However, the those three are too moderate that they lack the fighting spirit like christianity and islam“““

Meanwhile as a teenage, I find the traditional value of confucianism is just ” unjust, uncompetitive undemonratic therefore unbearable

so we must integrate the fighting spirits and the equality thoughts of other religion into it.

All Chinese are familiar with the 3 religions/ideologies Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism. Confucianism and Daoism were ideologies formed during turbulent times during the Eastern Zhou period to try and come up with ways to restore order and eliminate chaos. Confucius focused on the morals, behaviour, and responsibility of the citizen and government to the family and the state, along with filial piety and emphasized the qualities of ren 仁 loosely translated as benevolence, and li 礼 which is more or less an abstract ideal of following protocol, etiquette. The Daoist ideology was created with the same intention of avoiding chaos but focused more on the model of nature, and how society should mimic the precision and order of the natural world to achieve harmony. These two ideologies were and still are today, widely accepted by the Chinese people and have reached a level of reverence, like you would find in religions. The amazing thing is, while the two ideals preached different things and were known as rival schools of thought, there was NEVER any bloodshed as a result of the rivalries. No holy war waged upon the other, in fact the Daoism and Confucianism complimented each other. An imperial governor may run his province following Confucian values and ideals but would indulge himself in Daoist literature and art in his spare time. The one thing that these two ideologies don’t address is the question of the afterlife, which buddhism came in to fill the role. In my personal opinion, the reason why confucianism and daoism, two contrasting ideologies, didn’t come to trading blows is because they were formed during a time of turmoil and strife and the intention of both was to create harmony and unify a people and empire. In comparison, Christianity and Islam were created during relatively peaceful times if you look at the situations regarding the Arabs and Romans and contrast them to the Eastern Zhou Chinese, so the primary focus of Christianity and Islam wasn’t to create social harmony, but addressing concerns about the afterlife, societal harmony came in second.

but maybe I should thank confucianism?

essentially confucianism was a super religion, tolerating those who shares the same value while repelling those who goes the opposite way.

and its core was strong enough to win a war of culture influence and keep our ancestor free from the hands of God and Allah

The enduring triangle of confucianism , buddhism and daoism spare our ancestors the reailgious war in the past, but how can they integrated christianity and islam to form a new pentagon and spare our generation the religious conflict is still questionable( christianity and islam is just too tough!)

I have read your polemic blogs and must admit that you’re very much all [abusive] talk, and no substance. Let me take a wild guess as to who your idols are: Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingrahm, Monica Crowley, Bill O’Reilly, and Sarah Palin. Did I miss a few? Oh, yes, Fred Phelps.

I won’t apologize for the sarcasm, which is neither very sarcastic nor untrue. Muslims have extremist, but they seem almost Godly when compared to a Christian extremist. Let’s draw a few comparisons. Sarah Palin said that the Americans are doing God’s will in Iraq — a crusade, if you will, the same way that Muslim jihad is frequently cited. Now, we could get into a variety of definition battles where you will say that Muslims are bad, Christians are good. But you said it was O.K. to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. At least, no Muslim nation has been known to commit such atrocities in such a short period of time. If you don’t know, the Japanese are not Muslims. The men responsible were Christian.

Turn the other cheek — Gandhi preached that; he was assassinated. MLK preached that; he was assassinated. Malcolm X preached otherwise; even he was assassinated.

There is only the real.

Read your Bible quietly, as you seem incapable of participating in a civilized discussion.

As for the topic, every religion follows this good-evil routine and consequentially, there lies some rationale that “justifies” violence as means to a religious end. Christianity has had its share when it committed a genocide for religious (not political) motivations. Islam’s hands are equally dirty. To say one is better than the other is a discussion that has no end. But the connection between the two is self-sufficient.