1. They certainly are.
Right. As I'm unfamiliar with the term "Buddhist Fundamentalist" could you share your definition? To me, it's an oxymoron.
2. I'm not impressed by what people say they believe in. I take more notice of what they do.
Oh I agree. It takes more than shaving your head and donning a saffron robe to be considered a member of the Sangha (Buddhist priest). They get judged on their conduct. Incitement to racial violence, as we'd call it in this country, would not be condoned or encouraged by the Dharma (Buddhism).
It's complex, however, as the Sangha are
supposed to advise and safeguard the country. On the one hand, the Buddhist clergy rely on the charity of lay people in order to survive. And on the other, we do not have to listen to or act on a word they say. We can take it on merit. In Ceylon, a Buddhist priest was executed for treason for refusing to accept the sovereignty of George IV, pulling down the Union Flag and trampling it. He was not a monarchist. Perhaps, you can relate?
3. This is religion's perpetual 'get out clause'. When religious people 'behave badly' it is said that they've put their religion to one side for a moment and are now behaving 'ethnically' or 'politically'. Only when they return to being 'good' are they called 'religious' again.
I bow to your superior knowledge on "religion's perpetual 'get out clause'".
Is this the case, that when religious people point out that Stalin was an atheist... and therefore the millions that were starved to death in the Ukraine were
deaths due to atheism? Or were the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge "Leftist" deaths. Do Stalinists/Marxists/Trotskyists/members of the Labour Party and the Khmer Rouge all get to be lumped in together? I've always found this a specious argument. The delineation I've used, and I'm not saying you should (as a Buddhist it would be wrong to push my world-view on you), is to ask if something is done "in the name of..." or "In order to promote..." That's how I would identify the primary motivation behind an act. One of the London Bridge murderers wore an Arsenal shirt, but I would not consider support of Arsenal a significant part in the motivations for the attack.
As we all should know, this is what Buddhist political activism looks like:
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/may/12/only-takes-one-terrorist-buddhist-monk-reviles-myanmar-muslims-rohingya-refugees-ashin-wirathu
The byline states: Critics of Ashin Wirathu and his denim-clad disciples say the monk incites
racial violence against Rohingya refugees. He claims he is merely protecting his people
Your own article states it's a racial/ethnic/cultural identity issue. In the case of both Myanmar and Sri Lanka, you have a more densely populated, less attractive region inundating a less populated area with existing inhabitants. The existing inhabitants take exception to this. This creates tension. Religion doesn't come into it.
First things first, I emphasised that they "can" be toxic to society. Not that they always are.
Fair enough.
I'm not aiming to argue Buddhism is more toxic, or even equally toxic as other religions but since you asked there are some examples here (forgive the use of wikipedia, as I said I don't have a particular axe to grind against Buddhism here)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence#Regional_examples
While you may find some of it tenuous, it's interesting how much equivocating and how many examples of rationalisation of violence there are in there (similar to the kinds of justifications you see among followers and teachers of major religions)
Yes, it is tenuous. In Buddhism taking up arms is a last restort after all diplomatic means have been exhausted. But if you have to fight, you fight. Otherwise, there would be no Buddhist majority countries in the world. We're not pacifists and we're not expected to be.
One thing I'd like to add is that in the UK we don't realise the cultural conditioning we're subjected to unless we get to step outside the region. For example, the BBC and other UK news establishments will refer to the Sri Lankan parliament as - "The Sinhala and/or Buddhist-dominated parliament", which is accurate. 70% of the SL population is Sinhala-Buddhist, so it's to be expected. But you'll never hear the UK parliament as the Anglo-Saxon Protestant-dominated parliament. Or the fact it's packed full of old, white dudes. The UK has a post-colonial hang-up about ethnicity which is not shared by the rest of the world. Suarez was a victim of this. "Negro" in Uruguanese may just be a descriptor, just as
suddhas (whites), is just a descriptor in Sinhala; it's not better or worse.
I only really included Buddhism in the list for three reasons. Firstly to show that I'm not limiting my views/principles to only one or some organised religions.
I understand that. Otherwise, you'd get the ____ophobic label.
Secondly because, as an atheist, I think I probably respect the institutions behind all of the listed religions/cults about equally - if one thinks Scientology is recently made up nonsense, then no doubt they feel the same about Rastafarianism. And then Mormonism and so on all the way back.
Fair enough, though I note you didn't capitalise the religions. Any reason?
And lastly because I think Buddhism is often the recipient of too much goodwill, to the point of exceptionalism, in conversations live these. Even among atheist critics of organised religions.
Ha! Why is that a problem? Do you mean by commentators like Sam Harris?
As for exceptionalism, it's a term I hear more often in recent times (most recently in that video Yorky posted). Does it mean "better"? Or does it mean "different"? Buddhism is certainly different to the Abrahamic religions which share the same prophets. We have the equipment of Commandments, but they are not called commandments because there is no one to command us. Or be Our Father. Or to be subservient to. And there's no God's with elephant heads either. So, Buddhists are different.
Finally, the one thing I have to say is that you have to understand language and cultural differences. I read a report on the BBC that said that there were a bunch of Buddhist priests shouting "Lanka (Island of Sri Lanka) for the Singhalese (<-English word)". That was the direct translation. What they were really saying was as innocuous as "England should
at least be for the English." They weren't saying was "Lanka is
only for the Sinhala (our term for ourselves)", which would obviously be concerning. There is a Sanskrit (from which Sinhala is derived) term "
bhoomiputra" which directly translated means - sons of the soil. It articulates the concept the emotional link some of us to where we're from; our roots.
One day I hope when I take my boy (9) to Ruwanwelisaya he will
feel his heritage. It is taller than the Great Pyramid. The important difference being there is a direct line to the people that built it and him.
