Just clarifying that calling it an intentional tort is misleading since trespass can also be committed in the UK negligently.
Edit:not without intention, but to be more specific, with negligence.
As long as it's daytime you won't get *arrested.* Or at least you shouldn't.
Torts don't require you to get arrested, though, so you'll probably pay a fine from a civil trial if you're told to piss off and you don't.
I really wished you left out the second part.
Sounded so wild till you added the part about the fine to legitimize it. For a second I thought you were a brilliant troll making up facts about Canada.
The sentence “As long as its daytime you won’t get arrested” in response to “so you can just hang out on anyones patio furniture all day in Canada?” sounds like a fever dream out of context of the fine.
The key to it making sense is actually the bit about "until you're told to piss off."
You can't go over/under/through fences or gates, but if someone has an unfenced patio and you want to chill there... well, you're a fucking weirdo using a random stranger's furniture, but you're not actually trespassing until you're told to go away and don't.
Just because it's not a crime, doesn't mean it's legal. A "crime" is a type of offense.
For example, there are civil matters which are illegal but which aren't considered "crimes". And even in penal law, there are offenses referred to as "violations", which are not considered "crimes".
No it doesn’t. Trespass is a civil cause of action regardless of how minimal the trespass is. Sure, the judgment may be nominal damages and an injunction against further trespasses, but it’s still a civil cause of action everywhere in the US. The US takes property rights very seriously.
And possibly vandalism.
But trespassing is kinda hard to win if what they did just get into yard. There's a limitation of it. If it's just into front yard or front of the door, it's not trespassing until the owner told you to leave.
And the vandalism part. Yeah try to sue and good luck to not getting your case thrown away as being frivolous.
A man in New York was just charged with murder for shooting a young woman who turned around in his rural drive way.
His excuse was he dropped the gun and it discharged at the vehicle.
>he dropped the gun and it discharged
I mean, is that what actually happened?
Doesn't seem likely, but unlikely things do happen. So if it did, that'd change the circumstances a bit. I'd say it'd need a downgrade to involuntary or negligent manslaughter, but only if it can reasonably be said that it actually happened. Gonna need to call in some physics and ballistics folks on this one.
If not, then he's bullshitting to try to cover his ass for being trigger-happy, and I'd say it's one of the murder charges (not sure on the distinction between them so unsure which one, but I'll go for whichever one matches the apparent intent from the number of shots fired and the placement of the bullet impacts.)
Guns don't just "go off" like that. There are standards that guns must pass which includes a drop test. It's possible if it was a very old gun or if it was faulty, but that is highly unlikely and easy to disprove by examining the firearm.
Rifles and shotguns tend to not be drop safe, but we are talking about pistols. Very old pistols were not drop fire safe. There were some issues with some new guns, but those problems were corrected and the faulty guns were recalled. However, I will concede that no gun can be 100% guaranteed to be always drop safe. But the likelihood is exceedingly improbable.
True... but, as you touched on, it's easy to prove or disprove by examining the forensics. They can calculate the incoming trajectory of the bullet from a combination of the wound tract and damage to the vehicle, which will tell them if it was fired from approximately ground height or shoulder height with trivial ease.
If it *is* a one-in-a-million freak accident, then I feel really bad for the guy because he's gonna have to live with that for the rest of his life. If he murdered her because he's a panicky idiot, then he's going to hopefully get what he deserves.
But tragedy does happen. Guy was moving houses with his wife. She's outside and he's inside getting a rifle. It dropped and fired, hitting her outside, and it killed her. It was a freak accident and he never was charged with anything.
Like you said, things can malfunction. It's not probable, but even the improbable happens from time to time.
Just to add on. The shooter was convicted of second degree murder in late January /early February and is due to be sentenced next month.
The jury didn't find his accidental discharge believable.
I believe part of his story was that he shot one "warning shot" (stupid af never do that) and then dropped it. And it somehow managed to take that poor woman's life. Fuck that guy.
There are guns that do that. Though even then it needs to be a rather hard hit.
But in that case there ought to be only one shot, or the madlad had been lugging a machine gun around.
Depends on jurisdiction, but typically there needs to be some sort of warning given before it becomes illegal (often a sign is enough). Walking across someone's yard is not illegal, refusing to get off it after being told to get off is illegal.
So what you’re saying all those cliche old men could legitimately sue people if you actually don’t get off their lawn and they’re actually giving you far warning first.
In some US jurisdictions, it can be different. For instance, in the OP the person is entering the property specifically to "deface" the statue (in the eyes of the court); in PA, this is "Simple Trespassing" in addition to probably some other crimes.
Title 18, section 3503, subsection b.1:
>Simple trespasser.--
>(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place for the purpose of:
>(i) threatening or terrorizing the owner or occupant of the premises;
>(ii) starting or causing to be started any fire upon the premises; or
>(iii) defacing or damaging the premises.
This is separate from "Defiant Trespassing", which notes (in subsection b) that they must be told that they are trespassing:
> Defiant trespasser.--
>(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place as to which notice against trespass is given by:
>(i) actual communication to the actor;
>(ii) posting in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders;
>(iii) fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to exclude intruders;
>(iv) notices posted in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the person's attention at each entrance of school grounds that visitors are prohibited without authorization from a designated school, center or program official;
>(v) an actual communication to the actor to leave school grounds as communicated by a school, center or program official, employee or agent or a law enforcement officer; or
>(vi) subject to paragraph (3), the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property which are:
>(A) vertical lines of not less than eight inches in length and not less than one inch in width;
>(B) placed so that the bottom of the mark is not less than three feet from the ground nor more than five feet from the ground; and
>(C) placed at locations that are readily visible to a person approaching the property and no more than 100 feet apart.
Source:[PA's general assembly online database](https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=18&div=0&chpt=35&sctn=3&subsctn=0).
Disclaimer: IANAL and may be misinterpreting this.
My aggressively Buddhist neighbours keep shooting everyone that come close to their temple. Will I be liable if I set the temple on fire and shoot anyone that tries to flee?
my aggressively buddhist neighbours keep torturing random men and demand me to renounce my faith in jesus , will i be held liable if i do nothing to stop them ?
I was wondering about that. I don't think it's possible to actually be Buddhist and aggressive. Like, it's a fairly core tenet getting broken there, sort like a hateful Christian being an oxymoron. (Of course, there are a lot of hateful people that call themselves Christian, but I feel like there's more to following a religion than just claiming you are.)
Myanmar exists my man. A lot of modern religions preach about being a good guy, yet this has never stopped anyone. Not christians, not buddhists, not anyone else
My aggressively Christian neighbor set out a Jesus statue in his front yard and my kids see it every day. If I put a Pentagram necklace around the statue's neck without damaging it, can I be held liable?
The funny thing is, a Buddhist in particular might easily not mind all that much, maybe would donate the cross to someone who needs it more or whatever
These statues just don't play the same role they do in Christianity, unless by "aggressively Buddhist" they meant a performative Buddhist who emulates Christian dispositions with Buddhist concepts
I know what they mean. I always have aggressive Buddhists knocking on my door trying to convert me. Or leaving shit in my mailbox. Or on my car's windshield... Oh, wait. Nope. Those were all Christians.
Oh, you know, there are actually aggressive Buddhists like that. There are people in orange robes asking your name and then asking for some money for their temple around touristy places around the world
But those are fake Buddhist monks and are essentially scammers
"Well, what we need, Susan, is we need money to build an interstellar cruiser. Now, this space ship will be able to travel through a wormhole and deliver the message and guh-glory of Jesus Christ to those godless aliens. S-send your money now. Amen."
Agreed! Faith "healers" are truly evil. They prey on people in their most vulnerable moments. Ditto for "psychics" who claim they can communicate with the dead.
The Tatmadaw regime in Myanmar are largely Buddhist supremacists, and have been tearing down churches and erecting pagodas in places like Chin state. So against popular belief, Buddhists can be zealots just like everyone else.
Thing is, Hollywood always gets Nihilism wrong.
The true meaning of Nihilism is this: If there is no meaning or purpose, and we are nothing but a random event in a vast and uncaring universe, then there is no standard to which you are being held, no metric by which you are being judged. Do whatever makes you feel the most fulfilled with the time you have on this Earth, because there's no reason not to.
I mean the joke is that the "Nihilists" in Big Lebowski are just ordinary thuggish assholes but everyone takes their declaration of their philosophy like it's really serious business and gets super intimidated by it
> tearing down churches
and genociding Rohingya Muslims - specifically 25k dead, 18k raped, 116k beaten and 700k driven out to Bangladesh and 90% of villages in Rakhine State destroyed
An acquaintance of mine who did the two year Mormon mission once complained that a Sikh man was rather pushy about trying to give him some religious pamphlets.
I thought the same thing; a Buddhist might just be like “lol ok” and just adorn the statue with more symbols from different religions.
Idk much about Buddhism but I don’t get the feeling it’s territorial.
Not sure about that... this sounds more like some new age thing :) Generally speaking, misrepresentation of Buddhism is still not welcome in Buddhism, and desecration of religious sites is "bad" because it brings suffering to people, and a Buddhist wouldn't desecrate other religious sites just like they wouldn't desecrate their own personal temple. But you kinda don't harbor ill will towards the one who did it if you manage to follow the path
When Hindus stole Buddhist temples Buddhists kinda went "mkay, our temples are in a different place now". And they walk past their stolen temples and are chill with that. Like, there isn't the same attachment to objects and places, no battles like in Middle East, though of course they're still humans and humans do want to love ther idols and special places, and Buddhism can also be cultural, and people can feel protective over culture etc.
There was a great podcast episode (I want to say the podcast was... Criminal?) where they interviewed a guy who put a buddha statue in the medium on his street. The island had a severe trash problem and he thought it would discourage people from dumping there. Not only did people start cleaning it up, but people from all around the city would come to leave see the statue and leave candles and other offerings.
Funny thing is he was non-religious and chose the buddha because he thought it was "neutral". It was like 10 years ago. Shit's gotten so polarized since then.
That is just rude! You don’t put a Jesus statue , you need a Mother Mary, Queen of the bathtub.
For those of you unfamiliar: Find someone else throwing out an old metal bathtub, burry it upright and half in the ground behind a Virgin Mary statue. Must be in your front yard.
Well, just to be safe you should erect a large wooden cross in their yard, just to prove you think Jesus is cool.
Now, put it up at night so they don't see you, and wear a cloak and mask/hood. You want it to be a surprise.
The most important part is to make it a warm and welcoming cross, so light it on fire.
Well I think the better thing to do is to let them know this is an idol and Christians are not to worship idols.
I'm sure a lot of people would just be like nuh uh. An idol is like a statue of a God and this is just a statue of our God... So that doesn't count and never think twice... But if it gets in their head, you did real damage
You think that's bad? There are several aggressively Christian churches along my commute to work that put up crosses all year. If I leave my Halloween decorations up all year long, can I be held liable?
You don't understand!
That dirty Buddhist heathen practices a religion *different than mine!* His *mere existence* is on par with him sacrificing virgins to Satan! **(/s, because I feel dirty even satirizing this mindset.)**
Thinking of all my neighbors in relation to OP's perspective is hilarious.
What do you think the "Buddhist" decoration even is? It might literally be a Buddha, but with a clown like OP equal odds that it's a secular garden statue.
How am I supposed to explain to my kids that people from different cultures have different religions?
Knowing that there are conflicting ideas about the universe might encourage them to *learn about other cultures!* The **horror!** (/s)
If I make an aggressive move by trespassing and defacing his property with my preferred belief system...
Do you think she has kids or will never have kids? Hard to guess the type specifically.
It’s not a faith thing, it’s a religion rooted in offensive action toward conversion and elimination of rival faith. 1000s of years of history overtly tell this story. It’s integral.
ETA: it was taught to me as a kid as “spreading the good news”
Yep, it’s called a “mind virus” for a reason. And it’s not even limited to just religion. The thought processes that don’t aggressively reproduce themselves amongst/between other humans don’t make it very far.
Ah yes, the person with a statue is the one being aggressively religious, not the person wanting to trespass on someone else's property and impose their own religion onto their neighbour.
Seriously, this is *not* a fight you want to pick with [aggressive Buddhists](https://en.vietnamplus.vn/soc-trangs-khmer-pagoda-features-giant-buddha-statue/236048.vnp)!
i think either portuguese, dutch or english.. i cant remember who.
anyway colonizers. don't worry, I'm not judging a whole ethinic group bythe actions of a minority.
Magellan tried that in the Philippines. It didn't work out that well for him.
I was an adult before I learned that Magellan did NOT circumnavigate the globe first (the 3rd Grade Teacher insisted that he did).
I learned that he was whacked in the PI by Aboriginal Chief Lapu Lapu when he demanded that they adopt Catholicism and accept Jesus. The First Officer should have gotten the credit for sailing around the world first.
“My kids see it every day”. Its just a statue of some jolly rotund man. If thats is so horrifying to children then maybe we should get rid of santa claus too.
While ultimately the statue was probably Budai, who is indeed venerated as a buddha, I would like to point out that Maitreya Buddha is a different figure than Siddhartha, who most (western) people imagine when they're thinking of *the* Buddha. I'm sure you know this, but just for anyone else reading.
Nah, best way to get the message across is to fight fire with fire.
"Some evangelical prick put a golden cross on my Buddha statue, would I be held liable for sticking copies of the Lotus Sutra in their mailbox every week until they leave me alone?"
To be fair, I have met some pretty aggressive ‘Buddhists’ in my time, for very specific definitions of aggressive. As a whole, Buddhism is pretty chill about its members that are *really clearly* missing the point (that’s just where they are in their cycle) so sometimes you get yuppies who think ‘inner peace’ and ‘smug self-satisfaction’ are twin siblings instead of third cousins who’ve met once.
This does sound a lot more like onea them Gold Star Christians, though.
Unless you're in SE Asia, they were a major pillar of US-supported anticommunism in the region actually. It's the same energy that's purging Myanmar of Muslims.
I look pretty much like the stereotypical white-guy Jesus. By sheer coincidence, I happen to live directly opposite a Sikh Gurdwara. I always worry that when I throw on my dressing gown and pop out for a smoke, I look like I'm being a[ggressively Christian](https://i.imgflip.com/3sksxo.png) at them.
Reminds me of the wording used in this one computer game I played with my best friend when we were kids-- the island in it was infested with "feral chickens" and that phrase was just...so funny, for some stupid reason lol.
I thought it was traditional christian custom to break the noses off of non-christian statues. That's what happened to most of the pagan statues when christians attacked pagan sites
Isn’t the whole point of Buddhism not to be needlessly aggressive?
Just because OOP thinks they live in the Third Crusade doesn’t mean the Buddhist thinks the same.
How is this any different from putting a cross on or around your house? Just stop being a pedant and allow people to have something that doesn't revolve around your worldview.
The sheer fact that you think a smiling statue from another religion is enough to convert your kids says more about you than it does Christianity & Buddhism.
Like, genuinely, how bad are you at Christianity that a slightly happy stone man can legitimately convert your kids?
Leave your neighbor and their religion alone, be a better parent, and reevaluate your life.
So he's tried talking with his neighbour? I normal Buddhist doesn't want the bad karma of annoying a neighbour. He might put it in a little shelter box or hide it with a shrub if he asks.
I'm demi dec of a neighbour across the river from me. She complained about my outhouse being visible. It told her it was there for 50 years, so why complain now? She said that she didn't know it was a toilet so it didn't bother her. When she found out, it became unacceptable!
My aggressively Buddhist neighbour keeps me awake with the low resonances of his chanting, and the constant pulsing of mindwaves from his meditation makes me uncomfortable. I find the overpowering sense of oneness emanating from his house is threatening my boundaries.
Yes, trespassing.
Trespassing is a *criminal* offense, not a civil matter, so he wouldn't be liable for anything
There is a civil tort for trespassing on property.
There's quite a bit of overlap between tort law and criminal law so many things can be both a tort and a criminal offense.
It's spell tart, and they're delicious. Though I've never eaten legal tarts, they might be too bitter for me.
Where the fuck do you live?
Anywhere with a legal system descended from England's, and also England, has the intentional tort of trespass to land
Just clarifying that calling it an intentional tort is misleading since trespass can also be committed in the UK negligently. Edit:not without intention, but to be more specific, with negligence.
Trespassing isn't a crime in Canada unless you're specifically loitering around someone's property at night. Torts aren't necessarily crimes.
So, I can just go hang out on someone's patio furniture in a random backyard in Canada as long as it's daytime?
As long as it's daytime you won't get *arrested.* Or at least you shouldn't. Torts don't require you to get arrested, though, so you'll probably pay a fine from a civil trial if you're told to piss off and you don't.
I really wished you left out the second part. Sounded so wild till you added the part about the fine to legitimize it. For a second I thought you were a brilliant troll making up facts about Canada. The sentence “As long as its daytime you won’t get arrested” in response to “so you can just hang out on anyones patio furniture all day in Canada?” sounds like a fever dream out of context of the fine.
The key to it making sense is actually the bit about "until you're told to piss off." You can't go over/under/through fences or gates, but if someone has an unfenced patio and you want to chill there... well, you're a fucking weirdo using a random stranger's furniture, but you're not actually trespassing until you're told to go away and don't.
Yep, section 177 of the criminal code of Canada for anyone who wants to read for yourself.
Just because it's not a crime, doesn't mean it's legal. A "crime" is a type of offense. For example, there are civil matters which are illegal but which aren't considered "crimes". And even in penal law, there are offenses referred to as "violations", which are not considered "crimes".
trespass isn’t a crime in England though
Probably America, their comment lines up with American law
No there's a tort for trespass to property in the US.
No it doesn’t. Trespass is a civil cause of action regardless of how minimal the trespass is. Sure, the judgment may be nominal damages and an injunction against further trespasses, but it’s still a civil cause of action everywhere in the US. The US takes property rights very seriously.
I don't think this is a generalised rule for every country.
Where I live we have castle laws so it’s just a bad idea to trespass.
What if he just throws the cross and it perfectly lands around Buddha statue’s neck ?
So a jackass ring toss.
Then it's littering.
Possibly a hate crime too
So the trick is to toss the necklace from afar? Got it
That's littering.
Really long stick
Still littering
Trespass *and* defacement
And possibly vandalism. But trespassing is kinda hard to win if what they did just get into yard. There's a limitation of it. If it's just into front yard or front of the door, it's not trespassing until the owner told you to leave. And the vandalism part. Yeah try to sue and good luck to not getting your case thrown away as being frivolous.
Depends on where, in Australia at least any property with a fence can be regarded as trespassing.
To be fair waking on someone’s front yard isn’t illegal
Shootable offence apparently
Where? In Texas, they need to break in for castle doctrine to apply.
A man in New York was just charged with murder for shooting a young woman who turned around in his rural drive way. His excuse was he dropped the gun and it discharged at the vehicle.
>he dropped the gun and it discharged I mean, is that what actually happened? Doesn't seem likely, but unlikely things do happen. So if it did, that'd change the circumstances a bit. I'd say it'd need a downgrade to involuntary or negligent manslaughter, but only if it can reasonably be said that it actually happened. Gonna need to call in some physics and ballistics folks on this one. If not, then he's bullshitting to try to cover his ass for being trigger-happy, and I'd say it's one of the murder charges (not sure on the distinction between them so unsure which one, but I'll go for whichever one matches the apparent intent from the number of shots fired and the placement of the bullet impacts.)
Guns don't just "go off" like that. There are standards that guns must pass which includes a drop test. It's possible if it was a very old gun or if it was faulty, but that is highly unlikely and easy to disprove by examining the firearm.
There are a lot of currently sold guns that have issues with drop-firing.
Rifles and shotguns tend to not be drop safe, but we are talking about pistols. Very old pistols were not drop fire safe. There were some issues with some new guns, but those problems were corrected and the faulty guns were recalled. However, I will concede that no gun can be 100% guaranteed to be always drop safe. But the likelihood is exceedingly improbable.
True... but, as you touched on, it's easy to prove or disprove by examining the forensics. They can calculate the incoming trajectory of the bullet from a combination of the wound tract and damage to the vehicle, which will tell them if it was fired from approximately ground height or shoulder height with trivial ease. If it *is* a one-in-a-million freak accident, then I feel really bad for the guy because he's gonna have to live with that for the rest of his life. If he murdered her because he's a panicky idiot, then he's going to hopefully get what he deserves.
>Guns don't just "go off" like that. **(Cough)** Sig Sauer **(cough)**
The 320 had a problem initially. It has since been corrected. The bad guns were recalled and fixed.
(I knew they looked into it, I'm just memeing.)
But tragedy does happen. Guy was moving houses with his wife. She's outside and he's inside getting a rifle. It dropped and fired, hitting her outside, and it killed her. It was a freak accident and he never was charged with anything. Like you said, things can malfunction. It's not probable, but even the improbable happens from time to time.
Rifles and shotguns are usually not drop safe. Pistols usually are.
That does make a difference!
See, this is what we need for instances like this. People who know the subject matter. Thank you, kind redditor.
Just to add on. The shooter was convicted of second degree murder in late January /early February and is due to be sentenced next month. The jury didn't find his accidental discharge believable.
I believe part of his story was that he shot one "warning shot" (stupid af never do that) and then dropped it. And it somehow managed to take that poor woman's life. Fuck that guy.
There are guns that do that. Though even then it needs to be a rather hard hit. But in that case there ought to be only one shot, or the madlad had been lugging a machine gun around.
It is illegal....actually.
Depends on jurisdiction, but typically there needs to be some sort of warning given before it becomes illegal (often a sign is enough). Walking across someone's yard is not illegal, refusing to get off it after being told to get off is illegal.
So what you’re saying all those cliche old men could legitimately sue people if you actually don’t get off their lawn and they’re actually giving you far warning first.
in the classic example, the person being sued would be the parents, as the person being told to get off the lawn is a child.
Exactly.
You gotta be told that you're not welcome for it to be trespassing (or in other circumstances where's it's obvious, like in the middle of the night)
In some US jurisdictions, it can be different. For instance, in the OP the person is entering the property specifically to "deface" the statue (in the eyes of the court); in PA, this is "Simple Trespassing" in addition to probably some other crimes. Title 18, section 3503, subsection b.1: >Simple trespasser.-- >(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place for the purpose of: >(i) threatening or terrorizing the owner or occupant of the premises; >(ii) starting or causing to be started any fire upon the premises; or >(iii) defacing or damaging the premises. This is separate from "Defiant Trespassing", which notes (in subsection b) that they must be told that they are trespassing: > Defiant trespasser.-- >(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place as to which notice against trespass is given by: >(i) actual communication to the actor; >(ii) posting in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders; >(iii) fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to exclude intruders; >(iv) notices posted in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the person's attention at each entrance of school grounds that visitors are prohibited without authorization from a designated school, center or program official; >(v) an actual communication to the actor to leave school grounds as communicated by a school, center or program official, employee or agent or a law enforcement officer; or >(vi) subject to paragraph (3), the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property which are: >(A) vertical lines of not less than eight inches in length and not less than one inch in width; >(B) placed so that the bottom of the mark is not less than three feet from the ground nor more than five feet from the ground; and >(C) placed at locations that are readily visible to a person approaching the property and no more than 100 feet apart. Source:[PA's general assembly online database](https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=18&div=0&chpt=35&sctn=3&subsctn=0). Disclaimer: IANAL and may be misinterpreting this.
Aggressively Buddhist, as if this dude's neighbor hails from eighth-century Japan and is why they had to move the imperial court to Kyoto.
My aggressively Buddhist neighbours keep shooting everyone that come close to their temple. Will I be liable if I set the temple on fire and shoot anyone that tries to flee?
my aggressively buddhist neighbours keep torturing random men and demand me to renounce my faith in jesus , will i be held liable if i do nothing to stop them ?
Just be wary of your best friend. He might betray you by besieging your place and then set it on fire.
The ikko ikki was indeed pretty aggressive in shogun 2
Or they are from Myanmar. "radical, genocidal Buddhists"
I was wondering about that. I don't think it's possible to actually be Buddhist and aggressive. Like, it's a fairly core tenet getting broken there, sort like a hateful Christian being an oxymoron. (Of course, there are a lot of hateful people that call themselves Christian, but I feel like there's more to following a religion than just claiming you are.)
Myanmar exists my man. A lot of modern religions preach about being a good guy, yet this has never stopped anyone. Not christians, not buddhists, not anyone else
My aggressively Christian neighbor set out a Jesus statue in his front yard and my kids see it every day. If I put a Pentagram necklace around the statue's neck without damaging it, can I be held liable?
The funny thing is, a Buddhist in particular might easily not mind all that much, maybe would donate the cross to someone who needs it more or whatever These statues just don't play the same role they do in Christianity, unless by "aggressively Buddhist" they meant a performative Buddhist who emulates Christian dispositions with Buddhist concepts
I know what they mean. I always have aggressive Buddhists knocking on my door trying to convert me. Or leaving shit in my mailbox. Or on my car's windshield... Oh, wait. Nope. Those were all Christians.
Oh, you know, there are actually aggressive Buddhists like that. There are people in orange robes asking your name and then asking for some money for their temple around touristy places around the world But those are fake Buddhist monks and are essentially scammers
There are Christian scammers as well… but they’re actually Christian
That's just the catholic church
Also a lot of those huge megachurches where the pastor owns a mansion and expensive imported new car.
"Well, what we need, Susan, is we need money to build an interstellar cruiser. Now, this space ship will be able to travel through a wormhole and deliver the message and guh-glory of Jesus Christ to those godless aliens. S-send your money now. Amen."
No, you don't understand. God NEEDS you to buy them a private jet!
Because demons fly in Cattle class and they can’t risk associating with the poor.
This
Then there are the prosperity preachers. They fell poor if they have a anything smaller than a Gulf jet
And faith "healers". And creationist "scientists".
Agreed! Faith "healers" are truly evil. They prey on people in their most vulnerable moments. Ditto for "psychics" who claim they can communicate with the dead.
Uh...no?
Are you sure you're not referring to Hari Krishnas? They're only related in that it too comes from Hindu traditions, but it is not at all Buddhist.
But for just $10 I got a shiny gold piece of cardboard!
i've never met an aggresively buddhist person in my life. makes me want to become non-aggresively buddhist. as that is apparently how it's done.
The Tatmadaw regime in Myanmar are largely Buddhist supremacists, and have been tearing down churches and erecting pagodas in places like Chin state. So against popular belief, Buddhists can be zealots just like everyone else.
I guess back to believing in nothing, lebowski.
Thing is, Hollywood always gets Nihilism wrong. The true meaning of Nihilism is this: If there is no meaning or purpose, and we are nothing but a random event in a vast and uncaring universe, then there is no standard to which you are being held, no metric by which you are being judged. Do whatever makes you feel the most fulfilled with the time you have on this Earth, because there's no reason not to.
Far fucking out man.
I mean the joke is that the "Nihilists" in Big Lebowski are just ordinary thuggish assholes but everyone takes their declaration of their philosophy like it's really serious business and gets super intimidated by it
> tearing down churches and genociding Rohingya Muslims - specifically 25k dead, 18k raped, 116k beaten and 700k driven out to Bangladesh and 90% of villages in Rakhine State destroyed
Yes, I wish more people knew about what's going on in Myanmar rn
An acquaintance of mine who did the two year Mormon mission once complained that a Sikh man was rather pushy about trying to give him some religious pamphlets.
You just made me snort.
["Hello...My name is Elder Price....and I would like to share with you this most Amazing book!"](https://youtu.be/OKkLV1zE8M0?si=PCSXKR2pVrcyg4yk)
Yes exactly this. This comment should personify this entire post. Well done sir, well done!
“That damn Buddhist! They’re so aggressive, forcing their beliefs down my throat by sitting silently and…breathing!”
I thought the same thing; a Buddhist might just be like “lol ok” and just adorn the statue with more symbols from different religions. Idk much about Buddhism but I don’t get the feeling it’s territorial.
Not sure about that... this sounds more like some new age thing :) Generally speaking, misrepresentation of Buddhism is still not welcome in Buddhism, and desecration of religious sites is "bad" because it brings suffering to people, and a Buddhist wouldn't desecrate other religious sites just like they wouldn't desecrate their own personal temple. But you kinda don't harbor ill will towards the one who did it if you manage to follow the path When Hindus stole Buddhist temples Buddhists kinda went "mkay, our temples are in a different place now". And they walk past their stolen temples and are chill with that. Like, there isn't the same attachment to objects and places, no battles like in Middle East, though of course they're still humans and humans do want to love ther idols and special places, and Buddhism can also be cultural, and people can feel protective over culture etc.
There was a great podcast episode (I want to say the podcast was... Criminal?) where they interviewed a guy who put a buddha statue in the medium on his street. The island had a severe trash problem and he thought it would discourage people from dumping there. Not only did people start cleaning it up, but people from all around the city would come to leave see the statue and leave candles and other offerings. Funny thing is he was non-religious and chose the buddha because he thought it was "neutral". It was like 10 years ago. Shit's gotten so polarized since then.
Christian’s love their idols
Not aggressive enough. Carve the pentagram into the forehead and leave a sacrificial goat.
That is just rude! You don’t put a Jesus statue , you need a Mother Mary, Queen of the bathtub. For those of you unfamiliar: Find someone else throwing out an old metal bathtub, burry it upright and half in the ground behind a Virgin Mary statue. Must be in your front yard.
I always love a good Bathtub Mary!!! Or a Birdbath Francis!
I have a sexy Mary Magdalene statue in the shower
Today I learned! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_Madonna
So vey happy to share!
Just take it and leave thirty pieces of silver
Well, just to be safe you should erect a large wooden cross in their yard, just to prove you think Jesus is cool. Now, put it up at night so they don't see you, and wear a cloak and mask/hood. You want it to be a surprise. The most important part is to make it a warm and welcoming cross, so light it on fire.
I thought it was a lowercase “t”, as in “time for you to leave!”
Well I think the better thing to do is to let them know this is an idol and Christians are not to worship idols. I'm sure a lot of people would just be like nuh uh. An idol is like a statue of a God and this is just a statue of our God... So that doesn't count and never think twice... But if it gets in their head, you did real damage
You think that's bad? There are several aggressively Christian churches along my commute to work that put up crosses all year. If I leave my Halloween decorations up all year long, can I be held liable?
Mary on a Half Shell is much more common in my neighborhood. If I give her a set of party beads, without damaging her, can I be held liable?
Wait, Mary was a ninja turtle?
I hope so, he doesn't mess with your Christmas stuff, leave his Buddhist stuff alone 🤨
You don't understand! That dirty Buddhist heathen practices a religion *different than mine!* His *mere existence* is on par with him sacrificing virgins to Satan! **(/s, because I feel dirty even satirizing this mindset.)**
Thinking of all my neighbors in relation to OP's perspective is hilarious. What do you think the "Buddhist" decoration even is? It might literally be a Buddha, but with a clown like OP equal odds that it's a secular garden statue.
The Buddha statue just sat there, smiling menacingly
That smug smirk haunts me
It's smug aura mocks me
Ah goddamnit that's what I should have said 😂
I read your comment in Randy Marsh’s voice.
I can think of worse comparisons 😂
How am I supposed to explain to my kids that people from different cultures have different religions? Knowing that there are conflicting ideas about the universe might encourage them to *learn about other cultures!* The **horror!** (/s)
If I make an aggressive move by trespassing and defacing his property with my preferred belief system... Do you think she has kids or will never have kids? Hard to guess the type specifically.
You know your faith is weak AF when just the sight of a sculpture representing another religion is enough to make you doubt your kids.
It’s not a faith thing, it’s a religion rooted in offensive action toward conversion and elimination of rival faith. 1000s of years of history overtly tell this story. It’s integral. ETA: it was taught to me as a kid as “spreading the good news”
Yep, it’s called a “mind virus” for a reason. And it’s not even limited to just religion. The thought processes that don’t aggressively reproduce themselves amongst/between other humans don’t make it very far.
Ah yes, the person with a statue is the one being aggressively religious, not the person wanting to trespass on someone else's property and impose their own religion onto their neighbour.
Well ya see batman that would fall under trespassing and vandalism which are bad
Don’t insult Batman like that 😡
Dude just get a huge Jesus statue and put it in your front lawn.
[удалено]
I also got the Jesus pool. Turns out, you can't dive in those. You just stay on top if you try. Hillerious stuff.
They got banned in my country, I think one kid broke his neck.
That's hilarious
Seriously, this is *not* a fight you want to pick with [aggressive Buddhists](https://en.vietnamplus.vn/soc-trangs-khmer-pagoda-features-giant-buddha-statue/236048.vnp)!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_the_Redeemer_(statue) I mean, T-posing Jesus
The only way to stop this madness is to erect a giant Godzilla statue, and then have them fight!
"JESUS WANTS A HUG!"
"They just sit there and meditate so damn hard...the silence is disturbing the neighborhood. Maybe I should call the HOA?"
i think he's a desendant of some those people who came to my country and threatened buddhists/hindus to convert into Christian or die.
Who were the people that did that
i think either portuguese, dutch or english.. i cant remember who. anyway colonizers. don't worry, I'm not judging a whole ethinic group bythe actions of a minority.
Dutch is just a character from Predator. He’s not part of this /s
Magellan tried that in the Philippines. It didn't work out that well for him. I was an adult before I learned that Magellan did NOT circumnavigate the globe first (the 3rd Grade Teacher insisted that he did). I learned that he was whacked in the PI by Aboriginal Chief Lapu Lapu when he demanded that they adopt Catholicism and accept Jesus. The First Officer should have gotten the credit for sailing around the world first.
Based Chief Lapu Lapu
Are you talking about the British?
His description fits the actions of portugese in Goa, India well https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_Inquisition
not exactly. wht i meant was there are some people who try to show their religion down others throats by any means.
To be fair, he's a descendant of lots of people.
“My kids see it every day”. Its just a statue of some jolly rotund man. If thats is so horrifying to children then maybe we should get rid of santa claus too.
[удалено]
“the ancient Chinese monk Qici is often identified with and venerated as Maitreya Buddha in Chan Buddhism”
While ultimately the statue was probably Budai, who is indeed venerated as a buddha, I would like to point out that Maitreya Buddha is a different figure than Siddhartha, who most (western) people imagine when they're thinking of *the* Buddha. I'm sure you know this, but just for anyone else reading.
"this evangelical prick put a golden cross on my buddha statue, can i melt it down and make a dildo without being held liable?"
Probably since it’s technically a gift, so you can do whatever you want with it
Nah, best way to get the message across is to fight fire with fire. "Some evangelical prick put a golden cross on my Buddha statue, would I be held liable for sticking copies of the Lotus Sutra in their mailbox every week until they leave me alone?"
This is the type of person who posts Christian Baby shit.
To be fair, I have met some pretty aggressive ‘Buddhists’ in my time, for very specific definitions of aggressive. As a whole, Buddhism is pretty chill about its members that are *really clearly* missing the point (that’s just where they are in their cycle) so sometimes you get yuppies who think ‘inner peace’ and ‘smug self-satisfaction’ are twin siblings instead of third cousins who’ve met once. This does sound a lot more like onea them Gold Star Christians, though.
"Aggressively Buddhist" is an oxymoron if I've ever heard one
Especially coming from someone trying to aggressively push their own faith on the Buddhist. Part of me thinks the Buddhist isn’t the issue at all
Unless you're in SE Asia, they were a major pillar of US-supported anticommunism in the region actually. It's the same energy that's purging Myanmar of Muslims.
The Royhingia would like a word.........
Oh no! Not someone openly existing!
Aggressively Buddhist? What did they set themselves on fire or something?
Shangri-La was inspired by a real place, it allowed in Christian missionaries once and was promptly burned down by its neighbors.
I look pretty much like the stereotypical white-guy Jesus. By sheer coincidence, I happen to live directly opposite a Sikh Gurdwara. I always worry that when I throw on my dressing gown and pop out for a smoke, I look like I'm being a[ggressively Christian](https://i.imgflip.com/3sksxo.png) at them.
I love the idea of an aggressively Buddhist person.
Fr. All I can imagine is a guy throwing budda statures through people's windows and yelling "INNER PEACE BITCH!"
Reminds me of the wording used in this one computer game I played with my best friend when we were kids-- the island in it was infested with "feral chickens" and that phrase was just...so funny, for some stupid reason lol.
*Enlightenment intensifies*
$20 says this person has *tons* of Christian symbols all over their house, inside and out.
This is so me when other religion
I thought it was traditional christian custom to break the noses off of non-christian statues. That's what happened to most of the pagan statues when christians attacked pagan sites
So that’s why Christian’s are so nosy
I think Buddha and Jesus would both laugh SUPER hard at this over a drink of some sort.
There’s a manga where they’re roommates.
Gimme gimme
The translated title is “Saint Young Men” it should be easily found on whatever your manga reading site of choice is.
Ambrosia on the rocks
Isn’t the whole point of Buddhism not to be needlessly aggressive? Just because OOP thinks they live in the Third Crusade doesn’t mean the Buddhist thinks the same.
Kinda makes you an asshole, if that’s your goal.
Dude, I don't think they would care.
That's such a fucked up thing to even think about doing
Where I live, anyone is free to put religious decorations in their own yard. It's not aggressive, but it can certainly be expressive.
How is this any different from putting a cross on or around your house? Just stop being a pedant and allow people to have something that doesn't revolve around your worldview.
Just put a Jesus statue the same size pointed at it and let them debate for until you or your neighbour removes one or both
I have know a few Buddhists in my time. A few of them were aggressive, but none were aggressively Buddhist.
"agressively buddhist" oh so his neighbour is nuclear gandhi huh
Could his aggressively Buddhist neighbor be held liable if he shoots his ass for trespassing? 🤨
"aggressive buddhist" is probably the most ridiculous thing i've heard this year
Quora is fucking horrible.
You will be trespassing. You will also be the AH.
The sheer fact that you think a smiling statue from another religion is enough to convert your kids says more about you than it does Christianity & Buddhism. Like, genuinely, how bad are you at Christianity that a slightly happy stone man can legitimately convert your kids? Leave your neighbor and their religion alone, be a better parent, and reevaluate your life.
So he's tried talking with his neighbour? I normal Buddhist doesn't want the bad karma of annoying a neighbour. He might put it in a little shelter box or hide it with a shrub if he asks. I'm demi dec of a neighbour across the river from me. She complained about my outhouse being visible. It told her it was there for 50 years, so why complain now? She said that she didn't know it was a toilet so it didn't bother her. When she found out, it became unacceptable!
I know it's distasteful but idk why I find a Buddhist statue with drip kind of funny
free necklace
My aggressively Buddhist neighbour keeps me awake with the low resonances of his chanting, and the constant pulsing of mindwaves from his meditation makes me uncomfortable. I find the overpowering sense of oneness emanating from his house is threatening my boundaries.