From the article/her writing: "Today, members and leaders of the Islamic faith actively condemn acts of violence. They speak out against injustices and work together with other Abrahamic faiths in interfaith dialogues to aid the spread of understanding and peace." Translation: "Today, members and leaders of the Islamic faith DO NOT actively condemn any of the acts of violence painted in the Koran in an effort to spread the Islamic faith. They speak out against injustices and work together with other Abrahamic faiths in interfaith dialogues to aid the spread of political propaganda pushing buzzwords like "understanding" and "peace" to gain economic supremacy without having to resort to the means of violence reserved in the Koran as a last resort. Some members and leaders of the Islamic faith may admit that using the Koranically ordained violence as a first resort may not serve the long term political propaganda machine ("dialogue"), which endeavors first to establish peace by inducing submission through a lack of understanding about what is going on. "
It's not just the absence of inequality. Buddhism is the absence of EVERYTHING. By void of everything, you are able to encompass everything. What is the most perfect number? ZERO! Zero is nothing and yet it is everything. It's the same ideal that Buddhism tries to achieve I think. It doesn't seek to be above you or to be above everything else, to be supreme of all, it just wants to be a humble nothing, to be void of obsession and pre-occupations, to be open to everything. As a mentioned before, a close depiction of it is what George Clooney's character in the movie "Up In the Air" (everybody should watch this movie btw, really wonderful movie) was advocating in his speaking engagements, "putting everything away in a backpack and light it on fire and feel how light you feel all of sudden" Buddhism seeks something like that too, breaking away, being void from all harmful obsessions (NOT healthy thoughts like friendship and etc.) I like to also think of Buddhism as like the show Seinfeld. Seinfeld is a show about nothing yet it ended up being a show of everything. LOL Buddhism of course is more complex and sophisticated than those shows and movies but that's the idea.
What are your credentials while floating duplicitous, self-condradicting, and misleading info about what Guatama learned through inquiry? You do understand that everything and nothing are opposites, right? You are aware Guatama said the material world's of form are empty (void, nothing), right?
I am stating what I personally think what Buddhism is to me. We are all here free to discuss religion and I never asked for your credential. And I don't know WHY you are using derogatory adjectives to attack my comments when you just said EXACTLY the same thing as what I just stated in my comments, void of obsessions. If you are not able to stay professional in your comments, then I am done with you.
I have asked YOU to stay professional, or, if you are not a professional Buddhist, to step up to the standards of a consistent philosopher. My credentials are evident in my consistency. I don't take absolute opposites and conflate them together with superstitious sayings. Buddhism is plagued with misrepresentations almost as bad as Christianity. Having overcome the superstitions of Christianity, it is easy to see how Buddhism is twisted beyond recognition. The bedrock of a good philosopher is you don't mix opposites together and call it good. If you are going to make emphatic statements about Buddism, then I will insist you come up to this standard. In Buddism, nothing means NO THING, from Guatama's emphasis that all form is EMPTY. By contrast, whatever is opposite of THINGS is what is FULL (not null, not void, not zero). Obsessions are an aspect of being surrounded by things. If things are null, so are obsessions. It looks to me like your obsession with zero is also null and void. It's about existence. If you exist, and you are the only existing existence to exist, then you are "everything", or to use other words, you are "all that is". Being "humble to be nothing" doesn't even come into consideration under the circumstances of prime existence...athough it may take some humility to overcome ones obsession with being a thing (human).
Credential is not needed to comment on a religion called Buddhism. I am not a "professional" Buddhist although if you are a true Buddhist, you know that there is no such thing as "professional" Buddhist. Some may choose to dedicate more of their lives practicing Buddhism but anybody can choose to believe and/or practice Buddhism in any degree. Buddhism is NOT an elitist religion nor does it have any "standard" as you advocate. It is more of a philosophy as I have stated previously so it's egalitarian and accommodates all and is compassionate to all. From the way how you choose to attack me viciously of my personal view of Buddhism, that is not very compassionate at all so I highly doubt that you are a believer of Buddhism. If you are, you need to study the teaching of Buddhism more and better. I am NOT trying to twist Buddhism in any way, just expressing what I think what Buddhism is to me and how it is NOWHERE as similar to Islam which is what the OP of this thread advocates. I hope you are not Fa Lun Gong because they are the BIGGEST desecration of Buddhism. If you are, then I want nothing to do with you and will be ignoring you from now on.
My guess is there are always some truly religious people, among the believers within a religious group, stand up and help the the weak, needy and poor. Even against many other believers' stance. Just human nature! Truly Jesus' spirit! Perhaps simply Human spirit!
I am supportive of any religious group that helps the weak, needy and poor. But firstly, its not necessary to belong to a religion in order to help the weak, needy and poor. Secondly, when a religious group does help the weak, needy and poor, there is inevitably a bias within their efforts towards conversion of those people from their present religion to the helpers' religion: so their efforts may not be entirely charitable. Thirdly, going back to my original point, I'm not weak, needy or poor. I just expect treatment as an equal. I still feel I am going to be treated less favourably because of their religion (not mine, theirs). This inference is borne out by your response to my post on how uncomfortable I feel dealing with very religious people - you went straight on to the post about the weak, needy and poor - people who can be and are widely looked down on - that's just how I feel next to very religious people - they are or are seeking ways to look down on me. and I don't like it.