EDITORIAL
Keep Buddhism from exploiters
The Nation
Manipulative forces seeking to have faith declared the national religion in charter must not be allowed to succeed
The Surayud government, the Council for National Security, and the Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) have found themselves under mounting pressure by some very vocal Buddhist groups, including immodest saffron-robed monks, to name Buddhism as the state religion in the new constitution. They must not give in to this unreasonable demand, which will not benefit Buddhism in any way and has the potential of alienating followers of other faiths and thereby disrupting social harmony. Not even the tacit threat by these militant Buddhists to campaign for the rejection of the charter if their demand is not met should deter them from firmly adhering to the principle of keeping religious faith out of state affairs. The majority of tolerant, sensible Buddhists must not be swayed by the irresponsible rhetoric of these self-styled defenders of Buddhism, who are motivated by an unhealthy form of nationalism and paranoia.
Continued
I've already blogged on this, but Hobby brought it up, so I decided to leave a few comments.
Personally, I really don't care one way or the other. The arguments on both sides make a mockery out of Buddhism.
Thais aren't Buddhists and Buddhism isn't a religion, so incorporating Buddhism into the constitution as the official religion is ridiculous.
Thais for the most part are cultists. They are not Buddhists, but follow a cult of the Buddha(and other gods and religious symbols), and the Sangha is nothing but a priesthood that administers the cult.
Some monks want Buddhism as the official national cult because they think that it will sustain their feudal privileges. Others want Buddhism as the national cult for cultural reasons Just having this type of mentality proves that these monks are nothing but charlatans in orange robes.
However, with all this being said, I think that having a real debate about the state of Buddhism in Thailand is good. I may think the arguments on both sides are stupid, but I have nothing against the debate itself.
Unfortunately, The Nation and The Bangkok Post have decided to turn this into another us vs. them discussion instead of transforming it into a debate about the state of Buddhism in Thailand and the cult's relation to Thai politics.
Another thing that troubles me about this editorial is that The Nation's editors mock the other side for its right-wing nationalist fervor in relation to Buddhism, yet The Nation unapologetically jumps on the right-wing reactionary bandwagon when it comes to defending the Bumibol cult.
In other words, The Nation is quick to argue that the Bumibol cult(the monarchy) is part and parcel of Thai identity and it should be defended legally and culturally, but why do these editors deride the Buddhist-nationalists who want the same protection and acknowledgment for Buddhism? Isn't the Buddha cult even more important to Thai identity than the monarchy? I would argue that it is.
If somebody said to me that they want to integrate the cult of Buddha and the cult of Bumibol into our constitutional system, then that would make sense, because most people believe in these cults. When you eliminate the words religion and monarchy and substitute the word cult, it actually makes the Buddha cult and Bumibol cult more defensible because then they are not confused with religion and monarchy.
Is it possible to have a debate the separates the truth from the symbolism? Probably not. But at least acknowledging the distinctions might be helpful.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Fully agree with all the comments Fonzi made. very insightful and alas, very true.
Carter
Your mention of "us vs. them" reminds me very much of US mass media, especially television and radio. Indeed, IMO, the US's biggest political problem now is that all issues and candidates are reduced to simplistic and polarizing characterizations of issues. The parties and media go to great efforts to characterize themselves and each other in certain ways for their benefit (and the public detriment).
I was wondering then, what do you think is the reason that Thai media seems to be following such a bad cue from the US? Do they just not know any better? Does it sell more papers? I only recently found your blog and I have read many posts, but I have not seen you say why this is the case.
Thank you very much.
Jason-
Thanks for the comments. I would say that the way the Thai media is has nothing to do with the US or American media influence. There are similarities, but I don't the US media culture impacts the Thai media.
Also, it is not the same as the US because the Thai media lacks any political ideology--except right wing royalist nationalism.
The Thai media has always been feisty, but usually in way that does nothing for the betterment of society. In other words, it is very factional rather than ideological. It also very corrupt and heavily influenced by government and business cliques.
If you really want my honest opinion, the Thai media is the way it is because the editors and journalists haven't been trained properly. They have no integrity or feel that their job is about the greater good. They are incapable or realizing that the job of the journalist is to check the government rather than be a spokesperson for propaganda and gossip. Put simply, they have no ethics on any level.
So my answer is that Thai media folks don't know any better and don't care because of a lack of training, and to a certain extent have sold out. They don't feel the need to self-reflect on the state of the Thai media because they are arrogant and think that there is only one way to do things.
Also, the palace and the military only allow so much debate on real issues, so it is better to fill the minds of the people with propaganda and crap.
Fonzi said: "so it is better to fill the minds of the people with propaganda and crap"
Is that any different than the western mainstream media?
Fonzi said: "Buddhism isn't a religion"
In my opinion, that's one of the best things about it. I have always had a problem with blind faith.
Hobby, you have been spot on many times about fonzi. You should start a blog on deconstructing the deconstructor. But maybe we don't need that. Look at what he's been writing. He's deconstructing ..nope..making a mockery of himself. It's getting better and better.
Post a Comment