Kabouterke wrote:But you said it yourself, they oppress people in the name of Buddhism. They did it in the name of Buddhism, full stop. There's just no debating about that. As far as politics, news and conflict goes, it's what's done in the name of Buddhism that counts.
You didn't answer my question.
Anyone can do anything in the name of anything.
With all of these milliosn of posts I've written today, I tried to show that I actually agree with you. I don't believe they are real Buddhists. [..] For them, for everybody it was "Buddhist violence": it came from a group that is Buddhist.
So which is it? Are they Buddhists, or not?
Someone says they burned your house down in the name of Buddhism, you have all the reason in the world to believe what they say.
If a mathematician says they burned your house down in the name of Calculus, we have all the reason in the world to believe what they say...
A more accurate headline for these news articles would read "Violent mob posing as Buddhist monks terrorizes Muslim minority."
Kabouterke wrote:mettafuture wrote:Lazy_eye wrote:I think we can make the topic under discussion a little more focused if we ask instead: "is committing violence consistent with the Buddha's teachings?"
This is indeed a more nuanced way to look at this topic.
As far as I've seen, evidence to support such a correlation has yet been presented.
Is it necessary to find evidence of that?
If you want to give credence to the concept of "Buddhist violence", yes. Without it, you just have a group of people, with no clear religious affiliation, doing violent acts while posing as Buddhists.