[quote]The military regime in Burma is intent on wiping out Christianity in the country, according to claims in a secret document believed to have been leaked from a government ministry. Entitled “Programme to destroy the Christian religion in Burma”, the incendiary memo contains point by point instructions on how to drive Christians out of the state.
The text, which opens with the line “There shall be no home where the Christian religion is practised”, calls for anyone caught evangelising to be imprisoned. It advises: “The Christian religion is very gentle – identify and utilise its weakness.”
Its discovery follows widespread reports of religious persecution, with churches burnt to the ground, Christians forced to convert to the state religion, Buddhism, and their children barred from school.[/quote]
I find the statement, “The Christian religion is very gentle” to be ironic (no criticism of Christianity intended). And Buddhism isn’t? Religious persecution isn’t generally a stereotypical characteristic of Buddhist countries! What a bizarre state of affairs in that beautiful place.
Yeah - what’s Buddhist about forcing other people to convert to Buddhism? Sounds to me like getting wrapped up in the affairs of the world a bit too much / developing unhealthy attachments. If anything it’s positively anti-Buddhist
Rough looking how? Rough like will beat you up if you don’t put something into their begging bowls, or rough like will be angry if you interrupt their peaceful meditation, or some other kind of rough?
Rough looking how? Rough like will beat you up if you don’t put something into their begging bowls, or rough like will be angry if you interrupt their peaceful meditation, or some other kind of rough?[/quote]
Rough as in the kind that would rough you up if you looked at them funny.
Your article gives no indication who drafted the “secret memo”, on whose instructions, whether it appears to be authentic, or how it was received by anyone in the government.
Moreover, it’s been universally known for the past decade that the illegitimate goverment has been raping, imprisoning and seeking to wipe out all of the ethnic tribes as well as any form of dissent or democracy. I don’t see any news in the story. Just more of the same.
As for persecution of christians, I believe the problem’s not so much that they worship jesus, as that they are an organized group of people, with influence from outside of Burma, who meet regularly and discuss things including possibly civil rights and democracy. The government also shut down all universities in the country for years. Safest to keep everyone holed up at home separately, so they won’t challenge authority.
[quote=“FrankInTaipei”]right so we’re all in agreement that christians should be wiped out?
(present company excluded, of course)[/quote]
Bring it on…
And I believe that MT has the right interpretation of this situation. It isn’t about “Christianity” per se, but with any organized group that may present an alternative line of thought to the leftist gov’t in power.
The PRC does the same thing in its view towards FLG.
Reads like a sort of protocols of the elders of zion for Buddhism…is it really authentic?
When I was in Sri Lanka the obnoxious tactics of Christian evangelists had provoked the inevitable backlash and Buddhist monks were calling for action against Christianity. Here it appears that not only does Christian represent an independent organizing principle, but it is also the main religion of tribal peoples the government wants to wipe out. Religion is about social identity, power, and control, and is thus inevitably political…
There were similar conflicts in the extreme east of India, where Hindus and Christians clashed, banning each other’s festivals and similar. Christianity’s inexorable desire to make captive every mind on earth means that sooner or later it becomes difficult for even the most tolerant views to live with it. Because it forces everyone to choose, it provokes conflict wherever it goes. See this review for some hint of the complexities of Christianity among the Karen, for example, whose conflict with Buddhism dates back to the 19th century. What’s being played out here today began decades ago…
TC was right to mention China. They share much of the blame for the disaster of Myanmar.
[quote]Since 1988, when Myanmar’s army seized power in a bloody coup, China has been the military junta’s staunchest ally. The ruling junta is shunned by the West for its abysmal human-rights record and for its stubborn refusal to hand power to pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, whose National League for Democracy won around 80% of the seats in the 1990 elections. China has been among the few countries that have refrained from criticizing the ruling generals for the bloody coup or for their utter contempt for democratic norms since then. . .
China is also Myanmar’s most important defense ally, supplying most of its military hardware and training. Over the past decade, China’s military sales to Yangon, which include jet fighters, armored vehicles and naval vessels, have been valued at around $2 billion. This has made the Myanmar military - the second largest in Southeast Asia after Vietnam - much more technically sophisticated. It has enabled the army to expand from 180,000 men to more than 450,000 today. . .[/quote] atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_ … 1Ae01.html
Of course, that military is being used almost exclusively to suppress the country’s own people – not for defense of its borders. And, since they’re such good economic partners – and since China engages in the same sorts of practices – China won’t even speak a word of criticism of Myanmar’s illegitimate rulers. Here’s from last week’s news.
(a) What are the chances of Burma eventually getting annexed by China, a la Tibet?
(b) Why don’t Christians of various countries fund mercenary forces aimed at toppling such states? (If there were a crusade–swastikade?–for Tibet, I’d enlist.)
Another question I would ask along the same line is: Would it be effective / good policy for China to annex Myanmar? They might derive more benefit from the situation by using economic and other forms of indirect imperialism rather than going with the complete annexation route. One example is that through indirect imperialism the pesky business of running the country and keeping its people moderately content is the headache of the junta rather than of China’s leaders.
But what if the democracy movement gathers steam? Then China might not want the uncertainty.
Plus if they can keep military bases in Burma, they can exert control over…oh, pretty much whatever they want, in the long run. (Got lots of surplus males you don’t know what to do with? Send them to return Assam to the motherland!)
quote=“Screaming Jesus” What are the chances of Burma eventually getting annexed by China, a la Tibet?
(b) Why don’t Christians of various countries fund mercenary forces aimed at toppling such states? (If there were a crusade–swastikade?–for Tibet, I’d enlist.)[/quote]
(a) Doubtful. It would bring too much negative press.
(b) Western Christians have historically been apathetic to the plight of oppressed Christians in foreign lands. The Crusades were a fleeting counterexample. Good luck starting one against Tibet.
actually, religion is all about mass delusion and perpetuation of a belief structure for the structure’s sake alone.[/quote]Actually, that’s a description of traditionalism, and only adheres to any particular religion to the extent that it’s a traditional orthodoxy.
actually, religion is all about mass delusion and perpetuation of a belief structure for the structure’s sake alone.[/quote]Actually, that’s a description of traditionalism, and only adheres to any particular religion to the extent that it’s a traditional orthodoxy.
the ‘delusion’ part of my comment still stands, for any and all religions and religious experience.
anyway, how many people come up with their own religion? almost all religious people around the world and through history have used other people’s premises, such as a belief in the existence of this or that god, as the basis for their own religious practice, whether or not that takes place in the confines of an organised religion. that is the basis of the second part of my comment. there would be not more than a few hundred truly original religious belief in the entire history of mankind.
