Jump to content

Ever a Conspiracy Theory Proven True?


Recommended Posts

You were asking for examples of Christians and Buddhists chopping off body parts. I aim to please. Not doubting in the least that religiously motivated violence is a lot less popular in the Christian than in the Muslim world (though again, the defense by the embarrassed that those perpetrating it are "not really adhering to the faith" are pretty much identical). Not so sure about Buddhism, though merely out of ignorance.

 

This is quite a good read on the role of Buddhism in Sinhalese nationalism (part of a larger research project on religiously motivated violence in Asia in general).

 

Good grief... Have you actually read the rest of the work done by the individual you're citing? He's hardly what I'd call even-handed, or even remotely honest in his writings.

 

I also note a lack of pre-Tamil uprising data in what he writes about. Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that the Tamil attempt at taking over Sri Lanka might have something to do with rising Buddhist violence? Could it be that the one led to the other, not the way you're suggesting it happened?

 

Let's face the facts: Just like Muslim Albanians moving into Kosovo, the Tamils were a transplant population to Sri Lanka, who tried taking the place over from the natives. Any wonder violence takes place, in such circumstances? I'd also point out that quite a bit of it is based on ethnicity and race, rather than religion--Unlike, for example, Southern Thailand and Indonesia. Both are examples of similar or identical ethnicities having it out over religious lines, with most of the violence coming from the Islamic side.

 

Read the Koran and the Hadiths. Note how many references there are to violence against others, and how approving the entire document is towards the idea of conversion by conquest. The fundamental texts of other faiths are nowhere near as emphatic or clear on those lines--You really have to twist the New Testament to justify any of the madness done in Christ's name. If anything, Christianity tends towards pacifism and "turning the other cheek" passivity too much. It's almost a wonder it survived as a faith, honestly.

 

Your point about the Lord's Resistance Army is also a bit... Off? I hate to point this out, but those idiots aren't exactly following any form of recognizable Christian doctrine, or anything out of the Bible. About all they did was borrow the name, as an excuse. Whatever theology they follow and espouse is about as recognizable as what Mohammed borrowed from the Jews and Christians--It's a circus funhouse interpretation of the faith, if it can even be dignified with that description.

Edited by thekirk
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 247
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Good grief... Have you actually read the rest of the work done by the individual you're citing? He's hardly what I'd call even-handed, or even remotely honest in his writings.

 

I also note a lack of pre-Tamil uprising data in what he writes about. Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that the Tamil attempt at taking over Sri Lanka might have something to do with rising Buddhist violence? Could it be that the one led to the other, not the way you're suggesting it happened?

 

Let's face the facts: Just like Muslim Albanians moving into Kosovo, the Tamils were a transplant population to Sri Lanka, who tried taking the place over from the natives. Any wonder violence takes place, in such circumstances? I'd also point out that quite a bit of it is based on ethnicity and race, rather than religion--Unlike, for example, Southern Thailand and Indonesia. Both are examples of similar or identical ethnicities having it out over religious lines, with most of the violence coming from the Islamic side.

 

I did, and am puzzled by your objections, because he's essentially making your point. Namely that violence tends to be the worst when stemming from an unholy marriage of religious and ethnic/national beliefs, and if prompted by outside influence/incursions. Everybody is always the most ardent about killing unbelievers when they have taken what's rightfully ours (no matter how well-founded that claim).

 

One of his central theses (which I'm sure is somewhat rose-colored) is that religious violence in Asia took an upswing after the various Muslim conquests and the experience with Christianity accompanying later colonialism, because the Abrahamite religions supplied an idea of exclusiveness, divine obedience and scriptures to be taken literal formerly unknown to Asian faiths. In fact he states that Hindu and Buddhist fundamentalists were ironically influenced by Western philosophers of the Enlightenment and orientalists (not unlike the fathers of Islamism, really), who while decrying a perceived weakness of the Eastern cultures fawned all over what they supposedly had contributed to civilization. See the chapter on India in particular for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I wrong or are you guys implying that, as there can not be religion without violence, the only way of life that offers peace and tolerance is secular humanism?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I wrong or are you guys implying that, as there can not be religion without violence, the only way of life that offers peace and tolerance is secular humanism?

 

There's also Comrade Kim's way!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's face the facts: Just like Muslim Albanians moving into Kosovo, the Tamils were a transplant population to Sri Lanka, who tried taking the place over from the natives.

Oh dear, here we go again . . .

 

Look over the water from northern Sri Lanka. Who lives there? Tamils. How long have they lived there? Since long before there were any Sinhalese in Sri Lanka. They were keeping written histories in Tamil before the Sinhalese, according to all the evidence & their own stories, arrived from the north (probably Bengal - the most closely related language is Bengali). There have been Tamils living in northern Sri Lanka as far back as records exist.

 

In addition to them, there is a separate population of Tamils, recruited on the mainland in the 19th century to work on tea plantations in the central uplands. Do not confuse the two. They speak different dialects, & are socially distinct. The tea-pickers started out & have mostly remained poor, & poorly educated. The northern Tamils have historically been better educated than the Sinhalese, & richer. I remember discussing this with a Sinhalese friend & his (northern) Tamil neighbour, over iced vodka & cold beers in his garden on Christmas day, while they lambasted the extremists on both sides & argued good-naturedly about how long there had been a northern Tamil population, & how much of Sri Lanka they'd inhabited in the past.

 

Kosovo has similarities. There were Albanians in the region several centuries, at least, before the first Slav moved into the Balkans. There has been a population shift in Kosovo since the 19th century, with an increase in the proportion of Albanians. Before that, the population ratios weren't really known, though the official Serbian line that mediaeval Kosovo was overwhelmingly Serb is probably just propaganda. What information we have from the C19 is contradictory, & Ottoman censuses recorded people by religion, not language, so Serbian-speaking Muslims (or who there were many, according to foreign visitors) were counted with the Albanians.

 

In the 1920s & 1930s, there was a systematic programme of Serb colonisation in Kosovo (9% of the population were colonists by 1939), conducted by the government of Yugoslavia, & deportations of thousands of Turks & Albanians. That was reversed in WW2, when the Germans & Italians tried to recruit Albanians to their side against the Serbs & deported Serbs.

 

So - neither of these cases fits your simplistic thesis of one bunch moving in on another & trying to steal their land.

Edited by swerve
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jason L

Are you seriously trying to compare the rates at which Islamic believers commit religiously-motivated killings to any other sect that's extent in the world right now, and imply that they're even remotely analogous or normal for the believers? Are there Christian or Buddhist sects out there chopping the arms off of schoolgirls and killing teachers, as there are in Southeast Asia? You can tender apologia for Islamic conduct all you want, but at the end of the day, you still have to explain the radical difference in the rate at which they participate in these things. Not to mention the fact that Christians and Jews who kill like that wind up being condemned by their communities. In contrast, the various Islamic martyrs are lauded to the skies, and have streets named after them.

 

Key difference between Christian martyrs and Islamic ones? All of the Christian martyrs died at the hands of others, standing up for their beliefs. Most Islamic martyrs killed themselves while trying to kill others for their beliefs, and the more the better.

 

You and a few others on this site have the unique ability to ignore reality when it comes to these issues. It's like you're willfully blind to the reality that the vast majority of religiously-motivated crimes over the last century or so have been perpetrated by Muslims, whether you like it or not. The sole exception that can be argued is probably Bosnia, but that's about it. You've got the whole thing kicking off with the Armenians, and it's likely to end with the Coptics--Both Christian sects surrounded by Islam. Something of a significant set of parallels, no?

 

Kirk, it's called socio-economics. That's how you explain the "radical difference". Please quit the pontification and insults about my ability to perceive the world, you're neither intelligent enough nor wordly enough to act all holier than thou :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apropos of conspiracy theories, there was a guy on the S-Bahn after work who lectured the public-at-large how American intelligence was controling the French military from within and Sarkozy really being an American, which was the background to France returning into NATO's command structure (last year, according to him) and its new role in Africa.

 

Immediately before I think he talked about the expansion of the Luxembourgian army to division size, which I'm sure the Luxembourgians will be glad to hear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest manunancy

So Sarky can run for POTUS after all? (I said Sarky, not Sparky!)

 

Seen from my (french) side of the atlantic, I wish he could - that way we wouldn't have him here. Oh well, we have the chance to kick him out in this year's elections and hopefully will take it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seen from my (french) side of the atlantic, I wish he could - that way we wouldn't have him here. Oh well, we have the chance to kick him out in this year's elections and hopefully will take it.

 

At least Hollande isn't as hyperactive as Sarko... ;)

But would he really be a better solution?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem I think is that some people will believe anything they are told. If someone commits an atrocity, if they are Muslims they are believed immediately to be solely motivated by their religion. Yet, if a Catholic Irishman plants a bomb which is designed to kill Protestant Irish people, they aren't doing it because of their religion? If a Hindu burns a Christian to death, is it because of their politics or their religion? If a Buddhist Tibetan kills a Chinese soldier who is burning down his monastery, why isn't it because of the religion but instead considered politics? Michael Eastes gave us a wonderful analogy:

 

 

 

Nor does it mean if you say you're sitting in a Mosque that you're really a Muslim. Remember, Muslim Terrorists kill far more Muslims than any other religious group in their outrages. Why would they do that, if they all believed in the same religion?

I've found this interesting over the years as well.

 

I fear there can not be humanity without violence ...

Too true....

 

/R

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apropos of conspiracy theories, there was a guy on the S-Bahn after work who lectured the public-at-large how American intelligence was controling the French military from within and Sarkozy really being an American, which was the background to France returning into NATO's command structure (last year, according to him) and its new role in Africa.

 

Immediately before I think he talked about the expansion of the Luxembourgian army to division size, which I'm sure the Luxembourgians will be glad to hear.

 

With Luxembourg, Monaco, and Andorra co-opted to the American Hegemonic Empire, we will have France surrounded. Then la République will be defenseless against our English lapdog!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nor does it mean if you say you're sitting in a Mosque that you're really a Muslim. Remember, Muslim Terrorists kill far more Muslims than any other religious group in their outrages. Why would they do that, if they all believed in the same religion?

 

Umm...because to Shiite Muslims Sunnis are not members of the same religion. And vice versa.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few but not all.

 

 

 

 

Uh yeah. Like they don't in Egypt. Guess what, Sparky? Recent public opinion polls in Egypt show the vast majority of the population are four-square in favor of bringing it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The APA listed it because it reflected the public attitudes of the day, not because it is necessarily an illness. I have done plenty of googling and the experts all seem to say that your attitudes are somewhat outdated. Oh, bugger, caught by the hyperbole again, wasn't I?

 

Take this piece of hyperbole and shove it directly up your smug little asshole.

 

Homosexual Activists Intimidate American Psychiatric Association into Removing Homosexuality from List of Disorders

 

“It was never a medical decision—and that’s why I think the action came so fast…It was a political move.”

 

“That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.”

-Barbara Gittings, Same-gender sex activist

Edited by Jim Martin
Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting article but hardly unbiased, I suspect. Personally, I preferred this quote from it:

 

‘We are here to denounce your authority to call us sick or mentally disordered,’ shouted the group’s leader, Dr. Franklin Kameny, while the 2,000 shocked psychiatrists looked on in disbelief. ‘For us, as homosexuals, your profession is the enemy incarnate. We demand that psychiatrists treat us as human beings, not as patients to be cured!’”

 

You know, you never answered my questions about the role of women in Christianity. I wonder why?

 

 

Frankly, I got sick of conversing with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More hyperbole? I'm sorry if I don't think you're bullshitting but you provide no sources. Egypt isn't the only Muslim nation there are many others.

 

 

Here you go, asshole. Since you can't be bothered to fucking Google the info yourself

 

Poll shows Egyptians in favor of democracy and stoning for adultery

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...