I see this one didn't get the memo.

How do you remain tolerant of faiths that want to destroy your own?

True Buddhists fight for justice, but they do it via self transformation and dialogue. Sometimes legal proceedings may be in order. But preaching hatred and attacking others is not the Buddhist way.

What's wrong with that?

And his organization has been implicated in violence against Muslims.

See eg:

See eg:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022612436
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121877246

And like any other faith, it takes all kinds of people into itself.

Whatever Siddhartha started out with, religion does as religion does, and it became a fundamentalist reform Hinduism sect. when adopted by Ashoka in India, many efforts were made to stamp out non-Buddhist hindu practices in india... efforts which led to a number of bloody wars, and the very strong decline of buddhism in India. Buddhism dispersed around the subcontinent, where it came into conflict with Zoroastrianism in the west, Bon Po in the north, and Hindusim in the east; I have to admit I'm ignorant of how it went down in the Persian areas of the west, but I know that both Hinduism and Bon Po took a major, steep decline when these Buddhist warriors and missionaries moved in. Buddhism was also a factor in the Chinese conflicts, though not to the degree that plain old political issues were; As with any other religion, it wntered the halls of power and began using that power to vie against ompeting religions (Taoism, especially, and the native shamanism of korea.) when it migrated into Japan, it sparked a major period of religious warfare between Buddhism and shinto that didn't really calm down until the 1400's when Portuguese missionaries showed up... and Shinto and Buddhism agreed to persecute the fuck out of the new Japanese Christians, complete with mass crucifixions.

I'm not saying that Buddhism is a violent religion, or teaches violence, mind you. Just that it has a violent history. One that is rather inevitable for a three thousand year old religion that proselytizes and has been well-seated in the halls of power of multiple nations and kingdoms for much of that time.

Contradiction from one post to the next. So which is it?

One statement refers to the religion's history. The other refers to the religion itself.

When Shakyamuni taught the Lotus Sutra, he taught for the first time that all possess the Buddha nature and are equally respectworthy and equally capable of attaining Buddhahood just as they are. He taught that not only human beings but animals, plants, and even inanimate objects have Buddhahood in them. He told his followers that the Lotus Sutra was his final and ultimate teaching, and that his previous teachings had only been the scaffolding to prepare his followers for the Lotus Sutra. He taught that all of his previous teachings were to be discarded in favor of the Lotus Sutra.

Not everyone followed this, and hence sutras that may be interpreted as advocating violence are still practiced by some. In Buddhism, if the disciple does not follow the mentor, then the disciple in fact cannot be called a disciple. Those who advocate violence or any other disrespect for life are not following Shakyamuni, and are therefore not disciples of Buddhism.

Does that make sense to you?

The teachings of Christ are in no way violent yet that hasn't stopped much violence in history done in the name of his religion.

in another alleged practitioner which is not consistent with the philosophy, that is human error at work and not the philosophy.

Shakyamuni's pure teachings were about nonviolence, and so were Jesus'. We can't blame either of them for human errors of those who claim to practice them but who are deluded. Whatever human errors are involved, the philosophies remain the same.

and is therefor, in that moment at least, NOT a Buddhist. So to say that Buddhists advocate this kind of behavior is an oxymoron and completely untrue.

When I first read the headline, I figured it must be one of theirs.

is kind of hard for me to get my mind around.

are trying to spread.

Wherever fundys rear their heads, they create chaos and havoc.

Doesn't matter what faith.

There is no room for hatred in Buddhism. Therefore, these are NOT Buddhist fundamentalists. A Buddhist fundamentalist embraces respect for all life and peace through dialogue and self transformation.

Seems like this guy missed that part.

Buddhists have been involved in murdering hundreds and thousands in the name of their faith and protecting their privileged position just like other groups have

When Shakyamuni taught the Lotus Sutra, he taught for the first time that all possess the Buddha nature and are equally respectworthy and equally capable of attaining Buddhahood just as they are. He taught that not only human beings but animals, plants, and even inanimate objects have Buddhahood in them. He told his followers that the Lotus Sutra was his final and ultimate teaching, and that his previous teachings had only been the scaffolding to prepare his followers for the Lotus Sutra. He taught that all of his previous teachings were to be discarded in favor of the Lotus Sutra.

Not everyone followed this, and hence sutras that may be interpreted as advocating violence are still practiced by some. In Buddhism, if the disciple does not follow the mentor, then the disciple in fact cannot be called a disciple. Those who advocate violence or any other disrespect for life are not following Shakyamuni, and are therefore not disciples of Buddhism.

Does that make sense to you?

rinse repeat LOL...

religions need to own their fundies, period- You don't get to pick just the people who only follow the happy parts of their holy books.

are "happy parts" and "unhappy parts." If disrespect for life is not a part of the foundation of a religion, then you cannot call those who disrespect life fundamentalists of that religion.

Regarding Christianity, I have read the teachings of Jesus and it seems clear to me that he taught peace, love, equality and respect for all. Therefore, I say that anyone who does not practice that cannot be called a Christian fundamentalist.

I haven't read the Muslim scriptures, so for that I will honor the word of my Muslim friends who tell me that the foundation of their religion is a peaceful teaching. Based on that anyone who called themselves practitioners of Islam but advocates violence is not a fundamentalist of Islam.

As for Buddhism, that I do know, and the foundation of Shakyamuni's teachings -- as expressed in his final and ultimate teaching, the Lotus Sutra -- is absolute respect for all, based on the Buddhahood that exists in all beings and all things. Therefore, anyone who behaves in a way that is contrary to that is not practicing Buddhism and is not a Buddhist fundamentalist.

Again, the root word of "fundamentalism" is "fundamental." If their practices and beliefs are not part of the fundamental teaching of the religion, then they are not fundamentalists of that religion.

Based on that, do you think we can find grounds for agreement?

Just sayin'.

?w=622&h=425

they're a Radical

Yet, when some nut job Christian say the same thing, they're called conservative or fundamentalist?

It is the religious subtext as well as the government. That is going to make for trouble from time to time. It has for Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.

Leave the governing to the governors.