[Buddha-l] Re: it's not about belief

[curt]

Richard P. Hayes wrote:

>
>Mr Steinmetz, I suggest that you give up your attempts to turn
>Christianity into a uniquely savage enemy of reason. It is a savage
>enemy of reason, to be sure, but (to paraphrase your hero, Bob Dylan)
>"in this it is not so unique." One can find examples of savagery of
>equal magnitude anywhere where one can find human beings.
>
>  
>
Actually I think this area is wide open for research. Since 9/11 there 
has been a greatly increased interest in questions relating to Religious 
tolerance and intolerance. Past research by western historians and 
Religion scholars had mostly focused on the interactions of Judaism, 
Christianity and Classical Paganism (and most of that research has been 
pretty shallow, IMO) - since 9/11 the scope of interest has broadened 
only slightly to include Islam. I think that too much focus on so-called 
"Abrahamic" Religions results in an extremely problematic sample bias. 
Scholars with expertise in Asian, especially East Asian (the further 
away from Europe and the Middle East, the better) Religions can provide 
some much needed perspective. There are probably lots of journal 
articles, thesis topics and books just sitting there waiting to be 
researched and written.

For instance. Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism have co-existed (not 
without conflict) in East Asia for centuries. In Japan and Korea this 
co-existence also includes the ancient "indigenous" Religions of those 
peoples, which are still thriving today. This suggests that, to put it 
diplomatically, in East Asia there has been a different kind of dynamic 
with respect to the relationship of competing major Religions with each 
other - compared to what has happened in the parts of the world where 
Christianity and Islam have had their way. Why is it that in some cases 
one Religion has come to dominate more or less completely, leaving, at 
best, only marginalized minority Religions here and there - whereas in 
other cases multiple Religions have been able to "share", over prolonged 
periods of time, significant amounts of support from the general 
population, governments and intellectuals and artists? In order to even 
ask that question, however, one first has to recognize that this 
difference exists and is significant.

Questions regarding Religious intolerance, violence and coercion are 
obviously contentious - but I think they are just as obviously 
important. There is an analogy with current events: is it possible to 
distinguish isolated cases of "prisoner abuse" by a "few bad apples", on 
the one hand, and a systematic policy of torture and egregious 
violations of human rights by high government officials, on the other 
hand? Making such a distinction is quite important - just as I think its 
important to distinguish between isolated cases of Religious intolerance 
and "systemic" intolerance.

- Curt