A non-aggressive religion?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Baha'i, and some of the neo-Pagan silliness (Wicca, etc) come to mind.

Boru

[Aegon]

If you want to call it a religion, I'd throw Taoism out there. While Islamic and Christian extremists are shooting and bombing one another, I think a Taoist extremist might literally become water.

[AceBoogie]

From my understanding, Taoism, Buddhism and Jainism seem to be pretty relaxed. Satanism is probably one of the least aggressive in the sense that most Satanists probably couldn't care less about you agreeing or disagreeing with them. I think the whole believe or die is mainly a component of the abrahamic religions.

[Anomalocaris]

Different sects of Buddhism have conducted violent and deadly mob actions against each other, for example in South Korea, and Myanmar. where buddhists vastly outnumber muslims, socially, politically and economically absolutely dominant and in no discernible danger from islam, as again in Aung Sun Sui kyi's Myanmar, buddhists mobs are conducting violent pogroms against minority muslims.

[Casca]

Currently, the non aggressive religions are the ones that have died out. At least when people view them as fantasy they suddenly stop carrying out violence in their name.

[emjay]

Different sects of Buddhism have conducted violent and deadly mob actions against each other, for example in South Korea, and Myanmar. where buddhists vastly outnumber muslims, socially, politically and economically absolutely dominant and in no discernible danger from islam, as again in Aung Sun Sui kyi's Myanmar, buddhists mobs are conducting violent pogroms against minority muslims.

If that's the case then imo they're only superficially Buddhists or Buddhism is the lesser influence in some hybrid ideology. Nothing about Buddhism teaches that violence is acceptable, and meditation practice is all about 'not-attachment' to conscious states such as anger... the main cause of violence. Buddhists are fallible just like everyone else but the aim is non-attachment. That said, I don't know anything about how Buddhism is practiced in a religious context. In the western world people who are interested in it basically have to go all in, learning about it and practicing it as a monk would. But in foreign climes if it's the case that there are followers that defer to the monks and basically treat monasteries as churches to go to for guidance, then it might make more sense. In other words, I don't know to what extent the - for want of a better word - peasants in poor Buddhist countries practice the teachings of Buddhism. A monk living in a monastery has time and a peaceful environment to practice meditation all day long if they want, but not everybody has that luxury. So basically what I'm saying is if these mobs you speak of treat Buddhist monks as a higher authority to refer to, but do not actually meditate themselves in the sense of aiming to attain Nirvana... the state of complete non-attachment, then I could understand them not fully understanding the Buddhist message, but if they do meditate and practice it as monks would, I can't see any way that they could consider mob violence acceptable.

[Chad32]

I'd say Christianity and you?

 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength. This is the first commandment.

 And the second is like to it: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is no other commandment greater than these. Mark 12

And yet historically, christians have acted hostile against non christians.

At one point I was under the impression that buddhists were more accepting of people, but apparently even some sects of that will kill people for not being in the in-group.

[Casca]

They may not be physically aggressive, but Buddhists are aggressively sexist.

Women can't achieve nirvana- they must first be reborn as a man, then strive for it.
Nuns have about 100 more rules to follow than monks do.
A nun who has served for a hundred years must still be subservient to a monk who just got ordained that day.

Buddhist celibacy is centered on how women are distractions who are always out to tempt men into sex.

[emjay]

They may not be physically aggressive, but Buddhists are aggressively sexist.

Women can't achieve nirvana- they must first be reborn as a man, then strive for it.
Nuns have about 100 more rules to follow than monks do.
A nun who has served for a hundred years must still be subservient to a monk who just got ordained that day.

Buddhist celibacy is centered on how women are distractions who are always out to tempt men into sex.

Well, as I said, I don't know anything about how it's practiced as a religion. How their monasteries are structured etc. And surely that's different in different sects/variations/countries? All I'm interested in is what the Buddha taught. What I can get from books and based on one of the central tenets that the Buddha taught which was that you see for yourself... it's not about faith in anything unseen, but seeing for yourself because you can only truly understand something if you see it for yourself and that's what the Buddha wanted. So I only take on board Buddhist teachings to the extent that I can see and understand them for myself without belief. So all that arbitrary stuff you're talking about - sexism etc - doesn't fit that definition because it requires belief... anything arbitrary does. So as far as I'm concerned, that's just superstitious etc crap added on through the years, and not what I'm interested in.

---

But I suppose ultimately the message here is that when Buddhism becomes or is treated like a religion - in the sense of having rituals, superstitions, and requiring arbitrary faith/beliefs - then it is just as bad as any other in the damage it can cause... such as sectarian violence.

[vorlon13]

Buddhist celibacy doesn't seem particularly onerous or difficult to me . . .