For me, the fact that belief in a supreme being did not stop people from committing atrocities, and often was, as someone says above, the excuse, is the main issue in discussing theism versus atheism.
That said, whenever someone discusses something a "Buddhist" does, and it is an action antithetical to the teachings of Shakyamuni (AKA "the Buddha"
I really feel I need to say something. Buddhism claimed as a title does not make one a Buddhist. One's belief in respect for all life and one's desire and actions for the happiness of all beings is what makes one a Buddhist. Hence we may call someone a Buddhist even if they themselves call themselves Christian, Muslim, Jewish... or whatever. And by the same token, we do not call people who harm others Buddhists. Hence, if Pol Pot ever respected all life and desired the happiness of all beings, in that moment he was a Buddhist. At the times when he was committing atrocities, he was not a Buddhist.
There are other inaccuracies in this essay with regard to Buddhist sects, but they're not really relevant here. Respect for all life and the desire for the happiness of all people is the core of Buddhism. Anything that goes against that is not Buddhism.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read