Pressure Mounts To Make Buddhism State Religion

[tettyan]

Nothing gets more tiring than your rants/flames and insults. But it does me good to reply with basic facts that can't be beaten down .. that I am NOT afraid of what is the defacto state religion being called that on paper

Those arn't facts buddy. That's what's called your OPINION.

When I go to the DL office this week ... and fill out the forms with the B.E. dates etc I'll remember. When I look at the state seal ... I'll know ...

Does the fact that Americans measure their years in terms of (roughly) when Christ was born make Christianity the official religion of America? Does that fact that American dollar bills say "In God We Trust" make America a Christian nation?

I like my life here

I'm glad you enjoy your life in Thailand. I've always enjoyed my time there too, whenever I'm there (which used to be very often, but as much these days:( )

.. and I have enough time to sit outside of it to watch what happens around me. Maybe you should try the same

Some of us maybe have a little too much time...

In all seriousness, I'm somewhat insulted by your implication that I don't love this country. I have just as many reasons to love this country as you do - probably more. I was born into a Thai family. I grew up speaking Thai in the home. All my relatives are in Thailand. Since LONG before you even set foot in the country for the first time, I've been living my life between Thailand and the US (mostly in the US for my education, but a good chunk in Thailand too). I am passionate about issues that affect this country. Since I was young, I have taken it upon myself (not upon parental pressure) to understand the history of this country. I even took an extra year in school so that I could get a graduate degree in Asian studies from a major US university. I love this country enough - and know this country well enough - to know the danger of taking everything I see, hear, and read about Thailand at face value.

So yes, like any good student of any subject (and I do consider myself a student of Thai studies), I apply critical thinking (a powerful tool if your college professors did their job, btw) to my analysis of issues here. That doesn't mean that I criticize everything - when I believe credit is due, then I acknowledge it. When I think the country has flaws that need to be improved upon, I'm not afraid to point it out. When I think the country is moving in the wrong direction, I am vociferous in my opposition.

The worst sin I believe you can commit against a love one is blissfully ignoring the bad points. Because that's not really love - that's called indulging in fantasies. "Thailand - Land of Smiles" or "Thailand - Paradise on Earth" is a mirage - it doesn't really exist. To treat Thailand that way, I find insulting and condescending. Thailand is a real country, with real strengths, real virtues, and also... very real and pressing problems.

Edited May 26, 2007 by tettyan

[endure]

Many (but not all) farangs are attracted Buddhism because the doctrine appears to be less dogmatic and less proscriptive than the Judeo-Christian traditions that westerners are accustomed to. While there may be some vailidity to this perception, the reality is far more complex. The reality is that in many ways, the internal struggles within Buddhism arn't that different from the kind of struggles you see in other religions.

Shouldn't that read 'the internal struggles within the power hierarchy that claim to represent Buddhism in Thailand'? Seems to me that all religions have 2 parts. Part 1 is the core belief of the religion as imparted by simple expositions such as the Sermon on the Mount or the Dhammapada. Part 2 is the trinkets and baubles that human beings hang onto Part 1 in order to claim control over their co-religionists.

[tettyan]

Many (but not all) farangs are attracted Buddhism because the doctrine appears to be less dogmatic and less proscriptive than the Judeo-Christian traditions that westerners are accustomed to. While there may be some vailidity to this perception, the reality is far more complex. The reality is that in many ways, the internal struggles within Buddhism arn't that different from the kind of struggles you see in other religions.

Shouldn't that read 'the internal struggles within the power hierarchy that claim to represent Buddhism in Thailand'? Seems to me that all religions have 2 parts. Part 1 is the core belief of the religion as imparted by simple expositions such as the Sermon on the Mount or the Dhammapada. Part 2 is the trinkets and baubles that human beings hang onto Part 1 in order to claim control over their co-religionists.

Yes, that's probably a better way of putting it. At the core, each religion has its unique characteristics. But as for the superstructure that's superimposed on the core, including the hierarchy, the politicking, etc., they're all pretty similar.

The problem is, the "state religion" issue everywhere always has a lot more to do with the latter than the former. It's also the latter that tends to turn people off religion all together.

Edited May 26, 2007 by tettyan

[jdinasia]

Tetty ... again with the insults!! not a great way to discuss

I didn't imply you don't love Thailand I stated I do love my life here But it was nice to see you in yet another case of 'one-upmanship!'

As to what you state is my opinion ... yes I understand you are trying to muddy the waters around the OP-ED piece you quoted ... but 'buddy' <why buddy? same as 'genius' etc etc etc before?> unlike that op-ed piece, Buddhism being the de-facto state religion is a fact. If it wasn't you would have argued against the statement ages ago.

[cdnvic]

Buddhism being the de-facto state religion is a fact. If it wasn't you would have argued against the statement ages ago.

I did and instead of discussing it you just posted a pile of idiotic smilies and danced around the subject. Perhaps if you didn't act so childish when people are trying to have a reasoned discussion you wouldn't provoke quite so much heat.

[jdinasia]

you did?

There is a bit of humor in people that attack and attack and attack ... have posts edited etc .. when they claim they are looking for open honest discussion

Edited May 26, 2007 by jdinasia

[cdnvic]

you did?

There is a bit of humor in people that attack and attack and attack ... have posts edited etc .. when they claim they are looking for open honest discussion

Nobody's edited my posts.

[chownah]

I'm not a mod but wish I was every time I have looked at this thread recently.....how about let's just discuss the topic and leave all personality issues to the great PM utility which the management has so wisely provided us.

[jdinasia]

would work for me

[sabaijai]

Yes let's avoid the ad hominem arguments and address the issues.

[rychrde]

I do feel that buddhism in Thailand is under threat. The thai people see almost on a daily basis muslims undermining their country and religion. Those cities with mosques get a daily dose of the calls to prayer. The huge chinese presence is also largely confucian. So it is not surprising that some want to see buddhism protected by including it in the constitution. There is a logical problem in the constitution in that it curretly states that the king is the protector of faithS (echoes of Prince Charles there).

I can't remember if I said this here before, or on another topic, but Malaysian religious laws are highly intolerant of other faiths as well as anybody daring to apostate from Islam. Perhaps the malay-backed muslims in southern thailand could do with living under a similar climate.

I'm not sure that tolerance extends to lying down and being trampled upon. The Dalai lama seems to take this stance, but from a position of great weakness in the face of Chinese invasion. I suspect the buddhists here don't see themselves in the same situation...yet.

rych

[cdnvic]

Almost all the Chinese I know in Thailand are Buddhists. Except a few catholics of course.

[jdinasia]

I do feel that buddhism in Thailand is under threat. The thai people see almost on a daily basis muslims undermining their country and religion. Those cities with mosques get a daily dose of the calls to prayer. The huge chinese presence is also largely confucian. So it is not surprising that some want to see buddhism protected by including it in the constitution. There is a logical problem in the constitution in that it curretly states that the king is the protector of faithS (echoes of Prince Charles there).

I can't remember if I said this here before, or on another topic, but Malaysian religious laws are highly intolerant of other faiths as well as anybody daring to apostate from Islam. Perhaps the malay-backed muslims in southern thailand could do with living under a similar climate.

I'm not sure that tolerance extends to lying down and being trampled upon. The Dalai lama seems to take this stance, but from a position of great weakness in the face of Chinese invasion. I suspect the buddhists here don't see themselves in the same situation...yet.

rych

Have to agree with cdvic about the Chinese ... almost all Buddhist

also the Muslims are not a problem either. Mosques tend to be centered in Muslim areas ... that have been Muslim for ages! Temples have their announcements that flow through the areas near them as well ... very standard in Thailand. On my side of town there is one temple <the only one in Kamala> and in other parts of the village are mosques <3>. There is no erosion of Buddhism here ... nor do the Muslims complain about the Buddhists! even though the Muslims are in the majority in this village! Why? There is a generally very high level of respect for each other!

[blaze]

Many (but not all) farangs are attracted Buddhism because the doctrine appears to be less dogmatic and less proscriptive than the Judeo-Christian traditions that westerners are accustomed to. While there may be some vailidity to this perception, the reality is far more complex. The reality is that in many ways, the internal struggles within Buddhism arn't that different from the kind of struggles you see in other religions.

Shouldn't that read 'the internal struggles within the power hierarchy that claim to represent Buddhism in Thailand'? Seems to me that all religions have 2 parts. Part 1 is the core belief of the religion as imparted by simple expositions such as the Sermon on the Mount or the Dhammapada. Part 2 is the trinkets and baubles that human beings hang onto Part 1 in order to claim control over their co-religionists.

The problem is that too often the top orders in a religion don't simply represent the faith: they interpret it. And that's where the danger in state religion falls. For example, most Evangelicals would say that the Sermon on the Mount is NOT the core of Christianity at all. It is the prospect of personal salvation through Jesus, as prophesized in the Old Testament that is the core. Where that gets (and IS dangerous) is that these people frequently site the OT to rationalize their moral stances.

The same thing could easily happen with Buddhism. Laws would be bound to reflect Buddhist principles- and if the Supreme Patriarch 'decided' that a Buddhist principle is anti- whatever- then ... the laws would have to reflect that.

Many have argued that there is nothing in the Bible condemning abortion- that in fact there are passages which appear to condone it- (I was amazed too- found it on a feminist website and the passages weren't made up!). Yet until very recently youl'd be pretty hard pressed to find a country where RC was the state religion that permitted abortion.

[tettyan]

Buddhism being the de-facto state religion is a fact. If it wasn't you would have argued against the

statement ages ago.

Can you please read what I say more carefully.

I NEVER argued that Buddhism wasn't the de facto state religion. I argued against making it the de jure state religion. This is because I believe that Buddhism should NOT be treated as the de facto state religion. I have outlined over numerous discussions about how the already-incestuous relationship between the state and the Buddhist clergy and between the Buddhist clergy and politics is damaging both the Thai politics and to Buddhism itself.

Edited May 26, 2007 by tettyan

[rychrde]

I guess I may stand corrected :-)

My own experience of the muslim populations in Chiang Mai, and slightly in Pitsanulok, is that there appears no friction between them and the buddhist community. As for the chinese, most I've met are taoist/confucian, but that's not a huge sample!

Perhaps, on reflection, it is the thai villagers who have little personal contact with muslims but who watch tv that seem in general to support these measures. I've spoken to them about it, and they do! It was from that standpoint I made my comments.

rych

[rychrde]

Does the fact that Americans measure their years in terms of (roughly) when Christ was born make Christianity the official religion of America? Does that fact that American dollar bills say "In God We Trust" make America a Christian nation?

a very good post and agree with you.

however, for the above quote, the answer is Yes! The dollar bill and its symbolism were thought out and planned, not an artistic accident.

rych

[tettyan]

My own experience of the muslim populations in Chiang Mai, and slightly in Pitsanulok, is that there appears no friction between them and the buddhist community.

Muslims in the deep south and Muslims in the rest of Thailand are completely different animals (I don't mean to be demeaning, just using a figure of speech).

Whereas in the rest of Thailand, the Muslims you find are mostly ethnic Thais who speak Thai, but just happen to be Muslim, in the south, the Muslims are not ethnically Thai. They speak Yawi, which is a dialect of Malay (not a Thai dialect). They have their own culture and traditions, which is closer to Malaysia than to the rest of Thailand. Therefore, the potential for friction between the Buddhist and Muslim communities down there are much greater.

Which is exactly why the Thai generals who are stationed in the deep south oppose a constitutional measure to make Buddhism the state religion. Whereas Muslims from the rest of Thailand may be passively opposed or indifferent (though the ones you encounter will probably not be so open as to their actual views), such a move would be guaranteed to inflame tensions in the deep south.

Edited May 26, 2007 by tettyan

[chownah]

To extend what tettyan just posted...the Muslim seperatists don't care if Buddhism is made the Thai national religion because this is more proof that they really don't fit into the Thai nation!!! It gives them even more evidence to use to persuade young people to join them.

[jdinasia]

The Muslims from the South <well those from Naratiwat, Yala Pattanai and Songkla at least .. don't think of themselves as Thai. <or Malaysian for that matter but they do have more in common culturally with their close Malaysian neighbors>

Some fact checking might be in order regarding Yawi

Again ... I live in a Muslim village in the south .. <NOT the deep South> and can state that my neighbors are not opposed to Buddhism being named the state religion.

[sabaijai]

The Muslims from the South <well those from Naratiwat, Yala Pattanai and Songkla at least .. don't think of themselves as Thai. <or Malaysian for that matter but they do have more in common culturally with their close Malaysian neighbors>

Some fact checking might be in order regarding Yawi

Again ... I live in a Muslim village in the south .. <NOT the deep South> and can state that my neighbors are not opposed to Buddhism being named the state religion.

Even in Minburi, a Muslim-dominant district on the outskirts of Bangkok, I often hear Muslim Thais referring to themselves as khaek and to Buddhist Thais as thai.

[ColPyat]

The Muslims from the South <well those from Naratiwat, Yala Pattanai and Songkla at least .. don't think of themselves as Thai. <or Malaysian for that matter but they do have more in common culturally with their close Malaysian neighbors>

Some fact checking might be in order regarding Yawi

Again ... I live in a Muslim village in the south .. <NOT the deep South> and can state that my neighbors are not opposed to Buddhism being named the state religion.

Which fact checking? Yawi is a Malay dialect.

And Muslims in the three provinces (and in some districts in Songkla) are ethnic Malay and not ethnic Thai - very different from the Muslims in the rest of the country. They are very opposed to making Buddhism state religion, and so are most army personal stationed there i have spoken with on that subject. Their fears of an escalation of the already extremely messy situation is well founded if this will be included in the constitution.

This would directly play into the hand of the insurgents, and reaffirm the widely held believe under the Malay Muslim population of being second class marginalized citizens.

[jdinasia]

Yawi is a VERY localized regional dialect. Yes it is part of the Malay family of languages .. but distinctly different.

Folks in that area do not think of themselves as Thai. They never have. They don't really think of themselves as Malay either. They do have more in common with the 2 northern states of Malaysia than with the southern Thai provinces culturally.

Sabaijai ... minburi (and prawet where my condo is) has a huge Muslim population. The question is though, where do the people that refer to themselves as visitors hail from?

My landlord mixes some Yawi in with his southern Thai dialect ... always a challenge!

Note ... some good history of the conflicts inthe South might be in order but they haven't been having issues there for decades because of the concept of Buddhism becoming the State religion.

Edited May 27, 2007 by jdinasia

[ColPyat]

Note ... some good history of the conflicts inthe South might be in order but they haven't been having issues there for decades because of the concept of Buddhism becoming the State religion.

Right now though the issue of Buddhism as state religion is an issue that does fuel the conflict there.

[tettyan]

Folks in that area do not think of themselves as Thai. They never have. They don't really think of themselves as Malay either. They do have more in common with the 2 northern states of Malaysia than with the southern Thai provinces culturally.

I've always believed that "distinct society" (apolgies to Canadians and Quebeckers) is the most appropriate term for referring to the 3 southern provinces. The separatists down there have never been interested in joining Malaysia - they've always made it clear that their goal is for a separate state.

If there's ever a chance for this mess to be resolved, though, the Thai state needs to do away with it's centralizing, ethnocentric idealogy that sees diversity as a threat to be countered by hardline integrationist policies. Which leads me to my next point ...

Note ... some good history of the conflicts inthe South might be in order but they haven't been having issues there for decades because of the concept of Buddhism becoming the State religion.

Let me make clear again that I have nothing against Buddhist doctrine or teachings, or followers. If the state religion move was JUST about religion (as you seem to believe), then there's no problem. But frankly, it's naive to think that there's no political element to this. I've pointed out the political influence many the various factions/monks seek to maintain. Camerata makes an even more important point when he mentioned the role of THAI NATIONALISM in this campaign.

I have noting against nationalism per se. I think that civic nationalism, such as pride in your country's history, culture, traditions, and institutions can be a healthy thing. Unfortunately, the most potent political force in Thailand of recent years is the ethnocentric, xenophobic variety of nationalism - the type on display during the anti-IMF chorus post-1997 that ended up with Thaksin winning power, and the attitude of the kuu chart crowd that ironically chased him out.

This move to make Buddhism a state religion is sold as a way of protecting Thai culture against "foreign influences" (both Muslim and western). This attitude is reflective of the ethnocentric nationalism that Thailand would do much better without. Making Buddhism the state religion would be a symbolic political victory for the same forces that are threatening to ruin the Thai economy by pushing for harsher restrictions on foreign investment which Thailand badly needs.

The problem you mention is that many deep southerners don't think of themselves of Thai. Declaring Buddhism the state religion will only exacerbate problems more. If the argument for the state religion is that Buddhism is part of the essence of Thai-ness, then this will only reinforce the increasing alienation between the deep south and the rest of the country.

If this country is to survive, the Thai state and its people need to understand the value of diversity (linguistic, cultural, religious, etc) as an asset, and not treat differences like something that needs to be corrected.

Edited May 28, 2007 by tettyan

[sabaijai]

Sabaijai ... minburi (and prawet where my condo is) has a huge Muslim population. The question is though, where do the people that refer to themselves as visitors hail from?

All are Thai citizens, born in Thailand. Minburi Muslim families, by and large, have been there several generations, living on land granted them by one of the previous Chakri monarchs. My father-in-law was born and raised in Minburi and is ethnically a quarter Malay, three quarters Thai (best we can figure out anyway). His wife is 100% Thai, converted to Islam. When I go to mosque services with them I meet Muslim Thais from a variety of family backgrounds, but all speak Thai and are Thai citizens. When they sit around having tea, they often refer to Muslim Thais as khaek and Buddhist Thais as thai. I thought I must have misheard the first time I caught it in conversation but have heard it many times since.

My wife was raised by two mothers, one Muslim (the major wife, from Bangkok) and one Buddhist (minor wife, from Chiang Mai). Although nominally Muslim at birth, she lives her life as a Thai Buddhist. She also occasionally uses these terms herself to distinguish between Muslim Thais and Buddhist Thais. I've asked her about it and she confirms it's common.

I've overheard Muslims in Pai, most of whom are of Yunnanese descent (although there are a few of mixed Thai and Bangladeshi, and a few mixed Thai/Malay), make this distinction as well. I know a university educated Thai-Chinese woman there who married a Thai Muslim from Chiang Mai, converted to Islam as required by tradition, and who now often refers to herself and her husband as khaek as part of the larger Muslim society.

My wife and the more educated Thai Muslims I've met do use muslim and phut in polite conversation with non-Muslims, but revert to khaek/thai when speaking amongst themselves.

I think the import is that Thais in general equate nationality with religion already. Making Buddhism the state religion will only reinforce the already-prevalent idea that you're not Thai unless you're Buddhist. This might very well expand social/psychological discrimination not only towards Muslim Thais but towards Westerners who become naturalised Thai citizens but who might not care to practice Buddhism.

[Plus]

From wikipedia (again)

History of Buddhism

Early Buddhism

Before the royal sponsorship of Ashoka the Great in the 3rd century BCE, Buddhism seems to have remained a....

The first Buddhist council was held soon after the death of the Buddha under the patronage of king Ajatasatru of the Magadha empire....

The second Buddhist council was convened by King Kalasoka and ....

King Ashoka convened the third Buddhist council around....

More on Asoka

One of the more enduring legacies of Ashoka Maurya was the model that he provided for the relationship between Buddhism and the state. Throughout Theravada Southeastern Asia, the model of rulership embodied by Ashoka replaced the notion of divine kingship that had previously dominated (in the Angkor kingdom, for instance). Under this model of 'Buddhist kingship', the king sought to legitimize his rule not through descent from a divine source, but by supporting and earning the approval of the Buddhist sangha. Following Ashoka's example, kings established monasteries, funded the construction of stupas, and supported the ordination of monks in their kingdom. Many rulers also took an active role in resolving disputes over the status and regulation of the sangha, as Ashoka had in calling a conclave to settle a number of contentious issues during his reign. This development ultimately lead to a close association in many Southeast Asian countries between the monarchy and the religious hierarchy, an association that can still be seen today in the state-supported Buddhism of Thailand and the traditional role of the Thai king as both a religious and secular leader.

Sri Lanka was allegedly proselytized by Ashoka's son Mahinda and six companions during the 2nd century BCE. They converted the king Devanampiya Tissa and ...

a fourth Buddhist council was convened by the Kushan emperor Kanishka...

>>>>>

Where did the idea that Buddhism MUST NOT be supported by the state came from?

Maybe there's no place for religion in *democratic* societies but as long as Thailand remains a Kingdom, King's duties and historical precendents are fairly clear, and its HIS government we are talking about, not the "government of the people, by the people, and for the people".

Tettyan made a persuasive argument about Buddhism being corrupted from the inside, but even if accepted as relevant to this thread, wouldn't it be less prone to corruption if murky govt.-sangha-power relationships were made legal and transparent? Inclusion in the contstitution will force the CHANGE in this lamentable status quo rather than preserve it under "let's not talk about it" guise.

Same goes for southern insurgency - does anyone think that not including Buddhism in constitution will fool the insurgents into thinking that Thailand is not a de-facto Buddhist state? More likely they'd just call Thais cowards who are afraid to admit the obvious even to themselves.

[ColPyat]

Maybe there's no place for religion in *democratic* societies but as long as Thailand remains a Kingdom, King's duties and historical precendents are fairly clear, and its HIS government we are talking about, not the "government of the people, by the people, and for the people".

As long as Thailand is (at least on paper, and therefore legally) a constitutional monarchy with democracy as its form of government (even though we have now a military dictatorship, but if you haven't forgotten - they only took power to return democracy to the people) and not feudal or the previous sakdina style monarchy - you argument is completely irrelevant.

Or would you support changes towards one of the latter mentioned forms of Monarchy as well?

[Plus]

Ever wondered why it is called ROYAL Thai government?

The King is the head of state, not sometimes elected, sometimes not, Prime Ministers. Even though the King does not participate in running the government, the government legally acts on his behalf and with his permission.

That was one of the first questions I posted in this thread - if the King is the protector of Buddhism, why the government (legally) is not?

[ColPyat]

Ever wondered why it is called ROYAL Thai government?

Actually, no, i never did, neither do i care about semantic arguments to use as justification for political agendas. We can then as easily go into numerology, and then drift off into the surreal.

It doesn't matter - the Thai monarchy defines itself as a constitutional monarchy, and Thailand's governmental system is democratic since 1932, at least that is what it is supposed to be. It does not matter what extreme right wingers and revisionists argue and how they brutalize history to suit their agendas - tettyan was very clear and persuasive in his posts why the supposed status of the monarchy cannot be used as an argument to make Buddhism a de facto State Religion.

And that is regardless of the very real and practical negative effects on the conflict in the southern provinces.