Pressure Mounts To Make Buddhism State Religion

[cdnvic]

If anything, most major religions around today survived periods of harsh suppression by various governments throughout their history.

[toptuan]

I borrowed this post over from the "Jerry Fallwell Dies" thread, because it seemed more appropriate to have a go in this thread....have at it guys.

(ProThaiExpat @ 2007-05-16 10:44:09) *

While OP did not relate this thread to Thailand, it certainly has much relevance to the current debate of making Buddhism a "national religion".

The U.S. Supreme court has stopped religionists every time they try to get their foot in the door in their maintenance of the constitutional principle of "separation of church and state".

Thai constitution writers should take heed of the lesson they can learn from America's two hundred year fight to remain secularized in the face of constant efforts of religionists to put their dogma into government.

A very skewed view of USA history, IMO. At one time, the USA was much like Thailand is today.

Buddhism, the de facto State Religion of Thailand Today

As I live in Thailand, I am continually and mildly surprised how Buddhism is really the de facto state religion by virtue of actual practice (the King, by the constitution, must be Buddhist; public transportation reserves specific seating for monks, church and state work actively together in the use of Wats for public functions and purposes, Buddhist monks teach in state universities and colleges, state institutions adopt Buddhist symbols as insignias, the king leads the country in Buddhist ceremonial occasions, etc.) Right up until the 1960's, Buddhist wats and monks were at the forefront of public education--often the wat also being the local school for children. Even today, in the state schools "secular" and "religious" education is completely integrated. This is all proper, in my thinking, because after all, the country is 95% Buddhist.

Christianity, the de facto State Religion of Yesteryear in the USA

This identical situation existed in the USA from its inception until early in the last century. Because that country was also overwhelmingly Christian, the institutions "mixed" frequently, and at high levels. Reading some of the early politicians' and government figure speeches is like reading fiery evangelist oratories. "Secular" and "religious" education was as much integrated as Thailand's has ever been. The Bible was a primary textbook in the schools, usually taught by the local minister in the church building. The New England Primer, used throughout the colonies and early states, basically told the Christian Gospel catechism as it started out, "A: In Adam's fall, we sinned all."

In the 1950's, my public school distributed (courtesy of the Gideons organization) Bibles to all 5th grade students. This wasn't the Bible belt, either--it was in the north. At Christmas, several of my elementary and Junior High teachers who I presumed were Christians, used the opportunity to tell the full story of Christian redemption to their students. This was all normal and acceptable, because of the vast predominance of Christianity.

The Secularization of America

Thus, the 20th century began to see the unprecedented secularization of America, rather than "standing against the religionists" or "stopping the religionists" who are supposedly trying to force Christianity into the social fabric as ProThaiExpat tries to skew it.

Particularly since the mid-20th century, America has seen a huge influx of other faiths due to immigration. It has also seen a shift in a large part of its population to non-religious traditions and philosophies. In reality, the "religionists" have been simply trying to fight for the status quo of nearly two centuries of American religious/political tradition, rather than introducing something new and insidious into the American society. Whether right or wrong, that's up to you. IMO I believe a greater sensitivity to a more pluralistic society is a healthy thing.

Skewing History to Support a Point

What I object to, is the poster trying to skew American history to support his point. Nevertheless, I do agree with his bottom line: to have a de facto state religion is fine if the population supports it. To codify the practice introduces new problems concerning religious freedom and even weakens king's own role as the "Protector of All Religions" in Thailand. This has been the king's duty since the Siam King Narai since 1688. May it continue to be so.

Edited May 16, 2007 by toptuan

[Plus]

The precedents are everywhere. Every major world religion extant today was started without gov't sponsorship and was not sponsored by a gov't until it got really big and popular...I think...but I'm not sure as I am not expert in the genesis and developmnet of organised religion....all the major religions thrived without gov't sponsorship in their early development I think....this is certainly true of Christianity which was persecuted by the authorities that be when it was developing...Judaism thrived way back when it was just some tribes that believed in it...Buddhism started in India and it was totally wiped out by a Muslim invasion but it did not stop Buddhism from growing and developing. Christianity is doing quite well in the US inspite of it having no gov't support there.

Christianity certainly wasn't big until it was adopted and institutionalised by Romans and then enforce on the rest of Europe. How many local faiths and believes were wiped out in the process? No one was there to protect them.

See the previous post on how it ends in America, under newly declared secularism.

Buddhism disappeared from India long before Muslims got there, the turning point was sometimes in the 7th century, if I remember correctly. Emperor Asoka is credited for spreading Buddhism more than anyone else in history.

Judaism might have thrived way back until their last temple was destroyed, but then the Jews demanded their own, Jewish state, just over fifty years ago, when the rest of the world was going secular.

If anyone knows how to preserve their religion it is Jews.

[tettyan]

***flame deleted***

Within the industrialized world, America is THE MOST religious country in the world. Faith in God is higher, church attendance is higher, and the people are overwhelmingly Christian. While church attendance has steadily dwindled in Western Europe (where you still also have state religions), it has remained steady in the US over the last half century.

The strength of religion in the US is possible PRECISELY because there is no official, established religion. First, if relgion becomes too entangled with the state, it inevitably corrupts religion, which undermines its credibility and ultimately drives people away from the pews (Quebec is one example of this). Second, religion in the US is a voluntary association - nobody can force you to attend, so the churches have to make you WANT to attend. In a somewhat oxymoronic sense, this sort of "free market" competition between different Christian sects is what makes religion so dynamic in the US. On the other hand, in countries where there is a long history of state sponsorship if religion, like England, Spain, even Canada (some public schools in Canada are still run by religious organizations), religion is stagnant, and secularization of society has met little resistance.

The voluntary associational nature of Christianity in America has also contributed to the development of civil society. On the importance of civil society in the development of democracy, go back and read de Tocqueville if you didn't do so in college.

None of these ideas I have put forth are new - try reading the relevant chapters of Sam Huntington's "American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony." You might enjoy him "Plus," he's a big fan of Max Weber's infatuation with the "Protestant work ethic" and "Protestant values."

In short, in today's modern society, freedom from the state makes religion strong. And embracing the state is a sure-fire way to kill religion.

One footnote on the supposed "religiousity" of America's founders. Just as it is now, it was a controversial then. Not all the founders were expounders of Christian values, at least in the public sphere. Thomas Jefferson himself believed in a "strict wall of separation" between state and religion. It's not clear how far modern Supreme Court decisions deviate from "tradition," because the jury's still out on what "tradition" is. Historical sources provide support to both sides in the debate.

Finally, just a few words about myself - I'm a devout Roman Catholic, and still attend church every Sunday whether I'm in Thailand or the US. And I strongly oppose any efforts to establish official relgions. It's bad for society, it's bad government, and most importantly, it's bad for religion.

Edited May 17, 2007 by sabaijai

[Plus]

Six in ten Americans consider religion important to their lives, in Asia and Africa the numbers are about nine in ten.

While the US leads the developed countries list, it simply means that it is sliding slower. Half a century ago the ratio was perhaps ten in ten.

"..."free market" competition between different Christian sects is what makes religion so dynamic in the US"

That would kill Buddhism for sure - we have enough amulet and lucky number trading as it is. How often it is the main reason for peoplr to attend temples in Thailand?

[Jai Dee]

Buddhist Organization claims most Thai people want Buddhism to be state religion

The Buddhists Organization of Thailand presents a survey of opinions which indicate that the majority of Thai people voices support for the designation of Buddhism as the state religion.

Representatives of the Buddhists Organization of Thailand led by Phra Maha Cho Tassaneeyo (พระมหาโช ทัศนีโย) submits the survey results to Gen.Preecha Rojanasain (ปรีชา โรจนเสน), a member of the committee for religions, ethics, arts and culture of the National Legislative Assembly (NLA). The survey, designed by Wat Rachathiwat (ราชาธิวาส), was conducted with 2.5 million people across the country.

According to the survey, 90% of respondents living in the Lower North and 56% in the Northeast say they want the new constitution to address Buddhism as the national religion.

Phra Maha Cho Tassaneeyo dismisses an allegation made by NLA’s committee for people’s participation in the charter drafting which says that his group has been attacking those opposing the idea of Buddhism as the national religion. He also says that the organization has not mobilized monks and Buddhist people to veto the public hearing for the constitution.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 17 May 2007

[Galong]

If anything, most major religions around today survived periods of harsh suppression by various governments throughout their history.

And this goes the other way around too. Organized Religion has been one of the most powerful and deadly tools that man has ever invented. if you think that Christianity was spread by love, you better read some proper history books. The Crusades and the Inquititions were murderous and as violent as any time in recorded history. It was by fear of death, usually by fire or being drawn and quartered, that people in England at least were converted.

During one 100 year stretch in the past there were 44 popes. they were killing each other off everytime you turned around. The pope was the most powerful man in the Western world. Kings bowed to the pope. If mankind is to advance, religion must take a back seat. Let the superstitutions die a peaceful death.

Personal beliefs aside, organized religion is dangerous... in other words, believe whatever you want, just don't force it on anyone else and don't try to run the country based on superstitious beliefs.

[Plus]

In the recent years the US has demonstrated that it is quite capable of killing hundreds of thousands of people in the name of democracy. It's more humane, now, I know, but still...

[cdnvic]

If mankind is to advance, religion must take a back seat. Let the superstitutions die a peaceful death.

When it comes to buddhism, you see religion and superstition. I see science written poetically.

[tettyan]

Six in ten Americans consider religion important to their lives, in Asia and Africa the numbers are about nine in ten.

While the US leads the developed countries list, it simply means that it is sliding slower.

So the solution is having state sponsorship of religion then? Yeah, that worked really well in England, Canada, Spain and Germany. As I said above, unlike America, all these countries have a long history of state backing of religion, and the pews there are emptying out much faster than in America.

Half a century ago the ratio was perhaps ten in ten.

Where did you get those numbers from? My source is The Economist's issue from November 6, 2003. According to a survey of church records, 63% of Americans in 1960 were members of a church in 1960. In 1996, the figure was 60%. That's almost within the margin of error. Quoting further:

"Back in the 1960s, Gallup polls found that 53% of Americans thought churches should not be involved in politics, and 22% thought members of the clergy should not even mention candidates for public office from the pulpit. By 1996, these numbers had reversed: 54% thought it was fine for churches to talk about political and social issues, and 20% thought even stump speeches were permissible in church."

"..."free market" competition between different Christian sects is what makes religion so dynamic in the US"

That would kill Buddhism for sure - we have enough amulet and lucky number trading as it is. How often it is the main reason for peoplr to attend temples in Thailand?

If Buddhism must be the state religion, then so should animism (traditional, spirtual beliefs). Many of these superstitious beliefs pre-dated the arrival of Buddhism, and to many Thais, there's no distinction between Buddhism and animism. This obfuscation is even encouraged by the corrupt, state-backed, Buddhist heirarchy in Thailand.

Strict church/state separationists argue for "freedom from religion." I'd argue that religion needs "freedom from government." The Thai state's meddling in religious affairs is already excessive. You, a professed despiser of Thaksin, should know this better than anyone else. One of the PAD's main charges against Thaksin was flagrant intervention in the affairs of the Sangha Council, particuarly his alleged role in getting his wife's family's fortune-teller appointed as acting Supreme Patriarch.

Edited May 17, 2007 by tettyan

[cdnvic]

So the solution is having state sponsorship of religion then? Yeah, that worked really well in England, Canada, Spain and Germany. As I said above, unlike America, all these countries have a long history of state backing of religion, and the pews there are emptying out much faster than in America.

Canada has never had a state religion. While the Queen is head of the Anglican Church, this has no bearing on law, and church run schools only get the same universal funding that all private schools do from government.

[tettyan]

Canada has never had a state religion. While the Queen is head of the Anglican Church, this has no bearing on law, and church run schools only get the same universal funding that all private schools do from government.

I never said that Canada had a state religion. But there's a long history of state sponsorship of religion - even in some areas today, public schools (particularly French schools in areas with Francophone minorities) are still run by religious organizations. Until not too long ago, all the public English schools were run by the Protestents, French schools by the Catholics. Quebec society until the 1960s was described as "priest-ridden," with the Catholic church running everything from schools to social services. There might not have been an "official" religion, but certain religions were (and still are) singled out for taxpayer support.

In the US, this level of support of for religion would be considered a flagrant violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"). Although elected officials in the US (as well as the general public) are more likely to publically profess religiousity, the level of entanglement between the institutions of state and religion has always been much lower than Canada. This apparent irony has been my main point throughout this discussion. The contradiction is even more stark when comparing the US with western Europe.

I apologize to all Canadians here for always picking on Canada, but I always thinks it's the country that offers the most useful comparison with the US.

Edited May 18, 2007 by tettyan

[Plus]

Tettyan,

State religion and state church are two slightly different things. The Queen is the head of the church but that doesn't mean the Anglican church is a state religion in the UK.

State meddling in religion's affairs is a technical issue, there are negative sides to every relationship. Defining these relationships is necessary for any serious attempt at writing Consitution. So far everyone agrees that Buddhism is a de-facto state religion in Thailand, they are just afraid to commit it to paper.

>>>>>>>>>>

Here is a number that I like:

Key findings of the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey:

The proportion of the adult population that can be classified as Christian has declined from 86% in 1990 to 77% in 2001.

Ten percent drop in one decade.

I base my opinion about decline of the religion in the US not on numerical data, though, but on quality. Every man and his dog can start a new church and take orders from no one. While Roman Catholics has managed to keep their flock, over at the Protestant side it's a total anarchy. They do not follow any paritcular religion - they create their own. All you need is some charisma and a Bible in hand. There's no such thing as "purity" of the tradition. Everybody is a bloody expert on its own. People are not prepared to take any guidance from their priests seriously, who, in turn, in your own words, have to do wahtever it takes to please their parishioners. They are in service to their customers, not to God.

In a situation like that the rising numbers of "newly born" Christians do not mean a thing, if they are actually rising.

[tettyan]

State religion and state church are two slightly different things. The Queen is the head of the church but that doesn't mean the Anglican church is a state religion in the UK.

From the Church of England's website:

"The settlement of 1689 has remained the basis of the constitutional position of the Church of England ever since, a constitutional position in which the Church of England has remained the established Church with a range of particular legal privileges and responsibilities ..."

The definition of established church from dictionary.com:

"The church that is recognized as the official church of a nation; A church that a government officially recognizes as a national institution and to which it accords support."

From Wikipedia:

"A state religion (also called an official religion, established church or state church) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state."

Nice try to nuance the words and create new meanings, but I'm afraid the dictionary and the law are not on your side on this one.

State meddling in religion's affairs is a technical issue, there are negative sides to every relationship. Defining these relationships is necessary for any serious attempt at writing Consitution. So far everyone agrees that Buddhism is a de-facto state religion in Thailand, they are just afraid to commit it to paper.

And committing it to paper has worked wonders for the vitality of religion in western Europe. As I pointed out above, Prostentism and Catholcism had been the de facto state religions in Canada, and that's also worked wonders for non-secularism there too, right. Buddhism may already be the quasi-de facto religion of Thailand, and the corrupting influence of the state has already damaged it enough. So you're arguing for deeper formalization of this pernicious relationship?

And who says "everyone agrees"? If "everyone agrees," then they can add the clause later through amending the constitution through the usual democratic process. Oh, wait, they already tried to do that before the coup when Thaksin was still in charge, but it didn't work! In short, the democratic process was not kind to the religious fanatics. That's why they're pushing so hard now - their only chance of sneaking the clause in is during the undemocratic drafting process that's sponsored by junta which is spooked whenever 5000 protestors manage to make a little noise.

Here is a number that I like:

Key findings of the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey:

The proportion of the adult population that can be classified as Christian has declined from 86% in 1990 to 77% in 2001.

Ten percent drop in one decade.

What a narrow, ethnocentric view you take. I, for one, was never arguing that Americans were becoming less Christian. I was arguing that they were not becoming less religious. Of course the number of Christians as a proportion of the population has gone down. Because you have increased immigration from non-Christian countries, like East Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East.

Review my data again please. The problem with your data is the number who self-identify as "Christian." The small problem with self-identification surveys is that people often say on thing and do another (God forbid)! Look again at my data, which is based on Church records - a rough indicator of whatAmericans actually do, as opposed to what they say. It shows that only 63% of Americans were members of a Church in 1960, back at a time when you claim "everyone" was Christian and religious. That figure has barely changed over the years.

I base my opinion about decline of the religion in the US not on numerical data, though, but on quality.

Right, when you can't argue with the numbers, you come up with subjective criteria that is inherently unmeasurable. Come back when you can get this proposition past a thesis proposal committtee.

Every man and his dog can start a new church and take orders from no one. While Roman Catholics has managed to keep their flock, over at the Protestant side it's a total anarchy. They do not follow any paritcular religion - they create their own. All you need is some charisma and a Bible in hand. There's no such thing as "purity" of the tradition. Everybody is a bloody expert on its own. People are not prepared to take any guidance from their priests seriously, who, in turn, in your own words, have to do wahtever it takes to please their parishioners. They are in service to their customers, not to God.

In a situation like that the rising numbers of "newly born" Christians do not mean a thing, if they are actually rising.

I urge you to review your American religious history. Or the history of Christianity. What you're arguing is NOT a new phenomenon. It's been going on at least since Luther penned his 95 theses in 1517, and if you happen to believe Luther, it's been going on for centuries longer within the Catholic church itself.

Edited May 18, 2007 by tettyan

[sabaijai]

Brethren we're getting a little far afield with all the Christian history (though I must admit I find it very interesting, having been raised Episcopalian, then switching to the Society of Friends in my late teens). Yes it's relevant to the discussion of whether Buddhism should be enshrined in the next Thai charter up to a point, but let's try and bring the focus back around to Thailand if we can.

[PeaceBlondie]

I haven't read this topic for a few pages, but if I may make a distinction:

State support and favored recognition of one religion over other religions or sects is STATE-SPONSORED RELIGION - also called 'establishment,' which is a technical term relating to the combination of church and State.

The fact that the majority of the Thais think they're some kind of Buddhist, is not the same as the Constitution declaring Buddhism as the state religion. A 21st-26th century Thai constitution that recognizes Buddhism as the national religion, without clearly safeguarding freedom of religion and protecting other religions, would be a catastrophic step backward for Thailand. In my opinion as a disestablishmentarianist.

[Plus]

I, for one, was never arguing that Americans were becoming less Christian. I was arguing that they were not becoming less religious

This is precisely what Thailand does not want to see - Thais becoming less Buddhist but somehow "not less religious", and this is precisely what will happen if Thailand goes the "American way".

On state religion vs. state church - I'm a bit confused with your reading. In case of a state churh, religion is under complete control of the state, in case of a state religion the state adopts the religion but doesn't have jurisdiction over it - catholics will always follow Vatican, while Anglicans are bound to follow their Queen.

Buddhism may already be the quasi-de facto religion of Thailand, and the corrupting influence of the state has already damaged it enough.

On paper every Thai government has always been secular since introducing Consititional Moanarchy.

Corrupting influence you see is the result of SEPARATING state form religion.

>>>>>

Christian church adherents 2000

Percent

Number of

(1,000) population \1

133,377 47.4 %

For 2000, based on U.S. Census Bureau data for

resident population enumerated as of April 1;

Christian church adherents were defined as "all members, including

full members, their children and the estimated number of other

regular participants who are not considered as communicant,

confirmed or full members."

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/07s0075.xls

[jdinasia]

Seems to me that Buddhism is IN FACT ... not defacto the state religion now! The Head of State picks the Grand Patriarch of the Thai Sangha doesn't he?

If so why the fuss?

[cdnvic]

It seems that some just want Buddhism forced upon others. Doesn't say much for their faith in it if they think it can't survive on it's own.

[tettyan]

I, for one, was never arguing that Americans were becoming less Christian. I was arguing that they were not becoming less religious

This is precisely what Thailand does not want to see - Thais becoming less Buddhist but somehow "not less religious", and this is precisely what will happen if Thailand goes the "American way".

I am always courteous enough read your posts carefully, and I would appreciate it if you reciprocated. I point out that while America may be less "Christian" because of immigration, it isn't any less religious than it was 40 years ago, when you claim (incorrectly) that "everyone" was "Christian" and religious." Thanks for finally referencing some statistics, but the problem with the numbers is that they only offer a snapshot at one point in time, and don't show how numbers have CHANGED over time.

Your often start your arguments claiming "everyone in Thailand agrees" on this issue. The fact is STILL possible to be Buddhist and oppose making Buddhism the state religion. The Student Federation of Thailand is against it. I doubt the 10 percent of Thais who are not even nominal Buddhists (and these people are just as Thai as Buddhist Thais, just ask my grandmother) are crazy about it either. My girlfriend, a very strict Buddhist (big on meditation camps and studying Dharma, but NOT big on superstitions, amulets, lotteries, and alcohol), is also dead set against it. Duh! Did it ever occur to you that it's possible to be religious, but at the same time, feel strongly that a government should not shove your faith down the throats of others? Most of my (devoutly) American Christian friends would agree. BTW, how often do you attend church? I attend Catholic mass every week.

As I said above, if the fundamentalists want so badly to include a clause in the constitution, they SHOULD DO SO THROUGH THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. In fact, they've tried already, and repeatedly failed. They tried in 1997. After that, they tried lobbying parliament, under Chuan and under Thaksin, to initiate a constitutional amendment to declare Buddhism as the state religion, and they failed. The only reason they stand a chance now is that an unelected, ultranationalistic military government is in place. Unfortunately, the junta-sponsored drafting process is being hijacked by special interest groups (eg transexuals, the disabled, the elderly, etc - not all unworthy causes, but do they really belong in a CONSTITUTION?) to promote their agendas. If the fundamentalists are so confident that their cause is popular, let them push it using the democratic amending forumula, not by lobbying and threatening a paranoid, nationalistic junta.

On state religion vs. state church - I'm a bit confused with your reading. In case of a state churh, religion is under complete control of the state, in case of a state religion the state adopts the religion but doesn't have jurisdiction over it - catholics will always follow Vatican, while Anglicans are bound to follow their Queen.

I am very sorry you didn't understand. I didn't look up all those definitions (not mine) just for fun, but to help you comprehend, but I guess you didn't get it, so I'll put it simply. Your attempt to distinguish the definition of "state church" and "state religion" is a farce. The dictionaries and the law say that both terms mean the same thing. See Peaceblondie's post, it sums it up more succintly than mine.

On paper every Thai government has always been secular since introducing Consititional Moanarchy.

Corrupting influence you see is the result of SEPARATING state form religion.

So the Catholic church was LEAST corrupt during the Middle Ages, right? Back when kings claimed authority by "divine right," and when kings and princes still had the power to appoint bishops and priests (and vice versa!). We're talking about the days when priests sold indulgences (go and look this up yourself if you don't understand what it means), when popes fathered children, and when Cardinals managed the finances for the king of France.

Time for you to brush up on your history, my friend.

Edited May 21, 2007 by tettyan

[DrFisher]

I know there is a very good chance I will get abused for this but................. I would be very happy to see Buddhism as the national religion and I would be very happy to see Thai people turn back to more traditional ways and give up many of the bad Western habits they have developed. I would also like to see a working model of His Majesty's Sufficiency Economy put into action.

[cdnvic]

I know there is a very good chance I will get abused for this but................. I would be very happy to see Buddhism as the national religion and I would be very happy to see Thai people turn back to more traditional ways and give up many of the bad Western habits they have developed. I would also like to see a working model of His Majesty's Sufficiency Economy put into action.

Creating a national religion will not accomplish that though. I know it's pc to attribute the bad to western influences, but there are plenty of Thai bad habits out there too, and not every western influence has been bad.

[DrFisher]

Yes, I agree with you Thais do have their own bad habits but the root of them are greed and prejudiced. I think by creating a Buddhist state it will put things into a different prospective not that everyone will change but change starts with one person.

[Plus]

Your often start your arguments claiming "everyone in Thailand agrees" on this issue.

Everyone agrees that Buddhism is a de-facto state religion, not that it should be included in Consitution. I'll read the rest of your post more carefully later on.

[jdinasia]

It seems that some just want Buddhism forced upon others. Doesn't say much for their faith in it if they think it can't survive on it's own.

forced on others how?

if Buddhism is the de-facto STATE Religion (it is .. the Head of State picks the head of the Thai sangha)

Having a country that attempts to live by moral laws ... (even if it fails) is NOT a bad thing ... and if we add Buddhist compassion in ... it can only be better!)

[cdnvic]

Yes, I agree with you Thais do have their own bad habits but the root of them are greed and prejudiced. I think by creating a Buddhist state it will put things into a different prospective not that everyone will change but change starts with one person.

A "Buddhist state" is about the most un-Buddhist thing I can think of. Buddhist thinking is something for the individual. To impose it upon others by being born into a Buddhist state takes away their ability to discover it and replaces it with ritual for the sake of tradition. This is already a problem in Buddhism without further institutionalizing it.

If you want the outward appearance of Buddhism it's fine to institutionalize it within the nation, but Buddhism isn't about appearances, it's about pursuing one's own spiritual development, which may differ greatly from that of a homogenized state instituted religion.

[jdinasia]

Yes, I agree with you Thais do have their own bad habits but the root of them are greed and prejudiced. I think by creating a Buddhist state it will put things into a different prospective not that everyone will change but change starts with one person.

A "Buddhist state" is about the most un-Buddhist thing I can think of. Buddhist thinking is something for the individual. To impose it upon others by being born into a Buddhist state takes away their ability to discover it and replaces it with ritual for the sake of tradition. This is already a problem in Buddhism without further institutionalizing it.

If you want the outward appearance of Buddhism it's fine to institutionalize it within the nation, but Buddhism isn't about appearances, it's about pursuing one's own spiritual development, which may differ greatly from that of a homogenized state instituted religion.

I think we see and understand Buddhism very differently

[cdnvic]

forced on others how?

Ask the four million plus non-Buddhist Thai citizens what they think. That's equal to the populations of Chiang Mai, Chonburi, and Nakhon Ratchasima provinces combined. Not a small number of people to marginalize.

if Buddhism is the de-facto STATE Religion (it is .. the Head of State picks the head of the Thai sangha)

Having a country that attempts to live by moral laws ... (even if it fails) is NOT a bad thing ... and if we add Buddhist compassion in ... it can only be better!)

You do not need a state religion to have moral laws or compassion. In fact you will find that many of the countries with the strongest laws supporting human rights, social justice, and have very low levels of crime, are mostly secular.

[jdinasia]

forced on others how?

Ask the four million plus non-Buddhist Thai citizens what they think. That's equal to the populations of Chiang Mai, Chonburi, and Nakhon Ratchasima provinces combined. Not a small number of people to marginalize.

if Buddhism is the de-facto STATE Religion (it is .. the Head of State picks the head of the Thai sangha)

Having a country that attempts to live by moral laws ... (even if it fails) is NOT a bad thing ... and if we add Buddhist compassion in ... it can only be better!)

You do not need a state religion to have moral laws or compassion. In fact you will find that many of the countries with the strongest laws supporting human rights, social justice, and have very low levels of crime, are mostly secular.

Again ... how would anyone be marginalized more than they are now? Buddhism IS the State religion as it stands ....

There are protections for other religions in place. Buddhism by nature IS tolerant of other beliefs and it shows! Look who the leader of the CNS is .. and this in Thailand

The Head of State as protector of religions has always done an admirable job ... and it just seems like it is a non-issue to have it in the charter to me!

[cdnvic]

Again ... how would anyone be marginalized more than they are now? Buddhism IS the State religion as it stands ....

Actually, it's not, and that makes a difference in legal issues, not to mention further marginalizing non Buddhists by sending a message to them that their religion is now officially second rate. Thailand needs to be looking for ways to bring its diversity together peacefully, rather than exacerbate the existing divisions further with this pointless exercise of symbolism.