Pressure Mounts To Make Buddhism State Religion

[Plus]

Tettyan,

Re. State church vs state religion

There is also a difference between a "state church" and "state religion". A "state church" is created by a monarch, as in the cases of the Anglican Church, created by Henry VIII or the Swedish Church, created by Gustav Vasa. An example of "state religion" is Argentina's acceptance of catholicism as its religion. In the case of the former, the state has absolute control over the church, but in the case of the latter, in this example, the Vatican has control over the church.

It's taken from the same source, wikipedia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religio..._state_religion

Your quotes on the previous page talked about established religion, same same but different.

Re. statistics

The latest official number for the US I found was 47% of church adherents including their children and family members (and perhaps dogs). Self-professed adherents number is declining.

This is another interesting quote from Wikipedia:

Gallup International indicates that 41%[4] of American citizens report they regularly attend religious services, compared to 15% of French citizens, 7% of UK citizens, and 25% of Israeli citizens.[citation needed]

However, these numbers are open to dispute. ReligiousTolerance.org states, "Church attendance data in the U.S. has been checked against actual values using two different techniques. The true figures show that only about 21% of Americans and 10% of Canadians actually go to church one or more times a week.

The bigger picture - the US is recongnised as the most religious country in the developed world yet it is clearly not an example for Thailand to follow if it wants to preserve Buddhism.

Re. Church corruption

It's irrelevant to this thread. Thailand's Buddhism has been around for a while, it probably had it's share of scandals, but what we witness as corruption, or better, erosion of Buddhism (not corruption BY Buddhists) can be attributed to secularisation of the state for the past half a century.

Seventy years of endless secular constitutions and nothing to show for it.

It would be nice if the country held a public referndum on this matter, it has never had before, even the upcoming referendum will not be about Buddhism, their will be dozens of other, more pressing issues.

You can't honestly say that Buddhists request for a state religion status was democratically rejected.

Cdnvic,

People are not born with Buddhism pre-installed, even in Thailand. If people want the state to take responsibility for their children's Buddhist education, for example, why should they be refused? (Purely theoretically, they don't seem to mind either way in practice)

It is not a private matter, not more than shopping decisions or even voting, the state supports advertising industry and even pay political parties to campaign, but rejects Buddhists. Why?

[chownah]

Has Buddhism ever been declared the national religion since Thailand became a constitutional monarchy?

[Plus]

To be honest I'm not sure, I remember only glancing over an article about Thai secularism.

[cdnvic]

People are not born with Buddhism pre-installed, even in Thailand. If people want the state to take responsibility for their children's Buddhist education, for example, why should they be refused? (Purely theoretically, they don't seem to mind either way in practice)

They don't need a state imposed religion to do this. Buddhism being "saved" by the state is an artificial and empty vessel in any case. Why do you have so little confidence in Buddhism that you think it won't survive without state intervention?

[tettyan]

I'm sorry to burden you all with another long post, but with all the myths and half-truths flying around, this is the only way to clear up the waters.

Re. Church corruption

It's irrelevant to this thread. Thailand's Buddhism has been around for a while, it probably had it's share of scandals, but what we witness as corruption, or better, erosion of Buddhism (not corruption BY Buddhists) can be attributed to secularisation of the state for the past half a century.

Seventy years of endless secular constitutions and nothing to show for it.

This discussion isn't directed just at plus, but also at those like jdinasia and drhippo who hold on to some romanticized delusions about Buddhism in Thailand.

Just because you know nothing about this point doesn't mean it's "irrelevant." What planet do you live on if you don't think corruption matters in Thailand's unofficial (but state-supported) Buddhist heirarchy? The current acting Supreme Patriarch is alleged to have attained his position by virtue of being Thaksin's crony, and through corruption. How about the temple that illegally sold land to Alpine Golf?

The most gratuitous example of corruption in (state-supported) Thai Buddhism today, however, must be the shennanigans surrounding Wat Pra Dhammakaya. These guys make American televangelist fraudsters like Jimmy Swaggart actually look like St Augustine of Hippo, which itself is quite an accomplishment. Incidentally, Wat Phra Dhammakaya is one of the most prominent supporters of the drive to make Buddhism the state religion. They also were very active last year in organizing demonstrations in support of then-PM Thaksin.

Finally, how about all those sorry excuses for "monks" who make a fortune off selling amulets (which arn't even really Buddhist, it's more of an "animistic" thing) and predictions of lottery numbers? Why hasn't the Sangha disciplined any of these charlatans who are not worthy of the vows they have sworn to uphold?

Who's to blame for the sorry state Thai Buddhism finds itself today? The easy, cheap answer is all you farang and your materialistic, secular culture. Indeed, as the only person particiapting in this thread with Thai blood, I could advance this argument with more credibility than any of you. But I won't, because I value intellectual honesty more than blind nationalism and hypocritical moralizing.

No, my friend, the state-subsidized, Thai Buddhist heirarchy has had ample time to prove themselves worthy as the defenders of the integrity of Buddhism in Thailand. They have failed. The special priveleges already accorded to them by the government, along with their chummy relationships with politicians and elites has corrupted them with power and distracted them from their real jobs.

For the sake of Buddhism in Thailand, it's time to cut the hierarchy free from the shackles of the state.

Gallup International indicates that 41%[4] of American citizens report they regularly attend religious services, compared to 15% of French citizens, 7% of UK citizens, and 25% of Israeli citizens.

However, these numbers are open to dispute. ReligiousTolerance.org states, "Church attendance data in the U.S. has been checked against actual values using two different techniques. The true figures show that only about 21% of Americans and 10% of Canadians actually go to church one or more times a week.

This is the second time you've questioned the reliability of statistics and implied that more subjective measures may be worthwhile. BTW, have you spent much time in the states lately? I have. I spent most of my life growing up in the states. I have lived in six different states, in fact, all of which are solid Blue States (for you non-Americans, that means states that consistently vote for the Democratic Party). I have never felt that religion (or Christianity) is an embattled force against an all-powerful secularism. Just one example - among my 3 roommates in college for freshman year (a true random sample), we had one practicing Muslim, one practicing Mahayana Buddhist, one evengelical Presbyterian, and myself, a practicing Roman Catholic.

Having spent much time between the US and Bangkok, if any society feels more "secular," it is Bangkok. Sure, people may seem religious, may go through the motions, perform rituals, make "merit," light incense at the Erawan Shrine (which is not Buddhist, btw, it's actually dedicated to a Hindu god, same goes for the spirit shrines you see outside many business establishments), but with how many of them can you have a substantive conversation about enlightenment?

See "Steve Suphan's" blog entry on the culture of corruption in Thailand. This is a problem that goes much deeper than "corrupting western influences" and abandoment of "traditional values." Indeed, traditional values may be at the heart of the problem.

It would be nice if the country held a public referndum on this matter, it has never had before, even the upcoming referendum will not be about Buddhism, their will be dozens of other, more pressing issues.

You can't honestly say that Buddhists request for a state religion status was democratically rejected.

People are not born with Buddhism pre-installed, even in Thailand. If people want the state to take responsibility for their children's Buddhist education, for example, why should they be refused? (Purely theoretically, they don't seem to mind either way in practice)

It is not a private matter, not more than shopping decisions or even voting, the state supports advertising industry and even pay political parties to campaign, but rejects Buddhists. Why?

Nobody is rejecting Buddhists here. The state ALREADY subsidizes them plenty (even w/o official status), which I will discuss below. But another point first:

The US gov't, even though it is bound to respect the separation of church and state, doesn't reject supporting Christianity either. ALL religious organizations and charities are granted tax exemptions and subsidies. The key word is "ALL." I could donate to a catholic church, and the Supreme Court says it's OK for the gov't to subsidize my donation so long as they also subsidize donations to episcopalian churches, mosques, synagouges, etc. Likewise, the state can subsidize religious schools through school vouchers so long as parents are left with a reasonable opportunity to choose a non-religious alternative (see Zelman v. Simmons-Harris). The guiding principle is that the gov't must treat all religions equally and fairly.

The situation in Thailand is different. Right now, even without Buddhism as the declared state religion, the gov't gives Buddhism PREFERENTIAL treatment through subsidies. If 100% of Thais were Buddhist, that would be fair. But 100% of Thais are not Buddhists. In fact, 6 million Thais are not Buddhist,and they are just as "Thai" as everyone else. By declaring Buddhism the state religion, you'll only be institutionalizing and entrenching this form of blatant, state-sponsored discrimination.

Edited May 23, 2007 by tettyan

[jdinasia]

LOL

Remember folks ...... Thailand is not the USA

Edited May 23, 2007 by jdinasia

[jdinasia]

So ... again ... Buddhism IS the state religion

again the King appoints the Supreme Patriarch

Look at the list of Gov't holidays etc ....

I can see no harm in having it in the constitution

[chownah]

The reasons for not having a state religion has nothing to do with being the US or being Thailand or being any country or administrative philosophy. Government is a socially accepted form of coersion and the coersive forces of gov't should never be associated with any religion.....period. It doesn't matter what the people want....the fact is that just because alot of people want a gov't that uses its powers in bad ways does not make it right. Government does not have unlimited rights even if the majority of the people want to give it unlimited rights. I think many posters here have forgotten that a government is just a bunch of people who got together and bought a lot of guns and built alot of jails and now they are busy using the guns to put people in jail who don't want to play along with their coersive power wielding game. There needs to be limits set on what a gov't can do even if it is backed by a huge majority of the people...What if the gov't had the popular backing to go out and slaughter all foreigners.....is this then what the gov't should do?

Edited May 23, 2007 by chownah

[cdnvic]

So ... again ... Buddhism IS the state religion

again the King appoints the Supreme Patriarch

Look at the list of Gov't holidays etc ....

I can see no harm in having it in the constitution

No, it's not. It's pretty clear you don't know the difference between a dominant religion, and a state religion. The role of the monarch does not make it a state religion as royalty all over the world preside as patrons of many different churches and organizations who do not function as an arm of the state.

Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. She is also head of the Anglican Church. Yet all of these countries have no state religion.

Government holidays do not make a state religion. Christmas is a government holiday in Indonesia. It is also the largest Muslim country in the world, and Christianity is clearly not it's state religion.

You can see no harm in having it in the constitution because you neither understand the concept of a state religion, nor are you a Thai who is a minority non-Buddhist.

[jumnien]

If the military wants it in their constitution why not let 'em put it in. No one will recognize the darn thing anyway.

[jdinasia]

So ... again ... Buddhism IS the state religion

again the King appoints the Supreme Patriarch

Look at the list of Gov't holidays etc ....

I can see no harm in having it in the constitution

No, it's not. It's pretty clear you don't know the difference between a dominant religion, and a state religion. The role of the monarch does not make it a state religion as royalty all over the world preside as patrons of many different churches and organizations who do not function as an arm of the state.

Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. She is also head of the Anglican Church. Yet all of these countries have no state religion.

Government holidays do not make a state religion. Christmas is a government holiday in Indonesia. It is also the largest Muslim country in the world, and Christianity is clearly not it's state religion.

You can see no harm in having it in the constitution because you neither understand the concept of a state religion, nor are you a Thai who is a minority non-Buddhist.

again beg to disagree! Your analogies are silly ... most particularly the Christmas in Indonesia one ..... what OTHER hoidays are there and what role does the Head of State have in religion in Indonesia!?? but it was a good try at diverting people from the truth!

State church vs state religion

There is also a difference between a "state church" and "state religion". A "state church" is created by a monarch, as in the cases of the Anglican Church, created by Henry VIII or the Swedish Church, created by Gustav Vasa. An example of "state religion" is Argentina's acceptance of catholicism as its religion. In the case of the former, the state has absolute control over the church, but in the case of the latter, in this example, the Vatican has control over the church.

So yeah ... I do get the idea of a state religion ... I am just not afraid of it and neither you nor I are Thai with a minority religion:)

[cdnvic]

Actually, you don't get it. You just copied and pasted a Wikipedia article as your own words. Shame on you.

[jdinasia]

LOL .... oooops!

But I do I fear we are at an impasse since you fail to see where we have had a state religion here the entire time the kingdom has existed Nothing will change if it is in the new constitution or NOT in the new constitution But people that seem to be afraid of religion and government will be uneasy I guess!

[tettyan]

But I do I fear we are at an impasse since you fail to see where we have had a state religion here the entire time the kingdom has existed Nothing will change if it is in the new constitution or NOT in the new constitution But people that seem to be afraid of religion and government will be uneasy I guess!

You're not the sharpest tool in the toolbox, are you? I'll try and keep my post short(er) for your sake.

Dictionary.com, quoting the Random House dictionary says

State Religion: the official religion of a state as established by law (emphasis added).

A state may single out a religion for subsidies (as in Canada, mostly historically) or influence the selection of clergy (as in the Catholic church in Vietnam, under a special deal which allows the church to operate in a communist country) without making it the official religion under the law.

The incestuous relationship between the gov't and Buddhism here is already bad enough. If you knew something about constitutional law, you would understand how according Buddhism special constitutional status and protections would open up a new can of worms.

Imagine if Americans decided they had enough of the 1st Amendment and passed a new amendment declaring evengelical Christianity to be the official religion. Congress would be allowed to pass laws that further evengelical Christian principles, since this now would be a legitimate gov't interest. One could argue that a law banning homosexuality would be in furtherance of evengelical Christian principles, and therefore be legitimate. I can't tell you which way the courts would rule on this, but do you really want these kinds of arguemtns taking place in the first place?

Thailand is not the USA

Having lived in both countries since I was very young, I understand this very well. Nevertheless, comparing different countries' experiences can offer useful lessons, so long as we're careful not to make too many generalizations. I have cited many other countries other than the USA as examples in support of my arguments. Have you?

Edited May 23, 2007 by tettyan

[jdinasia]

You're not the sharpest tool in the toolbox, are you? I'll try and keep my post short(er) for your sake.

Dictionary.com, quoting the Random House dictionary says

State Religion: the official religion of a state as established by law (emphasis added).

Law? Like the one that has the Head of State appointing the head of the Thai sangha? That kind of law? How much does it have to be spelled out to be either defacto ... or in fact? You can scream and whine about the fact that Buddhism is the defacto <at the very least ... if not IN FACT state religion > Again I can see no changes for the country if it was in the constitution

Nope this isn't the USA .. wouldn't want it to be .. and am not getting sucjked into STUPID hypotheticals about the USA and gays etc but glad you are follwing me well enough to get that I am gay

[tettyan]

Law? Like the one that has the Head of State appointing the head of the Thai sangha? That kind of law? How much does it have to be spelled out to be either defacto ... or in fact? You can scream and whine about the fact that Buddhism is the defacto <at the very least ... if not IN FACT state religion > Again I can see no changes for the country if it was in the constitution

By law, the Chinese government appoints bishops and clergy in the "Chinese Catholic Church." But there's no one who argues that by virtue of this, the "Chinese Catholic Church" is the official religion of China. That's b/c there's no other separate law recognizing the Chinese Catholic Church as the official religion of China.

Nope this isn't the USA .. wouldn't want it to be .. and am not getting sucjked into STUPID hypotheticals about the USA and gays etc but glad you are follwing me well enough to get that I am gay

I am pointing out the dangers and can of worms that established official religions can pose. Who are the ones who are arguing, like you do, that this won't make a difference? The ones arguing for the official religion themselves! But if it's not going to make a difference, why argue for it in the first place? Someone's not being forthright with there motives here...

[chownah]

Motives? There is no motive that justifies using the coersive force of gov't to recognize any particular religion....using coersive towards that end is bad governance and a miscarriage of natural justice. I'm not surprised that no one has commented on my post....probably most people think the ideas I expressed as being too radical to be real...but...if you think my description of gov't as a bunch of people with guns and jails then answer me this....how did the military dictatorship which is running the country now get control....it is simple....they are a bunch of people with guns....and jails....and now they will throw anyone in jail by force of arms who does not want to play along with thier game.

The primary attribute of modern national governments is coersion.....if you think I'm wrong then answer me this....why do people pay their taxes?...most honest people will tell you that they fear the consequences. Coersion means getting peole to do something by threat of inflicting negative consequences.....seems like the definition fits gov't very well.

So....if you can break through the mental fog that has been drummed into your head since early adolescence about how good some governments are (and some are better than others) and you can finally see that gov'ts are by nature are coersive....then the next step is to look at gov't actions (or perspective gov't actions) as being coersive by nature and then trying to determine if it is really worth using the coersive power of gov't towards that end. One gov't might benignly declare a state church...and another a state religion...and another might see that and go the next step and give preference to a religion...and another might go a step further and declare a universal personal tax must be paid to that religion...and another might go a step further and have a required religion...and another might go a bit further and declare war on other nations who do not honor that same religion..........THIS IS A VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE.....

[jdinasia]

Right ... I get it ... many people are afraid I'm not.

Buddhism is intrinsic to Thailand and to governance here in many many ways ... seeing it acknowledged doesn't scare me. That people want it to be stated in the constitution doesn't scare me either This isn't a place where people are ejected or arrested for missinary work etc ... it won't be

It is a place where people are arrested for climbing on a Buddha statue ... and it would be the same for desecrating a mosque ...

I talked with my landlord today ... a Muslim man in his late 60's. He didn't seem to mind. He said "Thailand is a Buddhist country, we all know this!" when I asked about being Muslim in Thailand at first the point eluded him ... then he said "Buddhists don't care if I am Muslim and I don't care if they are Buddhist! We like each other" I believe he was expressing his honest and open opinion

Again China isn't a similar beast but keep trying ... sooner or later you'll find an apt analogy

[tettyan]

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

Well genius, it appears that cdnvic understands Buddhism quite well. Why don't you now try describing exactly how you understand Buddhism?

[tettyan]

Again China isn't a similar beast but keep trying ... sooner or later you'll find an apt analogy

YOU argue that becaue the King appoints the head of the Sangha, that already makes Buddhism the official religion. I point out that there are other countries, like China, where the government may appoint clergy of a religion, but still not recognize that religion as "official." Another example would be the Japanese Emperor, who is the highest authority in Shinto, in his private capacity. The government regulates the activity of Shinto shrines and priests. Yet the Japanese constitution, just like America's, imposes a strict separation of church and state, and the Japanese government does not recognize Shinto as an "official" religion.

Stop digging yourself deeper on this one.

Right ... I get it ... many people are afraid I'm not.

Buddhism is intrinsic to Thailand and to governance here in many many ways ... seeing it acknowledged doesn't scare me. That people want it to be stated in the constitution doesn't scare me either This isn't a place where people are ejected or arrested for missinary work etc ... it won't be

Yes, just as Christianity is intrinsic to the United States. Its history is Christian, many of its founding fathers were devout Christians and believed in governing by Christian principles. In the last election, the MAJORITY of voters elected an self-proclaimed "born-again" Christian as its president.

Therefore, America must be governed according to Christian principles. This means that gay marriage must be banned and homosexuality outlawed.

Again, I'd be interested to see exactly what your understanding of Buddhism is. And I urge to read up on Wat Phra Dhammakaya (links to info posted in earlier posts) before responding again. "Buddhists" in Thailand come in all shapes and sizes, and many of them are far scarier than the American Christian Right.

Edited May 23, 2007 by tettyan

[jdinasia]

Comparing the China and their Govt. to Thailand and it's Govt. is specious

Same with the silly argument about the US and gays etc

My understanding of Buddhism? I stayed at Pathom Asoke for awhile ... and a forest temple in Isaan ... and a temple in NST <three times> etc etc did I leave out spending some time at the Thai MaeChi Society school and with a woman Buddhist monk (Thai) in Nakhon Pathom? I have a fair grasp of reality here ... and thus can limit my conversations to this and NOT silly comprisons that aren't valid

[cdnvic]

Tettyan presents valid points which you dance around and replace any reasoned thought with posts full of smilies (they cannot replace intelligent thought no matter how many you include). You keep presenting the same flawed arguments, ignoring the counter points that have already discounted those arguments in earlier posts, paste other people's writing in as your own, and yet other than having stayed at temples, you can't come up with an answer to tettyan's question of what your understanding of Buddhism is. Anyone can stay at a temple, that's not a big deal. You obviously don't seem to get much outside of superficial ritual, which would explain your support for this ridiculous idea of a legal state religion.

[tettyan]

My understanding of Buddhism? I stayed at Pathom Asoke for awhile ... and a forest temple in Isaan ... and a temple in NST <three times> etc etc did I leave out spending some time at the Thai MaeChi Society school and with a woman Buddhist monk (Thai) in Nakhon Pathom? I have a fair grasp of reality here ... and thus can limit my conversations to this and NOT silly comprisons that aren't valid

I do my homework before I post to this board. I would greatly appreciate it if you did the same. Your refusal so far to reciprocate in this regard, is rude and disrespectful.

<< flame deleted>>

read the link I posted earlier on Wat Phra Dhammakaya. Out of courtesy to you (and not for my sake), I have reposted the link here (also see this artical from Asiaweek. After you read this, try to explain to me why the (state-supported) Buddhist hierarchy drags their feet in disciplining Wat Phra Dhammakaya for all their shennanigans, but defrocked the leaders of Santi Asoke (Chamlong's anti-establishment sect) and even had them arrested on the vague charge of "disregard for Thai ecclesiastical law?"

I have nothing against Buddhist thought or philosophy. But yes, I would be very hesitant with entrusting even my worst enemy's children to some of these very powerful monks.

Edited May 24, 2007 by camerata
Insult deleted.

[camerata]

Enough of the personal attacks. Stay on topic and keep it civil.

[jdinasia]

Tettyan presents valid points which you dance around and replace any reasoned thought with posts full of smilies (they cannot replace intelligent thought no matter how many you include). You keep presenting the same flawed arguments, ignoring the counter points that have already discounted those arguments in earlier posts, paste other people's writing in as your own, and yet other than having stayed at temples, you can't come up with an answer to tettyan's question of what your understanding of Buddhism is. Anyone can stay at a temple, that's not a big deal. You obviously don't seem to get much outside of superficial ritual, which would explain your support for this ridiculous idea of a legal state religion.

Comparing Thailand to Communist China ... is as said Specious .... the same with the comparing it to the USA:) I STUDIED at the temples mentioned above. My understanding is clear ... and is also mine Sorry that ONCE I put in an uncited quote that was used earlier in the thread! I didn't realize that this was an academic paper!

Note I have not resorted to name calling ... or flaming ... but I in fact just disagree. My disagreement seems to cause great pain in people that are afraid of something that I see no problem with and they attack I note that you don't jump on other people from citing a Wkipedia article though ... maybe because in those posts it supports your views?

I note no comments on my discussions with my landlord regarding being 'marginalised'.

My understanding of Buddhism? I stayed at Pathom Asoke for awhile ... and a forest temple in Isaan ... and a temple in NST <three times> etc etc did I leave out spending some time at the Thai MaeChi Society school and with a woman Buddhist monk (Thai) in Nakhon Pathom? I have a fair grasp of reality here ... and thus can limit my conversations to this and NOT silly comprisons that aren't valid

I do my homework before I post to this board. I would greatly appreciate it if you did the same. Your refusal so far to reciprocate in this regard, is rude and disrespectful.

<< flame deleted>>

read the link I posted earlier on Wat Phra Dhammakaya. Out of courtesy to you (and not for my sake), I have reposted the link here (also see this artical from Asiaweek. After you read this, try to explain to me why the (state-supported) Buddhist hierarchy drags their feet in disciplining Wat Phra Dhammakaya for all their shennanigans, but defrocked the leaders of Santi Asoke (Chamlong's anti-establishment sect) and even had them arrested on the vague charge of "disregard for Thai ecclesiastical law?"

I have nothing against Buddhist thought or philosophy. But yes, I would be very hesitant with entrusting even my worst enemy's children to some of these very powerful monks.

I guess you missed where I said I stayed at Prathom Asoke ... and yes I am familiar with the other temple though I have never bothered to go check it out. I was spanked before for citing Wiki .... you weren't <strange that!> The Asoke communities are an oddity and dropped out of the Thai Sangha <probably just before being kicked out > for various reasons but many of which were well thought out. You can quote yourself from earlier posts all you like! You can scream and kick and fight all you want! My truth is that I don't see the problems you see! I don't buy into your fear mongering. I see inclusing in the charter to be nothing more than acknowledging a fact already in existence.

Are there good and bad things in Buddhism as it is practiced by some? Certainly, I, would assume there is! Do I see ANY problem with it being acknowledged in the charter? NO

[cdnvic]

I think it's more a case of you wanting something so bad you are blissfully and willfully blind to the downsides.

You STILL have not explained the advantages to including it in the charter.

Edited May 24, 2007 by cdnvic

[onzestan]

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

Maybe because there's is such a thing as freedom of choice regarding religion in Thailand.

Unlike many other countries I should add.

Onzestan

[jdinasia]

I think it's more a case of you wanting something so bad you are blissfully and willfully blind to the downsides.

You STILL have not explained the advantages to including it in the charter.

LOL ... as stated before .. I don't want it ... I don't NOT want it .. I am ambivalent.

I think that there could be something to be said for being honest in the charter about what is already the defacto state religion

I don't share your fear .. I live in Thailand and study Buddhism and practice ... yet I live in a minority religion community. They don't seem to see the problems you see either! why? this is NOT Canada ... it is NOT the USA .. and it is NOT China This is Thailand.

I don't understand your animosity cdnvic ... and how one sided it is ...

[tettyan]

State religion move causes concern

Monks should forego their adventure into the political arena and return to their religious mentoring role

By WILLIAM KLAUSNER, Bangkok Post, May 23, 2007

The movement to declare Buddhism as the state religion of Thailand is rooted in feelings of insecurity on the part of those involved. This is especially true for the monks and their leadership. There is both a conscious and subconscious realisation that Buddhism is on the wane as respect for the Sangha declines and the faith's relevance is increasingly challenged. Thus, it is likely that underlying the monk's support for this declaration is their hope, and perhaps expectation, that such a constitutional provision will divert attention from the present reality of the parlous state of Thai Buddhism, the Sangha, and particularly the established Buddhist Church, and, thus, help restore the significant loss of status, dignity and prestige suffered by the Thai Sangha in recent years.

This loss has been due to a series of scandals within the Sangha; perceived commercialisation of the Sangha, including the pervasive involvement of both urban and rural abbots in the production and rental (read sale) of talismanic amulets and medallions (Buddhapanit); the weakness, and indecisiveness of the Sangha's administrative leadership (Sangha Council) as well as the lack of transparency and accountability of this authoritarian leadership structure; lack of Buddhism's relevance in the eyes of the younger generation; the traditional social service and community leadership role of rural monks being assumed by government agencies and village-based lay leadership and organisations; the emergence of charismatic monk leaders with large followings and the popularity of sectarian off-shoots such as the Dhammakaya and Santi Asoke.

<<SNIP>>

The most famous, or rather infamous, example of political posturing and involvement was the remark of the monk, Kittivuttho, that ''killing communists is not sinful'' and his association with rightwing lay pressure groups.

Note: A more recent example of this was during the war on drugs, in which several prominent monks declared that "killing drug dealers is not sinful." I have nothing against Buddhist principles, but do you really want to give official legitimacy to this kind of people?

Buddhist Channel.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/230507_News/23May2007_news21.php

Edited May 24, 2007 by camerata
Sorry, we are allowed to quote only the first two paras from Bangkok Post stories.

[jdinasia]

Nice Op-Ed piece

In Thailand's recent past,there have been isolated instances of political involvement by monks. This was particularly the case during the period of the sixties to the early eighties when the perception of a communist threat was at its height.

from the above op-ed piece

Written by a guy that has something to gain from that opinion? <book sales?>

Edited May 24, 2007 by jdinasia