once tried to point out to the wife of one of them that Jesus was a Jew and she had a hissy. She refused to believe it, so I think their Christianity is really about someone else named Jesus not the one we know from history.

[Hekate]

72. Pagans I know honor the warriors among them; several are in uniform now

I almost don't know where to start, except to say that the people I know best are not "warlike" but neither are they pacifists. They see warriorhood as an honorable calling and a duty not to be shirked; they intend to defend this country, and several people (male and female alike) on the listserve are on active duty.

I had a number of (ahem) lively discussions there about the invasion of Iraq both before and after it took place. Finally I shut up about it (except for posting articles about how returning vets are being treated and the like), and slowly the tide turned. They've pretty much concluded that Bush is an ass.

As for the Asatru, a man I knew about 10 years ago stands out. I met him through the same local pagan social group; he was a retired County sheriff who used to be the department's resource on cults. I remember asking him about the Norse/Aryan/racist connection and he very carefully explained to me why the group he's affiliated with is not, and loaned me some literature. His current online info states: "Ulfheim Kindred: Interests: We are an independent kindred affiliated with the Asatru Folk Assembly, Asatru Alliance. We are racial and folkish in nature, but we do not tolerate racism." That sounds like the big guy I remember.

The split regarding racism seems to be between the Odinists (who got their start in pre-Nazi Germany and eagerly joined the rising Hitler movement) and the Asatru, but according to the 10 year old book I'm referring to, the line in the sand is rather ragged, and one might indeed find racists among the Asatruar. "The Reconstruction of the Asatru and Odinist Traditions," by Jerry Kaplan, is a lengthy chapter in "Magical Religions and Modern Witchcraft," edited by James R. Lewis (SUNY Press, 1996)

Hekate

[LWolf]

76. That matches my experience

so closely that I had to check your profile and see if you were in my former town! But no. Thanks for the extra info.

[Taxloss]

28. There are some tribal insurgencies in South-east Asia

that are animist or pantheist. I'm not certain if you would consider them pagan, but there it is.

[Cleita]

31. No, I meant Wiccans.

I know that there are many other religions out there, some violent and some so pacifist like the Jains (sp.?) that they won't even harm an insect.

[liberalpragmatist]

12. Sri Lanka - nt

[hootinholler]

18. Are Hindis at war?

I missed that one if they are. Seems to me the religous wars are Judean-Christian-Muslem three facets of the same God.

-Hoot

[Alexodin]

19. Not currently but they have been known to kill Muslims over land

ownership disputes in Kashmir and from time to time over whose temple belongs on a certain spot. Indonesia is the only region of the planet that I know of where Hinduism has been successfully exported and they have had some rather nasty disagreements over the years. The Bhagavad Gita has a long tract where Krishna explains to Arjuna that killing the enemy on the field of Dharma is quite alright, in fact evolutionary. I don't know for sure but I think that Taoists may qualify as a religion that does not conduct war.

[genie_weenie]

20. No big fighting in Thailand

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/FA28Ae03.html

Bushhist and Muslim.

In 2004/2005, an interesting Military Operation was undertaken. Operation Origami Peace Crane. Millions of origami cranes were dropped in the south on the muslim community with sayings of peace.

http://www.2bangkok.com/south2a.shtml
scroll down until you see the photo of the box of cranes on the right.

[Taxloss]

29. Shinto, in Japan, has been peaceful for a while.

Those wacky Scientologists might be a bunch of scamming fruitcakes, but last I heard they haven't fought a war yet.

On edit: unforgiveably, I forgot to mention Taoism and Quakerism, both pacifist faiths.

[Critters2]

58. Shinto was a major factor in Japanese imperialism

WWII, etc.

[galileo3000]

33. Buddhist, we have our human failings as well.

I have not memorized the history well enough to re-iterate, but I will say that with confidence, that we do not have a clean history. But that being said, as someone who tries (and repeatedly) fails to love my fellow man, I can tell you that religion (as I see it) is a tool like a knife. It can cut bread and cloth or it can make war. How it is used does not change the tool as much as the users.

Most of the teachings I have studied have lead me to approach many of life's lessons as experiments, like solutions to thinking Riddles (Koans). This has required me to foster patience and persistence (neither are my strenghts - but my I continue to practice).

[Ariana Celeste]

35. There are some Burmese people my SO works with....

Who say they came to America because Buddhists in Burma were killing Christians.

[Virginia Dare]

36. Amazing....

it seems nobody is immune from hateful extremists.

[Ariana Celeste]

39. You're absolutely right.

Every position whether political, philosophical, or religious, has it's extremists.

Seems to be human nature. :(.

[Hekate]

40. Nations do not fight "in Buddha's name" altho nations of Buddhists have

There have been no Buddhist Crusades like the Christians, no Conversion by Sword like the Muslims... However, consider Japan in the first half of the 20th century, as a case of a nation where the population is overwhelmingly Buddhist-overlaying-Shinto. Japan was nationalistic and brutally expansionist -- but they didn't claim they were doing God's Work.

Hekate

[NoPasaran]

60. But the Japanese emperor was considered a living god

And Japanese soldiers and sailors were indoctrinated with their duty to the emperor---so I think they were doing (a) god's will.

[Hekate]

71. That was Shinto

Shinto is based on the earliest Japanese religious beliefs, which is why the Sun Goddess Amaterasu figures into the Emperor's ancestry, and why it's the state religion. It's animist, so ghosts and spirits of specific places abound. In common with other Asian religions, respect for ancestors is very important, and home altars include tablets with ancestral names. Shinto has its own priesthood and holy days.

In a very real sense, it is a religion of place, the land -- the Japanese islands -- which is no doubt why Shinto practices don't hold together past the first generation or so of migration to other cultures.

Buddhism travels better, not being tied to one place, so families of Japanese ancestry in America still practice Buddhism, unless they've converted to Christianity.

Some segments of Buddhist priesthood did get co-opted into government bureaucracy quite a long time ago, so that priests and temples might get a subsidy in return for keeping useful records like births, marriages, and deaths. Handy for the government, whoever it might be, to know how many conscripts a village might reasonably supply to the army, things like that.

Complicated, like all human culture. But the Emperor-is-a-god notion is Shinto, which in Japan co-exists and is intertwined with Buddhist practices.

Hekate

[Dob Bole]

42. The Vatican opposed the Iraq war...

of course, people are always suspicious of the Vatican anyway, and I'm not sure about their position on the current war in the Middle East...there aren't many Catholics there.

As for the other two branches of Christianity:

Protestantism has no official position on anything. We are full of antiestablishmentarianism. Therefore, you have Baptists in the Bush Administration, Baptist demoninations founded by the King family, and Baptists who go to Jimmy Carter's Sunday School class every week...and that's just the Baptists. Mennonites, Quakers, and some Baptists do not believe in war under any circumstance. Most opposed war in Iraq, though.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity is also not involved in any current war. I haven't heard of any Greek, Russian or Chinese churches attacking the Turks lately. Lots of Palestinians would fall under this category, though.

[Critters2]

55. Catholic priests in this country have been deafening in their silence eom

[Bridget Burke]

81. Only if you insist on keeping your fingers in your ears.

Published on Wednesday, September 18, 2002 in the Los Angeles Times
Catholic Bishops Oppose a Unilateral War on Iraq
by Larry Stammer

Leaders of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops are questioning the moral legitimacy of a war with Iraq and urged President Bush to "step back from the brink."

In a letter Friday to the White House made public Tuesday, the 60-member Administrative Committee of the Roman Catholic bishops conference drew a sharp line between U.S. military action over the last year in Afghanistan and a preemptive war with Iraq.....

The letter was the latest warning by religious leaders over such a war. Last week, 48 Protestant, Orthodox and Anglican clergy challenged a first strike against Iraq by the U.S., calling talk of a preemptive blow alarming. Their letter was sent through Churches for Middle East Peace, which in the past has raised objections to U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Among those signing that letter were the presiding bishops of the Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, leaders in the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the United Methodist Church, the National Baptist Convention's president, and the general secretary of the National Council of Churches.

www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0918-05.htm

If Bishops won't do, look to Andrew Greeley, SJ:

"War on terror'' is a metaphor. It is not an actual war, like the World War or the Vietnamese or Korean wars. It is rather a struggle against fanatical Islamic terrorists, exacerbated if not caused by the conflict in Palestine. When one turns a metaphor into a national policy, one not only misunderstands what is going on, one begins to slide toward the big lie. One invades Iraq because one needed a war.

www.agreeley.com/articles/iraq.html

[Critters2]

85. The local priests I deal with are completely silent

on everything but their deep and abiding concern for embryos. The absolutely only social issue they care about. Embryos. And fetuses, err, I mean "pre-born babies". I know the Vatican has a broader ethic, but parish priests could care less.

[Cha]

43. I don't think they are but

I don't know of any Spiritual people who are involved in any wars, either, and they are not involved in any "regligion".

[paparush]

47. What about Wiccans?

I can't see them as gun toting hypocrites.

[Lilith Velkor]

66. There aren't enough Wiccans to start a war

yet...

[Blue_Tires]

49. ttt n/t

[Critters2]

54. Sri Lanka eom

[jokerman93]

65. I'm a human

-who changes beliefs regularly as a kind of mental yoga exercise. (Don't try this at home kids. :evilgrin: ) I've noticed more threads on the board this past week or so on the subject of peace/war, and this one asks a hard question about where all the violence comes from.

Hell, I've got no answers, but my take these days is: Regardless of what story we're being sold about events in the world, dogma and ideology (religious or otherwise) are as ephemeral and often interchangeable as the weather from day to day. People change all the time and yet the dialectic of violence has continued on every scale throughout known history. Peace seems to have been an exception in human experience.

To me the important thing is to know what we align ourselves with at any given time and to be able to clearly say why and how. If we aspire to peace, then I think it's only meaningful when we're able to specify the conditions we aspire to in context.

Personally, I don't think violence, war and genocide are extrusions of religious faith at all. For my own reasons, I believe there's truth in the old bromide that we're all connected, and so we all participate. Even in non-action we act, enable, and provoke on some level. There's no way out of shared responsibility.

I have to ask myself, if peace is more than merely a nominalization, or some kind of romantic psycho-spiritual myth, then what set of specific conditions in the world do activists need to envision and work to bring about in order for the word "Peace" to have any meaning at all?

In the mean time, we all pull the trigger.

J

[Alexodin]

73. I will try to address a few things in your post but I do not pretend

to know the answers to your questions. I think the violence comes from human nature, we have evolved from a common ancestor with the great apes, it is our nature as hairless killer monkeys to chase and fang each other. This does not mean that this behavior is something past which we cannot evolve. In the case of modern war it requires a great deal of mental conditioning to convince someone, anyone, that they wish to die for something as nebulous as the idea of a country, more so than in the past when the cause was often more directly apparent. In the United States a young person must volunteer to go to Iraq and fight and perhaps die, and for what reason? If you know please tell Cindy Sheehan. Not quite the same as the barbarians are at the gates is it?

Yes there have been wars throughout history but it can be conversely said that there has also been peace, as wars are not all consuming of the planet all the time. I think it reasonable to say that we have had more times of peace, as a species, than we have had war.

War, genocide, and violence have often been "extrusions of religious faith" directly. The Protestant Reformation, the crusades, ever since monarchs have claimed divine right, war has had a strong religious component. This is not to say that all wars are of a religious nature but surely many wars are directly the result of religious intolerance or prerogative. Is this the fault of religion? No I think it is more like the failure of religion.

There is a way out of shared responsibility in creating resistance to war we cannot share responsibility for that which we vehemently oppose.

Here is some food for further thought:
http://www.fiu.edu/~fcf/Gandhi.quotes.html#PASSIVE

[jokerman93]

84. Thanks for your reply

It's a thoughtful response and I wish I could have caught this thread earlier. At the moment though, I'm in the middle of traveling and can't give this the reply it deserves. We agree enough though, I think, to have a constructive discussion, and disagree enough to make it interesting.

Next time.

:toast:

Thanks for the link. I'll read it when I get a chance later.

[ThomWV]

77. It Would Be Hard To Blame Much Aggression On Hindus

Granted the problems between Pakistan and India over Kashmir and the subsequent constant acts of terror between muslims and hindus within India, but as a religion there's not much aggression in the religion that I'm aware of.