[Buddha-l] FW: Buddhists taking a stand against Islamaphobia

[Jo]

>Jo, I don't think we ignore this.  But it just isn't all that significant. Ultimately, if any religion's claim to absolute truth is verified, well so be it.  But the point is that they are not. And to the extent that their claims to "world domination" rest on claims about the ultimate nature of reality, I say "pfff". 

Andy, 
I think that you are confused by your insistence that Islamophobia is somehow connected to truth or falsity. 
Claims to world domination have nothing to do with "truth" or the "ultimate nature of reality." They DO have to do with establishing social control for the enforcing of a 'belief community's' particular concepts of social order.  In other words, whatever is political has nothing to do with 'truth' as conceived and discussed by philosophers. 
Politics is pragmatics.

> Muslims, and Christians, and Wiccans for all I care, can go on about  how they are protecting truth by protecting some particular ideology,  but even the fact that they succeed politically does not prove that  their ideology is in fact true.  This is called the " ad populum"
 fallacy, which in my favorite version from the Montana Woolgrowers  Association is "Eat Lamb" 10 million coyotes can't be wrong."

If the above slogan conforms to reality, pretty funny. However, again, I was not accusing any 'belief community' of intending to "protect truth."
> 
>> Reading the suttas from the Pali canon, one cannot ignore the politics 
>> that the Buddha himself got involved in because of kingly
>> patronage: but that too usually is ignored--at least on this list-- in 
>> favor of dogmatics and ethics. [snip]

>This is exactly my interest. Buddhism gets involved in politics, but there should be a line, a bright line, between support of the Dharma and the Sangha, and the identification of these with the state.

I don't disagree. But what I wrote had nothing to do with this view on the separation of religion and government--with which I agree, incidentally. 

>Patronage is fine, until it entails that the Dharma be put into the service of the state.  This is a matter of doctrine, however, not a matter of politics per se. And I don't see how Buddhist doctrine can support the use of coercion at all. Period.   So are Buddhists planning world domination? I don't see how they could, and still be Buddhist. But some versions of Mahayana and Vajrayana seem to think they could. 

Yes--but then I did not claim that some Buddhists would advocate world dominion.


You say:
>So am I wrong not to be afraid of the Muslim agenda to take over the world?  How do they attack the Dharma, after all?  (And I worry more about Tom Cruise!_)

What I said was intended to wake you and others up to the fact that some aspects of Islam today, because of one particular version's intentions AS funded and pursued by one particular country, is not just about peace and love, contra Gary's message.
These imperial aims will fail, IF the rest of the world in their insatiable lust for oil and gold don't continue to facilitate the process.
 
At this point, I have spent way too much time on this discussion and won't pursue it further.
Joanna

James Andy Stroble
University of Hawaii, sort of. 

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