Badges? We dont need no stinkin' Badges!!

Originally Posted by Wesker

So you are equating ALL religion with a desire for violent overthrow of other religions and the rewriting of world history? Those damned Tibetan Buddhists and their desire to destroy all non Buddhists!!!!

Buddhism is more of a philosophy then a religion. It's intellectualism outweighs the faith-based beliefs of a dualistic world.

It certainly doesn't have quite the colorful and violent history comparable to the monotheist religions.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

I hate the war in Iraq, but if Iran even dared to do this, I would fully support a pre-emptive strike to destroy them.

Yeah, and let's use nuclear weapons to do it. Any means necessary to stop something so horrible from happening. Right? Isn't that the point? At this particular point you are not considering whether this story is full of shit or not. Just like Iraq's WMD stash.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Skexis

I don't think its history has anything to do with the presence or lack of intellectualism in its doctrine.

Plenty of people throughout history have killed or died over their belief system. Few people have killed or died over their ideas, particularly ideas searching about the nature of their existence. There's a clearly defined line in that sense between ideas and beliefs. The same line that divides religion and philosophy. Ideas and philosophy can be changed quite easily. Not necessarily true of religion/beliefs.

It could be argued that Buddhism does have a few religious beliefs (assumptions?) attached to it, namely that life/existence is pain and suffering. Which is brought about by expectations and wants. This is pretty general compared to what most organized religions believe. Believing that one person in history was the son of god and savior of mankind is more clearly defined.

Originally Posted by Skexis

But you make an interesting distinction, where normally I would see none. I think personal philosophy (or communal philosophy) serves the same purpose as religion, even if the connotations of the general public may differ depending on whether we call it "religion" or not. Anyone that's living their life based on a set of rules or expectations has their own religion.

Not many people think so, but I do think that it'd be possible for a person to hold Buddhist/Eastern ideals and yet still adhere to some sort of religous dogma without there being any contradiction. Whether that dogma be New-Age/Paganism/Wiccan, or monothestic beliefs. This requires similar thinking about the nature of philosophy and religion though.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

Except that the reason religion gets a bad image from things like the crusades is that politics used religion in order to do some bad things. And I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the church's hand in the crusades, I'm hesitant to consider them a duped puppet of politics in such matters.

Religion is *used* to facilitate terrible things such as crusades, jihads, inquisitions, genocides, etc. That's why it gets at least some of the blame. But of course you can just deny that it has anything/much to do with such things, I just don't see how you rationalize it.

Religion is still not the sole source of ill in the world. That's just crazy utopian thinking. It's been tried occasionally....

"Gee, if only there wern't any *BLANK* in the world. Let's kill'em off, only then will the world be in a better state!"

While it doesn't exonerate the Catholic Church, the Popes that carried out, the Byzantine Emperor that laid the seed, the people that carried out the killing people all still shared a semblence of responsibly for their actions. What about the people that didn't participate but just went along with it? Are they not responsible to a certain extent as a decent rational human being for not decrying these actions carried out? To act against them? To undermind them at the very least?

It's human nature to assign blame. By assigning blame you are abdicating any responsibility for your actions or lack therof.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

I agree that assigning blame to one thing while ignoring the other factors is false and foolish. But the truth that there were other factors at work to justify the group/factor etc. that one likes doesn't really work in my view. Sure you can know that religion isn't the sole reason for all the ill it's been involved in, but how does that matter?

It doesn't really matter. It should just put things into perspective.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

Didn't mean to come across as blaming all these things on religion alone. Just trying to make the point that it doesn't have to be a black and white debate between "It's all religion's fault." and "Religion isn't the only reason, so it's not at fault." There is an obvious middle ground for anyone willing to see it.

Look at it from a different prospective. It has to be a very clear black and white situation. There is no middle ground when you're talking about a religion that collectively believes in a dualist world of good and evil. It's an all or nothing proposition. Just maybe not for you.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?