Burma 'orders Christians to be wiped out'

telegraph ^ | 21/01/2007 | Peter Pattisson in Kayin State

[opus86]

ping

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

If you study the evolution of Buddhism, you'll see that it, as well as Hinduism and Islam, have similar a development and a similar history of internal fighting.

What we have seen for the past half century is the "peaceful" variety of the Buddhist (e.g., the anti-war Buddhist of the 60's). But there are other branches that have been and still are, prone to violence and revolution. They, like today's Islamic Imperialists, are for more worldly in their goals than religious.

One of the notes that stands out to me, if this document or the quotation of it can be trusted, is the line about Christianity being in essence passive and that this should be exploited.

Turning the other cheek has nothing to do with personal or national defense. We are fools if we allow ourselves to be led to the slaughter with some Leftist interpretation of scripture that says we can never use violence to defend ourselves. I've explained it before and will do so again. There are two types of violence: righteous violence and unrighteous violence. To use violence to murder, steal, oppress, or convert is to be unrighteous. To use violence to defend ourselves and others from wholesale slaughter or tyrannical oppression is to use be righteous. If we can't agree on such a basic precept, this great experiment in self-government won't last much longer, for the tyrants in the world will indeed see our PC moral relativism or our sheep-eyed mantra "violence is always wrong" as weakness and will destroy us.

[TigersEye]

That's a wonderful rationalization for violence.

I don't remember any "anti-war Buddhists from the 60s." Who were they and where were they?

[NewsJunqui]

Isn't Burma now known as Myanmar?

[TigersEye]

That was a good article. Interesting that it was just published on CSM yesterday. Serendipitous to say the least. The history of Vietnam is so mired in confusion and deception it is difficult to sort it all out. It think it starts with the very large number of competing interests at play.

Then you throw in the spin coming from political factions and the traitorous western media and the fog of war quickly becomes a stinking swamp. That much is analogous to Iraq. In a just world a lot of talking heads ought to be marched out in the street and shot.

I did a Google search on Avro Manhatten and didn't find anything particulary negative about him other than the subject matter itself that he chose to write about. There is no doubt that he was controversial just for that. As to his veracity? I have no way to assess that at this time.

I started a new folder called "Vietnam" putting the article you found and the one I had in it for starters. The subject continues to be both controversial and relevant. Our failure in SE Asia continues to haunt us and should be a lesson learned as it applies to the current WoT. IMO the ramifications of failing in the WoT will be greater. China is waiting like a lion in the tall grass just waiting to see what damage the hyenas do to the west.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

What is a wonderful rationalization for violence, self defense? Are you being sarcastic? Are you one of the sheep who think words can combat swords and IEDs, that if we only pray and think peaceful thoughts, the Islamic militants will leave us alone, that we can peacefully coexist with those who commandeer passenger airliners to crash them into populated buildings? If so, then you can sit back and sing your hymns while the fighters in this country protect you. When we're done and we've rid the world of another generation of violent tyrants, you can sit back and bewail how evil we are as a nation.

Several "monks" in the 1960s set themselves on fire to protest the Vietnam War.

[hinckley buzzard]

Burma escaped the communist advances of the 60's and 70's, and remained a relatively isolated, primitive country of rival tribes and ethnic groups. The attack on Christianity is an excuse for renewed persecution of the Karens.

[RightWhale]

The majority religion in Burma is Buddhist.

What kind of Buddhism?

[TigersEye]

Several "monks" in the 1960s set themselves on fire to protest the Vietnam War.

Wrong. If you had bothered to read the posts on this thread it should have been obvious that those Vietnamese Buddhist monks immolated themselves in protest to Diem's government policies in S. Vietnam. They weren't protesting the Vietnam war or war in general.

If you were speaking of self-defense why didn't you come out and say so instead of wrapping it in all that pseudo-religious double-speak?

[TomSmedley]

the Chin ethnic group, which is mostly Christian.

A friend of mine is a Chin, a non-burmese native of Burma. Perhaps 500 people speak his native language. "Walk five miles down the road, and nobody understands you anymore," is the way he described his linguistic community. He's an engineer three generations out of the stone age, and a model Christian husband, father, and American citizen.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Not wrong.

If you'd read something beyond this thread, you'd know that some "monks" in America set themselves on fire as well. Whether or not they were legitimate monks remains to be seen, which is why I put the term in quotes. The point is that they were not driven by their religion but by political impulses.

I wasn't talking only about self defense. I was talking about national defense as well. The point I was making was that there are two kinds of violence. Leftists who call themselves Christians have been pushing for years (all the way back to the Quakers who protested the Am. Revolution) that if you are a Christian, you can never use violence. I don't see this backed up by scripture. It also isn't backed up by common sense.

[TigersEye]

There is something wrong here. Buddhism is a religion of peace. Either these guys are not Buddhists, or they are Buddhisofascists which again doesn't make sense.

The government in Burma isn't Buddhist it's a socialist military junta. It certainly isn't following Buddhist precepts in any way.

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

This should be all over the news. If it had been "European country orders non-Christians to be wiped out", it would have been all over the news.

[Larry Lucido]

Well, Peterman WAS the only white poet warlord in the area.

[TigersEye]

If you'd read something beyond this thread, you'd know that some "monks" in America set themselves on fire as well.

OK. This thread was the context within which I was responding. It has already cut a wide swath beyond the topic of the originating article. But had I wanted to home in on the narrow issue of "anti-war" Buddhists what would I have Googled to find that? I have already Googled such things as "immolation, Buddhist monks" and didn't see anything about Buddhist monks setting themselves on fire in the U.S. I never heard of it at the time either.

It doesn't seem like enough of a phenomena to rate inclusion in your rant about "self-defense" it just sounds like you took an opportunity to slam Buddhists with a broad-brush based on some tiny handful of Vietnamese Buddhists in one tiny moment of history.

I wasn't talking only about self defense. I was talking about national defense as well.

I don't even see a distinction there. Self-defense is self-defense regardless of whether you're talking about an individual or a nation. I could care less what scripture says about it one way or the other.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

I slammed Buddhists? No, I didn't.

One poster said that he thought Buddhists were always peaceful.

I explained that when you study the history of all the major religions, there was plenty of violence, both within the religion among the various branches, and without.

I then went on to say that some people claim that Christians must never use violence. I debunked that precept.

It was that simple. I never slammed anyone, rather defended those that defend themselves, whether they consider themselves religious or not.

And if "monks" never set themselves on fire in this country to protest the Vietnam war, I wouldn't be surprised. I was a young skull full of mush and it was a very liberal history teacher who explained to us what had been happening.

[TigersEye]

Fair enough. I agree with your position on self-defense. In my own defense I will say that I was getting a little tired of the numerous ignorant posts making Buddhism out to be some Little Islam. If I let that irritation get the best of me and took it out on you I apologize. It was misplaced on you.

It is certainly true that violence has crossed all lines of religion, culture and society but I don't know of any war ever fought in the name of Buddhism.

[zimdog]

Which point? I made more than one.

Given that you described the military dictatorship of Burma in your post, it contradicted your claim that a Google search can eliminate a lot of ignorance about Bhutan, which is a constitutional monarchy.

[EBH]

The document, shown to The Sunday Telegraph by human rights groups, may have been produced by a state-sponsored Buddhist group, but with the tacit approval of the military junta.

This seems less about Buddhist's and something more insideous under the surface of the "state sponsored religion."

[Junior]

Buddhism, another religion of peace.

Up until about 300 years ago, Christianity pretty much acted the same way toward non-Christians. Burma may be a bit behind the times, but it isn't doing anything that hasn't been done in the West.