Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Buddhism Is Not a Democracy Movement
Ian
Buruma has a Sunday L.A. Times piece boldly asserting that
while religious devotion can sometimes provoke violence, it can
also
"be a force for good." Exhibit A is the Burmese monk protest.
I'm not going to quibble with the sentiment, but using Burmese
monks as proof of religion's awesome power to do good is really,
really weird.
The State Peace and Development Council derives its legitimacy from public support for Buddhism, and in recent years has leaned even more heavily on approving pronouncements from prominent religious officials. Theravada Buddhism is the establishment religion under a repressive military regime. No actual Burma scholars dispute this, as far as I know. Anyone with doubts should check out the military’s propaganda paper, which is a dual attempt to showcase the devotion of military officials and advocate peaceful, Buddhist complacency on the part of the Burmese. It adopts the tone of an authoritarian yoga instructor for a reason.
The monks, known as the sangha, regularly accept extravagant and highly publicized gifts from well placed military officials; this is a desperately poor country filled with gilded gold pagodas. The rebuilding of Buddhist shrines can be a public project, with villagers force to participate. Monks have in the past refused to perform ceremonies for NLD members. It's difficult to define complicity when everyone may be acting out of fear, but you can't call a religion that confers legitimacy on a bunch of thugs (and advocates passivism in response) entirely helpful.
Yes, the Burmese monks have a history of peaceful protest, as in 1990 and 1962. But you wouldn't want to define the monks by these protests any more than you would a pope by his opposition to communism. It's rather more complicated than that.
|10.1.07 @ 11:52AM|#
I suppose that if someone there doesn't like the way things are, he could be a good little Buddhist and just immolate his little self.
|10.1.07 @ 11:53AM|#
Pointing out the positive force of religion is not the same as
condoning everything religious institutions do, just as
libertarians would refuse to define capitalism by corporate
raiding, exploitation of vulnerable workers, the displacement of
labor with capital, etc. Social institutions are always
"complicated," but I find it bizarre and frustrating that
libertarians tend to only recognize the complicated realities of
the world when it comes to other philosophies and not their
own.
I would also disagree with KH -- the pope's opposition to communism
isn't the ONLY relevant thing about the papacy, but it's pretty
important. Religion is complicated, but I find it odd that KH is
tempering enthusiasm about the role of religion in advocating human
rights at a time where they HAVE been the leaders of such a
positive movement. I suppose we should support global freedom, but
only if it's advocated by drug-using, beer-swilling, free-loving
atheistic Americans. Although, again, someone should explain the
hypocrisy of so many articles talking about the good of consumerism
and then having the stones to criticize "solid gold pagodas." Are
we saying these pagodas were built on the backs of the poor,
anymore than was that 60" flatscreen hanging in someone's living
room?
dhex|10.1.07 @ 11:55AM|#
Are we saying these pagodas were built on the backs of the
poor, anymore than was that 60" flatscreen hanging in someone's
living room?
oh c'mon now.
really.
|10.1.07 @ 11:58AM|#
Come on now, really, what? That's the hypocrisy I'm talking about -- all the smooth talking rebel libertarians that can't see the "complicated" world around them. It's all good talking about hypocrisy when it's Democrats or religious fundamentalists, but nobody seems too bothered when it's libertarian fundamentalism being preached.
|10.1.07 @ 11:58AM|#
Yes, I would make a distinction between an illegitimate government building extravagant religious shrines with money confiscated from the poor and an American buying a nice television.
|10.1.07 @ 11:58AM|#
Where does the notion that the monks are protesting for more democracy come from? The monks joined the latest round of protests after the junta raised fuel prices. With the commoners spending more on gas, there were fewer "alms" to be dropped into the monks begging bowls. The parasite class monks are protesting because the government is getting in the way of their free ride.
|10.1.07 @ 12:00PM|#
...but nobody seems too bothered when it's libertarian fundamentalism being preached.
That's because you're obviously a half-witted idiot who seems to
enjoy putting his ignorance of free-market economics on display for
all to see.
|10.1.07 @ 12:02PM|#
Are we saying these pagodas were built on the backs of the poor, anymore than was that 60" flatscreen hanging in someone's living room?
Yes, that's precisely what "we" are saying, because the pagodas
were built on the backs of the poor, and the flatscreen
was not.
|10.1.07 @ 12:04PM|#
The only one making an absolutist argument here about religion
as a force for good or evil is Howley.
NYT: Religion is sometimes a force for evil in politics, but it is
sometimes a force for good.
Howley: That's not true! Religion can be a force for evil in
poliitics, too.
|10.1.07 @ 12:08PM|#
NYT: Religion is sometimes a force for evil in politics, but it is sometimes a force for good.
Howley: That's not true! Religion can be a force for evil in poliitics, too.
joe -
I didn't get that from what KH said:
I'm not going to quibble with the sentiment, but using Burmese monks as proof of religion's awesome power to do good is really, really weird.
Here's what I'm seeing:
NYT: Religion is sometimes a force for evil in politics, but it is
sometimes a force for good. These Burmese monks are an example of
the latter!
Howley: Why are you using these Burmese monks as an example of
religion doing good? That doesn't make sense.
|10.1.07 @ 12:09PM|#
The only one making an absolutist argument here about
religion as a force for good or evil is Howley.
NYT: Religion is sometimes a force for evil in politics, but it is
sometimes a force for good.
Howley: That's not true! Religion can be a force for evil in
poliitics, too.
LOL...yes, joe, I think you nailed it.
I also noted with amusement that Ms. Howley considers the idea that
religion can be used as a force for good to be a "bold assertion",
as if the idea had never even crossed her mind.
|10.1.07 @ 12:13PM|#
I also noted with amusement that Ms. Howley considers the idea that religion can be used as a force for good to be a "bold assertion", as if the idea had never even crossed her mind.
Your blog is the Center for Advanced... what, again, Dan? Oh, yes.
Sarcasm.
|10.1.07 @ 12:19PM|#
The parasite class monks are protesting because the
government is getting in the way of their free ride.
Wow, parasitic class monks. Illiterate J, would you include ALL
religious clergy in that category? Just wondering.
|10.1.07 @ 12:23PM|#
If only America had a popular crypto-religious movement which
advocated passive deference to an elite expert class....
We could call them Democrats.
atrevete|10.1.07 @ 12:26PM|#
There are quite a few different sects of Buddhism. Not all are
passive. The monk-centerend, Hinayana schools are more easily
corrupted by secular power.
Various Buddhist sects in Japan united with the Shitoist government
in World War II, and were instrumental in some of their believers
causing hell and destruction in Korea, China, and throughout Asia.
Other Buddhist schools protested both the war and the government
intrusion into religion, and were persecuted for their efforts.
|10.1.07 @ 12:29PM|#
If only America had a popular crypto-religious movement
which advocated passive deference to an elite expert
class....
We could call them Democrats.
We have an explicitly religious movement we
demands passive submission to an elite expert class.
We call them Republicans.
iih|10.1.07 @ 12:32PM|#
J sub D:
(off-topic) How was it like not having a government for 4 hours
last night? That would be quite an experience. Don't tell me you
were asleep and was not out actually celebrating!
|10.1.07 @ 12:43PM|#
Jake Boone,
If you had finished Howley's argument, you'll see why I'm
right.
She argues that the Monks cannot be seen as being a positive
political force, because of other things they have done to be a
negative political force.
|10.1.07 @ 12:53PM|#
I think the argument is "calling the monks a force for good is
an overstatement, when what they're doing is simply helping to
clean up the mess they helped make (with innocent people getting
killed in the process)."
At the end of all this, at best, the monks have returned their
karma from negative numbers (from propping up the government) to a
zero state (from helping get rid of it again). Of course, that's
without counting the impoverished, maimed, and dead between now and
then.
|10.1.07 @ 12:55PM|#
This piece seems to take a very weird monolithic and zero-sum
view of the situation. First of all, there are a variety of
different factions within the Burmese religious institution. It's
true that many senior religious officials have been involved in
legitimizing the regime through the acceptance of gifts, etc. Do
you really think that those are the same monks who were leading
protests in the streets last week, or who have previously organized
in protest? There's a dynamic between junior and senior clergy,
rural and urban monks, etc. that is not immediately visible to the
casual observer; a similar situation exists in Cambodia where "the
sangha" is simultaneously involved in shoring up an oppressive
regime through the same forms of legitimization taking place in
Burma, protesting government corruption, running AIDS hospices for
the dying, and condemning AIDS victims as suffering because of
their own karma.
Secondly, I don't see how you can really see the corruption that is
being discussed as countering or being balanced out by the monks
recent actions. Can religion be a force for good? Sure- it happened
last week when the Burmese monks made use of their respected
position in society to offer lay followers some measure of
protection in protesting an illegal, tyrannical regime. The fact
that corruption existed in the sangha as well during last week,
last month, or the last century doesn't change the fact that what
happened last week was clearly a case of a religious organization
using its influence to try and improve the lives of a people living
under a despotic military regime. We're not revoking Mother
Theresa's Nobel prize because the Catholic Church helped the Nazis;
why should we discount the contributions of the monks who lead last
week's protest because corrupt elements also exist within the
Burmese sangha?
|10.1.07 @ 12:57PM|#
I'm paraphrasing here. If someqne recalls the qriginal quote and
who coined it, I'd appreciate your sharing.
It is not difficult to convince an evil man do evil. It takes
religion to convince a good man to do evil.
I'd add "a great cause" (communinism, nationalism, etc.) to
religion here.
|10.1.07 @ 12:59PM|#
How was it like not having a government for 4 hours last
night?
I slept right through it, but I awoke feeling unusually well
rested.
iih|10.1.07 @ 1:09PM|#
I slept right through it, but I awoke feeling unusually well
rested.
Good to hear that ;-)
deron|10.1.07 @ 1:13PM|#
nobody seems too bothered when it's libertarian
fundamentalism being preached.
I'm not. Libertarian fundamentalism is pretty much a toothless
lion, accept for the odd shooting of insane mountain men. A
libertarian fundamentalist who seizes power only to divolve it back
to the people is unlikely. A rhetorician who speaks about
libertarian values in an effort to obtain power, only to renege is
a much more likely scenario (see the Republican party).
In a sense a libertarian fundamentalist leader is as unlikely as a
philosopher king.
Libertarianism is the manna of the party that's out of power. It's
also the last resort of rogues who believe local government will
protect their ability to disinfranchise people (or some other
abuse) where the federal government has thwarted them. Mostly,
they're just seeking to protect their power in a way that's
fundamentally opposed to liberty.
|10.1.07 @ 1:15PM|#
The modern American equivalent of gold-domed padogas wouldn't
bee 60'' plasma TVs which were freely bought as a voluntary
transaction, built by people being paid for their time and
labor.
The correct analogy would be to a giant corporate welfare stadium.
A huge complex built by confiscated ("tax") money on the land of
the poor through eminent domain.
cica|10.1.07 @ 1:19PM|#
The division of the Burmese military that shot at these monks was made up from a non-Buddhist ethnic minority with long history of persecution by Buddhists. It appears that the military intentionally placed this particular unit there because unlike Buddhist soldiers they do not hesitate to kill monks. (And just so you know that I'm not anti-Buddhist: I am an atheistic Buddhist of Asian descent.)
|10.1.07 @ 1:34PM|#
I am an atheistic Buddhist of Asian descent.
Overheard in a Belfast pub -
1st speaker - "I'm an atheist."
2nd speaker - "Yes, but are you a catholic atheist or a protestant
atheist?"
|10.1.07 @ 2:00PM|#
Kerry Howley -- perhaps you should reread your link about the "solid gold pagodas" -- they're gilded. All the mined gold existing in the entire world wouldn't be enough to build a solid gold pagoda of that size.
|10.1.07 @ 2:06PM|#
nobody seems too bothered when it's libertarian
fundamentalism being preached.
Care to define "libertarian fundamentalism"? Do you mean it as
someone who likes liberty a bit too much for your tastes, someone
who you feel needs a taste of the whip to bring them back into
line?
|10.1.07 @ 2:08PM|#
Cesar, the stadium b/s is a MUCH better analogy.
Not really, because publicly funded stadia are infrastructure built
with the consent of the public.
|10.1.07 @ 2:49PM|#
Officially Religious Persons - priests, monks, imams, whatever -
in politics always make me nervous.
When they are supporting (or supported by) the government, they
generally act oppressively.
When they are opposing the government, they tend to be highly
interventionist, demanding that the government "do
something".
I applaud the Burmese monks' opposition to the junta, but only
insofar as they are individuals opposed to repression. I would be
concerned if they had any interest in shaping a post-junta
government.
Mad Max|10.1.07 @ 2:56PM|#
"We're not revoking Mother Theresa's Nobel prize because the
Catholic Church helped the Nazis . . ."
Those crafty Catholics! The Nazis were under the impression that
their interests were adverse to the interests of the Catholic
Church given the Pope's anti-Nazi encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge
(http://tinyurl.com/cr0f), the preaching of neo-paganism in the SS
and Hitler Youth, and the publication by Nazi authors of
anti-Catholic cartoons
(http://reason.com/blog/show/122728.html#795807) and anti-Catholic
books (http://tinyurl.com/38wy7e). Yet all this time, unbeknownst
to the Nazis themselves, the Church was on their side!
thoreau|10.1.07 @ 2:57PM|#
Does all this portend the rise of Buddhofascism?
Will it be related to Zensunni wanderers?
|10.1.07 @ 3:01PM|#
You're right Dan T. A temple is where the faithful go to worship that which does not measurably affect their lives. In Myanmar (Burma) they are funded by the government with money forcibly extracted from the citizens. OTOH, stadia in the US are different because ???
|10.1.07 @ 3:09PM|#
In Myanmar (Burma) they are funded by the government with
money forcibly extracted from the citizens. OTOH, stadia in the US
are different because ???
Because when a city, for example, decides to build a stadium, the
decision is made by leaders elected by the residents of that city.
Those leaders are entrusted to decide how much tax to charge and
what to do with that revenue. Often times, cities decide that they
want to invest in infrastructure such as arenas and stadiums - top
cities understand that they need to have a place where large
numbers of people can gather to attend cultural events.
atrevete|10.1.07 @ 3:16PM|#
And which stadiums allow large numbers of people to gather without paying to get in? And who gets this revenue? Surely the taxpayers?
Urkobold™|10.1.07 @ 3:19PM|#
DAN T. AGAIN SPEAKS THE TRUTH. SOON, AFTER THE URKOBOLD BECOMES THE SOLE ELECTED OFFICIAL OF TAINTSVILLE, FLORIDA, HE WILL DECIDE TO SPEND THE CITIZENS' TAX DOLLARS ON A COLOSSAL STATUE OF THE URKOBOLD. FOR THE PEOPLE.
|10.1.07 @ 3:25PM|#
And which stadiums allow large numbers of people to gather
without paying to get in? And who gets this revenue? Surely the
taxpayers?
Hey, Dan T. beleives in unfettered democracy. Let's all vote to
take money from, or disenfranchise the ________________.
Paul|10.1.07 @ 3:47PM|#
It's difficult to define complicity when everyone may be
acting out of fear, but you can't call a religion that confers
legitimacy on a bunch of thugs (and advocates passivism in
response) entirely helpful.
Jesus, this is the quote of the year, on this blog, at this
moment.
Because when a city, for example, decides to build a stadium,
the decision is made by leaders elected by the residents of that
city.
Mmm, not so fast, Dan T. A measure was brought up before the people
because the leaders didn't trust themselves to spend the money
without explicit approval of the people. To wit:
On March 30, 1994, King County executive, Gary Locke, got nervous about the Mariners. He figured if he didn't help them build a new stadium, they would move on to greener pastures, even though Seattle is pretty green. The task force recommended that the public help fund the stadium and suggest a sales tax increase of 0.1%. In September 1995, this measure was voted down. On October 14, 1995, a special session of the Washington State legislature was called and approved a new funding package. This deal consisted of a credit against state sales tax, Washington Lottery funds, a 0.3% restaurant and bar tax, special license plates, and a stadium admission tax. The King County Council voted to approve this measure and created the Public Facilities District which would oversee construction. On March 8, 1997, construction officially began and the park opened July 15, 1999.
So, what we gots here is a leadership which wanted explicit
approval from the public, and when they didn't get it, they said
"eff you beatches, we're gonna do it anyway". I guess that's
"leadership".
|10.1.07 @ 4:16PM|#
"...top cities understand that they need to have a place where
large numbers of people can gather to attend cultural
events."
Nuremburg had one of those.
DannyK|10.1.07 @ 4:19PM|#
Speaking as a Seattleite, you may notice that the next team that
tried the stadium trick, the Seattle Supersonics, got shut down
hard.
And what about the monks? Isn't there something more positive to be
said about a bunch of people getting shot down for a peaceful
demonstration of their liberties than "they're not all that?"
Could we at least wait until the generals have finished clubbing
them to death before we start talking smack about them?
|10.1.07 @ 4:26PM|#
The government there sucks so much that I support the monks even
if any revolution sponsored by them would result in a government
that sucks only somewhat less.
That goes for Burma as well as for Seattle ☺.
|10.1.07 @ 4:30PM|#
top cities understand that they need to have a place where
large numbers of people can gather to attend cultural
events.
Yep, Ford Field, since opening, has hosted, Eminem, The Rolling
Stones, Louis Farrakhan, Wrestlemania and the Detroit Lions, among
some other things too insipid to remember. With the
POSSIBLE exception of the Stones, I don't detect a
lot of culture here. Meanwhile, the publicly owned Pontiac
Silverdome and Tiger Stadium remain without tenants. Tiger Stadium
is a rotting eyesore that makes me ill every time I see
it.
Paul|10.1.07 @ 4:32PM|#
Speaking as a Seattleite, you may notice that the next team
that tried the stadium trick, the Seattle Supersonics, got shut
down hard.
Dannyk, it ain't over yet. There's always time for another
"special" session.
And frankly, had the Sonics done it as opposed to the Mariner's, it
would have been much cheaper. Basketball stadiums cost less than
baseball stadiums with retracting roofs.
|10.1.07 @ 4:41PM|#
Yep, Ford Field, since opening, has hosted, Eminem, The
Rolling Stones, Louis Farrakhan, Wrestlemania and the Detroit
Lions, among some other things too insipid to remember. With the
POSSIBLE exception of the Stones, I don't detect a lot of culture
here.
Those are all cultural events (with the possible exception of
Farrakhan which might fall under a different classification). Just
because something is not your cup of tea doesn't mean that others
aren't able to enjoy it.
|10.1.07 @ 4:46PM|#
Clay Collier|10.1.07 @ 4:58PM|#
Mad Max- exactly my point. The same church that (in some cases)
spoke out against the Nazis went on to help them escape Europe
during the post-war era. So were they good or bad? The answer is
it's a stupid question- you can't make such sweeping
generalizations about a sprawling, multi-national organization over
the course of two decades.
Just the same, the question "is Buddhism (or specifically the
monastic institution) a positive or negative force in Burma" is
ridiculous- it depends on who you ask, when, and about what.
Buddhism helps create social cohesion in Burma. That's good. But
support for Buddhist institutions helps justify a tyrannical
regime. That's bad. Monks helped lead the campaign for independence
from the British. That's good. But Burmese governments have often
preferred lavish spending on Buddhist monuments to investing in
infrastructure and civil works. That's bad. Any claim to be able to
assemble these disparate anecdotes and come out with some wonderful
sum that concisely expresses whether or not religion is a positive
or negative force in Burma (or another country) is bizarre. One
might as well ask whether language or tool use encouraged liberty
or tyranny.
Marcvs|10.1.07 @ 5:02PM|#
"51% of the people voted to kick the puppies of the other 49%? Oh well, I guess it must be right, I mean THEY VOTED FOR IT!"
Paul|10.1.07 @ 7:19PM|#
How was it like not having a government for 4 hours last
night? That would be quite an experience.
It was like staying at a Holiday Inn Express.
|10.1.07 @ 9:00PM|#
Blaming the Burmese dictators on Buddhism or crediting for the
current revolt would be like blaming (or crediting) electricity for
the Bush administration. Burmese life is largely centered around
Buddhism, very little for good or ill is without its
influence.
And before people get too upset about the gilded pavilion: gold is
a lot cheaper in Burma than elsewhere, and putting a postage-sized
piece of gold on a stupa (a typical bit of devotion for your
average Burmese) costs less than a dime. When they really want to
show devotion, they cover the floor of a temple with ...
linoleum.
And if this gives you any smart ideas about arbitrage, be aware the
Golden Triangle already has a large number of well-organized and
well-armed smugglers.
|10.2.07 @ 1:47AM|#
Buddhism Is Not a Democracy Movement
Thank god* someone finally fucking said it.
*there is no god.
Mad Max|10.2.07 @ 4:47PM|#
"Mad Max- exactly my point. The same church that (in some cases)
spoke out against the Nazis went on to help them escape Europe
during the post-war era."
I had at first believed that you had made a much broader claim
about the Church helping the Nazix. If you're just referring to
those Nazis who got smuggled out of Europe (after taking refuge in
Church buildings), then I confess I am not familiar with all the
details. Perhaps this is analogous to the pre-eighteenth practice
of giving sanctuary to criminals in holy places. It's specifically
analogous to the English practice of giving sanctuary to capital
offenders in exchange for their leaving the country (just as these
Nazi fugitives left for other continents). See
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13430a.htm
Clay Collier|10.2.07 @ 4:58PM|#
If you're interested, the basics of the post-war smuggling operation are covered fairly well by this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_line
Mad Max|10.2.07 @ 6:44PM|#
Clay Collier,
Thank you for that very interesting article.
The clerics involved in these operations may have had impure
motives - I don't know. The same may be said of U.S. intelligence
officers who assisted in these operations.
The article mentions that the Americans may have helped the escape
of alleged war-criminals from Communist clutches because of
uneasiness about the quality of Communist "justice' (an oxymore if
ever there was one). There's an allusion to Operation Keelhaul,
where the U.S. sent POWs to Stalin to be murdered, and the American
desire to minimize that sort of thing.
If the Americans could have had humanitarian motives, the
possibility of such motives on the part of Church officials should
not be ruled out. Alleged war criminals whose purported crimes took
part in then-Communist territory couldn't be brought to justice,
because there was no justice to bring them to - only the judicial
lynchings organized by Communist authorities. If ever there was
justification for the Church invoking de facto sanctuary to spare
these people rigged trials and executions, this would be such a
case.
Not to deny that this was abused - I'm sure there were some
legitimate courts in which some of the alleged war criminals could
have been tried.
Mad Max|10.2.07 @ 10:53PM|#
Looking over my last response, I realize that I have made too
many concessions to the spirit of political correcness. Why do I
assume that there were impartial tribunals available to try these
alleged war criminals who were being sought by the Communists?
Those accused of atrocities against Jews could have been tried in
Israel, but the Croatian fugitives assisted by Church officials
were primarily accused of crimes against Serbs, not Jews. The
Communist government of Yugoslavia was seeking them. Other
fugitives were being sought by the Communist governments of the
USSR, Poland, etc.
Why on earth should I be apologetic about Church officials (and
American intelligence agents) shielding these fugitives from
Communist lynch mobs? If I were in Alabama in the 1890s, and a
lynch mob demanded that I turn over a black person accused of
murder, I pray I would have the courage to refuse, regardless of
whether the black person was guilty or not. The key principle is
not to surrender to lynch mobs.
|10.4.07 @ 11:00PM|#
To be sure the first Republic was in Nepal right before the
Buddha's time. The Democratic Sangha would appeal the Buddha who
like the republic claied no authoritative powers.
There are many parallels between Buddhism and Jefferson's Republic.
I have a chapter on this in my book 'Father and Son, East is West.
Buddhist sources to Christianity'
Such as Jefferson's line in the Declaration of Independence stating
that laws should not be changed for transient causes. The original
reads:
So long, O bhikkhus, as the brethren hold full and frequent
assemblies, meeting in concord, rising in concord, and attending in
concord to the affairs of the Sangha; so long as they, O bhikkhus,
do not abrogate that which experience has proved to be good, and
introduce nothing except such things as have been carefully
tested.(Gospel of Buddha)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245