GENIUS FORUMS

First of all, before I get too carried away...

Has anyone heard of any wars fought over Taoism?

I never have. I find this ironic because Taoism seems to be the only religion that doesnt condemn war & conflict - yet you never see much conflict and war surround taoist beliefs.

Interestingly enough - confusianism stresses the importance of peace quite sternly. And has there not been many wars fought in the name of confusianism?

The other day I was talking with some guys at work about the Lebanon, Israel, Hezbollah conflict.

It seems the the essence of the conflict lies rooted in Islamic beliefs.

And Islamic beliefs stress peace quite strongly, no? Amusingly ironic.

Suprisingly, even Buddhist ideology has spawned some wars.

But, as far as I'm aware, taoism has not really led to any major conflict.

Could it be because of the obsurity and slipperiness of the oriental religion that makes it so difficult for people to exploit and thus create a reason for war?

Yes, it seems many organized religions have books such as the old or new testament or the Kuran which dictate rigid rules for people to follow.

And the problem arises when a weak mind reads these rigid rules and values them emotionally to the point that these rules become part of their identity or ego.

And then when another human or group of humans comes along that have digested a different or slightly different set of rigid rules then the whole mess of separation begins.

And also the identification to people is important here as well. for instance: A Christian has a strong emotional investment in the image of Jesus whereas a Muslim has a strong emotional investment to Allah or Mohummand or what have you.

It is interesting that you mention Taoism because it is one of the only religions that doesn’t have one human being or godhead as the symbol for that religion. I think this is quite significant.

There is nothing to identify with in Taoism, so there very little danger of violence occuring.

But ultimately the culprit is a weak psyche that becomes emotionally involved in false images, concepts and beliefs.

Cory Patrick wrote:Could it be because of the obscurity and slipperiness of the oriental religion that makes it so difficult for people to exploit and thus create a reason for war?

There are enough examples of Buddhist and Hindu wars.

But never mind, religion only serves here to mask the deeper instincts that ferment war. And you can see at times religious feelings consciously exploited by leaders to fuel the rage of the masses, to motivate self-sacrifice. Nationalism in that sense is religion too.

Some wars, also the 'religious' ones are easier to explain in terms of the drive to conquer, the great spreading, and in other cases as means to escape decline, a way for a state-body to survive or channel its dangerous self-destructive anxieties outwards, often without success. I suspect in ancient times they used ritual human sacrifice for the same purpose.

Taoism, "black and white" as it is, might be just not colorful enough to use as camouflage for the warmongers.

Instead of saying, "[the] slipperiness of the oriental religion", I should have said "[the] slipperiness of taoism.

I never really related Buddhism/india to the word: 'oriental'.

Although, Buddhism/india is considered oriental isnt it? Certainly it is not occidental. And there is only two right?

Oriental, for me, had always conjured images of japanese and chinease people.

Anyway, tedious trivial banter regardless.

The bottomline is that Buddhism isnt obscure and slippery like taoism. Buddhism is fairly direct and provides bars to grip onto.

I also feel that a religion engenders violence to the degree that it offers a promise of personal immortality.

There havent been too many wars over buddhism and hinduism and that is because its promise of personal immortality isnt as gratifiying as Christianity or islamic religions.