Buddhists disrupt prayers and fire-bomb Mosque

[Haha Coffee]

The Catfish Blues

Haha Coffee

Quote:

Plus what make you think you would win? Their monks do tend to know kung fu. Do you guys kung fu? I mean guessing they add guns as well so gun and kung fu. VS ?????? guns? That yell, I don't know. I think you need more then the yelling to win this dude.

Buddhist Monks do not by and large learn Kung Fu...that's a racist stereotype

So racist comments as well..looking more like a Troll every second.
.

Don't be stupid, both you and I know shaolin is a major form of kung fu.

And is not very widely practiced, most Buddhist Monks (not all Buddhists are Shaolin..not even a noticble ammount) don't practice martial arts and would have trouble fighting of an angry teenager.

This ridiculousness stereotypes that Monks practice Martial arts needs to be dispelled.
Some do....90% don't.

Heck, Middle Eastern countries seem to be rocking the Martial Arts world at the moment anyway so if were following Steryotypes Muslims would still win against Kung Fu monks.

Quote:

And buddhist monk isn't even a race. Ajahn brahm, joko beck et al are not asian.

I can usually tell when you've entered troll mode, stop it.

Forgive me , I was playing to the Majority that most Buddhist Monks are Asian, along with the Asian Kung Fu steryotype.

I presumed since you could make one steryotype so blatantly, that you woulnd't be to far from white-washing the rest.

my bad.

[The Catfish Blues]

Haha Coffee

The Catfish Blues

Haha Coffee

Quote:

Plus what make you think you would win? Their monks do tend to know kung fu. Do you guys kung fu? I mean guessing they add guns as well so gun and kung fu. VS ?????? guns? That yell, I don't know. I think you need more then the yelling to win this dude.

Buddhist Monks do not by and large learn Kung Fu...that's a racist stereotype

So racist comments as well..looking more like a Troll every second.
.

Don't be stupid, both you and I know shaolin is a major form of kung fu.

And is not very widely practiced, most Buddhist Monks (not all Buddhists are Shaolin..not even a noticble ammount) don't practice martial arts and would have trouble fighting of an angry teenager.

This ridiculousness stereotypes that Monks practice Martial arts needs to be dispelled.
Some do....90% don't.

Shaolin is both the first chan/zen/seon monastery and the first place that is said to have taught shaolin kung fu. both were said to have been to have been founded by the first patriarch;bodhidharma. So the link between buddhism and kung fu, especially chan is not small.
Secondly the one of the major zen schools, Rinzai, is linked with martial arts as well.
Heck, Middle Eastern countries seem to be rocking the Martial Arts world at the moment anyway so if were following Steryotypes Muslims would still win against Kung Fu monks.

Quote:

Quote:

And buddhist monk isn't even a race. Ajahn brahm, joko beck et al are not asian.

I can usually tell when you've entered troll mode, stop it.

Forgive me , I was playing to the Majority that most Buddhist Monks are Asian, along with the Asian Kung Fu steryotype.

I presumed since you could make one steryotype so blatantly, that you woulnd't be to far from white-washing the rest.

my bad.

What stereotype did I make?

[Different...Very.]

Sounds like the Buddhists wanted something, which led to anger. Buddhists must be free from want right?

[Xiam]

Fermionic

Xiam

Fermionic

Xiam

Fermionic

This is the lamest argument I've ever heard.
Religion was created by people. People are, as you say, violent, erratic and negative. So; what makes religion exempt from the attitudes of the creators? As we see; it isn't.

Why do you assume that people who wrote a book long after the religion already existed are automatically the founders of that religion?

I'm sorry, the core tennets of the Religion are contained within that book. When you say "It isn't the Religion that causes problems", you are saying that the tennets of the religion isn't what causes a problem. The tennets of the Religion are contained, like it or not, in Holy Books. And who wrote the Holy Books? People. If you do not trust that a Holy Book is God's word, then what is the "religion" that you claim doesn't cause problems? A vague idea of spirituality? Rubbish, that isn't what a religion is.
Of course; the people who wrote the Holy Books didn't create the Religion, no. But who did? The people who started the process? What about everything else provided after? Is that not part of the Religion? Of course it is.


Edit Okay then, tell me this; what is it that you think constitues a religion if it isn't the content of the Religions Holy Book?

As for your edit, it was Human Narration, but there are plenty of similarly vengeful verses from God's own pretend mouth if you'd like. I can also scrounge up a quote from Jesus being a d**k about slavery if you'd like.

With pleasure.

Quote:

re·li·gion
[ri-lij-uhn]

noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

Nowhere in this definition does it state that religion explicitly refers to the scripture. Which fits just fine for most religions, as many of them either have no scripture, or don't really pay attention to it. Ask the average Christian about a particular quote out of the Bible, they won't even know what part it's from.

Furthermore, ask the average Christian whether it's okay to kill kill adulterers. After all, that's in the Bible too. Leviticus, right? Same book as the whole "no gays" thing some are touting. And hell, even the bit about gays. There are even Christians who - gasp - don't have a single problem with homosexuals, or even them getting married!

A religion is far more vague than you seem to think it is. It's a fuzzy little cluster of ideas, that sometimes coalesce into certain clear aspects - a deity, for instance, or various moral stances that everybody can agree on (most people of the Abrahamic faiths will generally agree to the Ten Commandments, unless I'm mistaken). But morality isn't really necessary, and even separate from religion in certain societies. And as I think I mentioned... cultures change. It's no longer okay to chop people's hands off for stealing. "An eye for an eye" is no a civilized way of dealing with crime.

And one would hope that we can be a little more tolerant of one another's beliefs nowadays. Which is exactly why this incident is a tragic reflection of the human race. We're still keeping a tribal, xenophobic outlook on life. An "Us vs. Them" mentality.

Which is not what religion is about. As I said, borders can be vague - especially between religion and culture, as anyone trying to debate whether "Jewish" is a race or a religion can attest, and therefore it can be difficult to determine whether religious moral doctrine is of the culture or the faith. But it is absolutely necessary to understand that, at its core, religion is not a template for morality, or a list of commands of what one must do or not do. It has always been, at its heart, a relationship between Man and the Unknown.

You can go on and on about the Bible, but the problem is that it's not just a religious scripture. It's a folk history of the Hebrews. Followed by an addendum by Christians.

Back to Buddhism and Islam please?

Look, my point never had a thing to do with Buddhism or Islam.

As to your definition;

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
What is contained within the Bible applies to "given moral code". Maybe not the quote I gave, but certainly quotes of Jesus. The point I am making is this; you say that as the Bible and scripture was written by humans it is not trustworthy. Everything about religion is passed down, created by humans. There is no trancendental aspect to religion, or what it says.

If Jesus says something negative, or God said something negative, are you saying that that doesn't dictate what the tennets of the religion are?

Moral code ≠ scripture in which it appears.

[Fermionic]

Xiam

Fermionic

Xiam

Fermionic

Xiam

Why do you assume that people who wrote a book long after the religion already existed are automatically the founders of that religion?

I'm sorry, the core tennets of the Religion are contained within that book. When you say "It isn't the Religion that causes problems", you are saying that the tennets of the religion isn't what causes a problem. The tennets of the Religion are contained, like it or not, in Holy Books. And who wrote the Holy Books? People. If you do not trust that a Holy Book is God's word, then what is the "religion" that you claim doesn't cause problems? A vague idea of spirituality? Rubbish, that isn't what a religion is.
Of course; the people who wrote the Holy Books didn't create the Religion, no. But who did? The people who started the process? What about everything else provided after? Is that not part of the Religion? Of course it is.


Edit Okay then, tell me this; what is it that you think constitues a religion if it isn't the content of the Religions Holy Book?

As for your edit, it was Human Narration, but there are plenty of similarly vengeful verses from God's own pretend mouth if you'd like. I can also scrounge up a quote from Jesus being a d**k about slavery if you'd like.

With pleasure.

Quote:

re·li·gion
[ri-lij-uhn]

noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

Nowhere in this definition does it state that religion explicitly refers to the scripture. Which fits just fine for most religions, as many of them either have no scripture, or don't really pay attention to it. Ask the average Christian about a particular quote out of the Bible, they won't even know what part it's from.

Furthermore, ask the average Christian whether it's okay to kill kill adulterers. After all, that's in the Bible too. Leviticus, right? Same book as the whole "no gays" thing some are touting. And hell, even the bit about gays. There are even Christians who - gasp - don't have a single problem with homosexuals, or even them getting married!

A religion is far more vague than you seem to think it is. It's a fuzzy little cluster of ideas, that sometimes coalesce into certain clear aspects - a deity, for instance, or various moral stances that everybody can agree on (most people of the Abrahamic faiths will generally agree to the Ten Commandments, unless I'm mistaken). But morality isn't really necessary, and even separate from religion in certain societies. And as I think I mentioned... cultures change. It's no longer okay to chop people's hands off for stealing. "An eye for an eye" is no a civilized way of dealing with crime.

And one would hope that we can be a little more tolerant of one another's beliefs nowadays. Which is exactly why this incident is a tragic reflection of the human race. We're still keeping a tribal, xenophobic outlook on life. An "Us vs. Them" mentality.

Which is not what religion is about. As I said, borders can be vague - especially between religion and culture, as anyone trying to debate whether "Jewish" is a race or a religion can attest, and therefore it can be difficult to determine whether religious moral doctrine is of the culture or the faith. But it is absolutely necessary to understand that, at its core, religion is not a template for morality, or a list of commands of what one must do or not do. It has always been, at its heart, a relationship between Man and the Unknown.

You can go on and on about the Bible, but the problem is that it's not just a religious scripture. It's a folk history of the Hebrews. Followed by an addendum by Christians.

Back to Buddhism and Islam please?

Look, my point never had a thing to do with Buddhism or Islam.

As to your definition;

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
What is contained within the Bible applies to "given moral code". Maybe not the quote I gave, but certainly quotes of Jesus. The point I am making is this; you say that as the Bible and scripture was written by humans it is not trustworthy. Everything about religion is passed down, created by humans. There is no trancendental aspect to religion, or what it says.

If Jesus says something negative, or God said something negative, are you saying that that doesn't dictate what the tennets of the religion are?

Moral code ≠ scripture in which it appears.

Of course, not the entire publication, but certainly quoted rules. If not, through what other medium does the moral code leak through?

[Xiam]

Fermionic

Xiam

Fermionic

Xiam

Fermionic

I'm sorry, the core tennets of the Religion are contained within that book. When you say "It isn't the Religion that causes problems", you are saying that the tennets of the religion isn't what causes a problem. The tennets of the Religion are contained, like it or not, in Holy Books. And who wrote the Holy Books? People. If you do not trust that a Holy Book is God's word, then what is the "religion" that you claim doesn't cause problems? A vague idea of spirituality? Rubbish, that isn't what a religion is.
Of course; the people who wrote the Holy Books didn't create the Religion, no. But who did? The people who started the process? What about everything else provided after? Is that not part of the Religion? Of course it is.


Edit Okay then, tell me this; what is it that you think constitues a religion if it isn't the content of the Religions Holy Book?

As for your edit, it was Human Narration, but there are plenty of similarly vengeful verses from God's own pretend mouth if you'd like. I can also scrounge up a quote from Jesus being a d**k about slavery if you'd like.

With pleasure.

Quote:

re·li·gion
[ri-lij-uhn]

noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

Nowhere in this definition does it state that religion explicitly refers to the scripture. Which fits just fine for most religions, as many of them either have no scripture, or don't really pay attention to it. Ask the average Christian about a particular quote out of the Bible, they won't even know what part it's from.

Furthermore, ask the average Christian whether it's okay to kill kill adulterers. After all, that's in the Bible too. Leviticus, right? Same book as the whole "no gays" thing some are touting. And hell, even the bit about gays. There are even Christians who - gasp - don't have a single problem with homosexuals, or even them getting married!

A religion is far more vague than you seem to think it is. It's a fuzzy little cluster of ideas, that sometimes coalesce into certain clear aspects - a deity, for instance, or various moral stances that everybody can agree on (most people of the Abrahamic faiths will generally agree to the Ten Commandments, unless I'm mistaken). But morality isn't really necessary, and even separate from religion in certain societies. And as I think I mentioned... cultures change. It's no longer okay to chop people's hands off for stealing. "An eye for an eye" is no a civilized way of dealing with crime.

And one would hope that we can be a little more tolerant of one another's beliefs nowadays. Which is exactly why this incident is a tragic reflection of the human race. We're still keeping a tribal, xenophobic outlook on life. An "Us vs. Them" mentality.

Which is not what religion is about. As I said, borders can be vague - especially between religion and culture, as anyone trying to debate whether "Jewish" is a race or a religion can attest, and therefore it can be difficult to determine whether religious moral doctrine is of the culture or the faith. But it is absolutely necessary to understand that, at its core, religion is not a template for morality, or a list of commands of what one must do or not do. It has always been, at its heart, a relationship between Man and the Unknown.

You can go on and on about the Bible, but the problem is that it's not just a religious scripture. It's a folk history of the Hebrews. Followed by an addendum by Christians.

Back to Buddhism and Islam please?

Look, my point never had a thing to do with Buddhism or Islam.

As to your definition;

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
What is contained within the Bible applies to "given moral code". Maybe not the quote I gave, but certainly quotes of Jesus. The point I am making is this; you say that as the Bible and scripture was written by humans it is not trustworthy. Everything about religion is passed down, created by humans. There is no trancendental aspect to religion, or what it says.

If Jesus says something negative, or God said something negative, are you saying that that doesn't dictate what the tennets of the religion are?

Moral code ≠ scripture in which it appears.

Of course, not the entire publication, but certainly quoted rules. If not, through what other medium does the moral code leak through?

Authority figures? Tradition, passed down from parents to children? Or perhaps from friends and colleagues to one another? I mean, it's not like there's one source for ethical conduct.

[Fermionic]

Xiam

Fermionic

Xiam

Fermionic

Xiam

With pleasure.

Nowhere in this definition does it state that religion explicitly refers to the scripture. Which fits just fine for most religions, as many of them either have no scripture, or don't really pay attention to it. Ask the average Christian about a particular quote out of the Bible, they won't even know what part it's from.

Furthermore, ask the average Christian whether it's okay to kill kill adulterers. After all, that's in the Bible too. Leviticus, right? Same book as the whole "no gays" thing some are touting. And hell, even the bit about gays. There are even Christians who - gasp - don't have a single problem with homosexuals, or even them getting married!

A religion is far more vague than you seem to think it is. It's a fuzzy little cluster of ideas, that sometimes coalesce into certain clear aspects - a deity, for instance, or various moral stances that everybody can agree on (most people of the Abrahamic faiths will generally agree to the Ten Commandments, unless I'm mistaken). But morality isn't really necessary, and even separate from religion in certain societies. And as I think I mentioned... cultures change. It's no longer okay to chop people's hands off for stealing. "An eye for an eye" is no a civilized way of dealing with crime.

And one would hope that we can be a little more tolerant of one another's beliefs nowadays. Which is exactly why this incident is a tragic reflection of the human race. We're still keeping a tribal, xenophobic outlook on life. An "Us vs. Them" mentality.

Which is not what religion is about. As I said, borders can be vague - especially between religion and culture, as anyone trying to debate whether "Jewish" is a race or a religion can attest, and therefore it can be difficult to determine whether religious moral doctrine is of the culture or the faith. But it is absolutely necessary to understand that, at its core, religion is not a template for morality, or a list of commands of what one must do or not do. It has always been, at its heart, a relationship between Man and the Unknown.

You can go on and on about the Bible, but the problem is that it's not just a religious scripture. It's a folk history of the Hebrews. Followed by an addendum by Christians.

Back to Buddhism and Islam please?

Look, my point never had a thing to do with Buddhism or Islam.

As to your definition;

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
What is contained within the Bible applies to "given moral code". Maybe not the quote I gave, but certainly quotes of Jesus. The point I am making is this; you say that as the Bible and scripture was written by humans it is not trustworthy. Everything about religion is passed down, created by humans. There is no trancendental aspect to religion, or what it says.

If Jesus says something negative, or God said something negative, are you saying that that doesn't dictate what the tennets of the religion are?

Moral code ≠ scripture in which it appears.

Of course, not the entire publication, but certainly quoted rules. If not, through what other medium does the moral code leak through?

Authority figures? Tradition, passed down from parents to children? Or perhaps from friends and colleagues to one another? I mean, it's not like there's one source for ethical conduct.

Which is obviously a more reliable source than scripture?

[Xiam]

Fermionic

Xiam

Fermionic

Xiam

Moral code ≠ scripture in which it appears.

Of course, not the entire publication, but certainly quoted rules. If not, through what other medium does the moral code leak through?

Authority figures? Tradition, passed down from parents to children? Or perhaps from friends and colleagues to one another? I mean, it's not like there's one source for ethical conduct.

Which is obviously a more reliable source than scripture?

Certainly. With an individual, you can reason, question, ask why it should be this way. Maybe you might get an answer other than "Because that's the way it is!" Plus, you might have a history with the person, which leads them to be far more trustworthy than some book that doesn't even depict a modern - or even local - society.

[Fermionic]

Xiam

Fermionic

Xiam

Fermionic

Xiam

Moral code ≠ scripture in which it appears.

Of course, not the entire publication, but certainly quoted rules. If not, through what other medium does the moral code leak through?

Authority figures? Tradition, passed down from parents to children? Or perhaps from friends and colleagues to one another? I mean, it's not like there's one source for ethical conduct.

Which is obviously a more reliable source than scripture?

Certainly. With an individual, you can reason, question, ask why it should be this way. Maybe you might get an answer other than "Because that's the way it is!" Plus, you might have a history with the person, which leads them to be far more trustworthy than some book that doesn't even depict a modern - or even local - society.

I feel that this conversation is as confused as Edward Scissorhands. This isn't the point I wished to discuss, so simply put; I have nothing more to say on this matter.

[Jason the Samurai Knight]

Haha Coffee

The Catfish Blues

Haha Coffee

Quote:

Plus what make you think you would win? Their monks do tend to know kung fu. Do you guys kung fu? I mean guessing they add guns as well so gun and kung fu. VS ?????? guns? That yell, I don't know. I think you need more then the yelling to win this dude.

Buddhist Monks do not by and large learn Kung Fu...that's a racist stereotype

So racist comments as well..looking more like a Troll every second.
.

Don't be stupid, both you and I know shaolin is a major form of kung fu.

And is not very widely practiced, most Buddhist Monks (not all Buddhists are Shaolin..not even a noticble ammount) don't practice martial arts and would have trouble fighting of an angry teenager.

This ridiculousness stereotypes that Monks practice Martial arts needs to be dispelled.
Some do....90% don't.

Heck, Middle Eastern countries seem to be rocking the Martial Arts world at the moment anyway so if were following Steryotypes Muslims would still win against Kung Fu monks.

Quote:

And buddhist monk isn't even a race. Ajahn brahm, joko beck et al are not asian.

I can usually tell when you've entered troll mode, stop it.

Forgive me , I was playing to the Majority that most Buddhist Monks are Asian, along with the Asian Kung Fu steryotype.

I presumed since you could make one steryotype so blatantly, that you woulnd't be to far from white-washing the rest.

my bad.

I love that everyone going on about the joke, taking it like it was something that really matters. Rather then something that was meant to be a laugh, not to be taken serious. Forgetting the actual reason of debate. Which when I told him that eye for an eye is dumb idea that isn't really follow today in most countries, and if he did follow that. They would be fully in the right to burn down their place of worship.

[Bane of Ezekiel]

Wraith of Azrael

So....from what I'm understanding...

Muslims and Hindus build Temples on Buddhist sacred ground and...

Buddhists be pissed and bombin s**t.

One would think that being a faith which tends to reject material goods, they'd reject sacred places as being material.

That's just me being me.

That being said...

at least it's only done on sacred ground and nobody was hurt.
There's building temples on sacred ground and bombing them.
And there's bombing temples because they're temples of another religion.

Bit of a difference really.

That being said....
If someone built a church on Aboriginal sacred ground...
Would some Aboriginals be pissed?
Yout bet.
Would some bomb the place?
They might...

Does that make them right? Nope.
But does that mean that they have a good reason to be pissed?Yep.

I'd take your difference except...

The Babri Mosque /Ayodha incident was played off in India the same way. Apparently millenia ago, the god Vishnu was born in the form of Krshna there. Then in 1500 CE, the Mughals built the Babri Mosque on the site. In the early 1990s, the Babri mosque was destroyed by Hindus claiming they wanted to reclaim the land to build a temple to Krshna.

Except the real reason was the fundamentalist BJP wanted to piss off and get rid of Islamic influence in India. So they used the holy site excuse to get rid of a mosque.

[Eveille]

Haven't read through the thread yet, but wtf?

Problem A - Building anything at all on another religion's sacred sites.

Problem B - Letting the building be built. It isn't like buildings go up overnight as a covert OPs...wtf were they doing during the whole time the thing was being built?

Problem C - There is a Hindu building scheduled as well? >.> Wow, do they hate Buddhists there or something? Am I missing some cultural nuance here?

[flouri]

They should never have built it on sacred ground, but it's not okay to fire bomb it either. I think the leaders of both movements should sit down and discuss options instead of a. being a d**k and disrespecting another religion or b. well, i'm kind of more on the buddhist side here...

[Xiam]

Wow, so much I missed.

Jason the Samurai Knight

Quote:

Proof?
You want to try and "Prove" something as subjective and vague as moral right and wrong?
Hah....

Im not proving, im justifying according to a perceived objectively higher authority.

First off you got to proof you being exist to even get the chance to say they have the authority. Even then the people must say it's an authority on it not, and last I check they don't even believe in your version. And no yelling arguing or anything like that will change that fact.

Lots of people and things have authority without any grounds to suggest they are deserving of it.

Jason the Samurai Knight

Quote:

Plus, if you really believe that then the Buddhists you are saying are in the right and upgrade to biggest targets if you really believe in that outdated sack of crap.

Quote:

They can try ...we would just kill them all.

Though that counter your eye for an eye.
If you really believed in that garbage you would let them.
Plus if you did "kill them all" they get to do the same to you.
You see that the flaw of an eye for an eye. The whole world will go blind Following that dumb outdated saying.

Um, not agreeing to the word here, but the spirit at least. Fighting fire with fire will only get you burned. That is what causes a lot of wars. Petty vengeance.

Well, that and territorial, ideological, and economical disputes.

Fermionic

Jubilant Sunrise

Fermionic

Jubilant Sunrise

Fermionic

Because they offend me.

That's unfortunate for you?

You don't think that's a valid reason?

No? Why, did I say something that implies that would be a valid reason for anything?

Refrain from the question marks please, it is confusing.

Perhaps I should explain myself more thoroughly.
I don't think that religious buildings have a right to be built because I don't like them.
Everything in reality is a part of my life.
Ergo, only my opinion is important.

Everything? Even the things you will never personally encounter?

(Don't get mad, I'm using question marks in the right way.)

Different...Very.

Sounds like the Buddhists wanted something, which led to anger. Buddhists must be free from want right?

Right. That's pretty much one of the core tenets of Buddhism. So restating an earlier thing I made... they're not very good Buddhists. xd

They were letting their possessions possess them.

Eveille

Problem A - Building anything at all on another religion's sacred sites.

Oh come on, lots of religions have done that before. Islam, for instance, has done it at least one other time that I can recall. (And it was a doozy.)

But yeah, that's a definite problem.

Eveille

Problem B - Letting the building be built. It isn't like buildings go up overnight as a covert OPs...wtf were they doing during the whole time the thing was being built?

Meditating?

Eveille

Problem C - There is a Hindu building scheduled as well? >.> Wow, do they hate Buddhists there or something? Am I missing some cultural nuance here?

You might be. People like places to worship, though, it's really hard to just... not build things. It's like when people were up in arms about someone building a mosque "so close" to Ground Zero in NYC. I mean... it really wasn't that close, but people went nuts. It'd be funny if it wasn't offensive to the Muslims who... you know... aren't terrorists.

flouri

They should never have built it on sacred ground, but it's not okay to fire bomb it either. I think the leaders of both movements should sit down and discuss options instead of a. being a d**k and disrespecting another religion or b. well, i'm kind of more on the buddhist side here...

Well... the problem with sitting down and discussing options is, we're dealing with people here. People with really firm convictions, which is never particularly good for discussion because they are both so obsessed with believing they're right.

Which is odd for Buddhists, again, because they're supposed to be trying to eliminate the self.

[Fermionic]

Xiam

Fermionic

Perhaps I should explain myself more thoroughly.
I don't think that religious buildings have a right to be built because I don't like them.
Everything in reality is a part of my life.
Ergo, only my opinion is important.

Everything? Even the things you will never personally encounter?

(Don't get mad, I'm using question marks in the right way.)

If I don't personally encounter them, I have no reason to think that they exist.