[Buddha-l] religious pluralism in Asia

[jkirk]

I think you read more into what I posted than warranted.
Yes, it was political. (In fact, many of world history's religious 
persecutions were political, au fond.) No, it was indeed against 
"Christians," regardless of which denominations got off and which 
didn't--that is how they were identified.
Quite probably, those who were in danger and their priests (Catholics as you 
reminded us) felt that Christianity itself was being persecuted.
Oh, and BTW--I did not frame anything in the terms of the separation of 
church and state as we in the USA debate it. So that point is irrelevant to 
what I posted.

As for the crucifixions------but of course!
However, I thought that the irony of it was obvious.
Joanna

==========================
> So it was not Christianity or even Catholicism per se that was being
> opposed,  but dangerous foreign political intervention easily identifiable
> by its visible religious habits (no pun intended). The domestic followers 
> of
> the foreign missionaries took their moral directives and expressed 
> loyalties
> for the ideologies of the dangerous foreigners, and so were seen as a
> dangerous political (rather than strictly religious) problem. Our tendency
> to frame such matters as if separation of church and state were a
> sociological and even ontological fact of history obscures our ability to
> see such things for what they are.
>
> As for the crucifixions, who do you think they learned about that from? A
> little hair of the dog that bit...
>
> Dan Lusthaus
=====================



> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l