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.
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.