Jump to content

Pressure Mounts To Make Buddhism State Religion


george

Recommended Posts

The government wants to people to exercise regularly, stop smoking, practice safe sex, but not religion? Why?

They aren't saying don't practice religion, they are saying that it's not going to be enshrined in the constitution as the state religion.

Safe sex, exercise, and not smoking will not be part of the constitution either, so it's really a poor comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 250
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think we both know what the consequencies are in the countries that do not protect their religions - they die (the religions).

One of the nice things about Buddhism is that this is a non-issue because the Buddha taught that it is inevitable that Buddhism will die out. Buddhism as it is known now WILL die out (according to the Buddha's teachings) and be completely lost before the next Buddha comes and rediscovers the Dhamma again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try converting someone in these countries to another religion and see what the consequences are.

I think we both know what the consequencies are in the countries that do not protect their religions - they die (the religions).

>>>

Try searching the board for a thread about Christian missionaries in Phuket and see how people reacted.

>>>

The government wants to people to exercise regularly, stop smoking, practice safe sex, but not religion? Why?

Islam is a bit of a special case, because within Shariah law (Islamic religious law) the penalty for conversion to another religion (a crime known as apostasy) is death.

I personally can't imagine that being in or out of the constitution will make the slightest difference to Buddhism in Thailand.

Cheers,

Mike

edit> typo

Edited by phibunmike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They aren't saying don't practice religion, they are saying that it's not going to be enshrined in the constitution as the state religion.

There are many sides to the opposing view - whether the religion should be mentioned at all, whether buddhism can be singled out, whether it's right to call it a state religion, and perhaps some others.

All these objections should be addressed separately.

The argument about state religion - Buddhims IS a de facto state religion already with all other religions playing minor roles within boundaries granted by Buddhists. This is not going to change any time soon and I don't see why this universally (in Thai universe :o) accepted agreement must not be legalised. I'd rather see these rights and boundaries clearly spelled out.

Safe sex, exercise, and not smoking will not be part of the constitution either, so it's really a poor comparison.

They are covered under universal human rights - education, health care and the likes. I don't understand why the rights to practice religion cannot be covered too.

I'm pretty sure that they will be included, but will the government be obliged to take interest in religious affairs similarly to healthcare?

The government plans for sufficient number of schools and hospitals - will it plan for sufficient number of temples and mosques? If a buddhist or muslim community asks for a land for the temple - will the government be legally obliged to find a solution? Airports unilaterally provide prayer rooms for the travellers, will the government take a similar stand?

I wish someone had planned for a temple in my mooban, that would be good for building strong local community. At the moment it's: "I never go to a temple because there isn't one here, so I can't practice buddhism, it's too difficult".

Edited by Plus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dhamma a matter for the heart, not the constitution

While it may be agreed that morals need to be instilled in members of Thai society today, the means towards that end does not necessarily translate into recognising Buddhism as the state religion.

By doing so, would we see less of dancers exhibiting their private parts at temple festivities? Would there be fewer monks committing sinful acts? Would fewer amulets be handed out and a greater understanding of Buddhist teachings emerge?

It's a shame that protests are held in front of Parliament just to ask for what amounts merely to a cosmetic change. Apart from driving a wedge in a secular society, is it appropriate for monks to interfere in worldly affairs to start with?

More should be done to ensure that nothing sinful goes on behind temple walls and that monks set a good example for others. Although it is true that, as in all circles, monks unworthy of respect exist among the good ones, reports about monks' unacceptable behaviour have cropped up way too often, to the point where such matters are degraded to the point of being just another headline.

If Buddhism were to be declared the state religion in the constitution, wouldn't these types of stories tarnish not only the image of Buddhism but that of Thailand as well?

Furthermore, given the current rate of killing, drinking, adultery and gambling - all of which are forbidden by the five Buddhist precepts - how declaring Buddhism a national religion would help solve these daily troubles remains a mystery.

To help cure social ills we need to truly practise the teachings of the Buddha. The public must be encouraged to incorporate the basic teachings into their daily lives.

One positive sign is that there is an emerging trend of more people becoming interested in learning about Buddhism. Books have blossomed, with many hitting best-seller lists, and discussions on the subject have gained more space in the media lately.

At the same time, laws must be strengthened to discourage people from committing immoral acts. Take the cases of drink-driving, nud_e dancing or rape - just to name a few. Punishments are so lenient for these offences that they happen frequently. Most times only a fine or a very light sentence is involved.

Dr Thaejing Siriphanit, the secretary-general of the Don't Drive Drunk Foundation, who was himself injured by a drink-driver recently, is pushing for jail sentences for such drivers. Actually, harsher penalties should be handed out for all types of traffic violations, as many drivers still drive as they please.

In terms of nud_e dancing in temples, the dancers who made the headlines in Samut Sakhon were not the first. Similar shows can be found elsewhere, and not only confined to temples. Fortunately, though, now there's a strong social sanction against them.

Band managers as well as other related parties must be severely punished, especially if police officers are involved. And one hopes that social blacklisting against such atrocious shows will last - or at least as it pertains to those performed in temples.

While we need national guidance, such as that provided by religious teachings, giving one particular religion a special status would do more harm than good. Thailand has always been a peaceful country, welcoming all faiths and religions. Stating the obvious would only change the equilibrium of this society. Harmony and unity are what everyone is trying to achieve, so why do we need to take the risk?

The issue is not only about what is written in the constitution, but also what follows. What other laws will be drafted to comply with that article in the constitution? How would it affect other religions? Most importantly, how would people of other religions feel? Would it turn out to be an unnecessary evil, creating more problems, given the southern situation and the political atmosphere?

Social ills don't go away simply by writing down a state religion in the constitution. If that were the case, then we should all write our wish lists down on paper.

There would be nothing to celebrate if Buddhism were to be put down in the constitution. Taking Buddhism only at face value is an insult in itself.

Only when Buddhism is practised in its true sense will there be a reason to celebrate, because then Thailand would become a better, peaceful place. That can be achieved only from within and not through coercion.

It's not the label, but the observance that matters. As the saying goes "Dhamma is in the heart".

Editorial Opinion by Veenarat Laohapakakul - The Nation - 28 April 2007

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are covered under universal human rights - education, health care and the likes. I don't understand why the rights to practice religion cannot be covered too.

You are really reaching here.

There is no talk of abandoning freedom of religion. Just because they don't make Buddhism the national religion does not mean people won't be allowed to practise it. Buddhism has been doing rather well since Brahman times without it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are covered under universal human rights - education, health care and the likes. I don't understand why the rights to practice religion cannot be covered too.

You are really reaching here.

There is no talk of abandoning freedom of religion. Just because they don't make Buddhism the national religion does not mean people won't be allowed to practise it. Buddhism has been doing rather well since Brahman times without it.

JR Texas: In order to sustain life, it is necessary to put in writing--in all constitutions worldwide--that breathing is mandatory for all human beings. :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Declaring a national religion is simply not necessary. Is there any other country where Buddhism is declared the national religion? I don't know, but it doesn't matter as it's clearly the religion of the majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In order to sustain life, it is necessary to put in writing--in all constitutions worldwide--that breathing is mandatory for all human beings.

They put in writing that people have the right to education and healthcare. It doesn't mean that "ok, you've got the rights, now go and educate/heal yourself". It means people can demand to be educated and demand treatment when they are sick.

Same with religion - they can demand a place to worship. Did the government build temples for Buddhists relocated to the deep South? I expect it did. Technically speaking it was unconstitutional.

So I don't understand this argument from the Nation's opinion piece: "Stating the obvious would only change the equilibrium of this society."

Does it mean "let's sweep it under the carpet", "let's not talk about it and pretend it doesn't exist", or "it's too important to be included in the constitution, we have an unspoken agreement already"?

>>>>>>>

If more people addressed the monks for spiritual guidance they would naturally straighten up. Otherwise they have nothing else to do than play computer games and dream up lottery numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same with religion - they can demand a place to worship. Did the government build temples for Buddhists relocated to the deep South? I expect it did. Technically speaking it was unconstitutional.

Again, you guess rather than state facts. Can you show me where the government built temples in the south?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we both know what the consequencies are in the countries that do not protect their religions - they die (the religions).

One of the nice things about Buddhism is that this is a non-issue because the Buddha taught that it is inevitable that Buddhism will die out. Buddhism as it is known now WILL die out (according to the Buddha's teachings) and be completely lost before the next Buddha comes and rediscovers the Dhamma again.

In Truth, there was no "ism" while Buddha was still alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cdnvic,

I think that "Buddha" is his nickname so it is ok to capitalize it.

Plus,

I think you are making a good arguement for complete seperation of religion and state as a principle of good governance....in which case there should clearly be NO state religion.....keep up the good work!!!

Chownah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same with religion - they can demand a place to worship. Did the government build temples for Buddhists relocated to the deep South? I expect it did. Technically speaking it was unconstitutional.

Again, you guess rather than state facts. Can you show me where the government built temples in the south?

It's nearly impossible to find any facts on this on the Internet but do you think that the govt just moved thousands of Isanese over to the Deep South and left them there without any temples during decades of "assimilation"?

Chownah, separation of state and religion is inevitable process and religion will decline in tandem with it. I simply argue that Thais should be allowed to try and slow down that process if they want to.

Bangkok construction has picked up again after the 1997 crisis, some abandoned buildings are now finished, new ones are sprouting out. Have you seen a new temple? I haven't. That's the way of progress.

Open any book on Thai history and it will say that wats were social centers of every village, separating them from the "state" was unthinkable. Times have changed.

Another threat to Buddhism comes from "know it all" types, everyone is an expert, everyone is eager to correct everyone else's understanding, everyone is a master of his own heart and they all argue that religion is a personal and private matter. Soon enough they refuse to accept any authority at all.

First they stop sharing their hearts, then the rituals, then the temples, then their little flame of knowledge dwindles and dies, temples stay empty and monks turn to lottery, then people lose respect for monks and no one takes religion seriously anymore.

It has happened to Christianity, it is happening to Buddhism, and it will happen to Islam. At least Thais do not behead the traitors.

Edited by Plus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chownah, separation of state and religion is inevitable process and religion will decline in tandem with it. I simply argue that Thais should be allowed to try and slow down that process if they want to.

And the Buddhist Thais will if they want to, but not with government help because the government should be representing all Thais, including the Christians, Muslims, animists, and others.

There are new temples being constructed all the time across the country without government help.

Buddhism is doing fine in Thailand, and even if it were not, it's worthless to keep it alive artificially. How could you say that Buddhism is healthy if it were only so because people had it forced upon them? That would actually go against the fundamentals of Buddhism.

If you believe in the philosophies of Buddhism, everything will one day come to an end, and wanting to keep it alive artificially is creating a desire that cannot be fulfilled, causing you you misery.

Edited by cdnvic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chownah, separation of state and religion is inevitable process and religion will decline in tandem with it. I simply argue that Thais should be allowed to try and slow down that process if they want to.

Seems like you believe that religion is dependent on gov't for its existence.....I don't agree.

Thais ARE allowed to try and slow down the decline of Buddhism....and they are even allowed to do so via the gov't....if the military dicatatorship should ever actually allow Thai people to run their own gov't. I'm just saying that in my opinion the best stance for gov't AND religion to take is one of complete seperation of religion and gov't.

Chownah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the best stance for gov't AND religion to take is one of complete seperation of religion and gov't.
Best for what? For the government or for the religion? Or for you or me personally?
And the Buddhist Thais will if they want to, but not with government help because the government should be representing all Thais, including the Christians, Muslims, animists, and others.

BUT it doesn't, never have, and never will be!!! This is the actual situation that the opponents do not want to legalise through the constitution.

Thais do allow certain freedom of religion but only it doesn't hurt Buddhism in any way. One of the first news articles about religion in Thailand I remember was cancelling of some Hindu congress because they dared to say that Buddha is just one of the many Hindu incarnations.

There are new temples being constructed all the time across the country without government help.

I haven't seen any in Bangkok. I've seen a couple of new mosques, though.

Buddhism is doing fine in Thailand,

I think it's obvious it's in decline.

and even if it were not, it's worthless to keep it alive artificially. How could you say that Buddhism is healthy if it were only so because people had it forced upon them? That would actually go against the fundamentals of Buddhism.

That is arguable, for any religion, not just Buddhism. Why, for example, protecting religion is one of the duties of the King, one of the principles of Royal dharma? Or what about Emperor Asoke?

Separation of religion (originally church) and the state is a fairly recent, Western phenomenon and so far it has nothing to show for it, no visible benefits for Christianity or any other religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the best stance for gov't AND religion to take is one of complete seperation of religion and gov't.
Best for what? For the government or for the religion? Or for you or me personally?

I meant my words to indicate that the seperation of government and religion would benefit both gov't and religion (I can see now that this is not clear in my post).....and by extension I meant that this would ultimately benefit the civic and spiritual lives of the citizens...all the citizens....or at least most I guess. I'm not trying to convince everyone to agree with me...just trying to express my views.

Chownah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrible news, it appears that the campaign for Buddhism as a state religion gets some success now. This will play directly into the hands of the insurgents down south and might very possibly earn them more support from the normal village population.

What is happening to this place?! :o

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingne...newsid=30033044

Other religions not opposed to enshrining Buddhism as state religion: Sonthi

The Council for National Security (CNS) would have no objection if the new constitution enshrined Buddhism as the state religion, its chairman General Sonthi Boonyaratglin said Monday.

"There should be no problem for other religions," he said after meeting with Phra Rajapanya Medhi, vice rector of the Mahachulalongkorn Buddhist University.

All committees studying the issue, which comprised advocates of all religions, agreed that the clause could be stated in the draft charter, Sonthi said.

A clause that would ensure the rights of other religions could be added, he said.

The Nation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrible news, it appears that the campaign for Buddhism as a state religion gets some success now. This will play directly into the hands of the insurgents down south and might very possibly earn them more support from the normal village population.

What is happening to this place?! :o

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingne...newsid=30033044

Other religions not opposed to enshrining Buddhism as state religion: Sonthi

The Council for National Security (CNS) would have no objection if the new constitution enshrined Buddhism as the state religion, its chairman General Sonthi Boonyaratglin said Monday.

"There should be no problem for other religions," he said after meeting with Phra Rajapanya Medhi, vice rector of the Mahachulalongkorn Buddhist University.

All committees studying the issue, which comprised advocates of all religions, agreed that the clause could be stated in the draft charter, Sonthi said.

A clause that would ensure the rights of other religions could be added, he said.

The Nation

The fact that Gen Sonthi is Muslim might make a difference to perceptions in the south. Hard to say. What's going on in the south is about much more than religion though so I'm not so sure a state religion clause will make a discernible difference.

I'm beginning to think that the main reason many Thais are going along with the idea is that they believe it will be some sort of talismanic solution to current political impasses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's looking more and more like the clause will not be included.

PM wants majority-backed charter

POST REPORTERS

Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont yesterday appealed to everyone involved to make the draft constitution satisfactory to voters.

"We're still in the process of drafting the constitution, hearing opinions about the draft and revising the draft based on those opinions. This is a better way out."

In the meantime, the Constitution Drafting Assembly's public hearings and referendum committee has found that the majority of Thais do not support a call by Buddhist activists to enshrine Buddhism as the official religion in the constitution.

Committee chairman Chirmsak Pinthong yesterday revealed the findings from public forums the panel held nationwide.

Mr Chirmsak said 80% of people surveyed in the central, southern, northeastern and northern regions did not want Buddhism to be recognised as the official religion, reasoning that it would cause deep rifts in society.

Respondents believed this could cause rifts even among Buddhists, Mr Chirmsak said. They felt a conciliatory atmosphere would prevail if Buddhism was not enshrined, he said.

"People thought a statement that religions shall be promoted and that the monarch is a Buddhist was enough," Mr Chirmsak said.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/01May2007_news14.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[

The fact that Gen Sonthi is Muslim might make a difference to perceptions in the south. Hard to say. What's going on in the south is about much more than religion though so I'm not so sure a state religion clause will make a discernible difference.

I'm beginning to think that the main reason many Thais are going along with the idea is that they believe it will be some sort of talismanic solution to current political impasses.

I don't think that Gen. Sondhi being Muslim would make much difference in the South as the insurgency has very strong ethnic components. And Islam there is still very influenced by Brahmanist rites, especially at the local village level, and is very different from Islam in the rest of Thailand.

You last posted article is interesting in a way. It appears that there are clear difference of opinion between the Junta and the government also here in this issue.

Most army officers i spoke with in the South have been vehemently against the introduction of Buddhism as a state religion, by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's going on in the south is about much more than religion though so I'm not so sure a state religion clause will make a discernible difference.

True, but it can be used as a political weapon to whip up support among the villagers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If 80% of Thais do not want the clause included then so be it. Earlier reports, however, gave 70% support, I believe.

Perhaps Thais just can't articulate their religious make up on paper and so prefer not to talk about it.

Included or not, Thais will still behave like Buddhism is a state religion, even if it would be unofficial. Let's hope the situation when some religious minority confronts the state asking for the same rights as Buddhists will not arise.

>>>>>>>

Sonthi might not be the same brand of muslim as people down South, they don't even care much about Chula Rajamontri, the official Thai muslim leader.

>>>>>>>

Chownah, just for the discussion sake, why do you think separation of religion and state helps the former? I, personally can't think of any example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If 80% of Thais do not want the clause included then so be it. Earlier reports, however, gave 70% support, I believe.

Perhaps Thais just can't articulate their religious make up on paper and so prefer not to talk about it.

Included or not, Thais will still behave like Buddhism is a state religion, even if it would be unofficial. Let's hope the situation when some religious minority confronts the state asking for the same rights as Buddhists will not arise.

>>>>>>>

Sonthi might not be the same brand of muslim as people down South, they don't even care much about Chula Rajamontri, the official Thai muslim leader.

>>>>>>>

Chownah, just for the discussion sake, why do you think separation of religion and state helps the former? I, personally can't think of any example.

People from the three provinces are not "a different brand of Muslims", but are from a very different ethnic background with a distinct culture and language. They do follow many different forms of Islam, from a more traditional of Sunni with strong Brahmanistic remnants up to a more recent and austere Wahabitism.

Thailand has already far too much influence from the state into the Sangha, and therefore too much influence from the clergy into state affairs. This has left a once vibrant religion/philosophy an empty shell dominated by hierarchal power games, political interference, and pure greed. If Buddhism would be made state religion this would only increase. There is already far too much involvement with Buddhism and the state, such as Dhammakaya-Thaksin, or the very strange support of the drug war by famous monks such as Luang Por Khun.

The increasing disintegration of Buddhism in Thailand has nothing to do with any outside thread, or with lack of support from the state. On the opposite - there is no outside thread from any other religion, and the state supports Buddhism already far more than is healthy. Buddhism in Thailand is collapsing from the inside - by the increasingly catastrophic behavior of monks and abbots, by political and business interference, by nationalist chauvinistic directions the Sangha takes while forgetting it original ideas. Knowledge, learning and meditation are replaced by superstition, money making schemes and the need to spend their vast income on ever bigger and garish temples and other religious structures.

Making Buddhism state religion might satisfy nationalist chauvinist feelings, but it will only speed up the process of disintegration and lead to more conflicts in society. Religious minorities, especially the southern Muslims will rightfully feel threatened and very likely will increasingly support the insurgency.

It is a sign for instability that outlandish, extremist and entirely idiotic ideas such as this gain so much popularity, especially under an increasingly ineffective government which so far has not fulfilled one promise they have made to justify their illegal takeover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>>>>>>

Chownah, just for the discussion sake, why do you think separation of religion and state helps the former? I, personally can't think of any example.

Rather than a long discussion maybe it is better to just say that I think you are concerned about the organisation called a religion and I am concerned about the spiritual practice called a religion.

Chownah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the buddhism issue is the most important in the military's new constitution. Whether or not regular "military officer rotation" is the new constitution's means for selecting the PM and cabinet is far more crucial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, as a foreigner who believes strongly in the complete separation of (Christian) church and state, I cannot imagine that the cohabitation of religion and government in the same unholy bed, benefits the government, the organized religion, or the followers of that religion, and it surely damages the non-followers. A true faith does not need government to do anything more than to protect all religions equally, give no tax money to any faith, and to protect all its citizens in the least harmful way.

I think I agree that any Buddhist country which needs constitutional recognition of Buddhism, is a country whose Buddhism is on the decline, and it is probably collapsing from within due to its tolerance of widespread abuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I agree that any Buddhist country which needs constitutional recognition of Buddhism, is a country whose Buddhism is on the decline, and it is probably collapsing from within due to its tolerance of widespread abuses.

very well put

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...