Thread
America is made for Chistians!?!?!
I don't think Buddhism as we currently know it is old enough to have gone through this particular phase, though it's had its own share of warriors in the past.
Interesting statistic. Actually Buddhism would have been 1500 around the year 1000 AD. I don't know what was going on, but then it had a lot more competition from Taoism and Confucianism. Further it tended to adopt the indigineous beliefs a lot more readily than many other religions. There is even the Lotus Sutra which justifies using the superstitions of people to lead them towards enlightenment. (Sort of a Buddhist version of lying for God) Its been a while since I read it, but I seem to recall the metaphor of telling kids in a burning house that there is candy outside.
Now the form of Buddhism that reached Japan did swiftly get tied into its military views. But there also was strong native Japanese beliefs. Further they already were pretty militant.
My own belief is that militants tend to use religion as one more propaganda point rather than religion uses the military.
Interesting statistic. Actually Buddhism would have been 1500 around the year 1000 AD. I don't know what was going on, but then it had a lot more competition from Taoism and Confucianism. Further it tended to adopt the indigineous beliefs a lot more readily than many other religions. There is even the Lotus Sutra which justifies using the superstitions of people to lead them towards enlightenment. (Sort of a Buddhist version of lying for God) Its been a while since I read it, but I seem to recall the metaphor of telling kids in a burning house that there is candy outside.
Now the form of Buddhism that reached Japan did swiftly get tied into its military views. But there also was strong native Japanese beliefs. Further they already were pretty militant.
My own belief is that militants tend to use religion as one more propaganda point rather than religion uses the military.
Separation of church and state is a feature of every modern democracy (secularisation). So yes, there are many secularized countries.
What's all this about then?
What's all this about then?
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Millennium: Actually, if you want to be technical, infidel is a relative term. When spoken by a Muslim, it means non-Muslim. When spoken by a Christian, it means non-Christian. And so on, and so forth; the basic meaning is "one who does not follow the religious beliefs of the point of view the speaker is using". |
Yeah. I know it's relative. From the context, I think Zimph was refereing to muslims. My bad for not being clear.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot: I'm not. I'm comparing the labelling of something based upon the characteristics of a majority. And you *can* compare the two in this case, since the religion makes no difference to being "American" (due to separation of church and state), any more than the race (due to all men being created equal). However, by calling the United States a "Christian" nation, you're essentially marginalizing any non-Christian as not strictly American. Which is why I ask you: Would you call America a "White" country? -s* |
Yes, America is a mostly white country. Just as it is a mostly Christian country.