Buddhism To Become National Religion?

[sabaijai]

Nationalists tap a source of empty pride

The writer argues that Buddhism in Thailand is in need of radical change, but definitely not through the grandiose status of a National Religion

By METTANANDO BHIKKHU

In every change there is always a chance. This saying is true not only in business, but also for Buddhist nationalists in Thailand who are trying to make Buddhism a national religion under a new constitution that is being drafted. At present it seems the winds of change are blowing in their favour, but they have not considered the full implications of appointing Buddhism as the National Religion, which would give empty pride to the majority of Thais who, sadly, have little awareness of what is going on in their own religion.

The nomination of a National Religion is not only undemocratic; it would be oppressive to other equally nationalist Thais who are not Buddhists and hurt the peace process in the South. And it would mean nothing, in practice, for Buddhist monks under the oppressive Ecclesiastical Act of BE 2505 (1962) which was issued during the military dictatorship of Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat, based on the assumption of Buddhism as Thailand's national religion.

According to the Lord Buddha, the Sangha or the Buddhist Community, is the family of monks and nuns who respect each other according to their seniority of ordination. It serves not only as an institution for spiritual development with healthcare and freedom of education, it also has system of regulations independent of the state.

The Buddhist community has survived for over 2,000 years in many countries without support from government.

There is a huge defect in the Ecclesiastical Act, which was written to impose a feudalistic structure of administration on top of the Sangha, wherein the once universal brotherhood among monks has been eroded and their rights as citizens of Thailand sacrificed to the security of the feudal hierarchy of their superiors.

Under this Act, all Thai monks are ruled under a feudal system, another state within the kingdom wherein abbots serve as state officers and they have authority to rule over their temples. A rotation of positions is not included in this system.

One outcome of this law is seen in the Thai language: the original meaning of Sangha as a ''community'' has been lost. Now the word ''sangha'' in Thai means an ''individual monk''.

Unbelievably, in Thailand where monks are highly respected, under this feudalistic law monks who apply for citizen ID cards at any local office of the government are threatened with being defrocked.

Also, monks have no right to apply for passports without consent from each member of their ecclesiastical hierarchy, which normally takes months to complete before the application form can be forwarded to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Monks who are liberal, reformist, or those who disagree with any policy of the Ecclesiastical Council risk getting no consent for their passports, and thus no freedom of movement.

They are also barred from communicating through any form of state-run public media.

Taking comfort in the feudal culture of the Thai clergy, the Ecclesiastical Council of Thailand never endorses any bills, document or policies of the United Nations which endorses rights or equality among people.

The clergy's oppressive system is not its only problem. The monks' education system also needs much improvement. Currently, there is no teaching of Thai culture, society, history or geography in the ecclesiastical syllabus. All these subjects have been classified by the monastic council as merely secular.

While Pali literature is promoted by the Ecclesiastical Council, the only text is an archaic one on Pali grammar composed by a princely monk, formatted like the Victorian English grammar book, making it extremely difficult for students to comprehend. This text also prevents them from understanding Pali grammar as taught in other Buddhist countries, such as Sri Lanka and Burma. Instead of studying the Tripitaka, the canonical literature of Buddhism, the Ecclesiastical Council views that the Tripitaka is too holy for anyone to study or interpret. With this reason, they include only commentaries, mostly written by the monks of Mahavihara temple in Sri Lanka in the 5th-10th centuries AD as their set texts, second-hand literature written 1,000 years after the Buddha.

Up till now there has been no attempt by any government of Thailand nor the Ecclesiastical Council to change the syllabus because it is bound to the old, feudal royal ties. Unlike the Tripitaka, the commentaries have no room for radical analysis or criticism. They focus mainly on defending the Buddhist faith and glorifying Lord Buddha by miracles and supernaturalism. These stories do not encourage monks to be aware of their social responsibility, blaming all vicissitudes of life on past karma or conduct.

The impact of such commentarial literature is present and clear in every Theravada country: status quos are endorsed; women are seen as inferior creatures; all inequalities in society are seen as displays of the Law of Karma and all victims deserve their fate and humility; all this makes social development planning almost impossible.

It is not surprising that instead of being a religion of peace and wisdom, Buddhism in Thailand fosters supernaturalism. Many high-ranking monks in Bangkok are astrologers, masters of the occult arts or entrepreneurs in the amulet industry, making Thailand one of the world's largest amulet producers. The amulet market, also controlled by the Ecclesiastical Council in Thailand, is as lucrative as that of the underground lottery: billions of baht circulate in this business daily, and it is all tax-free.

Buddhism in Thailand is in need of radical change _ but not through the grandiose status of a National Religion. Rather, we need a separation of Church and State, so that Buddhism can be freed from governmental control and the feudal lords of the Ecclesiastical Council. It will be good not only for Buddhists, but for the development of democracy in Thailand.

Mettanando Bhikkhu is a Thai Buddhist monk and a former physician. He is special adviser on Buddhist affairs to the secretary-general of the World Conference of Religions for Peace.

[PeaceBlondie]

How true are some of his statements? I just saw this elsewhere, and wondered how true it is.

[sabaijai]

Thailand's constitution concerns escalating

The Nation, Feb 12, 2007

Bangkok, Thailand -- Defence Minister General Boonrawd Somtas is worried about growing disunity over calls to declare Buddhism the official religion in the new constitution. He predicted yesterday the issue could become a national controversy.

"If there is public opposition to omitting the declaration from the charter then the government could be in trouble," he said.

Pressure groups are demanding the constitution include a declaration making Buddhism the official state religion. They have threatened to vote down the draft at a referendum if it is omitted.

"They may become a force of people against the Council for National Security. It is a worry because more than 90 per cent of the country practises Buddhism,'' he said.

Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) deputy chairman Decho Sawanonont said groups unsuccessfully pushed for an official religion in the 1997 Constitution.

"The new charter will be voted on in a referendum and drafters have to listen to the voice of the people," said Decho, who helped draft the 1997 charter.

Despite widespread belief the 1997 Constitution was the best ever, it was flawed, he said.

He said the 1997 drafters were subjected to political interference and lobbied into softening provisions regulating politicians' conflicts of interest and their direct and indirect interests with the state.

"There were allegations a cocktail party was thrown at Parliament where drafters were encouraged to remove conflict-of-interest clauses and a ban on politicians having direct and indirect interests with the state.

"Finally, these clauses were voted out,'' he said, adding that politicians exploited loopholes in restrictions against holding shares in listed companies.

The 1997 charter failed to adequately regulate the management of shares held in trusts or by nominees, he said. "[Politicians] interpreted the constitution and distorted its spirit and intention. This time we must not allow such ambiguities,'' he said.

CDC spokesman Tongthong Chandrangsu was yesterday worried about an "imbalance" in the composition of charter drafters.

He said the core drafting committee had more bureaucrats.

"Political analysts believe the country will see a growing influence of bureaucrats because we now see politicians as evil. We are trying to reduce their role in the drafting of the charter,'' he said.

He noted the 1997 drafting committee was "balanced" with public, academics and politicians.

Tongthong worries the draft will encounter public opposition over the appointment or election of senators and education prerequisites for members of Parliament.

"Most charter drafters are inclined towards appointed senators and allowing constituency candidates to run without first securing undergraduate degrees," he said.

Source: The Nation

[MarkBKK]

How true are some of his statements? I just saw this elsewhere, and wondered how true it is.

From the little I've seen and know, from what Thai friends and colleagues tell me and from the concerns of organisations like the WBC, he's just -- barely -- scratching the surface. There are Buddhists in Thailand, but they appear to be in the minority (in Bangkok at least).

[kalama]

How true are some of his statements? I just saw this elsewhere, and wondered how true it is.

I guess there are plenty of views within the order of bhikkhus and nuns, but only a few may express their opinion in public.

There are pros and cons for declaring a state religion in the new constitution..

even in Europe there is discussion of involving Christianity in the charter of the European Union.

In the case of Thailand , this issue has appeared over many decades.

One may remember that Prathet Thai means Land of the Free. And freedom is that taste of essence which one encounters in Buddhism, like the salt of the ocean (as Thailand's best welllknown Buddhist scholar put it).

My point has been and is so far as now: is there a real need to declare in written what is understood anyway?

I stumbled upon a message from the Nation's blog recently which seems to me as well contributing for contemplation of the matter ( hoping the anonymus author -'democratic Thai citizen '- will not mind):

DEMOCRATIC THAI CITIZEN 12/09/06 06:05

SUBJECT: BUDDHISM AND THAI POLITICS! Dear FREE THINKER: In your post of 11/09/06 08:46, you asked DISAPPOINTED the following question: “Disappointed, How come you have a Rome Club in Patpong? What are they doing in your Buddhist country? How come I never hear you say anything about sleaze in your very religious country? There's an equivalent to Patpong in most of the Thai cities, except the muslim south? Why is that, Disappointed?” IN ESSENCE, YOUR COMMENT (QUESTION) TO DISAPPOINTED IS THIS: “Why does Thailand (that is devoted to Buddhism) allow sex industries across the nation, in contrast to the Pattani region (that is devoted to Islam) which bans extramarital sex?” The answer is SIMPLE: Buddhism - as a religion - FORBIDS ANY person, group, agency or government to impose the teachings of The Lord Buddha on ANY person or people! Buddhism - as a religion - teaches the SEPARATION of religion and state! The Lord Buddha STRONGLY admonished that NO PART of His teachings are to be enforced AGAINST the free will of people! His religion is be practiced on the INDIVIDUAL or PERSONAL basis - and not through ANY kind of coercion (mental or physical) or state legislation! TRUE, Buddhism forbids adultery, alcoholism, killing, stealing, lying – etc. HOWEVER, these principles of Buddhism are to be INDIVIDUALLY or PERSONALLY practiced. The teachings of The Lord Buddha CANNOT be enforced through intimidation or state law. Such an action VIOLATES the FOUNDATION of Buddhism which encourages FREEDOM OF RELIGION, THOUGHT AND CHOICE! The day Thailand enforces ANY precept of Buddhism as a STATE LAW on the conscience of the citizens (or any one living in Thailand), that VERY SAME day Thailand would have UTTERLY DESTROYED the TENURE of Buddhism! This is why Thailand CANNOT enforce political or judicial laws against adultery, alcoholism, killing, stealing, lying, etc. – BASED ON THE TEACHINGS OF THE LORD BUDDHA! If Thailand wants to enforce political or judicial laws against ANY of these acts, Thailand will have to do so on OTHER GROUNDS – BUT NOT BUDDHISM! For example, there is now a legal push to ban alcoholism in Thailand (for those less than 25 years old). Do you know there are some Thai (supposedly devout Buddhists) proclaiming the SUPPORT of this STATE LEGISLATURE based on the TEACHINGS of THE LORD BUDDHA? Their reasoning is this: The Lord Buddha discouraged alcoholism. Thailand is a Buddhist country. Therefore, Thailand should have state laws against alcoholism. This would preserve Buddhism. What they FAILED to mention is that The Lord Buddha FORBIDED ANY of HIS teachings to be enforced through ANY kind of coercion (mental or physical) or state legislation! The Constitution of Thailand makes Buddhism the NATIONAL religion of the nation. The white color of the Thai flag symbolizes Buddhism. Buddhism teaches the FREEDOM RELIGION, THOUGHT AND CONSCIENCE. This is why Thailand CANNOT prohibit the practice of other religions in the land. Though the Buddhist zealots (by forcing Buddhism down the throat of other people in the land) may believe they are preserving the religion, they do not comprehend they are DESTROYING the FOUNDATION of Buddhism itself! Whatever law Thailand enforces on the citizens of the land (or any one living in Thailand), that particular law CANNOT be based on the teachings of Buddhism. The Lord Buddha HIMSELF FORBADE such an action. The teachings of Buddhism differ greatly from Islam. Buddhism encourages free thought; Islam forbids any teaching or action against the Quran. Buddhism teaches the respect for all religions; Islam believes Allah is the only true God and Islam is the only true religion. Buddhism forbids punishing people who insult or renounce Buddhism; Islam authorizes Muslims not to spare any person insulting or renouncing Islam. Buddhism forbids any aspect of the teachings of The Lord Buddha to be imposed as a state legislation over the conscience of any person or people; Islam authorizes the dictates of Islamic (Quranic) laws over the conscience of people. Buddhism forbids violence in the name of religion for any reason; Islam permits holy wars (jihad) against people who are threats to Islam. The list goes on and on. However, I believe you get the picture. Further elaborations or comparisons of the two religions need not be given. Now, I specifically address your question. You should understand that, in the Pattani region, extramarital sex is CURBED because the region is RULED by Islam. For Muslims, the Quran IS the conscience and the governing law of the people! However, in the rest of Thailand, extramarital sex CANNOT be banned based on Buddhism because Buddhism forbids religious coercions of ANY kind for ANY reason on ANY person! This is why the Constitution of Thailand HAS TO BE AMENDED if the Pattani region is to be allowed to self-rule. As long as the Thai Constitution governs ANY part of Thailand, that particular part of Thailand HAS the FREEDOM OF RELIGION, THOUGHT AND CONSCIENCE – which does not match the dictates of the Quran or Islam! The same goes for alcoholism. In the Pattani region, alcoholism is CURBED because the region is GOVERNED by Islam. In the rest of Thailand, alcoholism CANNOT be banned based on Buddhism because Buddhism FORBIDS the implementation of ANY state legislature based on ANY teaching of The Lord Buddha (though some Buddhist zealots are making it their ambition to shove Buddhism right down people’s throats!) In closing, I am glad my home is in Bangkok. I love the massage parlors. The massage parlor is the ONLY way I get sex! If my sex life depended on my looks and personal charm with women, I would be left merely with masturbation – if not deprived of sex altogether! I am not saying the Pattani region is inferior. I am just saying I am glad Buddhism is the national religion of Thailand. The religion gives me (and ALL Thai people and ALL people in Thailand) the CHOICE to follow or not follow the precepts. That is what this is REALLY all about – CHOICE!

[cdnvic]

"National religions" almost always just marginalise minority religious groups. Like Thailand needs any more of that.

[meadish_sweetball]

Agreed. Sounds like an overall bad idea, and you have to wonder if the people behind it have thought it through properly. The world is shrinking and we need more inclusiveness instead of exclusiveness...

[camerata]

According to the Bangkok Post, there were - get this! - 100 people out protesting on behalf of Buddhism as a state religion yesterday. I wonder if the media is blowing the story up a bit.

[farangsay]

"National religions" almost always just marginalise minority religious groups. Like Thailand needs any more of that.

I was going to say something like that so instead ...

Seconded

[PeaceBlondie]

I agree that in the West, state religions (of various sects of Christianity) have a terrible record. Yet, the idea of separation of church and State was so foreign in Europe in the 16th century that anybody who protested for it, was killed. Killed, exiled, or imprisoned. The separation is far from final, yet. So, it should not be surprising if there is favoring of Buddhism in Thailand. However, if all the other national constitutions of Thailand didn't state an official religion, this is the wrong time to state it. In my humble opinion as a foreigner and non-Buddhist.

[sabaijai]

According to the Bangkok Post, there were - get this! - 100 people out protesting on behalf of Buddhism as a state religion yesterday. I wonder if the media is blowing the story up a bit.

That's my impression ...