Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Christians being forced into converting to Buddhism in Myanmar
ClayTheScribe
Veteran
http://tribune.com.pk/story/431776/myanmar-christians-forced-to-convert-to-buddhism-rights-group/
This is pretty awful and goes against everything I stand for as a Buddhist. The Buddha would be against his ways being forced onto others. Buddhism is a gift, not a mandatory practice. I hope the Dalai Lama speaks out against this. This cannot stand. But maybe someone else can give me some more context here?
This is pretty awful and goes against everything I stand for as a Buddhist. The Buddha would be against his ways being forced onto others. Buddhism is a gift, not a mandatory practice. I hope the Dalai Lama speaks out against this. This cannot stand. But maybe someone else can give me some more context here?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I think that if it's true, it's detestable and should be stopped!
"These schools are designed to facilitate a forced assimilation policy under the guise of development." -- This seems familiar. The US military is basically a Christian organization as well, right down to telling you that the only proper position for sex is the missionary position, and you can get court marshaled otherwise.
The people forcing the conversions, are not 'Buddhist' by nature, only by Name.
This one is completely different than the others, much more information: http://www.dvb.no/news/christians-face-systematic-discrimination-in-chin-state/23620
(Perhaps all of the others are distilled versions of this one!)
Unfortunately this kind of thing has been going on in Burma for decades, but it is only now that the news is getting out, as journalism becomes more free as the dictatorship relaxes its grip.
but I can tell you that if it was America and suddenly, we all woke up and realized WE had been over-run, overtaken, overwhelmed, -- whichever word you choose -- by say, Islam, you can bet your bottom dollar there would be a HUGE movement to eradicate that religion and "restore our cultural roots" which most in America believe would/should be Christianity. Don't kid yourself and think otherwise.
It has already been happening in our political background for the last 20-30 years. There is an entire, well funded, much supported agenda behind closed doors (and sometimes not behind closed doors at all!) to "Re-Christianize America". The T-baggers and other extreme-Right-Wingers are (partly) a result of that....
I didn't read the entire link yet, but I will - once I wake up fully and have my morning coffee jolt
I'm wondering if there isn't a decent motivation going on here, but perhaps it's being carried out in a less than ideal (or really bad?) way; or being reported with a particularly negative slant.
We may think 'but haven't they learned anything from their treatment?'. Some people do learn compassion from adversity, but if the trauma isn't dealt with, the ego may learn to defend its perceived weakness by appropriating and projecting power, even if this means victimising others.
But let's not get confused... these are not Buddhists or Buddhist monks doing this to Burma's Christians; it's the Government.
Even in the article they are more than a little suspicious that the monks involved in this crap are most likely government 'agents' - and not monks at all.
So I wouldn't be too quick to 'condemn' Burmese Buddhists as horrible examples of Buddhism -- at least not based on this. The common Buddhist man or woman obviously has little power against such a government.
So I say don't fall for the blame game when it comes to "Look what those Buddhists are doing!" It's the intrusive government oppressing and disrespecting the minority (Christian) people, not other Buddhists.
I am also not that shocked by this discrimination and bigotry.
There is plenty of this kind of thing all over the world, in most cultures and in all levels of government.
I was a Pagan for about 35 years right here, in the USA... Land of the Free? Hmmm.
On many occasions I felt the sting of discrimination.
I got spit on, my car was vandalized, my house was a popular target for mischief at times, I was told not to discuss my religion on the job, nor to wear any sort of "pagan jewelry" or tattoos where they could be seen.
I have been yelled at in public and once a gas station attendant refused to serve me because he saw a Pagan bumper sticker on my car.
I was even FIRED from a job because of being a Pagan. (I couldn't prove it, so no lawsuit for me).
What's the difference between USA and Burma?
Well, the level of actual violence is one thing - Burma is way ahead on that one. And the fact that here, Christians were the bigots and oppressors, but in Burma they are the minority/oppressed.
Other than that, not much difference when it comes to religious bigotry.
This is why it is exceedingly important to keep ALL religion out of our laws and governments. This is why the USA is heading down a slippery slope.... with all this "We're a Christian Nation" BS.
No, I'm really not that shocked.
Hmmmm... King James Bible, Exodus 22:18
How can a Christian be a Christian WITHOUT being hostile to Wiccans?
It's written in their holy book. All religions have stuff like this to some extent. It's stupid, but we tolerate religions because paradoxically, they can lead people beyond this sectarian bullshit.
You can't be truly religious without overcoming your own religion, Buddhism included.
Secular? Which god is that?
What is his dogma and what must one sacrifice to live in his shadow?
You are right of course, but not in any final sense.
I think we're getting off-track and distracting from the point of the thread anyway, so I'll take my leave of the conversation.
As I said, you are correct, but only in a relative sense. Secular is another world view, like the domain of a god, and all the gods have clay feet.
As for magic powers- well that's a whole other topic of discussion. But yes, many if not most Wiccans do magic rites and rituals. Demonic or connected with the "devil"? Nope. Wiccans don't have a devil figure in their belief system. That's a Judaeo-Christian thing.
Additionally, the concept of conversion is not against the First Amendment. It states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Conversion in the U.S. is not dictated by the government, and, coincidentally, I have never seen anyone in the U.S. forcibly converted. It's no more forced than when a salesman gives you a sales pitch in Best Buy.
While I agree that what's happening in Burma is wrong, it has nothing to do with the First Amendment.
How can a Christian be a Christian WITHOUT being hostile to Wiccans?
It's written in their holy book. All religions have stuff like this to some extent. It's stupid, but we tolerate religions because paradoxically, they can lead people beyond this sectarian bullshit.
You can't be truly religious without overcoming your own religion, Buddhism included.
I think Cloud answered that question pretty well. You can leave behind the negative, out-dated bigotry and ignorance of ANY religion, accentuating the better, positive, nurturing and compassionate parts instead... and still be of that religion.
Actually, if you think about it, that should be the DUTY of every person who claims any religion as their own. That's what makes religions Alive and Evolved.
Except it isn't true. It can't be true, because at some point, a secular (meaning based on the sanctity of economic transactions, because outside religion there is currently no other view which maintains itself to be comprehensive) society has to make value decisions affecting the lives of its citizens, and it can't do that in a tolerant, inclusive way. One decision has to be made.
So if Buddhists say they believe desire causes suffering, they will be ignored by the advertising standards agency. Actually Christians have a version of this too. And Muslims, and Jews and Hindus and Rastafarians and so on. In actual fact, most people believe that money is an inadequate focal point to base society and government on.
Interestingly, we are all ignored. Those who think we benefit from the current system (and this is most of us, not just the 1 percent, so we can see that the conflict is internal, not just based on partisan divisions within society) are completely intolerant of our beliefs, and if we express them, e.g. by nonpayment of taxes, non recognition of property, public protests etc, we will find out just how intolerant our secular gods are.
Our secular government is useful at present, for prosperity and plurality. It's better than most recent alternatives have been. But, though this is not easy to see because we were born into this society, we should not forget that it asks for a lot from us in return, and ultimately proves itself intolerant of our deepest nature.
If I read the comment the Bible made on witches, well to be frank, you can forget about me becoming Christian.
If I hadn't wanted enlightenment, and therefore been selfish, wanting what it offered, I'd have dismissed Buddhism long ago for incorporating silly stuff.
Learn from religions, sure, but identify with them to the point where you feel you have to defend them? Accentuate their positive side? Why not just see the negatives for what they are?
Rather than clinging for centuries to the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Look, the reason we cling to religions, economic theories, humanist ideals, the scientific method, all systems of belief, long after the flaws are seen, is not that we're stupid or bad, it's that we're scared, because we think we don't have anything else. Only we're wrong, fortunately.
I'm sorry, I'm so off topic.
In Myanmar, the powers that be DO think religions are important in terms of their ability to hold onto power. They are probably correct to some extent. Ironically, if Christianity becomes popular, secularism (western style capitalism) gains a foothold in the country.
In terms of Christianity fostering western style capitalism...live in Thailand for a while...capitalism is alive and well and thriving, and it has nothing to do with Chrstianity.
At the same time there is significant religious freedom. The Sikh population in Bangkok (for example) is very obvious in Bangkok, and I happened to know some Sikhs while living there, and they felt relatively comfortable with how things are. You will hear quite a different story from the Muslims, particularly from those in the Deep South (particularly the southern 3 provinces of Pattani, Narithawat, and Yala. But I sometimes think that a large part of that is the conundrum of we want to be apart because we are different...and damn you for treating us as apart and different. It is not dissimilar to what I experienced with my adopted son's friends (he is Muslim from Pakistan), who complained that Americans don't understand Muslims, but were not at all welcoming when Americans would want to learn about their somewhat closed culture.
It has been a part of Thai political culture since the days of King Chulalongkorn around the turn of the century to look at the outlying provinces as being remote (not that they really are in modern times), as a place to "take" economic wealth from (tin and rubber, for example, in the South), and as areas where activity was often "suspicious" (as seen with Hilltribes in the north, the more havily Lao-culture of Issan, and the Muslims in the South. Even during the mid-1960s when the CPT (Thai communists) were active, it was not very clear that they were actually communists in terms of philosophy, as much as they were unhappy with their lot in Thai life.
Combine this with governments consisting of and/or working for the individuals in society who enjoy the fruits of the status quo, the practical reasons for intolerance become clearer.
I'm not sure what you mean by that... are you saying that Public "PR" for Wicca spins things one way, but in actuality things are another?
Are you implying that animal sacrifice does go on (in Wicca) but it's kept on the down low for PR reasons?
Because if that IS what you are saying... you are absolutely wrong. The Wiccan Rede (which is the Wiccan equivalent to the precepts of Buddhism) specifically states - loud and clear - Do No Harm.
If you meet, read about or hear of a "Wiccan" who harms animals/kills animals in rituals, believe me, they are NOT Wiccan, no matter what they claim.
Which Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism for that matter expressly forbid, and penalties, in this world, have been and are applied. People are put to death for doing those rituals: India, Pakistan, parts of Africa... have no enemy in your heart but know your enemy all the same.
Buddhism is against personal spiritual rites or rituals? Because there sure are plenty of rites and rituals, demons and Devas and all sorts of religious observances in Buddhism, and every single other religion you just mentioned. The Christian mass is one hellova ritual show every week. The Jews have ritual meals, candle lightings, death rites, etc. All religions do.
But you are correct, indigenous (pagan) religions are not tolerated well once Christianity has invaded and become the majority religion in many countries. Look how Native Americans were/are treated once Christian settlers took over their land and built the "White-Euro-Christian USA" around them.
Again, I don't know if you are just adding to my comments - or somehow contradicting them? I'm confused... The Horned Consort of the Goddess is based on Pan, whose likeness was used by the Christians as the Devil. The idea being our higher natures conquering our lower, animal natures. Too often this means head conquering heart. Of course heart conquering head is just as bad.
Just because the Christians stole a Pagan God Figure and spun him into the Devil, does not in turn make Pagans "Devil Worshippers".
Pagans do not see him as the classic Christian "devil" and never did.
Besides, wasnt the Christian Devil an angel that challenged God and was cast out of heaven?
Yeah, not exactly the same thing....
MaryAnne: So you mean he is the same guy but you don't think he's bad? That would be a bit strong. I'm saying that Wicca spokespeople wish to distance themselves from the dark side of some pagan faiths, but that Wicca spokespeople actually have no say in what Wicca practitioners actually do, and some Wiccans do perform animal sacrifice.
I googled and came up with this site, where some clearly have the view that animal sacrifice can be part of Wicca. You can say they aren't Wiccans but who decides?
http://www.wiccantogether.com/forum/topics/the-argument-for-animal Much, much too complicated to get into the theology of that one... the Devil isn't defined very well in the New or Old Testament. The fallen angel thing is medieval. Cognitive dissonance.
Ok, what the religions tend to ban is asking spirits for stuff or information. Because it binds one to samsara. Wicca does have a lot of that compared to other religions.
Apologies, it's classical, not medieval, but it was popularised in the medieval period.
The secular war cry is often cast as: 'We are tolerant of everything but intolerance.'
Except it isn't true. It can't be true, because at some point, a secular (meaning based on the sanctity of economic transactions, because outside religion there is currently no other view which maintains itself to be comprehensive) society has to make value decisions affecting the lives of its citizens, and it can't do that in a tolerant, inclusive way. One decision has to be made.
So if Buddhists say they believe desire causes suffering, they will be ignored by the advertising standards agency. Actually Christians have a version of this too. And Muslims, and Jews and Hindus and Rastafarians and so on. In actual fact, most people believe that money is an inadequate focal point to base society and government on.
Interestingly, we are all ignored. Those who think we benefit from the current system (and this is most of us, not just the 1 percent, so we can see that the conflict is internal, not just based on partisan divisions within society) are completely intolerant of our beliefs, and if we express them, e.g. by nonpayment of taxes, non recognition of property, public protests etc, we will find out just how intolerant our secular gods are.
Our secular government is useful at present, for prosperity and plurality. It's better than most recent alternatives have been. But, though this is not easy to see because we were born into this society, we should not forget that it asks for a lot from us in return, and ultimately proves itself intolerant of our deepest nature.
**************************************************************
I have to completely disagree with your definition of 'secular' -- especially pertaining to government.
Secular; adjective
1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to sacred): secular music.
3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
4. (of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows ( opposed to regular).
5. occurring or celebrated once in an age or century: the secular games of Rome.
That's pretty clear. You've tied secular up with economic transactions and value decisions of a society.
We are talking about a secular GOVERNMENT & LAWS which can be different than a "secular society".
Society is made up of the people and the combined cultures of those people. Governments should be secular in governing and laws, while the people should still be free to be religious - or not- as they see fit.