I guess the flaw is already in the wording: (from the post) “Buddhism never did anything problematic”, Buddhism cannot do anything, people can (in the name of Buddhism)
Yeah, it seems any doctrine can be malappropriated by people who never tried to understand it and twisted toward some diabolical purpose. That doesn’t mean the doctrine at its core is flawed.
I’m against religious extremism as much as anyone else. But I’m also against generalizing entire cultures based on the actions of extremist factions. There’s no way to convince me that could be based in anything other than ignorance.
Good for you, you can hold that opinion as long as you don’t try to take away anyone’s right to following their own beliefs/religions/paths (inasmuch as they themselves are not using it to harm or oppress others, of course; but in those cases you can prosecute the extremism without persecuting the belief systems).
In case you don’t already understand this, in many places, religion is so deeply and inextricably intertwined with culture that it would be impossible for you to outlaw religion without committing cultural imperialism.
So in that since “anti-religion” can be just as dogmatic, chauvinistic, ignorant, and oppressive as religion can be.
When I said I oppose religious extremism, that includes anti-religious extremism. You don’t get a pass just because you claim your worldview is better. Everyone believes their own worldview to be the best. That isn’t justification to repress other worldviews.
In other words, if ignorance is a sin, you’re just as sinful as the rest of us. Find me the person with infinite and perfect knowledge of all that is, and I will show you someone who is sinless.
This may sound absurdly simplistic but think about it. Suppose (to take the most improbable example) you decided, or were told and chose to believe the world was created by an invisible entity who, despite all the evidence that he or she occasionally disliked us but was mostly indifferent actually loved us and thought about us all the time . Suppose, piling absurdity upon improbability, you also decided, or were told to believe , that this same person decided to split himself in two and turn one part of himself into an ordinary person like you and me and pay a visit to a desert tribe and get himself arrested and executed for treason, at which point he performed a conjuring trick, came back to from the dead, vanished mysteriously but planned to return and punish all the bad people and make everything nice (though in the meantime, the bad people could go on getting away with it and the good people go on getting buggered up by the bad people-that is, when they were not getting cancer, or run over or bankrupt. Or tortured, of flogged or were worked like beasts or raped or killed in power struggles which were nothing to do with them) Suppose you were misguided enough to believe that lot. What you would do?
Would you devote all your spare hours to finding someone who would disabuse of these intently peculiar delusions, so that you could finally sleep at night? Or would you go, once a week or more, to listen to someone telling you that you were quite and every thing you believed was true and what’s more, if you ever stopped believing it, terrible things would happen to you even after you had died?
Okay, first of all, what does anything you just said have to do with buddhism?
I’m familiar with evangelical christian religious trauma. I spent a large chunk of my twenties recovering from that, and I’ve become pretty good at spotting it in real time. You don’t have to convince me of its toxicity.
But that leads me into my second point: as long as those people aren’t hurting/abusing/oppressing/exploiting others, I don’t give a shit if they trade the one life they’re given for a mediocre existence because they’re scared of what the preacher says will happen to them otherwise. I mean I can feel compassion for them, but I can’t help them unless they want to be helped. And the moment someone like that indicates that they’re ready to leave the cave of ignorance, I’ll take them by the hand and lead them out, as far as I can at least, because ultimately that’s a path they’ll have to walk themselves.
I don’t go so far as to believe I need to destroy religion. Because as I’ve already said, that’s as chauvinistic and intolerant as it is exceptionalist. And it will only perpetuate cycles of animosity, fear, and hatred; which does not cultivate understanding or bridge gaps or reduce ignorance. Quite the opposite.
Now, if someone is hurting/abusing/oppressing/exploiting others, then they should be held accountable for those harms. That’s whether they do it in the name or religion or anything else, including if they do it in the name of anti-religion.
What is your solution to the paradox of tolerance? If you believe in a permissive tolerant society, as you appear to, then do you not see a danger where by tolerating the intolerant, we allow them to grow and become stronger, to the point where they could drag us back to the more intolerant and judgemental times of our societies’ recent past?
I guess the flaw is already in the wording: (from the post) “Buddhism never did anything problematic”, Buddhism cannot do anything, people can (in the name of Buddhism)
Yeah, it seems any doctrine can be malappropriated by people who never tried to understand it and twisted toward some diabolical purpose. That doesn’t mean the doctrine at its core is flawed.
I’m against religious extremism as much as anyone else. But I’m also against generalizing entire cultures based on the actions of extremist factions. There’s no way to convince me that could be based in anything other than ignorance.
"
Good for you, you can hold that opinion as long as you don’t try to take away anyone’s right to following their own beliefs/religions/paths (inasmuch as they themselves are not using it to harm or oppress others, of course; but in those cases you can prosecute the extremism without persecuting the belief systems).
In case you don’t already understand this, in many places, religion is so deeply and inextricably intertwined with culture that it would be impossible for you to outlaw religion without committing cultural imperialism.
So in that since “anti-religion” can be just as dogmatic, chauvinistic, ignorant, and oppressive as religion can be.
When I said I oppose religious extremism, that includes anti-religious extremism. You don’t get a pass just because you claim your worldview is better. Everyone believes their own worldview to be the best. That isn’t justification to repress other worldviews.
In other words, if ignorance is a sin, you’re just as sinful as the rest of us. Find me the person with infinite and perfect knowledge of all that is, and I will show you someone who is sinless.
This may sound absurdly simplistic but think about it. Suppose (to take the most improbable example) you decided, or were told and chose to believe the world was created by an invisible entity who, despite all the evidence that he or she occasionally disliked us but was mostly indifferent actually loved us and thought about us all the time . Suppose, piling absurdity upon improbability, you also decided, or were told to believe , that this same person decided to split himself in two and turn one part of himself into an ordinary person like you and me and pay a visit to a desert tribe and get himself arrested and executed for treason, at which point he performed a conjuring trick, came back to from the dead, vanished mysteriously but planned to return and punish all the bad people and make everything nice (though in the meantime, the bad people could go on getting away with it and the good people go on getting buggered up by the bad people-that is, when they were not getting cancer, or run over or bankrupt. Or tortured, of flogged or were worked like beasts or raped or killed in power struggles which were nothing to do with them) Suppose you were misguided enough to believe that lot. What you would do? Would you devote all your spare hours to finding someone who would disabuse of these intently peculiar delusions, so that you could finally sleep at night? Or would you go, once a week or more, to listen to someone telling you that you were quite and every thing you believed was true and what’s more, if you ever stopped believing it, terrible things would happen to you even after you had died?
Okay, first of all, what does anything you just said have to do with buddhism?
I’m familiar with evangelical christian religious trauma. I spent a large chunk of my twenties recovering from that, and I’ve become pretty good at spotting it in real time. You don’t have to convince me of its toxicity.
But that leads me into my second point: as long as those people aren’t hurting/abusing/oppressing/exploiting others, I don’t give a shit if they trade the one life they’re given for a mediocre existence because they’re scared of what the preacher says will happen to them otherwise. I mean I can feel compassion for them, but I can’t help them unless they want to be helped. And the moment someone like that indicates that they’re ready to leave the cave of ignorance, I’ll take them by the hand and lead them out, as far as I can at least, because ultimately that’s a path they’ll have to walk themselves.
I don’t go so far as to believe I need to destroy religion. Because as I’ve already said, that’s as chauvinistic and intolerant as it is exceptionalist. And it will only perpetuate cycles of animosity, fear, and hatred; which does not cultivate understanding or bridge gaps or reduce ignorance. Quite the opposite.
Now, if someone is hurting/abusing/oppressing/exploiting others, then they should be held accountable for those harms. That’s whether they do it in the name or religion or anything else, including if they do it in the name of anti-religion.
And I’m prepared to die on this hill, so…
What is your solution to the paradox of tolerance? If you believe in a permissive tolerant society, as you appear to, then do you not see a danger where by tolerating the intolerant, we allow them to grow and become stronger, to the point where they could drag us back to the more intolerant and judgemental times of our societies’ recent past?