Karma Dorje wrote:
Johnny Dangerous wrote:So what? Seriously, if Muslims really are more violent than other religions, what do you propose to do with that information? What conclusion can be drawn from that, that Muslims have more ticks in the category of "bad" than others? And as compared to who? Buddhists, Western governments, Christians...or what? Seems like a pointless exercise to me - if such a definitive pattern exists much more than Muslims than with others, what do you think we should do about that, particularly as Buddhists?
Well for one thing we can knock off the pluralistic nonsense that all religions are somehow equivalent in means and methods. This flies in the face of the simple facts. When was the last Buddhist suicide bombing? If Buddhists set off nine bombs in the Kaaba, what do you think the response from the Muslims of the world would be? Any sane person can see that the modern expansive form of Islam is on a collision course with basically all other faiths on the planet.
Since the collapse of the caliphate of Cordoba, there has not been a truly tolerant Islamic culture. We need to be able to call a spade a spade. Within the body politic of our respective countries we can work to ensure that immigration policies favor those applicants that can fully integrate into modern culture. This doesn't mean a ban on all Muslim immigration, but it really should include a ban on Islamic fundamentalism. It is hateful towards women, violent towards non-believers and leads to island communities of medieval cultures in otherwise modern societies. That there are other elements of misogyny and intolerance in our culture does not argue for importing new ones.
Yes, there are definitely problems in Islamic culture on the whole, or at least things that make it at odds with the values of much of "the rest" of the world. However, this does not make all Muslims knowingly complicit in violence, in any way. Nor should it be carte blanche for people to connect all the various negative aspects of modern Islamic cultures, and roll them into a nice, neat ball of blame - which is usually what I see from people with these sorts of "Islam is inherently worse than X" arguments.
I am not sure how one can ban outright fundamentalism in a "free" first world country, and that would be an idea with some awful historical precedent, one set up very nicely for flagrant abuse. To begin with, simply defining "fundamentalism" is a task of an within itself, in any religion, and certainly with regard to singling out one religion in terms of immigration policy...truly a terrible, terrible idea.
I didn't say there was an equivalency between Buddhists and Muslims either, get off your high horse on that count. For the record I think that while Buddhism has hd it's times of hypocrisy and abhorrent behavior, I think it's stood against those things far better than the "big three" ever have.
ny sane person can see that the modern expansive form of Islam is on a collision course with basically all other faiths on the planet.
What exactly is the "modern expansive form of Islam", can you please define that, explain in what ways it is a threat, and how it differs from other forms of Islam..or do you believe that it is the only form out there? Which Muslims adhere to this form of Islam that is on a collision course with everyone else?
"Just as a lotus does not grow out of a well-levelled soil but from the mire, in the same way the awakening mind
is not born in the hearts of disciples in whom the moisture of attachment has dried up. It grows instead in the hearts of ordinary sentient beings who possess in full the fetters of bondage." -Se Chilbu Choki Gyaltsen