[quote name='camoor']Good point, I agree. My point was more that there are religions that lend themselves more easily to radicalism, war, and terror then others (For example, if taken from a relational viewpoint the religion of the Vikings provoked more war and violence then most other religions as practiced in it's time) I can't figure out why there are people who call themselves christian yet are also unabashedly bloodthirsty and greedy, but I suspect it has to do with the fact that the christian religion sets impossibly high goals for people, expects them to fail, and then forgives them for being human, thus engendering a cyclical sense of gratitude and instilling in certain shallow practitioners a guilt-inspired faith and trust in the "we talk to god for you" church authorites.
IMO a person completely misses the point whenever they only have a simplistic and literal viewpoint of myths/stories/holy texts that describe heavenly gardens, talking snakes, elephant-headed gods, or prophets talking to angels. There is always a lesson that should be learned from these texts, a person should strive to be enlightened, not just a "true believer".
I also agree that there are Hindus who aren't perfectly peaceful and that there are probably even a few violent people who profess to follow Tiebetan Buddhism. My point was that comparatively these religions appear to result in more peace and less suffering.
“The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description.”
- Albert Einstein[/QUOTE]
Not really contesting anything with the vikings, and not nitpicking, just interested in mentioning them and some viking mythology (what I know of it anyway, which is very little). Essentially, their religion was very dark. That is why, in the few places where vikings settled in the main part of europe, they quickly converted to christianity. In viking mythology the "good" gods eventually are defeated by the "bad" gods, when that happens then the world would end. Not to much hope there. Though I don't think religion played much into viking raids and such, it didn't really influence it one way or the other. Vikings, for the most part, weren't very interest in conquest and even less interested in religious conquest, they were more interested in wealth and bribes.
Though tension between hindus and muslims goes back to the muslim invasion, and rule, over India. While not really forced to become muslims (converts weren't good financially since they became exempt from taxes), many did and were pressured, by heavy taxation, to do so. The resentment from that runs deep and, while I'm not sure how much of a conscious part that plays, it is the primary root of the often violent tension between the two.
From what I've seen the violence and conquest associated with many religions is prevalent in hinduism, judaism, islam and christianity. I would rank, in order of violence:
Christianity- it was the most violent of any other major religions at their height of their influence, and violence is still strong in places such as africa
Islam- I would rank it as more violent currently, but much more tolerant and less violent in its golden age than christianity and less violent when its total history is taken into account
hinduism- long history of ethnic and religious violence since time of muslim rule
judaism- oddly, their scripture is the most violent of the 3 western ones, but their history of being repressed, scattered and stateless holds them back, though they have been trying to catch up since the 50's, ushering in the modern age of terrorism in their struggly for a jewish state, and many other acts of violence committed by their military
Basically, the amount of violence seems to be directly linked to a religions belief in gaining converts.
Christianity- has been the most intolerant (obvious reasons, inquisition, crusades etc.)
Islam- historically clear distinctions and priveleges associated with religion, but other groups were often very prosperous and succesfull
hinduism- really all over the place, there are many different forms of it. It wasn't even viewed as one coherent, distinct religion by its followers until the british colonial period, and the gods worshipped and beliefs followed differ greatly. The ones I've encountered say its up to the person to decide, but I don't know if thats based in any religious stories and texts or modern opinion. There have been various religious wars in its distant past.
Judaism- has little concern over converts as well, and it seems conversion is difficult, though, again, their statelessness and repressed history makes them difficult to judge as the time of religion running amok was dead by the time they had real power.
Now, buddhism has had a few wars in its history (though can only think of one off the top of my head. The viet cong, while generally buddhist, mostly acknowledged that they were going against buddhist teaching and separated the conflict from religion, so you can't include them), but not much. Despite their size they tend to be the target of repression more often than not. This is partly due to that, in historical China, there was no great religious tradition to uphold. Relative to the rest of the world, it was always more secular. Yes there was mysticism and religious beliefs, but not when compared to everyone else, and no real, distinct god. And buddhism is an atheistic religion, their is no god to please, no god to fight for (some times elevate buddha to a somewhat godlike state, though most view him as a great teacher). It also, while very open to converts, is also very open to dissent.
Buddha himself said this:
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
That line of thinking, again, hasn't always existed. But there is no necessity to convert, there is no one to save. If you had simpled changed the belief behind that quote, to that there was an essential need for large numbers of people to follow his teachings, then a history of buddhism as generally free of war would not exist.
So basically, your argument, is that the sex that has no control over anything, no say, no decision making ability is treated as equal to the one that has total control over what is taught, the rules and their enforcement, the institutions hierarchy, and their interaction with the general public.