Politics

Tell that to the thousands of Japanese Catholics slaughtered by "Buddhist" Tokugawa Ieyasu.

You may argue it was more a socio-political oppression than a religious one. That of course brings what I consider my main point. What many people consider religious conflicts are really about socio-politics, and religions are merely sugar coats.

Anyone with a minuscule level of history education would know (or should know) that the Islamic society at one point was far more tolerant and enlightened than the West. In fact many Spanish jews moved to the Islamic world to escape the opression from the Catholics, because, God forbid, the Muslims were more tolerant of the Jews than the Christians during that time!

The difference? Again, during the middle ages the Islamic world was a superior, stronger and more advanced civilization. Knowing this, they could afford to be tolerant. The West knew they were inferior so they were more close minded, intolerant and yes, fanatical.

Admittedly, the situation is different now. The West has achieved a tolerant society and has an upperhand. The Islamic world knows this and many feel the need to turn intolerant and close minded.

Another example would be China. During Tang dynasty China was the greatest empire in the world. In Changan, the capital city, Buddhist temples stood next to Christian, Islamic, Jewish temples. During that time women wore rather revealing clothing as well. 1200 years later, when China became utterly weak and humiliated by the Western powers, the nationalist "Boxers" would go rampaging around killing Westerners/Christians.

It has nothing to do with "maturing" and everything to do with cycles. Mark my word. If/when the Islamic world or China or India rises to trump the West again, the West will turn fanatical and intolerant AGAIN, just like it did before and I can't say I don't see early signs.

 

^Damn dude, gotta give it to you. You're not just right, you're fucking right. It really is a vicious cycle.

 

I'm sorry, but It doesen't make much sense to me what you just wrote.

OK so:
1)buddhism and shintoism are not "flexible" religion? do you know this for a fact? afaik, they dont have a sacred book.

2) early christians refused to obey the law of the state and thought that the only authority was they "God". bit cheecky if you ask me, no wonder Tokugawa/romans were sligtly pissed off.

3) western is more tolerant? can you back this up with some proof? afaik, no state in the world has a system in place where people vote to democratically go to war.

4)You know there are passages in the bible that specifically forbid eating pork (leviticus XI) and seafood (seriously) and wearing a jacket made from linen/wool mix (leviticus XI,7-8)

can you back it up with some concrete info that buddhism is dogmatic, or do I have to just accept you wild generalization for it?

 

I do not choose to engage your last post since, as it should be obvious to an impartial observer, you have chosen to do nitpick/word spliting/distorting/ignoring my points instead of getting the point of my post. Pretty much like the way Christian/Islamic fundamentalists use their texts, wouldn't you say? (Except they at least seem to have some coherent argument they want to make, and your post doesn't.)

Thanks. It's not everyday you get such a colorfully expressed agreement online.

 

LOL im not nitpicking because I have a program or somthing, but your statement have to stand up to critique,

otherwise how can I trust you? this is elemental epistemology, you have to have some kind of source to back up your statement.

BTW, I am not affirming that somebody IS better than others, thats why you cant make sense of my post, you need to read it harder. besides you ignored my first point about religion per se not being a bad thing, and made the exampple of tokugawa withoiut any reference to buddhism at all?

 

It's just that I see your pattern. Most of the time you are capable of reasoned arguments. But it seems like whenever someone performs a touche on what you consider your forte (Mainly about the Japanese culture) you go full overdrive in non-sequitor mode. You hardly seem to understand your own post much less the other person's because you are so fixated and this is a clear example.

I ignored your point about "religion per se not being a bad thing." I hardly disagree or even much interested in that being true or not. I disagree, however, if you meant some religions are inherently less dogmatic or more "flexible."

Any religion can be twisted to be dogmatic or be used to justify perpetuation of violence, oppression, fanaticism, you name it. I even include Confucianism--supposedly not even a religion--in that list. As a person who grew up in a country many consider the most Confucian country existing today (South Korea) I have witnessed Confucianism being used to justify injustice. Certainly Shintoism is no exception, as it was inter woven into the deification of Emperor and Japanese nationalism during WW2. (Even to this day a Shintoist shrine is set up to honor the Japanese Class A war criminals as "patriots." Can you imagine a German church where German chancelor visit to honor Himler?)

As for your previous enumerated "critiques" I hardly can understand what points you are trying to make and I doubt many others would do. Tokuguwa was pissed off? no shit. Old testament shares much of the same rules practiced by orthodox Judaism and Islam? No shit. Again what was the point? I should prove the "Western" is more tolerant because we don't vote to go to war? Huh?

 

I apologize if I came across as arrogant or something,

But by your principle any form of organised society then will be equally bad, because it can be used to exclude others as well as to include member of their group. If a minority of Virtua Fighter players decide to go a killing spree, by your reasoning, we are all equally culpable of being members of this group. why are we member of this community? same reason people belong to a church: a sense of belonging.


Hey, I stand by what I said: religions without a "book" or a dogma are more flexible, point in case: many japanese get married in churches. how many muslims or christian get married in buddhist temples? this is a practical example, please show me that im wrong, with one of your practical examples.

then about yasukuni shrine: there are also those who were not war criminal resting there. besides, please explain to me what is a war criminal, then maybe we can talk about this more ok?

 

Since there are many people here with an interest in Japan, this story might be of interest to some.

The book is called Gold Warriors - America's Secret Recovery of Yamashita's Gold

Gold Warriors - Review by Douglas Valentine

Gold Warriors - Review by renowned historian Chalmers Johnson

Bowstring Books - The publisher's website

Gold Warriors on amazon.com

<object width="560" height="340"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dn8tY0RQeuU"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dn8tY0RQeuU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="560" height="340"> </embed></object>

<object width="560" height="340"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iKWBChQsq3Q"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iKWBChQsq3Q" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="560" height="340"> </embed></object>

Radio Interview with the Seagraves

I recommend the book to anyone who wants to learn about the real history of the world. If you order it from the website, you can get a signed copy that comes with three cd's containing documentation that supports their story. Read it and then decide if you agree with Sterling Seagrave's contention that, "The world is ruled by gangsters."

 

Yasukuni shrine honors those War Criminals WHO COMMITTED AND GOT CONVICTED OF WAR CRIMES AND EXECUTED FOR THEIR CRIMES. End of discussion. They caused innumerable suffering to not only people of other countries but common people of Japan as well. If you were to say there are others who committed such crime and walking free, right on the US soil as well, I fully agree and do not intend to argue.


And for Buddhism, I did not want to bring this up but it has its own sacred texts. Anyone with a passing knowledge of Buddhism would know that. Lots of them in fact. It may not be exactly regarded like Christian Bible or Koran, but you could hear the Buddhists refer to them as "scriptures." and often old copies are treated with utmost respect.

There are a few points to comment about this--some of them may come as shocking to some people. First of all, MOST JAPANESE ARE NOT RELIGIOUS. They are only nominally Buddhists or Shintoists. An analogy could be made to those who go to Church only on Christmas--or perhaps not at all--and never read Bible, and still call themselves Christian. Because that's pretty similar to the extent of the religious activities practiced by most Japanese.

If you were never even aware that Buddhism has its sacred texts despite your exposure to the Japanese culture, that's more of a "practical proof" that shows that the Japanese religious practice is nominal at best. I am sure that the monks read and study those texts. But they themselves do not expect laymen to read those texts, kinda like the Catholicism during the dark ages. Think about it--a country where 95% of the population considers themselves Buddhist, yet it has practically zero respect for vegetarianism. Granted, attitude toward vegetarianism varies between sect to sect, but I can't imagine any Buddhist sect wouldn't consider vegetarianism a "good thing." Yet in Japan adhering to vegetarianism is practically impossible outside the monasteries.

Again, Buddhist laymen in Japan are not even really expected to read/learn Buddhist teachings or practice teachings--just go to the temple once a year or maybe a few more times and put some money in the box and leave. I am sure there are some non-monks who take their religion a little more seriously. But they are far and few between.


If you consider this as "flexible" or "tolerant" I don't think I have further issues to argue as your definitions are somewhat different. But I myself would categorize this as "nominal practice" instead, not something inherently more peaceful about Buddhism. (because, let's face it. The "Buddhist" nations do not lag behind in their violence and bloody history quota. As an Asian myself I know for sure.)



_EDIT_

Actually, it appears in modern Japan many Japanese are not even nominally Buddhist anymore. A quick wikipedia search results:

About 70 percent of Japanese profess no religious membership, according to Johnstone (1993:323), 84% of the Japanese claim no personal religion. And according to Demerath (2001:138), 64% do not believe in God, and 55% do not believe in Buddha.

According to Wikipedia, 85% to 95% figure often cited previously comes from family affiliations, not personal confessions of faith. Again, I wouldn't personally equate lack of religious practices and prevalent agnostic attitude with some inherent religious tolerance.

 

End of discussion? I havent even started my discussion about war criminals, also because you havent actually stated what consitute a war criminal yet. Or is that a topic we are not going to discuss?

So they have sacred texts in buddhism and shintoism? are they the word of God, to be taken literally, or were just written by some guy?

the reason I am asking is because despite saying that they are "nominally or not religious at all" it seems to me that Japanese sticks to their religious practices very closely, more than I do at least. Im talking about the butsudan, as well as the regular offering to the ancestors.

So I am wondering if the lack of a "sacred" text make them more concerned about the practice of religion, rather than the theory of religion.

also because intolerance often starts from a "idea" of rightness that is often completely made up. it seems to me that buddhism has less "dogmatic" concepts about what is the "righteous" way to live, unlike Christianity.

 

Are you interested in discussing what is the definition of "is" is, too?

No actually, that's not what you want to discuss. I know what you want to "discuss." Whenever there is a slight criticism (or what you consider criticism) toward the Japanese culture or history, you just go overdrive bringing in non sequitur and _obfuscations_. You even sounded as if you tried to justify Tokugawa massacre of Christians as something politically understandable. You tried to justify Yasukuni shrine by mentioning that non-war criminals are housed there too.(Which is true, which I find further insulting as they are truly the victims of those fascist leaders housed next to them.)

I thought about further elaborating the history of State Shinto--how it was used as an extension of the fascists. How it was used to persecute not only Christians but also other Shintoists and Buddhists who had issues with Emperor's deification. But you would probably try to obfuscate, if not justify, that as well. And I sincerely suspect that getting into "what is a war criminal" only would serve your attempt to obfuscate the Japanese war crimes and its religious arm. If I point out the examples of war crimes you will only try to argue the definition of war crimes.

You ask me if in those religions the texts are considered the word of God or men? Why would that question even matter in the case of State Shinto? When you have a living God/god? I of course know that brand of Shinto is no more. But my point is that you don't even need the words of God to have fascist dogmatic religion when you can invent a god, as proven by the Japanese themselves.

Believe me, growing up in Korea I have seen a fair number of dogmatic Buddhists who hated Christian guts. (Or vice versa)


I can bring in piles of "practical proofs" showing that the Japanese people are not very religious in the traditional sense and I don't think that would persuade you. Because, your actions illustrate that your goal is, and has been, to obfuscate and discredit anyone who dares to make criticisms toward the Japanese culture.

Also, practice of religion is not same as practice of rituals. That's perhaps where confusion lies. Those butsudan may mean something to some people. For 55% of Japanese who say they don't believe in Buddha, they must mean as much as the crucifix jewelry worn by Madonna.

 

shut up hyun. so if and when FS comes out, we gonna go rape shang or what?

hope you're doin' well!

 

We will have to rescue him from his wife and baby first before we have a chance to rape him.

 

gaaaah, true. well, when the time comes, they're some people who'll be around to play. i currently am teaching one of my friends in preparation..

as for this thread, sadly, i'm only reminded and familiar with these names because of the game Persona, lol.

 

ironzen does pushku still play? add me to your xbl list pls ^^

 

hi roal,..i hope that's your name.. >_< sorry, it's been a while!

dobi lives in china. even when he was here in '07, he was just visiting. he doesn't play much anymore.
i don't play when he's not around, so i suffered the same fate.

i'm tetsuzen on XBL. i'll add you when i get a chance, but i've never played much online 'cause my connection is terrible.

 

I disagree, I think you should point out what constitutes a war crime so that I can argue against it.

Also, I disgree that a butsudan is like madonna's crucifix. Japanese people dont belive in God but treasure life and venerate their ancestors. That seems to me an ideal way to be religious: morality without dogma.

I don't know a lot about Japan in general but I know a few Japanese very well, as well a Korean friend (and one from Kurdistan). I can only speak from what I see in my everyday experience, I am not telling you what wikipedia says about Japan, I'm just pointing out how it feels for ME.

But feel free to ignore me if you think Im "obfuscating".

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime

Educate yourself. Please let's end the horse shit. Lots of ugly things occurred during World War II, and none of them should be minimized or distorted in the name of a political agenda.

 

LOL thank you for pointing me towards wikipedia.

Check the first paragraph:

War crimes are "violations of the laws or customs of war"; including "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of hostages, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity"


Now tell me, what is the first thing that comes to your mind when you read this? be honest