SarathW wrote:You are using bias statistics.
If you want to prove your point give all the statistics (Buddhist, Hindus, Muslims etc.) for say last 200 years without bias.
What can statistics as such reveal?
How adequate are these statistics?
We get some names and some numbers - but it's till up to us to interpret them somehow.
SarathW wrote:Will your effort improve the reconciliation between Buddhist and Muslims?
On principle, Buddhists and Muslims hold doctrines that are irreconcilable.
So as long as Buddhists are Buddhists and Muslims are Muslims, there is no possibility of reconciliation.
mettafuture wrote:and the history between Buddhists and Muslims.
"Buddhists" by whose standard of what it means to be a Buddhist?
"Muslims" by whose standards of what it means to be a Muslim?
IOW, I think the crux of the matter is that unless we resort to very superficial ideas about what makes someone an adherent of a particular religion, it's usually very hard to talk about adherents of a religion and use the name for them.
A news report may say that Muslims have killed Buddhists, or that Buddhists have killed Muslims.
But what do we actually know about these particular Buddhists and Muslims?
How Buddhists were those Buddhists actually?
How Muslim were those Muslims actually?
Who is to say?
A journalist may label someone as a "Buddhist" or a "Muslim" - but inasmuch are this journalist's standards for judging another person's religiosity really adequate? Or a politician's standards for judging another person's religiosity, and whoever else's standards for judging another person's religiosity?
mettafuture wrote:In a world where there are people willing to kill you, and rape-murder children, defensive measures are a necessity.
What about protective chants for Buddhists?
-- And yes, I suppose some people will think I'm making light. I'm not. I'm just seriously considering the possibility that protective chants might actually do the good they are supposed to do - provided that one regularly chants them.