“But as a Buddhist monk, you took a vow of non-violence.”
Actually, most Buddhist vow to avoid violence, but are quite comfortable using violence in defense of self and innocents. Some of the best martial artists I met in Japan were monks and priests, and the zen college I taught at was very known for its judo, aikido, yado and kendo courses.
Seem to me I recall a t.v. series in the 1970s about a bad-ass monk travelling across 19th-century America who regularly (every episode) opened a can of whoop-ass on some sorry hick who picked on him. Too bad this guy couldn't have dealt with the assailant here in a similar manner.
Regards,
Good point, but those martial arts are all used with the idea of redirecting violence back to the attacker, and never using the techniques to initiate violence. In that way, they are not considered violent acts.
Subtle points, but important. And in this case, this monk is redirecting the attackers violence upon those who would hold the attacker responsible for it, versus holding the attacker and the Muslim religion responsible for it. In that way, he is helping the spread of Muslim violence through the suppression of those who would fight it.
That the attacker, in this case, was an absolute idiot, doesn't change anything. Because what if the attacker was, or had a family member, harmed by Muslims? What if he was a vet who saw what Muslims do to non-believers? What if this monk wasn't hit by mistake, but because he's been protecting Muslim violence through his teachings? Coming from Oregon, the monk's liberalism probably comes before his Buddhism.