Jawnie

I've rented three places away from home while teaching. The normal practice was a security deposit and first month's rent up front and each month's rent in advance on the first of the month. The trick was getting the security deposit back I moved out.

I'm getting a lot of this kind of response, ie., that payment is made in advance - 'pay before stay'. However, one Thai friend, who is a very competent tax expert in Thailand, said it's typically paid in arrears, ie., for the past month. Hopefully, I can get him to glance at the sections of my lease that deal with this. Paying in arrears defies common sense and standard practice in the US, but.......

Yeah.....there's always a 'dance' with the landlord upon move out. I'm making sure every little thing in fixed and in good shape because I know they'll want to charge me for all the little stuff. In the US, there is the legal concept of 'normal wear and tear" which means landlords can't charge you for stuff that simple wears out through normal use over time - not so in Thailand, it seems.

I'm moving out of a room after more than two years and trying to understand what the last month's rent pays for (if this has been discussed, please give me the link). The manager says the monthly bill I get pays the rent for the previous month. In the US, where I am from, the month rent pays for the coming month so when I pay on 1 April, I am paying for April but the manager is saying I am paying for March. I don't know about Thai rental law in this regard. Anyone know for sure? Thanks.

I'm confused. The hotel operators say that "political calm" is the reason occupancy is way up. But, just last week, our fav, Gen. Prayuth, was complaining about the Thai PBS series regarding Article 112. Prayuth was quoted in the Bangkok Post saying, "He said airing the broadcast was inappropriate at a time of political conflict," and ""However, I must ask if this is an appropriate thing to do during this time when political conflicts remain sharp."

Do the hoteliers and Prayuth live in the same parts of Thailand, or....what?

Maybe one is trying to stir the pot to keep their own military job safe while the other is flying a false flag of calm hoping to increase profits at the hotels.

I dunno......

Gents Having gone through the UK courts, where my former wife had full custody, indeed the child will be returned (Subject to age / article 13 of the Hague convention) and of course how much money you have. I had little option but to stand-up in court to say no order, as it broke me both mentally and financially. I am now in a country where my former wife brought my son to me, and I have started a new custody case, but as expected the Thai courts have already told me they will award custody to my former wife, even though they know I cannot travel to Thailand to defend myself - once you annoy the Thai courts like I have you will never win irrespective of the best interest of the child. You do not have to go to your home country to start a new custody case you simply need residence in a country that has a legal system and in my opinion is neutral or has a system that is fair for both the mum and dad. England is not really fair to the dad and as many reports if American or any other country Thailand will not accept a foreign court order, so it means you best not think of returning to Thailand. Thailand may be signed up to a child abduction scheme but from what I understand and for sure experienced they do not and will not give you or your country's respect of accepting your home country court order. My former wife is having me charged here in the middle east for holding a minor, and even though and soon I hope it verdict will be not guilty; for sure it will not be recognized in Thailand and they will still pursue a similar charge in Thailand - for those who say they is no parental abduction law in Thailand; this only applies to cases that has not gone to court. The legal timeframes in Thailand can work in your favour, simply make sure you appoint a lawyer and make sure you start a new custody case in either your own country or a neutral country. Where I applied for custody the first hearing was within two weeks of making the application, an appeal will take about two months and the final Supreme Court will be concluded within a year. Thailand took 2 year for custody 3 years for the appeal and 4 years for the supreme court to conclude my case, which is not in the best interest of the child and any Thai lawyer will help the mum abuse the legal system - for sure the courts know this, as every time I reported neglect they simply hid behind the supreme court; yes they tried to get the mum to play ball; they even had to threaten her just to let my parents see the child, where they told me they could not force the mum to let my parents see their grandson they agreed it is a messed up system. Basically if your X is a pro, then if you do your homework and you are in a position to pay her off then yes like several expats in Thailand you will get the custody, but other than that if you want to stay in Thailand prepare for a very long battle and for sure a lot of heartache and without doubt a very frustrating times where Thai people will take you to limit that need controlling because as as soon as you break you have lost and the Thai courts will have great pleasure in telling you that you are not a fit father; and of course this is what her lawyer will be instructing her to do, and yes we can all agree Thai woman are expert in the arena of bring out the anger in men. Once you have damaged your credibility in the courts you will never win, even if you have the judge or complete panel replaces, and even if you do have the law on your side you will still lose as the courts will not lose face, even after an appeal and the Supreme court they are all connected in all states; in fact they all get shipped around. Personally I would never trust the Thai juvenile justice system; yet there are some who have won custody but in reality they are open and shut cases. Sadly and of course we are to blame as we have gone across waters, thus causing an international Ping-Pong situation, which is what the royal courts of justice in London told me. This was many years ago and at that time I was unwise of the law. Had I gone back to the UK and started a custody case as soon as I arrived rather than use the Thai courts then things would have been different. Even today some ten years on, Im still angry with myself for trusting the Thai law; however the Thai law has come a long way and for sure is acceptable to for those foreigners to win custody of their child. Obviously every situation is different such as my son was born in the UK and resided there for 2.5 years thus it could have been considered as his habitual home, where it was only six months of living in Thailand that my former wife had an affair with my friend I should have gone straight back; I have moved on, I now have my son where he is telling everybody he is not going to return to Thailand with his mum and husband (The reason I divorced her) hence his age also plays a major part to all this. Currently his mum hold his passport, but sooner he will get a new passport and then he will return to the UK and appoint his own lawyer thus irrespective of what the Thai courts does my UK lawyer has already submitted a referenced list as per the UK childrens act to the Oman courts (My former wife requested that we follow the British law) which plays a very strong weight towards the child's decision - thus unless the mum can prove the father is not a fit father then the child's wishes will be respected; this is also the signed convention of children rights in both where I'm currently staying and of course Thailand; it is just that the country where I'm currently residing has integrity and will stand by agreement where Thailand does not.

Could you insert a new paragraph every now and then? Thanks.

I've had a similar situation for nearly two years. My time isn't broken up like yours but I, too, have a lot of time on my hands. I'm from the US and I was always very active there: outdoor exercise on a bike or walking; as a Buddhist, I attended temple there regularly; and as a community activist, I was always involved in local politics. Well, none of that is possible here in Thailand: the weather is too hot, the Buddhism is very different, and we all know about the politics.

I came to the realization several months ago that I'm pretty unfulfilled here in Thailand....and I will soon be returning to the US for good. I feel that I'm not being the person I really am and that I'm not progressing as a person nor contributing to society in a good way. I have nothing bad to say about Thailand but it's just not for me.

You might keep an open mind that your situation could be similar to mine.

If you haven't lived in Bangkok then, yes, move to Bangkok if you want a change. It's a great place....but it's still Thailand. Knowing what I know now about Bangkok and in your position, move to Bangkok and don't look back for at least a year or two.

Thanks, everybody. Yeah, for all the reasons - cost, risk, fun in Cambodia, it seems better to make the run. Since I've never done it, can anyone give me any info or a link for making the run like with whom, what happens at the border, etc? Thanks a lot.

I'm on an ED visa. My current extension expires 26 April but the Ministry of Education authorization to my school expires April 1. Hence, my visa expires April 1 and I am leaving Thailand, permanently, April 15. There's no way I'm going to pay 23,000+ baht for a new Ministry letter to be legal for two weeks. My thought is to simply overstay for 15 days and pay the penalty at the airport.

Any thoughts regarding how much the fine will be at the airport for the 15 day overstay?

Or, could I take a one day trip to Cambodia on April 1 and return on a 15 day exemption, ie, no visa but with permission to stay for 15 days w/o a visa?

Get a new passport - first! Your passport is your only official international identification. When it expires, you will not have a current and valid ID. Your US, UK, AUS, etc., id will not help you (except at your embassy). At that point, the only place you can go, internationally, is home. All visas will expire when your passport expires and you will be in violation of the country's, any country's, immigration laws. In Thailand, you must have at least six months validity remaining on your passport. Also, you must obtain a re-entry permit before leaving the country.

Damn, my wifi must be playing up too. sorry bout that.

Thanks for the info but it doesn't get to the problem. Some online forums are saying this is a known issue but there isn't a known fix yet. One guy replaced his HD at Apple service but still had the same problem. One guy replaced the Airport card and everything is okay. But, Apple service doesn't have a consistent fix for this yet.

I've been in Thailand for two years on an ED visa in Bangkok. It has gone smoothly the entire time. I attend class regularly even though I'm a pretty awful student. One quarter I barely attended for various reasons, but the school gave me the required paper work for the 3 month extension.

I renewed my 90-day extension one month ago and it was the same as always - no one month probationary stamp....never had one. Twice I've gone through the process of applying to the MOE of permission to stay one year (subject to the 3-month renewals/extensions).

The re-entry permit has nothing to do with your ED visa. The re-entry permit simply allows you to re-enter the country after you leave, for whatever reason, only during the validity of your current visa. You don't get the re-entry permit as part of the ED visa process, they are separate. I got one re-entry permit one time. It was valid only until the expiration of the visa extension of the time. I've never had any type of one-month probation as part of the ED visa.

Service in Thailand just is not the same as you'll get in the US, UK, or western country. Get used to it and learn to go with it. I've had good service experience with Apple repairs, good and bad (slooooow) service for camera repairs, really awful service just trying to buy an large HP monitor. It's cultural and you ain't in Kansas anymore...

Find a yoga school or studio that isn't based in Buddhism or have it in their course. Yoga doesn't have to be practiced within the a Buddhist context.

Twice in the last week my Macbook lost wireless access. It is working fine at night but in the morning, the wireless icon is blank (no radiating waves) and the error messages reads, "Airport card not installed" and it will not connect to any network.

Apple service at Fortune Tower fixed it the first time saying it had something to do with the location in the settings, although it seemed they really did not know. They also said I should reinstall the OS, after backing everything up.

It happened again, ie., working at night but not working in the morning. I want it fixed but reinstalling the OS and all of the apps, programs, etc. seems like over-kill.

Anyone ever experienced this or have any thoughts?

"You seem to believe that you may only follow a spiritual path if you believe in a religion. This is completely wrong. All religions are false, but this does not stop someone who knows religion is a load of crap from taking a spiritual path."

"The word spiritual has evolved (no pun intended) to be associated with the private realm of thought and experience while the word religious is tied solely to the public realm of membership in a religious institution with official denominational doctrines."

Well, here we are again, splitting hairs on the definition of 'religion' and 'spirituality'. Not sure why you are on this board if you have such a negative view of

religions. For regardless of the semantic give-and-take about whether Buddhism is a religion or philosophy or a spiritual path, etc., the fact is that Buddhism is all of those. You seem to believe that a religion can't possibly be a spiritual path which is simply not true.

You still don't say if you follow a spiritual path or what that path may be. May I suggest that if you are following your own 'spiritual path' ,ie, one devoid of the teachings of any particular religion, that you are hardly in any position to comment on their efficacy.

Quote - Not sure why you are on this board if you have such a negative view of

religions.

Because the last time I checked, it was still ok to have an opposing view.

Quote - You seem to believe that a religion can't possibly be a spiritual path which is simply not true.

No I don't believe that at all and I have not said that. I am stating (again) that you dont need to be religious to follow a spiritual path. A concept that seems to be beyond you.

Quote - May I suggest that if you are following your own 'spiritual path' ,ie, one devoid of the teachings of any particular religion, that you are hardly in any position to comment on their efficacy.

Yes, you may suggest that. However I disagree with you. I am in a perfectly fine position to comment on the bizarre behaviour of my fellow man.

Disagree all you want but it's very apparent you have little or no actual knowledge of the practice of Buddhism. So, yes, you have the right to comment but it's obviously an uninformed opinion- what's up with that? Still wondering why you are posting on a Buddhist blog with only negative things to say about it, especially since your aren't Buddhist.

Because the actual question the OP asked was "Why are you (or conversely WHY ARE YOU NOT) a Buddhist", which is as clear an invitation to non-Buddhists to post and explain why they are not Buddhists as it is possible to make.

Apart from the open invitation, the comments have no credibility and indicate no real background on the subject. Sure, post away on subjects you know nothing about....

"You seem to believe that you may only follow a spiritual path if you believe in a religion. This is completely wrong. All religions are false, but this does not stop someone who knows religion is a load of crap from taking a spiritual path."

"The word spiritual has evolved (no pun intended) to be associated with the private realm of thought and experience while the word religious is tied solely to the public realm of membership in a religious institution with official denominational doctrines."

Well, here we are again, splitting hairs on the definition of 'religion' and 'spirituality'. Not sure why you are on this board if you have such a negative view of

religions. For regardless of the semantic give-and-take about whether Buddhism is a religion or philosophy or a spiritual path, etc., the fact is that Buddhism is all of those. You seem to believe that a religion can't possibly be a spiritual path which is simply not true.

You still don't say if you follow a spiritual path or what that path may be. May I suggest that if you are following your own 'spiritual path' ,ie, one devoid of the teachings of any particular religion, that you are hardly in any position to comment on their efficacy.

Quote - Not sure why you are on this board if you have such a negative view of

religions.

Because the last time I checked, it was still ok to have an opposing view.

Quote - You seem to believe that a religion can't possibly be a spiritual path which is simply not true.

No I don't believe that at all and I have not said that. I am stating (again) that you dont need to be religious to follow a spiritual path. A concept that seems to be beyond you.

Quote - May I suggest that if you are following your own 'spiritual path' ,ie, one devoid of the teachings of any particular religion, that you are hardly in any position to comment on their efficacy.

Yes, you may suggest that. However I disagree with you. I am in a perfectly fine position to comment on the bizarre behaviour of my fellow man.

Disagree all you want but it's very apparent you have little or no actual knowledge of the practice of Buddhism. So, yes, you have the right to comment but it's obviously an uninformed opinion- what's up with that? Still wondering why you are posting on a Buddhist blog with only negative things to say about it, especially since your aren't Buddhist.

"You seem to believe that you may only follow a spiritual path if you believe in a religion. This is completely wrong. All religions are false, but this does not stop someone who knows religion is a load of crap from taking a spiritual path."

"The word spiritual has evolved (no pun intended) to be associated with the private realm of thought and experience while the word religious is tied solely to the public realm of membership in a religious institution with official denominational doctrines."

Well, here we are again, splitting hairs on the definition of 'religion' and 'spirituality'. Not sure why you are on this board if you have such a negative view of
religions. For regardless of the semantic give-and-take about whether Buddhism is a religion or philosophy or a spiritual path, etc., the fact is that Buddhism is all of those. You seem to believe that a religion can't possibly be a spiritual path which is simply not true.

You still don't say if you follow a spiritual path or what that path may be. May I suggest that if you are following your own 'spiritual path' ,ie, one devoid of the teachings of any particular religion, that you are hardly in any position to comment on their efficacy.

I don't think any religion is easy to follow, if you endeavour to practice them right.

Have you ever earnestly tried consistently turning the other cheek or loving your enemies - just for one day?

Have you earnestly tried to carefully measure your speech and actions in each situation in order to cause a maximum of benefit and a minimum of harm?

Those who practice right are not weak people. They are stronger than most.

What you describe is hypocrisy. Actually, these days, I'd venture to say that in Western society, it is far more easy to just pay lip service to the current scientific theories and claim atheism than it is to stand up for a spiritual system or path.

In some places in the West, you are right, it would be easier to buy the Christianity package and just do that. But they are getting fewer as we speak - the mainstream Western society is not Christian.

That's not to say that there aren't problems with religion... just a reflection on what is easy, and what is not.

Quote = Have you ever earnestly tried consistently turning the other cheek or loving your enemies - just for one day?

Thats not religion. That's living by certain morals. You dont need to believe in a religion to do what you are suggesting.

Quote = Have you earnestly tried to carefully measure your speech and actions in each situation in order to cause a maximum of benefit and a minimum of harm?

Again, thats just self control and tactfulness. Nothing to do with religion.

Quote = Those who practice right are not weak people. They are stronger than most.

They're stupider than most. Believing in things that are not real just because other people told them its right. That's not strength, that's ignorance. Don't forget, we are all born athiests until people start lying to us. Those who believe the lies become religious. Those who don't, dont.

Quote = it is far more easy to just pay lip service to the current scientific theories and claim atheism than it is to stand up for a spiritual system or path.

Many atheists have a spiritual path. Dont confuse spiritualism with blind faith in religious doctrines.

Hmmm...it's all the standard stereotypes and put downs of people who follow a religion or a spiritual path. Okay, so you aren't religious or spiritual or whatever, but just because someone else is and thinks differently than you, doesn't make them stupid. That's just a put down because you don't like it, but please, don't crap on others because you've got a problem with it or it doesn't work for you.

It indeed take a measure of faith, of not knowing, to proceed on a spiritual path because it means you are trying to change yourself in some very basic ways. Now, you can say that is not religion, which may or may not be true. What makes it true is that it will also include a broader view of life, the universe, diety, and the highest possibilities for a person. Typically, a religion or spiritual path includes ideas that existence did not begin when you were born on this earth and does not end when you die. Maybe you don't believe that but others do; and, when they believe that it requires them to follow through on what it takes to gain that knowledge for themselves. Again, it takes a certain amount to faith- maybe you don't buy that, but that's not really your call, is it?

You say you don't need to be religious to turn the other cheek or to consider the affects of actions on others, but those ideas are found in religions also. So, saying they can be practiced without religion is simply an indication of their universal application. However, when practiced within the context of spiritual practice, you get the maximum benefit, more bang for the buck.

Btw, religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.

Quote - Okay, so you aren't religious or spiritual or whatever

Who ever said I dont follow a spiritual path? I certainly didnt. I just dont believe in the invisible sky daddy or Santa Claus just because other people have told me I have to or I wont go to Heaven or get any toys for Christmas if I dont.

Quote - It indeed take a measure of faith, of not knowing, to proceed on a spiritual path because it means you are trying to change yourself in some very basic ways.

It doesnt take a measure of faith at all. And certainly not one that has such conformities attached to it like all the major religions. In fact, I can't think of anything less spiritual than having to live by ridiculous rules with fear of repercussions (Not going to heaven, not being reincarnated as a better animal or not getting the plentiful virgins etc) if not obeyed.

Quote - Again, it takes a certain amount to faith- maybe you don't buy that, but that's not really your call, is it?

Its my call to voice my own opinion to those who have been conned into thinking there is a afterlife and a big invisible man is watching over them. I mean thats literally just as ridiculous as someone telling you they believe in invisible unicorns made of strawberry icecream. If people who believe this waffle cant accept another point of view then this faith you talk about cant be very strong.

Quote - You say you don't need to be religious to turn the other cheek or to consider the affects of actions on others, but those ideas are found in religions also. So, saying they can be practiced without religion is simply an indication of their universal application. However, when practiced within the context of spiritual practice, you get the maximum benefit, more bang for the buck.

Actually you get less bang for your buck. People who do good deeds without believing in noah's ark, burning bushes, moses parting the seas, adam and eve and talking snakes etc do it because they feel inside it is the right thing to do. Not because they want to go to heaven or please the lord jesus.

If you really want to talk about things found in religions I'll happily share some horrendous passages from the Bible. But of course, people dont follow those ideas, just the ones that suit them just nicely.

Quote - Btw, religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.

And many of those people kill people in the name of religion.

Maybe you could clarify whether you follow a spiritual path since this thread started with a question about Buddhism. It seems not since you say all religions are false.

This doesn't make much sense, 'cut 10-30 per cent of "ineffective" workers, hence productivity and income lowered." If you have 100 employees and 20% are ineffective,ie, 20 people; then you cut, say, 20% of them, then you've cut five workers, the worst presumably. The loss of these five unproductive workers lowered the productivity and income of the entire business? This makes no sense.

In any case, any business that can't pay it's workers a living wage is not a viable business. I'm still amazed that Thailand, an agrarian and tourist economy, has 10 billionaires. It's just the 1% crying that they don't have all the marbles....yet.

I don't think any religion is easy to follow, if you endeavour to practice them right.

Have you ever earnestly tried consistently turning the other cheek or loving your enemies - just for one day?

Have you earnestly tried to carefully measure your speech and actions in each situation in order to cause a maximum of benefit and a minimum of harm?

Those who practice right are not weak people. They are stronger than most.

What you describe is hypocrisy. Actually, these days, I'd venture to say that in Western society, it is far more easy to just pay lip service to the current scientific theories and claim atheism than it is to stand up for a spiritual system or path.

In some places in the West, you are right, it would be easier to buy the Christianity package and just do that. But they are getting fewer as we speak - the mainstream Western society is not Christian.

That's not to say that there aren't problems with religion... just a reflection on what is easy, and what is not.

Quote = Have you ever earnestly tried consistently turning the other cheek or loving your enemies - just for one day?

Thats not religion. That's living by certain morals. You dont need to believe in a religion to do what you are suggesting.

Quote = Have you earnestly tried to carefully measure your speech and actions in each situation in order to cause a maximum of benefit and a minimum of harm?

Again, thats just self control and tactfulness. Nothing to do with religion.

Quote = Those who practice right are not weak people. They are stronger than most.

They're stupider than most. Believing in things that are not real just because other people told them its right. That's not strength, that's ignorance. Don't forget, we are all born athiests until people start lying to us. Those who believe the lies become religious. Those who don't, dont.

Quote = it is far more easy to just pay lip service to the current scientific theories and claim atheism than it is to stand up for a spiritual system or path.

Many atheists have a spiritual path. Dont confuse spiritualism with blind faith in religious doctrines.

Hmmm...it's all the standard stereotypes and put downs of people who follow a religion or a spiritual path. Okay, so you aren't religious or spiritual or whatever, but just because someone else is and thinks differently than you, doesn't make them stupid. That's just a put down because you don't like it, but please, don't crap on others because you've got a problem with it or it doesn't work for you.

It indeed take a measure of faith, of not knowing, to proceed on a spiritual path because it means you are trying to change yourself in some very basic ways. Now, you can say that is not religion, which may or may not be true. What makes it true is that it will also include a broader view of life, the universe, diety, and the highest possibilities for a person. Typically, a religion or spiritual path includes ideas that existence did not begin when you were born on this earth and does not end when you die. Maybe you don't believe that but others do; and, when they believe that it requires them to follow through on what it takes to gain that knowledge for themselves. Again, it takes a certain amount to faith- maybe you don't buy that, but that's not really your call, is it?

You say you don't need to be religious to turn the other cheek or to consider the affects of actions on others, but those ideas are found in religions also. So, saying they can be practiced without religion is simply an indication of their universal application. However, when practiced within the context of spiritual practice, you get the maximum benefit, more bang for the buck.

Btw, religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.

Jingthing, on 07 Mar 2013 - 17:30, said:

manarak, on 07 Mar 2013 - 17:24, said:

Jingthing, on 07 Mar 2013 - 17:19, said:

uptheos, on 07 Mar 2013 - 17:16, said:

Private business, can choose whoever he wants or doesn't want in his establishment.

But he isn't the owner. I question his authority as a manager and if he isn't there how could they stop me from sitting down ?

yes, the manager acts as a proxy for the tenant of the premises who exercises property rights which include the ability to forbid access to any person.

OK, so you are saying they could call the police and the police would actually kick me out for sitting there (in their very pleasant premises) waiting to place an order?

Yes. It's private property. I don't know Thai law but common sense says it's their property (even if the manager only works there...he is in control). You have no right to be there. Even though it's open to the public, you have been specifically excluded. I think you've worn out your welcome. Move on....for a few months anyway.

I was brought up as a Catholic, but found it difficult to believe what i was told to. Once away from home I bumped into Buddhism and felt immediately that it was right for me. I like Buddhism because it follows natural laws and is above all logical. We are not expected to believe anything at all. If we fail to recognise the truth when shown it, that is our own fault, not the fault of the truth. If we fail to practice what is of benefit to ourself and others then we just stay in the cycle of life and death, until we get it right and escape. We have got it wrong so far, which is why we are still here.

After many years now since meeting Buddhism I have unshakeable conviction that it is the truth.

In Buddhism, who or what is the arbitrer of truth?

For the individual practitioner, the teacher is the final arbiter.

I said:

"A religion / philosophy that does not address the gap between rich and poor, perpetuates the gap."

"First comes a full stomach, then comes ethics"

QUOTE:

This is not how Buddhism is oriented. Perhaps this is what the poster thinks Buddhism should be, but it isn't.

Terribul misunderstanding!

I do not think that buddhism should be that way.

I am not telling buddhist what their religion / philosophy should be.

I was only answering the OP, who asked why are you a buddhist (or not).

This is why I am not a buddhist: the absence of a social dimension.

And by the way:

Most buddhists outside this forum do not practice buddhist principles. That does not mean buddhist principles are therefore wrong.

I never said that.

Same goes for believers in real communism, real free market, etc.

I reject buddhism NOT because of the behaviour of most of its followers, I reject buddhism because of NO social relevance.

The 'goal' of Buddhism is the final and complete end to suffering of beings. The goal of Buddhism is not the elimination of poverty. However, they are not mutually exclusive which seems to be the position you've taken.

You don't see the social relevance of ending suffering of beings?

A Buddhist is someone who formally takes refuge. It's a short ceremony conducted by a priest, monk, lama, etc., someone authorized to give refuge vows. Many people are put off by organized religion, but some things are just that way. Resistance to the idea of formal religion and 'authorized priests' is very common in the West. Subscribing to organized religion, however, doesn't automatically make a person bad or any less spiritually-minded.

In any case, one takes refuge vows and commits to following the Three Jewels: Buddha, Dharma, Sangha. If one takes refuge as a layperson, they take on the five vows the OP mentioned. In some traditions, refuge vows are repeated every day, or on every ceremony day, etc.

This makes a person a Buddhist. Whether they study the teaching and undertake the practices is another matter entirely. Children born into Buddhist families and cultures, like any other person, typically adopt the religion of the family but may never have an individualized experience of it and only know what they've been told. They are Buddhist, however, because they would have take refuge sometime along the way, probably when they were eight years old at the earliest.

Quotes:

"A religion / philosophy that does not address the gap between rich and poor, perpetuates the gap."

"First comes a full stomach, then comes ethics"

This is not how Buddhism is oriented. Perhaps this is what the poster thinks Buddhism should be, but it isn't.