Theocracy Watch: Buddhist Fundamentalists to Hijack Island
Sri Lanka may now be an officially Buddhist nation.
On October 4, the Sri Lankan Parliament was due to vote on the proposed 19th amendment to their constitution. This piece of legislation, which was ruled unconstitutional by Sri Lanka’s supreme court last year, was put forward for another hearing by the Jathika Hela Urumaya party (made up of Buddhist monks) and would make Buddhism the official state religion of Sri Lanka. This story is not exactly headline news, so I have not been able to find out if it passed, but I think it’s worth discussing either way.
According to the CIA World Factbook, Sri Lanka’s population is about 69% Buddhist. There are also small Muslim, Hindu and Christian minorities, ranging from 6-8% each. The country’s constitution has always given Buddhism a special status and made protection of Buddhism the government’s responsibility, but this amendment would give the religion a much more important role. While the practice of other faiths would be tolerated, Buddhist parents would be required to raise their children as Buddhists, and any attempts to convert Buddhists to other religions would be illegal. These provisions combined with a recent history of lax government response to violence against religious and ethnic minorities in Sri Lanka paint an ugly picture. The Chair of the U.S. Council on International Religious Freedom says that “Passage of this amendment would jeopardize the rights of all Sri Lankan citizens as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”
Obviously, passage would also serve to throw wood on the fire of the decades-old, low-level civil war in Sri Lanka between the Sinhalese-dominated government and Tamil separatists, who are mostly Hindus, Christians and Muslims. It would also give the government additional “legal” grounds on which to move against the rebels.
The amendment requires a two-thirds vote, and I have been unable to find a breakdown of the Parliament, but if the distribution of the legislative body matches the breakdown of the population, there are certainly enough Buddhist votes to pass the measure. As soon as I am able to find the results of the vote, I will let you know.
I chose to tell this story for several reasons. First, it’s simply another illustration of religion causing strife. Second, it shows that religion - all religion - wants power and hegemony, no matter what the teachings of any given faith may have to say on the subject. Finally, I like to bring it to your attention when Buddhists behave like any other theists because we have a tendency to give them a free pass as peaceful and “different” from other religions. No, my friend. They’re all the same.
~I AM~
October 5th, 2005 at at 1:58 am
Read this article this morning:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-1798944-2,00.html
October 5th, 2005 at at 2:44 am
Well, time for the pat theist answer: “Then they’re not true Buddhists!”
Seriously though, this is the 1st time I’ve ever heard about Buddhists pulling anything like this. Some more examples would be appreciated (please).
October 5th, 2005 at at 3:00 am
I see that this goes beyond religion. It’s this glory of the herd, us vs. them mentality that is much to blame for such behavior. Racism, sexism, group discrimination, etc, all fall under this category. Maintaining the status quo, buttressing egos, exercising influence over others (both in the group and outside it), etc. Same story, different theme or excuse. This is not to say that religion did not have a hand in this; rigid doctrines and dogma tend to do this to people.
October 5th, 2005 at at 3:42 am
Wait now… let me think…
70% hmmm…
I feel like that number reminds me of something…
Oh yeah, isn’t that the same number of Americans that consider themselves Christian?
You don’t think there is a similarity here do you?
October 5th, 2005 at at 8:37 am
Yes, my friend. They’re all the same.
October 5th, 2005 at at 8:50 am
It’s funny because I find myself giving the Buddhists a pass for trying to defend what is basically a peaceful, non-theistic, fairly rational religion against what I consider to be virulent irrationality. I suppose I don’t really know much about that particular brand of Buddhism, though. My ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-girlfriend was a Sri Lankan Buddhist, though, and she was quite rational, seeing Buddhism as a philosophy rather than a religion. That is a sample of 1, though.
Having said all of that, I’m not sure how much I’d enjoy being forced to keep quiet about my philosophy if it wasn’t the dominant one.
I think the best way to produce a more rational population is to expose them to more rational material in the media. I think making laws should always be the last option.
I suppose my feelings on this are a bit muddled, leaning more towards “I don’t like it”.
October 5th, 2005 at at 8:50 am
“Though”… my word of the day.
October 5th, 2005 at at 8:54 am
Reluctant Atheist:
Here you go.
Mookie:
It’s this glory of the herd, us vs. them mentality that is much to blame for such behavior.
It certainly is, and tribalism is more powerful than the teachings of any faith almost every time. The difference is, it takes quite a leap to believe that men are better than women or that blue eyes are better than brown eyes. Religion TELLS you you’re better, because you’re right, they’re wrong, and you’re working toward everyone’s best interest by bringing others into the fold.
LBBP:
That’s where you’re wrong. It’s 78%.
October 5th, 2005 at at 10:08 am
This defies everything I understand about Buddhism… of course, the way American Christians act defies everything I know about the teachings of Yeshua ben Yosef… aka Jesus Christ… so i guess this is par for the religious course after all.
October 5th, 2005 at at 11:42 am
I used to have a live-and-let-live attitude towards Buddhism, because it seemed like more of a philosophical opinion than a faith-based religion.
Now that I see how easily it mutates into the foundation of a Theocracy, it’s going in the pile with all the other religions — too dangerous to have running around.
October 5th, 2005 at at 12:52 pm
Here are a few other ‘evils’ of budhism:
- When the Dali Lama ruled Tibet (prior to the Chinese taking control), Tibet was strictly a theocracy. One in which there were two types of people, monks and peasants. The peasants had no rights and basically were strictly viewed as servants to the monks. There are reports of widespread torture being perpetrated by the monks to enforce the state religion. There was also no political freedom, non-religious schools, or much of anything else. When you see the Dali Lama, remember he isn’t asking that Tibet simply be let free, he is asking to be put back in charge of theocratic govt.
- The Budhist belief in Karma is just as evil as the Christian belief in original sin. Historically, children born, in budhist societies, with a physical defect were viewed as individuals who did not live a ‘good’ life previously thus they deserved their condition.
All theism is destructive by its very nature of claiming absolute knowledge that cannot be disproven.
October 5th, 2005 at at 2:08 pm
From The Reluctant Atheist:
Seriously though, this is the 1st time I’ve ever heard about Buddhists pulling anything like this. Some more examples would be appreciated (please).
Well, look up the situation in Thailand (I think), between the Buddhist majority and the Muslim minority.
From Joe:
All theism is destructive by its very nature of claiming absolute knowledge that cannot be disproven.
You said it, pal!
October 5th, 2005 at at 2:13 pm
No one can be a true Buddhist. In Thailand, monks carry cell phones, and this is the least of their attachments. I remember hearing someone talk of an interesting paradox inherent in Buddhism, which is that the desire of Buddhists is to achieve complete detachment from all desires. Christianity has its share of major please-go-away problems, but Buddhism takes the cake (and then hides it or eats it, depending on how you look at it) in this regard.
October 5th, 2005 at at 2:18 pm
Uberkuh:
I think that was me.
“I did experiment a bit with Buddhist philosophy (not religion) during and after college. I found the idea that peace follows the surrender of desire sensible. I wanted to achieve that. I desired it. Crap. Quite a Catch 22.” [source]
October 5th, 2005 at at 2:34 pm
Thanks. You hit the nail on the head. How do Buddhist philosophers get around (make excuses for) this problem?
October 5th, 2005 at at 2:39 pm
Buddhism contains all the same basic ingredients that all religion have. Ingredients that are specifically designed to uphold authority and to stifle free inquiry.
When buddhists meditate in an effort to ‘eliminate the self,’ they are abdicating their right and responsibility to think rationally - to ask questions - to rebel against oppression. After all, ‘life is suffering.’
It’s pretty much the same thing as ‘judge not lest ye be judge’ and ‘turn the other cheek.’ Essentially, one is commanded not to make their own judgment calls, not to think about things too hard, and not to fight back.
It’s all the same evil shit.
October 5th, 2005 at at 2:52 pm
Uberkuh:
There are a few common responses.
1. Desire and aspiration are not the same thing. You aspire to be free of desire. It’s a weak semantic argument.
2. Desire can never be totally eliminated. You end up with just one desire (desirelessness), and that’s good enough to acheive Nirvana.
3. Some schools, like Zen, get around the whole thing by turning Buddhism into an orthopraxy. Sitting (or whatever other goofy crap other schools tell you to do) is more important than actively freeing yourself of desire.
October 5th, 2005 at at 3:07 pm
Susan Blackmore has an interesting take on Zen Buddhism. She tries to use it to free herself from the idea of self, which is a memeplex. She claims some success in this regard.
October 5th, 2005 at at 3:09 pm
And why would you wan to free yourself of desire anyway? Isn’t desire a primary motivation for living? I can understand making do with less, not being greedy, or whatever. But just eliminating desire from the palette is extremely dangerous, IMHO.
October 5th, 2005 at at 3:10 pm
Good post I AM. We in the western world usually focus on Christianity and Islam (the Abrahamic religions) but all the other religions are just as shitty. Im glad you are bringing attention to a wide variety of religious issues from around the globe.
Yea, I have a big problem with Buddhisms claim that all suffering comes from desire. I think that is bullshit. Nirvana my ass. I once heard a phrase “comfortability is the enemy of success” and I think thats true. To have no desires may be comforting because you have everything you want (or in other words, dont want anything) but then you dont ACHEIVE anything other than a deliusional state of “nirvana” where you sit and eat mush all day and wear the same outfit and sit in the same position and never expand, never grow, never change.
Buddhism is bullshit. It was invented via the ultimate rebellion of a spoiled brat (Budda). True happiness comes from HAVING desires and ACHEIVING them. Suffering comes from violations of your rights, not having wants. I get so frustrated thinking about this shit. Its so simple and so obvious how to be happy, where suffering comes from, etc… but so many people just cant see it.
October 5th, 2005 at at 3:11 pm
…or ’self’, for that matter? If you eliminate your ’self’, what exactly are you left with?
It’s such manipulative crap.
October 5th, 2005 at at 3:19 pm
Buddhism is pessimistic. “life is suffering.” WHAT?!?!?
Life is growing. Life is living. Life is being. Now, life contains suffering, but it is not DEFINED by suffering. Life is defined by living. Pretty simple. Life also contains happiness, learning, desire (a good thing) and acheivement. Without desire, you cant have any of these things.
Quality of life is in the control of the one who lives. I wonder why no Buddhist cities scored very well on the most recent top ten best cities to live list? Canada Europe and Australia dominated the list: secular materialistic westerners all of them.
Buddhists spend far too much time trying to remove an essential part of life from their own lives. No wonder these people are always chasing the elusive “nirvana.” Just as much as they will always try, but fail, to remove desire from their lives.
They have to steal from our worldview merely to prop up their own! They have to PRESUPPOSE the value of “desire” in order to HAVE a “desire” to remove all “desire” from their lives. Fucking loony.
They “desire” Nirvana. If they were to REALLY stick to their claim that desire = misery, then they would simply cease to desire or aspire to ANYTHING, including nirvana. If they were to be consistent, they would exterminate themselves.
This is another shining example of why an objective morality and a reason-based worldview that recognizes identity, logic, and causality, is the only way to live successfully, and its only more obvious when dumbass ideologies like buddhism borrow concepts from it without even realizing it.
October 5th, 2005 at at 4:05 pm
Aaron - about as well said as well said can get.
October 5th, 2005 at at 4:33 pm
Much to my chagrin, I feel obliged to point out a number of misconceptions here.
Please bear in mind some points:
A. Am not a practitioner, but a long time fan, & have studied it somewhat.
B. I am playing the devil’s advocate here. Please don’t mistake this as condoning some of the aberrant behavior that has been (rightly) pointed out here (in re: Thailand, & Tibet: I’d heard something about that).
Firstly, we are reinterpreting a mindset according to our own views. The Asian culture has a completely different mindset. Not being Asian, I can only approximate some concepts here. My point here is that we are superimposing our values on a vastly different culture. It is becoming more Westernized, given. I can point to a valid historical example here: the 19th century missionaries were aghast at Thailand, as the men and women both wore their hair short, and wore androgynous clothing. Commentators wrote extensively about how unattractive they were. After being Westernized (20th century), Thailanders are now considered exotic.
Why? Men wear men’s clothing, women wear women’s clothing, & their hair is longer.
Secondly, one must define the difference between ‘needs’ and ‘desires’. Needs are basic: shelter, food, the basics. Desires are those things outside our basic needs: mo’ money, nice car, etc.
& let’s face facts, people: extensive stimuli is not very conducive to peace of mind.
Thirdly, while I agree w/Aaron to some extent, “Life is growing. Life is living. Life is being.”, life is also painful. ‘Burnt hand teaches best’ is somewhat pessimistic, but just as much a truism as any other.
Fourthly, there are 2 schools of Buddhism: Mahayana (greater vehicle) & Hinayana (lesser vehicle). The former emphasizes using Buddha as a model, the latter tells people that the simpler aspects are fine (beads, prayer, incense, etc). Sound slightly familiar? It should. I am of the opinion that Xtianity borrowed these aspects.
Fifthly, the main concepts in buddhism do NOT include Creator Gods, blind adherence to scripture, or (as a rule) superimposing one’s viewpoints on another. How many of you have had Buddhists knock on your door, spreading the ‘Good news’, as it were?
Sixthly (if there is such a word), Buddhism (greater vehicle) focuses on the individual, not the herd. Otherwise, mass koans would be presented at the monasteries.
& before the castigation begins, I am simply attempting to be a voice of reason here. I am angry at ‘revealed’ religions: I don’t feel Buddhism falls under that category.
r4d: nice to see a familiar face (as it were).
October 5th, 2005 at at 4:34 pm
Great post, I AM. I must admit I thought Buddhism was mostly harmless (I flirted with it myself in my earlier post-mormonism years) but examples like this really open my eyes. And reading posts like this and comments like those above (and to come below) give me some nice fuel with which to argue against Buddhism (if the time ever comes). Thumbs up, guys.
October 5th, 2005 at at 5:04 pm
Reluctant Atheist - good points, but I think we also have to consider that buddhism evolved in a culture strictly based on the cast system. In such cultures, it can be very useful to tell the commoners ‘be happy with what you’ve got,’ which often was essentially nothing at all.
and good to see you too, my friend
October 5th, 2005 at at 5:12 pm
I Am said:
Finally, I like to bring it to your attention when Buddhists behave like any other theists because we have a tendency to give them a free pass as peaceful and “different” from other religions. No, my friend. They’re all the same.
Indeed! I’ve been saying it for years.
The funny thing is, if materialism is correct (which I have no reason to doubt), and we don’t survive death, then everyone achieves Nirvana — nothingness– upon death. You don’t even have to try! This is why Buddhism is faulty — if there is no afterlife, then there’s no need to try to eliminate desire — just kill yourself.
I actually kinda like Buddhism though. I really hate happy-shiny-god-will-give-you-a-puppy-and-candy type religious outlooks. A little pessimism now and then is refreshing.
October 5th, 2005 at at 5:16 pm
Actually, Buddhism was against caste system, which was part of its appeal, really. Whatever you say about Buddhism, at least it’s better than Hinduism (especially of the kind around the type Buddhism emerged).
By the way, I really hate the Bhagavad G?ta.
October 5th, 2005 at at 5:21 pm
Reluctant:
My point here is that we are superimposing our values on a vastly different culture.
So you believe that theocracy is acceptible in an Asian nation?
Fourthly, there are 2 schools of Buddhism: Mahayana (greater vehicle) & Hinayana (lesser vehicle).
You obviously learned about Buddhism from a Mahayanist. The word Hinayana is both pejorative and inaccurate. The correct word here would be Theravada. For more info on the difference, see the Wikipedia article on Hinayana Buddhism.
Fifthly, the main concepts in buddhism do NOT include Creator Gods, blind adherence to scripture, or (as a rule) superimposing one’s viewpoints on another.
There are sects that invalidate every one of these points. My favorite is the misconception that Buddhism is an atheist philosophy. Read through some Buddhist scripture. Count the gods and get back to me. Do you think statues of Indra appear in Buddhist temples by accident?
I am angry at ‘revealed’ religions: I don’t feel Buddhism falls under that category.
Sakyamuni sat beneath the Bodhi tree and received the truth of the universe as gods (there they are again) and demons visited him. Are you using a different definition of “revealed?”
October 5th, 2005 at at 5:27 pm
“Actually, Buddhism was against caste system”
Well, my understanding is it was against Brahmanism, opening up access to the divine for the those in the lower classes. But it did nothing to free those classes, unless you count an opportunity to be reborn higher in the strata as some sort of opportunity. And even if the original intent was to abolish cast, that is not what it did. Not in India. Not in Tibet. Not in China. Not in Korea. Not in Japan.
October 5th, 2005 at at 6:05 pm
rainbows4dinosaurs:
Of course they never got anywhere with it. You clearly expect religions to do something.
I was speaking only of the Indian caste system, which Buddhists never had enough influence to end. The others have separate origins (in some cases, like in Japan, Buddhist notions contributed to their creation).
The problem with Buddhism, of course, is that it’s too broad a term: people from those who merely see Buddhism as a philosophical influence to those who see it as a full-blown revealed religion all call themselves “buddhists”. Damn confusing.
October 5th, 2005 at at 6:31 pm
haha! good point Tanooki
October 5th, 2005 at at 6:31 pm
I am:
In reply:
So you believe that theocracy is acceptible in an Asian nation?
I don’t find theocracy acceptible anywhere. But perhaps we should clean up our own backyard before cleaning up others. Buddhist theocracy seems to be a recent additive (if I am incorrect, I will gladly take correction on this). I don’t recall there being any evidence of this in Chinese culture (though I could be wrong).
You obviously learned about Buddhism from a Mahayanist. The word Hinayana is both pejorative and inaccurate. The correct word here would be Theravada. For more info on the difference, see the Wikipedia article on Hinayana Buddhism.
I stand corrected on Theravada. No, I read a lot. Unaware of the pejorative definition. I shall look that up, and thank you.
There are sects that invalidate every one of these points. My favorite is the misconception that Buddhism is an atheist philosophy. Read through some Buddhist scripture. Count the gods and get back to me. Do you think statues of Indra appear in Buddhist temples by accident?
Have never read any of the scriptures. I might also point out, that technically, this would be correct in application to Taoism as well. I am speaking of the original message, not the mix-and-match that humanity overall practices. Well aware of the multiple buddhas in China, Amida in Japanese, chanting “Nom dyoho renge kyo”. All that goes to show, is that humanity tends to retrofit selected items in accordance w/worldview.
Indra, if I am not mistaken, is a Hindi deity.
Sakyamuni sat beneath the Bodhi tree and received the truth of the universe as gods (there they are again) and demons visited him. Are you using a different definition of “revealed?”
I defer to 1 of the original versions, where he sat in front of a wall for 9 years (guess anyone can retrofit, ey?). No, we use the same definition.
I apologize for not qualifying my earlier statement. I was speaking of Zen (Chan) Buddhism.
Some of your points are well taken. It’s just that I have always held Buddhism in high esteem (the non-revealed edition, apparently), and that people should not all be lumped into 1 category.
After all, that’s what Xtians do to Atheists.
Yours,
Reluctant
October 5th, 2005 at at 6:46 pm
Reluctant:
Indra, if I am not mistaken, is a Hindi deity.
True. He was one of the first gods to arise out of Vedic Hinduism. Hinduism is to Buddhism as Judaism is to Christianity, so the Hindu pantheon serves as the backdrop for Buddhism because the Buddha was a Hindu.
I’m sorry if I came across as a hardass, but I know Buddhism pretty well, and I thought some of your points had to be addressed. I do see your overall point. However, while philosophy (of debatable value) can be extracted from Buddhism, it is a religion, and all religion eventually ends up causing the same problems it has for millennia. That is not to say that some religious people are good, but I strongly believe that the good imposed on the few is trivial in comparison to the harm elicited from the many.
October 5th, 2005 at at 6:48 pm
r4d:
“good points, but I think we also have to consider that buddhism evolved in a culture strictly based on the cast system.”
True enough. And the caste system stipulated that 1 had to be reborn (Brrhhh! Anyone else think Buddhism had some impact on Xtianity?) in sequence, as I understand it. Buddhism offered a ’short cut’, if I may superimpose a cultural referrent (bad atheist! no noodles for you!). As you so rightly pointed out here: “Well, my understanding is it was against Brahmanism, opening up access to the divine for the those in the lower classes.” Siddhartha, by Herman Hesse, springs to mind.
Tanooki:
“Of course they never got anywhere with it. You clearly expect religions to do something.”
I think (at least in Zen) the point is, that the whole point is NOT to do something LOL.
this 1: “The problem with Buddhism, of course, is that it’s too broad a term”, is well said. Of course, we can substitute the religion of our choice for Buddhism. Or even atheism.
October 5th, 2005 at at 7:06 pm
I AM:
“I’m sorry if I came across as a hardass” - actually, I appreciate your input. I’m the newbie (to this blog), but I’m a big boy as well. No harm, no foul.
MHO is that we could take a page or two from the more philosophical aspects. Do no harm, participate in the sorrows in the world - it just seems far more empathetic (which of course why I have a soft spot for it). Not to mention I’m a xenophile, & a raging Sinophile.
“the good imposed on the few is trivial in comparison to the harm elicited from the many” - while I agree, I usually defer to track records on this, & Buddhism seems (to my limited understanding) to have a far better one than most.
I recall renting an Indian movie about Asoka. Would’ve been great, save for all the Indian MTV dance numbers (crap, there I go again w/cross-cultural referrents! Am I forgiven? LOL). After the resultant carnage, he repented (aggh! don’t shoot me!), and became Buddhism’s biggest proponent.
I flashed on an old Bertrand Russell quote: “A civilized Chinese person is the most civilized person on earth” (paraphrase). Not germane, but middle-age apparently does that to a person.
Stop me if you’ve heard this 1: “Buddhist monk goes up to a hot dog vendor, and says, ‘make me 1 w/everything. The monk gives the vendor a twenty. The monk asks for change. The vendor, also a Buddhist, tells him ‘Change, my son, comes from within.” Also not germane, but I love that joke, & have to share.
October 5th, 2005 at at 7:37 pm
That’s a great joke.
October 5th, 2005 at at 10:29 pm
Very interesting post. When I saw the headline I was expecting/hoping that the post would be satire–on the order of Unitarian Jihad.
Unfortunately not.
October 6th, 2005 at at 2:35 am
I have never delved into Buddhism, actually. I do know that I have heard a good number of people claim “Buddhism isn’t a religion - it’s a way of life! There are Christian Buddhists, Muslim Buddhists, Hindu Buddhists…” to which I always asked Buddhist Buddhists?
That always seemed to be a load of crap to me. Of course it’s a religion. And a darn deadly one too. All this talk of “peaceful” Buddhists. Man, if there’s one thing Kung Fu Theater taught me, it was that Buddhist Monks can whoop your ass.
These are preachers who know Kung Fu.
I feel like a dirty racist now…
October 6th, 2005 at at 3:20 am
DUB:
Minor thing here: most people forget that the Shaolin monks lived in a very dangerous time, where bandits ran around stealing & killing people.
I know that sounds contradictory to Westerners (they’re peaceable, but they fight back?), but the Shaolin version of Buddhism wouldn’t have survived elsewise.
Ta Mo brought it down from India, and was teaching the monks meditation, and the monks kept falling asleep. So Ta Mo (just a man!) taught them the Bone-Marrow washing exercises, which evolved into the Chinese external martial arts.
Just because you’re a pacifist, doesn’t mean you bare your throat to the knife.
October 7th, 2005 at at 10:04 am
If you delve into the eastern traditions, you’ll find just about every extreme. Buddhism the philosophy is often seen as compatible with other religions. Buddhism the religion usually is not (and often contains references to gods). Same with Taoism. I do not think the problem is primarily due to the presence of religion. I think it is due to the presence of a religious majority.
I live in southeast Idaho, which has more Mormons per capita than much of Utah. When one religion has a clear majority, it has a noticeable effect on the culture. You get an “Us vs. Them” mentality. When I was still going to church (before I’d actually started thinking about what they were telling me), this was especially noticeable. We’d have activities with any other church, so long as they were not Mormon. Likewise, the Mormons never seem to invite other churches to participate in their activities.
And I don’t think it would be any different if we had an atheist majority. Why? Because I see all too many atheists preaching the evils of religion. “No! You stupid person! Put that Bible down!” Fine, there’s usually more logic behind these arguments, but it’s the same “Us vs. Them.” Power corrupts, whether those in power are religious or antireligious.
October 7th, 2005 at at 12:02 pm
VICTORY!
October 7th, 2005 at at 2:52 pm
That is why our founding fathers were intellegent enough to create the first amendment and the ‘no religious’ test rule for our national govt.
I believe that god, atheism, and spirituality should never be mentioned by those working in or elected to our govt.