simplifications and religions
This is complicated and potent territory for the very reason that religions are both part of, and span beyond, the realms of territory, societies, countries and traditions. Therefore it is simply idiotic to label a religion with “stamp” globally, encompassing and describing the religion as a whole. Such remarks, increasingly brought forth by populistic media coverage, are grotesque simplifications. Anyone suggesting one objective truth on these subjects cannot be further for the truth. Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, the Chinese religion, Judaism, Sikhism, Shinto and so many others all contain a wast network of variables, far too complex to be subject for generalisations and simplifications, specially while trying to identify an enemy or placing blame. To give an example of how flawed such simplifications are, and to show that there are many point of views, thus many “truths”: From an eastern point of view one of the most historically correct “truths” concerning Christianity is that it is/was an evil force, invading, plundering and enslaving millions. From a western point of view the same opinion muslim kingdoms can to some extent be argued for, specially for those in Spain and later in eastern europe when the Ottoman empire was a considerable force to recon with. For both the Muslim and Christian nations the hordes from the plains where worse, due to the Khan empires destruction of cities all through Asia, but also into the eastern parts of Europe. For instance did Hulagu Khan slaughter and sack Baghdad, and his cousin Batu Khan flattened the former Russian capital Vladimir, then he completely destroyed Kiev in 1240, leaving only 2000 survivors. Conflicts then, and now, are much more about nations and “collective constructs”/groups, and their desire to rule and control for stability, income and power.
Today in the west, Buddhism, not technically a religion, is looked upon as a good one, where millions of non buddhist use the fundamental thoughts as guidelines for a better way of life, as it is in large parts of asia. How ever, that does not mean that Buddhists are always kind and caring. There are some buddhist groups responsible for slaughter and mayhem, due to conflicts based of belief, politics and more. The same goes for Christianity, where groups commit horrible crimes in the name of the deity, as it is in some muslim communities. All this is how ever not a cause for generalisation, on the contrary, it is a reason for an articulate and investigating discussion, treating people as people. This is important because such generalisations are very often a war waged with words. Treat all articles and arguments with “christian/muslim/buddhist/and so on-fundamentalism” with a huge pinch of salt. Fundamentalism does exist, but that is not because of religion or origin, but due to other causes. Globally people have a strong tendency to be good, open and caring, and the globe seems to have much more urgent matter to deal with than constructing new reasons for warfare. -A