Myanmar monk's Islamophobia

[smcj]

Religious problems in Myanmar. I'm not there so I don't know what is really going on, but this is in the news:

http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg ... tml#page=1

[Boomerang]

It's just as Shakyamuni predicted. We are truly in the age of dharma decline.

I'm not from Burma, but my understanding is that it's a conflict of ethnic nationalism, with ethnic Buddhists being the main aggressors.

[smcj]

From afar it sounds like the situation in southern Thailand is more of a problem. I've read reports about Muslim extremists being violent there. Plus of course there was the Sri Lankan civil war.

I am of the opinion that. if by circumstances one is forced to take aggressive political action, it should not be done under the guise of Dharma. IMO monks do the Dharma a disservice by keeping their robes when using force in a conflict. Of course if you're true to your pacifist ideals like HHDL then there is not problem being political and keeping your robes. But there are not many people like HHDL, monks or not, that could be true to their pacifist ideals when confronted by violence.

Personally, although I aspire to ahimsa, I must admit that at the present time I can still be provoked to anger. I'm just not there yet. I've got further to go to be like HHDL, but then again don't we all?

[Caodemarte]

Just a note that the Sri Lanka civil war was between mostly Buddhist Sinhalese and the mostly Hindu Tamil. The Muslims (almost all Tamil or non-Sinhalese) and more recently arrived Tamil tea plantation workers were not involved. And pretty well left alone. The recent persecution of Muslims and increased activity against Christians appears to be sparked by nationalist extremist monks looking for a new enemy since the Tamil separatists were defeated.

[undefineable]

Once the stories about refugee boats came on the news, the whole Rohingya thing has made me wonder what to tell people when they ask why I'm a vegetarian. Add in the fact that only Humanist Atheism (and maybe agnosticism) is really tolerated in my country (the UK) when it comes to beliefs of any kind, and I'm sure as hell not going to admit I'm Buddhist! Sam Harris has the right idea - If this is Buddhism then I refuse to associate myself with it _ _

[Ayu]

Once the stories about refugee boats came on the news, the whole Rohingya thing has made me wonder what to tell people when they ask why I'm a vegetarian. Add in the fact that only Humanist Atheism (and maybe agnosticism) is really tolerated in my country (the UK) when it comes to beliefs of any kind, and I'm sure as hell not going to admit I'm Buddhist! Sam Harris has the right idea - If this is Buddhism then I refuse to associate myself with it _ _

I think, one indicator for Buddhism is not identifying a self - or oneself with a group-identity. So if a group of buddhists is commiting a crime that contravenes the buddhist ethical conduct (i.e. not-killing) there is no reason to identify with that or to call this behavior "Buddhism".

[lobster]

I think, one indicator for Buddhism is not identifying a self - or oneself with a group-identity. So if a group of buddhists is commiting a crime that contravenes the buddhist ethical conduct (i.e. not-killing) there is no reason to identify with that or to call this behavior "Buddhism".

Perhaps so.

So too are 'Moslems' not following Islam (peace), 'Christians' not following Christ who died rather than fight the Romans and so on ...

Perhaps there is a humanity that is humane, another inhuman and the rest the monkey mind of Hindu Hanuman ...

[undefineable]

I think, one indicator for Buddhism is not identifying a self - or oneself with a group-identity. So if a group of buddhists is commiting a crime that contravenes the buddhist ethical conduct (i.e. not-killing) there is no reason to identify with that or to call this behavior "Buddhism".

My point was that since the media is bound to paint this picture of Buddhism (and before Burma it was Sri Lanka), there's a good argument that identifying as a Buddhist among those of the (always intolerant) majority religion of one's culture is actually Wrong Action - unless one's personality paints a completely opposing picture of Buddhism (through positivity/freedom from obvious conditions of suffering etc.). Even then, a non-Buddhist with some knowledge of world affairs, along with a certain degree of association with someone whose Buddhist "faith" they are aware of, is constantly reminded that early-Holocaust-level persecution is being carried out in the name of dharma. {Even Aung San Suu Kyi has tacitly implied approval by her silence _ _ }

[Saoshun]

Every religion should be banned by law - simple as that. Religion need to be changed into spiritual process and something which can be measured or at least effects can be measured and experimentally proven.

[Caodemarte]

I am absolutely positive if "defense of Buddhism" was not used as an excuse something else would be. You can easily use "humanist atheism" to oppress others.

[Simon E.]

Every religion should be banned by law - simple as that. Religion need to be changed into spiritual process and something which can be measured or at least effects can be measured and experimentally proven.

What do you suggest should be the result for those who defy such a ban ?

[Shadok]

These Rohingas are from Bangladesh who are living illegally in Burma. Why can't international communities pressure Bangladesh to take its people back? When U.S. Deported large numbers of immigrants to Latin America, I didn't hear any outrage from international communities. When those local militias from US killed large numbers of Latinos at the borders , I didn't hear any outrage from anybody. Even our gov. didn't care. Why do people always jump in the bandwagon and pick easy target? I am not condoning the behavior of the monks who are involved in mistreatment of Rohingas. People also need to look at things from other sides. Compassion is wonder thing but also need to respect law of the country. Without the law, compassion can be abused. I see that all the time here in U.S.
This is very sad situations for those Rohingas. Bangaladesh needs to take its own people back. This is the only and best way to solve this problem.

[Saoshun]

What do you suggest should be the result for those who defy such a ban ?

Nothing, the law would be to not manipulate people by false claims that cannot be proved if people claims things like this which can be just psychosis just should pay fine for needy people it do more useful, and all religion which contains any unnecessary violence. People cannot defy such things because it would be law of article of cheating people.

Also all moralistic talking should be changed into universal philosophy of Liao Fan, but they would be no restriction of private or house practicing style whatever they wish.

[Caodemarte]

Sorry, but the idea that Rohingyas are recent illegal immigrants from Bangladesh who can be expelled back to Bangladesh is not accurate. They appear to be an Indo-Aryan people from Rakhine State, and speak the Rohingya language. They do not speak Bengali, the language of Bangladesh, and are not ethnically Bengali. According to Rohingyas and some scholars, they are indigenous to Burma although some historians claim that they migrated to Burma from Bengal primarily during the period of British rule in Burma and with a smaller number coming in after Burmese independence in 1948 and Bangladesh independence in 1971. So Bangladesh has no moral responsibility for them as they were never citizens of Bangladesh under any theory. I don't think anybody would want to argue that Burma should expel all the wandering peoples who settled there as soon there would be no one left.

By the way, Mexico and other Latin American countries (and their media) do in fact take a keen interest in US treatment of illegal immigrants from those countries. "When those local militias from US killed large numbers of Latinos at the borders, I didn't hear any outrage from anybody. Even our gov. didn't care." No one cared because it did not happen. Posturing by fools with guns is unfortunately not a crime; actually murdering "large numbers" is and is very hard to hide.

[Simon E.]

What do you suggest should be the result for those who defy such a ban ?

Nothing, the law would be to not manipulate people by false claims that cannot be proved if people claims things like this which can be just psychosis just should pay fine for needy people it do more useful, and all religion which contains any unnecessary violence. People cannot defy such things because it would be law of article of cheating people.

Also all moralistic talking should be changed into universal philosophy of Liao Fan, but they would be no restriction of private or house practicing style whatever they wish.

What ARE you on about ?

[Loren Enders]

Sad.

OM AH MAITRI SARVA SIDDHI HUM

[undefineable]

I am absolutely positive if "defense of Buddhism" was not used as an excuse something else would be. You can easily use "humanist atheism" to oppress others.

Not my point; Both your points here sound right - It's all about belonging to a tribe, with the added comfort of belonging to 'knowing' the world works *this* way and that the other tribes are just ignorant fools/sinners

So too are 'Moslems' not following Islam (peace), 'Christians' not following Christ who died rather than fight the Romans and so on ...

The Koran can be used to justify Jihad and the Old Testament can be used to justify Crusade. What scripture -other than the Kalachakra Tantra- can be used to justify Buddhist 'holy war'?

[Caodemarte]

In Burma the obligation to defend Buddhism has been routinely cited to justify war, even against the Thais who cited the same obligation to war against Burma. The need to save people and end suffering has been cited as a justification for war in the Ahayana countries. There is almost nothing that cannot be used and or twisted into a rationalization for what you want to do.

[Fa Dao]

Islamaphobia is an interesting word that is now being bandied about anytime anyone criticizes islam. A "phobia" is an irrational fear of something. Considering what is currently going on in Thailand and the Philippines, as well as what happened to India, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Afghanistan in the past (all were Buddhist countries that were slaughtered and subjugated by islam), perhaps it is not an irrational fear of islam that the Burmese have??? Perhaps they, unlike the west, have learned from history and don't want it repeated in their country?? and to the earlier poster.."islam" does NOT mean "peace"..it means "submission". A person should be able to point out glaring examples of proscribed violence and intolerance found in a religions own teachings without being labeled as an "islamaphobe". And just because one does this does not mean that a person hates muslims and is a "racist"..."islam" is NOT a "race".
I fully expect that this post will either be deleted and/or this post locked. Apparently it is ok to criticize Buddhists when they do bad shit but not muslims.

[undefineable]

To defeat entire muslim communities in the name of Buddhism -even before they've started to get violent (is that inevitble?!)- is going to shore up the prejudices of atheists who assume that Buddhism is just another Abrahamic-style religion, when they might otherwise have been pleasantly surprised.