Boy, 9, who was brutally beaten by monk in Kanchanaburi has now died

[Crustyhk]

As an outsider it looks like "troubled" people are attracted to or sent to the monestaries to sort themselves out. 

 

The only problem with that that system is that it ends up dominated by people with issues and becomes corrupted and bastardised by crettins like this guy. 

 

The religion itself doesn't cause or create trash like this guy but by its nature it does attract them and they can hide behind it.

 

I have never understood why people hold monks in such high regard. 

 

 

 

RIP little fella

 

[Mad mick]

very sad to read RIP my condolence to his family ? what sort of person does this let alone a monk Life in prison sadistic cruel monk boy was only 9yrs old   mmm

[TKDfella]

This is such a sad case. The boy's mother could not support him so at 9 years old that must have been an emotional separation for him. Then he gets beaten by one who is trusted to teach the eight fold way etc. The guilty monk says the boy misbehaved by causing some sort of fire. Well, imo, that wouldn't have happened if he had the correct supervision. It's cases like this that give me doubts about my own thoughts on disagreeing with capital punishment. My condolences to the boys family.

[RickTik]

Public execution is the appropriate punishment for the monk.

It can be humane, painless, and quick. 

[sammieuk1]

It is possible to hate someone so much as to want to kill them on contact ?

[IAMHERE]

Will people ask candidates up for election about this crime ? 

[Kieran00001]

15 hours ago, nubwo said:

May the child Rest in Peace.                                                                                                  It is utterly ridiculous that when Monks are caught breaking the law they have to be defrocked prior to being charged. They were monks when the crime was commited therefore they should be charged as monks, maybe then the Sanga would properly vet all applicants. 

 

 

Why would trying them as monks increase vetting of applicants?  They are tried by the Sangha, found guilty, defrocked and then handed over to the authorities, I can't see what difference it would make to the Sangha if they could also send them to jail themselves.

[Kieran00001]

53 minutes ago, RickTik said:

Public execution is the appropriate punishment for the monk.

It can be humane, painless, and quick. 

 

But it must be public?

[Kieran00001]

6 hours ago, Enoon said:

 

The ordinary criminal law cannot be applied against monks.

 

Monks are protected against it.

 

Monks are only subject to the "law" of the Sangha.

 

Its "punishments" do not include incarceration or execution.

 

The Sangha, the temples, the monks, the abbots, are a state within a state , a law beyond the law, above and impervious to the laws that affect and control the general population.

 

That is why criminals in Thailand flee into the monkhood to escape prison or the death sentence.

 

(As did those who sought "sanctuary" within the Church in Medieval Europe).

 

In order to be charged under State Law (and be imprisoned or executed) the monk has to be ejected from the monkhood.........the protection of the Sangha.

 

But the State does everything it can to ensure that the Sangha itself (its practices, its laws, its power) remains protected.

 

Because it and the Sangha work together to maintain dominion over the ordinary Thai people.

 

Just as the Church and State did in Medieval Europe.

 

That's where you are.........the Medieval Period,.

 

You have time travelled.

 

Very clever of you.

 

 

(Apologies for any over simplifications, inaccuracies or "mistakes").

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did the medieval period also see those accused of crimes being kicked out of the protection of the church to be tried in a court of law, as happened here in 21st Century Thailand?

[lvr181]

Too many evil people hide within "religions".

 

And use that religious/belief system in order to use and justify their perverions and the "caring" world (and the religious/belief systems) seem to not want to become involved in clearing out these abusers! 

[lensta]

15 hours ago, Bundooman said:

I don't have to insert any names of 'religions!

 

Each and every one of them have displayed more cruelty, viciousness, depravity, immorality, torture, degradation and hierocracy throughout the history of this planet than any other organisation known to man.

 

They are the scum and scourge of humanity - and not one of them has any proof of truth!

 

Liars and power seekers - every one of them!

Well written. I 100% agree.

[Cereal]

20 hours ago, eggers said:

In Thai Culture, will impact on him, as will be considered as "loosing face", as much, a sentence, as a court will hand down!!

You know, I used to believe in this societal concept of losing (not loosing) face as a coincidental means of self-control, socio-cultural control and a sense of ethnocentric pride that is integral to peoples' ability to remain physically and psychologically in-check when circumstances dictate negative reactions and anti-social behaviours could potentially be justified. Self-control and piety were as integral to not losing face during moments of inclemency as were not causing someone to lose face for perceived acts with antagonistic implications.

 

Now I don't. Not anymore. It seems to me that the entire social construct of saving face has become nothing more than a fall-back position of legalized bastardization of ideals once held paramount to an evolved society.

 

Too many times have we read about an act of violence, fits of rage, beatings, shootings, stabbings and murder, all having occurred because someone lost face. Whereas withholding oneself ensconced in a sedate, controlled frame of mind and body flies out the window the moment someone feels slighted, regardless of the minutia with which such action began.

 

When a person feels justified to acts of violence, feeling comfortable that a handful of baht and a wai or two will suffice to salve the woulds inflicted upon the unfortunate, society has taken a collective step backwards in socio-cultural evolution. Couple this with a generally pervading attitude of justification because "he lost face" and the breakdown is all but complete.

 

I'm just ranting here. I've had a long few days and I'm tired. I don't miss the West, but at times I find myself wistfully remembering the civility at least I experienced growing up in Europe and Canada during the 60's and 70's.

 

 

[KKr]

May all physically abused by religious people step forward and point those out !

[Kieran00001]

15 hours ago, Bundooman said:

I don't have to insert any names of 'religions!

 

Each and every one of them have displayed more cruelty, viciousness, depravity, immorality, torture, degradation and hierocracy throughout the history of this planet than any other organisation known to man.

 

They are the scum and scourge of humanity - and not one of them has any proof of truth!

 

Liars and power seekers - every one of them!

 

In the last century nothing caused more suffering and unnecessary death than atheism.

 

[lvr181]

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

In the last century nothing caused more suffering and unnecessary death than atheism.

 

[Crustyhk]

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

In the last century nothing caused more suffering and unnecessary death than atheism.

 

I doubt I've ever read such BS in all my days. 

 

Next time a suicide bomber dies in "THE NAME ON NO ONE!" you can pop back and tell us all how right you are. It's all about "my god is better than your god" and if you don't conform to my religious beliefs I will kill you. 

 

Been the same for thousands of years

[Kieran00001]

15 minutes ago, Crustyhk said:

I doubt I've ever read such BS in all my days. 

 

Next time a suicide bomber dies in "THE NAME ON NO ONE!" you can pop back and tell us all how right you are. It's all about "my god is better than your god" and if you don't conform to my religious beliefs I will kill you. 

 

Been the same for thousands of years

 

So you think suicide bombing have caused more deaths than 20th century atheists did?

 

Mao, Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot alone killed over 50 million people for their atheist agendas.

 

Suicide bombing have only been happening for the past 37 years.  The worst year on record was 2016 when 5650 were killed.  Even if the 2016 rate of suicide bombing had occurred every year of the 20th century there would have been 2 million deaths, which is just 4% of the number of deaths caused by atheists in the same period.

[Kieran00001]

24 minutes ago, lvr181 said:

 

 

 

Aw bless, were you having your nap during history class? 

[Sydebolle]

Well, here we go with the discussion on Death Penalty. This "monk" grossly abused, purposely, his power and smashing a 9-year old the way the media reported is murder.

Take him to the gallows; the Lord (in whatever Lord he might believe in) may have merci. It's time to clean up also the gross misconduct in Thai temples. Too many culprits disappear behind saffron frocks and give the honest institution and philosophy of Buddhist an unfair name. 

[lvr181]

4 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

 

 

Aw bless, were you having your nap during history class? 

Do you have anymore good jokes? 

Hitler believed in Black Magic.

Stalin believed in Karl Marx.

Atheists have no beliefs in  gods or deities. 

[kannot]

On 8/25/2018 at 6:43 PM, Aupee said:

This constant hiding behind religion. When is everybody going to wake up. In the words of Karl Marks "Religion is the opiate of the masses" in other words Religion is only a way of controlling people ,its the original brainwashing.

as  well as being a total fabrication and providing zero evidence, Im always  staggered by "belief", worse  still the inability to be able to  question it in  many ways and its "divine" right then theres the you must "respect" it. 

So I have to respect something with no evidence...............unbelievable as that then leads to you must respect everything no  matter how imbecilic and religion ranks right at the top of this imbecilic  tree

[RickTik]

On 8/25/2018 at 9:49 PM, Kieran00001 said:

 

But it must be public?

By making the execution public, a message will be sent that Thailand will not tolerate ANYONE, including monks, abusing children the way this 9 year old boy was brutally beaten.

[seancbk]

23 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

So you think suicide bombing have caused more deaths than 20th century atheists did?

 

Mao, Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot alone killed over 50 million people for their atheist agendas.

 

 

They didn't kill people because they were atheists, they did it because they were racists and psychopaths.  

I 
 

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, seancbk said:

 

They didn't kill people because they were atheists, they did it because they were racists and psychopaths.  

I 
 

 

And the leaders of extremist Islamic groups don't kill people because they are Muslims, they do it because they are psychotic sectarians, much the same.

[Kieran00001]

2 hours ago, RickTik said:

By making the execution public, a message will be sent that Thailand will not tolerate ANYONE, including monks, abusing children the way this 9 year old boy was brutally beaten.

 

You, along with ISIS, Iran, North Korea, and Somalia, see some benefit in this, I don't see how the message becomes clearer by making it public, please share your reasoning, perhaps it will provide some insight into the reasoning behind the brutal regimes who currently practice public executions.

[Yann55]

25 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

And the leaders of extremist Islamic groups don't kill people because they are Muslims, they do it because they are psychotic sectarians, much the same.

 

I agree, yet you have to reckon there is a subtle difference : Extremists (of whatever religion) claim that they're carrying out God's will (which they know because they have brunch with him every Friday/Sunday/whatever), whereas Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot didn't scream urbi et orbi that their murderous actions were made 'in the name of atheism'.

 

Of course they claimed other grand motives, which were eerily similar to extremist religious agendas (all about establishing a norm and then deport, imprison, torture and kill anyone who doesn't fit in).

 

What history remembers, however, is that these guys were indeed psychotic, egomaniac and sectarian, and that historical circumstances put them in a position of such power that they could roll up their sleeves and get to work, resulting in millions of deaths (45 millions for Mao, 25 for Stalin, 13 for Hitler - + war casualties).

 

Nowadays there is a ready-made notion that massive massacres throughout history were only originated by religions, with an emphasis on Islam, and you are quite right to point out that both these ready-made ideas are simply not true.

 

Intellectual honesty requires, however, to acknowledge that those who did not kill in the name of God were not doing it 'in the name of atheism' either. The fact is they all saw themselves as Gods, were worshipped like Gods, and were unfortunately much more real and dangerous than God.

 

 

[Kieran00001]

9 minutes ago, Yann55 said:

 

I agree, yet you have to reckon there is a subtle difference : Extremists (of whatever religion) claim that they're carrying out God's will (which they know because they have brunch with him every Friday/Sunday/whatever), whereas Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot didn't scream urbi et orbi that their murderous actions were made 'in the name of atheism'.

 

Of course they claimed other grand motives, which were eerily similar to extremist religious agendas (all about establishing a norm and then deport, imprison, torture and kill anyone who doesn't fit in).

 

What history remembers, however, is that these guys were indeed psychotic, egomaniac and sectarian, and that historical circumstances put them in a position of such power that they could roll up their sleeves and get to work, resulting in millions of deaths (45 millions for Mao, 25 for Stalin, 13 for Hitler - + war casualties).

 

Nowadays there is a ready-made notion that massive massacres throughout history were only originated by religions, with an emphasis on Islam, and you are quite right to point out that both these ready-made ideas are simply not true.

 

Intellectual honesty requires, however, to acknowledge that those who did not kill in the name of God were not doing it 'in the name of atheism' either. The fact is they all saw themselves as Gods, were worshipped like Gods, and were unfortunately much more real and dangerous than God.

 

 

 

Perhaps Hitler should be off the list, but Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot all aimed to abolish religion, atheism was part of the ideology they were killing for, the only real difference is the religious zealots do it for a god that people outside of their cult also worship, whereas the atheist zealots do it for their own self made god who only they worship.