Look, I don't know what's gotten into you but you are constantly misreading and misinterpreting what I am saying so I am going to say it one final time and if you continue to misinterpret what i am saying I will have to assume you are doing it on purpose:JKhedrup wrote:Thanks Greg for the lesson of suffering. It is not the tracts themselves that I object to,but the context in which you were using them. Which is in essence to try and stop any criticism of Islamic Sharia and the problems it poses.
THE ONLY THING I AM TRYING TO DO IS GIVE A BUDDHIST CONTEXT TO THIS DISCUSSION. That is whay I am constantly quoting from scripture.
Hope is one of the eight worldly dharmas.Trying to work to secure a better future for people does not deny the Truth of the Origin of suffering. The quotes from HH Dalai Lama and others confirm several well respected Buddhist leaders are on board with this. If you read HHDL's quote he mentions the aspect of conquering the delusions which are ultimately the source of suffering, but also engaging when there are problems in the world.
Which seems to miss the point completely. What is of importance, in reference to the actions of the Burmese, is NOT how it impacts on the safety of Buddhists, but how it impacts on the safety of the Rohingya. The Rohingya are a vunerable minority group. The Rohingya are being massacred. The Rohingya are currently in need of protection.Firstly, I mentioned that I wished Burmese who perpetrated the Human Rights abuses would think about how this impacted the safety of Buddhists in other places earlier in the thread, for example, how I was accosted but more importantly how vulnerable minorities like the Tibetans were stabbed.
But you condemn Islam and Muslims on a Buddhist site where there is zero probability of a dialogue with Muslims happening? And then when somebody (me) comes along and says that they can understand (not support, understand) where the rage which is evident in the Muslim world is coming from, you accuse me of a variety of things: from being a liberal to being a supporter of Sharia law, when I have said nothing of the sort?Thirdly, I would never, EVER, walk up to a woman in hijab or a man with a Muslim beard and ask them to answer for human rights abuses perpetrated due to Shariah etc. in Muslim-run governments. I especially would not walk off the street and begin shouting at them publicly in a coffee shop. It makes people feel unsafe and does not lead to any dialogue. It would also just be stupid, for all I know they may be against those human rights abuses. I don't judge people by what they wear and am against the banning of hijab by the French govt. for example.
One-sided information. I supplied some information from the other side too and I provided explanations and courses of action from a Buddhist perspective.It is not a crusade, funny that you choose that word. What is your objection to my line of action?
Red herring.I am providing information so that human rights abuse can be brought to light, the same way I have in several threads about Tibet where I pointed to flaws in the Chinese political system. You did not bother to bring up objections then.
Except that the topic of this thread was not Islamic regimes, but the reaction of a single Mullah in Australia, regarding the situation in Burma.Greg I am a Liberal, or at least used to consider myself one until the rules of being a Liberal in good standing become so complicated I completely disengaged from any political discussion for over three years. I accused you of being a neo-Liberal (which Malcolm said I cannot use, I am still looking for a new word to describe this moral schizophrenia.), but basically, a Liberal who chooses to call out some human rights abuse and not others. Who denounces Isreali human rights abuse but remains silent or quotes Wheel of Sharp Weapons when people speak about those abuses in Islamic regimes.