[Buddha-l] religious pluralism in Asia

[jkirk]

Hmmm-I'd have no trouble characterizing it as a persecution of
terror-jihadist-Islam. I think that's acceptable since some mullahs actually
put out interpretations of jihad to such effect, terror according to such as 
they being a "defense of Islam."
Witzel and Farmer are clearly, IMO anyway, anti-political Hindutva, not 
anti-Hindu, as the Hindutvas complain. We all recognize of course that these 
sorts of classifications are relative to different viewpoints. Am assuming 
that we are stating our personal views, rather than any kind of generally 
accepted --what?--

But also, being 'anti-something' is not necessarily being a 'persecutor.' I 
thought that the original question was about religious persecution vs. 
tolerance (toleration?).
While conceding that you know a hell of a lot more Japanese history than I 
do, I still disagree with you that the Christians who were executed were (as 
you said) not perceived as being punished for their religion by the regime, 
because they were occasionally commanded to revert to Buddhism. Of course 
they didn't, with the usual consequences. They weren't adjured to convert to 
Protestant Christianity, I'd guess, even though as you say it was perceived 
as politically acceptable. Didn't Tokugawa also issue a decree banning 
conversions to Christianity? I'd call that non-toleration. Wouldn't this ban 
also apply to Dutch missionary activities?
Joanna
============================================================



> If someone tries to purge jihadis in order to keep their country safe, is 
> it
> a persecution of Islam, just because the jihadi's motives are drenched in 
> a
> certain type of pro-Islam fanaticism? Are Witzel and Farmer anti-Hindu
> because of what they did in the California Textbook controversy -- as the
> Hindutvas claim?
>
> best,
> Dan
>
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l