I read an interesting news clip in last week's Mongol Messenger about the National New Party's (NNP) appeal to make Buddhism the official state religion of Mongolia. According to the article, the NNP, lead by Member of Parliament (MP) Enksaikhan, wants Buddhism as the state religion because in its perspective it is "important for the unity of Mongolians and prevention of contradiction of beliefs due to the spread of many religions." Such an adoption would give official state support to Buddhism, including funding for monasteries and other Buddhist functions.
This is not the first time MP Enkhsaikhan has raised this subject, and near election time too. I've written about it before, albeit briefly, but once I saw this news piece I could not resist wanting to comment on it. So allow me to play both the devil's and angel's advocate for a moment.
Certainly I'm no fan of Buddhism. The teachings of Buddhism cannot hold a candle to the life of Jesus Christ. As I've written previously, Christianity is superior to Buddhism ethically, historically, and factually (see here, here, and here). However, making Buddhism the official state religion of Mongolia would not only be bad for the advancement of Mongolia's political freedom, it would also be bad, very bad, for Mongolian Buddhism. Contemplating this issue just before language class this morning I wrote seven brief notes about why an official state religion—specifically Buddhism—would be bad for both Mongolia and Buddhism.
Making Buddhism the state religion would represent a step backwards for Mongolia's political freedom.
Historically religious freedom (or freedom of conscience) is what is also called, "The First Freedom." When a society moves to restrict what people can believe, or prescribe what they should believe as a matter of law or public expression, that society moves away from personal freedom. It would not matter if it was Buddhism, or Christianity, or Islam (take one look at the Middle East), or any other faith. Once religious belief becomes codified in law, freedom always suffers.
Buddhism as a state religion would serve only to exercise political (perhaps even Stalinist-like) controls over what people believe.
I've already mentioned this in the above paragraph, but it deserves to be made here as a separate point. All societies are built upon a set of core values. Throughout history as societies grow their values change and everything transforms. America of 2008 doesn't look anything like American of 1908, and America of 1908 didn't look anything like America of 1808, and so on. Attempts to codify a state religion always lock a society into social stagnancy (again, look at the Middle East) for the sake of the proponents of that religion, not the sake of its true adherents.
Buddhism as a state religion would represent Buddhism's failure to compete in the free marketplace of ideas.
Owing to the aforementioned concept that religious freedom is the "First Freedom," whenever a religion achieves political sanction it also achieves political advantage for its expression. Usually, historically, this happens because that particular faith needs protection against its rivals. Protection in the sense of protection from unfair discrimination is certainly a legitimate role for any government to engage in. However, making a religion an official state religion give political advantage to personal religious beliefs that often are unable to capture the hearts and minds of a people group of its own accord. Buddhism is no stranger to this. Buddhism has failed to capture the hearts in the place where it was birthed, India. While Buddhism is a strong undercurrent in Mongolian culture, most Mongolians are not actually Buddhists. Why then should they be told they are, or politically assigned to be so if it means nothing to them? Should Mongolian Christians be told they can no longer believe in Christ, or be allowed to openly practice their faith as their conscience requires?
One famous refrain often used by Mongolian Buddhists when referring to religious activity in this country is, "Let them be Buddhists." Should not the same be said for Mongolia's Christians, or atheists, or Animists? Either Buddhism can compete openly or it can't. A move to codify Buddhism as a state religion makes one wonder if Buddhism can truly survive here without official state support. Even MP Enksaikhan's own position demonstrates this apparent weakness since he declared that Buddhism needs official state support since "Buddhism was competing with new religions in Mongolia."
The above are general political or social reasons by Buddhism as a state religion is a poorly conceived idea. But let's turn to the more important religious reasons.
Buddhism as a state religion would violate an important principle of Buddhism—tolerance.
There really doesn't need to be a lot said about this expression of the "middle way" as it is sometimes called. Only a question need be posed. "How can a religion of tolerance be prescribed as a state religion and still keep its reputation of tolerance?" Yet there are some who want to codify the so-called religion of tolerance as law. This is a logical non-sequitur.
Buddhism as the state religion would not actually benefit Buddhism or its adherents, but only those whose expression of faith is predicated through earthly power.
It doesn't matter if it's Buddhism, the medieval church of Rome, or post reformation Anglicanism in England. Christianity thrives best not where it has received political preference, but where it must struggle for influence. The same is true with other faiths. Did catholicism benefit from Roman political power, or did the papacy benefit? Did Anglicanism become a dynamic force in the world because of English monarchy, or did it lose its vibrancy (rhetorical question, go with the latter answer). Perhaps the proponents of the Buddhist state religion aren't aware that such a move would spell the eventual demise of the faith system they so adore. No skin off my nose. I'm just making a friendly point. ;-)
My last points are probably the most important in the grand scheme of Mongolia's recent religious history.
Buddhism as a state religion would represent its philosophical and ideological failure.
Unlike Islam which was intentionally (and deceptively) designed as a political system, Buddhism (like Christianity) was not conceived a priori as a political system or a political confession. For the reasons already mentioned, an attempt to force Buddhism upon a whole society would be an admission of Buddhism's failure to capture that society on its own. This is, in fact, true universally. No religion can capture the hearts and minds of its target audience completely. Human beings are free social agents. Giving political dominance to Buddhism would not solve this problem, it would only attach political power to religious confession and regulate that confession to an identity card.
Buddhism as the state religion would be an admission that Christianity is winning the hearts and minds of Mongolians.
This is nothing more than a statement of fact. Mongolia has gone from a single known Christian 15 years ago to more than 40,000 people who profess one form of Christianity or another. It has done this without state support, without a history of Christian adherence, and with being something new to the Mongolian heart and mind. Mongolian Christianity has gone from no churches 15 years ago to 400. Compare this to the resurgence of Mongolian Buddhism in the same period and the construction or restoration of only 52 temples—and some of those have received some government assistance because of their place in Mongolia's history.
Mongolian Christianity, like all Christianity, does not require government help, approval, or preference since it is being expressed freely, willingly, and openly from the heart of its adherents. Why shouldn't Buddhism compete on the same terms? If a Mongolian wants to be a Buddhist and openly express his Buddhism, let him. But if a Mongolian wants to be a Christian and openly express his Christianity, let him as well. As I mentioned earlier, if the expression "Let them be Buddhists," is politically legitimate, then why not "Let them be Christians?" Or anything else for that matter.
In conclusion, Buddhism did not create political freedom. It lacks the historic philosophical foundations that were necessary to do so. Buddhism could only come along and incorporate the philosophy of political freedom previously created by another faith system. Political freedom was facilitated, even created by Christianity. Christianity created political freedom as the political expression of the theological views of "equality," "eternal election," and "free will." In other words, political freedom is a religious idea politically expressed—for all people.
The advocacy of Buddhism as Mongolia's state religion is tantamount to a rejection of the basic "First Freedoms" of modern societies. It would serve only to turn back the clock and denigrate the freedoms Mongolians have already achieved. It would reduce Buddhism to a mere political expression and demonstrate its advocates lack of confidence in their faith.
Comments (0)
ThomasTerry.com
http://thomasterry.com/blog/article.php/20080310085448257