In other
word, even thought Buddhism is the dominant religion, the State
treats all recognized religious institutions fairly and
equally.
The biggest
fear one can get when a dominant religion is declared a State
religion, is when its teachings does not recognize and eventually
replaces secular laws. It then spread its tentacles and placed a
stranglehold on the social fabrics of the whole society itself,
controlling and regulating the moral and ethical values and meting
out punishments regardless of whether it affects minorities that
does not subscribe to its beliefs.
Buddhist
teachings like any other religions, tries to influence its
followers to do good and be morally and ethically correct according
to the interpretation of its teachings. In many other countries,
over time, some of these religious rules and teachings are
interpreted and incorporated into the nation secular laws or
becomes laws in themselves.
Buddhism
may have its precepts and interpretation of what is right or is
wrong. But it is a religion that have never advocate the meting out
of any form of punishments, physical or otherwise on its believers,
left alone non-believers. It relies on a person’s kamma and the
effect of the law of causation or secular laws itself for such
punishments to be effected.
Yet, there
are article that harp upon the fact that if Buddhism is enshrine as
the state religion it will be ‘a move
that would do more harm than good and could serve to antagonize
religious discord in the country’.
Pray tell
us, how can the move do more harm and sow religious discord in
Thailand? Can the situation in the South get any worse if Buddhism
is accorded state religion status? How does enshrining Buddhism as
the State religion antagonize and sow discord when the declaration
itself would not infringe on minority rights or intrude into their
private lives? Note that even though Buddhism is the dominant
religion and is a monopoly in Thailand, its teachings do not
advocate the imposition of its values nor require its followers to
trample on other people Faiths.
Even if
there are fears that such situation can develop at a future time,
safeguards in the constitution can be put in place to ensure that
restrictions and other prohibits are not place on other
Religions.
Nor should there be any fear that secular authority will fall under
the influence or control of the spiritual authority as one can
expect in an Islamic state. In Thailand, the secular concept in
place now allows the government authority to interfere
in
religion. However, religion does not have any power to intervene in
matters of state. The separation of state and religion is
a one-sided
affair. The state may interfere in religion to hinder
or suppress it as can be seen in the case of the appointment of the
supreme patriarch. It can also help religion, but the ultimate aim
is to ensure its control over religion. The whole system can still
remain status quo.
The
relationship between Buddhism and the Thai government is such
that,
on one hand, the legitimacy of the government has to be reinforced
by its acceptance from the religious authority. On the other hand,
the survival of the religion depends on the protection from the
secular authority. It is an intertwined porous situation in Thai
society. This is unlike a communist system where religions itself
are subjugated to supporting roles at best. To the communists,
religions are just tools for the authority to use to achieve their
required objectives. In a worst case scenario, religions can
totally be dispensed with.
This example can be seen in Cambodia during the reign of the Pol
Pot regime. At the beginning of their rule, there were around 40
thousand monks. By the time of their collapse, only around 3000 of
these monks survive. Buddhism there had to start picking up
the pieces after that. The whole situation there also leaves a
vacuum that allows Christian Evangelists the opportunity to move
into the country with full force in the conversion of Cambodians to
their Faith.
One should ensure that other religious beliefs are protected. But
to preserve and ensure the dominant status of Buddhism in Thailand,
one should also stop other religions from carrying out
proselytizing activities to Buddhists as well. Thought Thailand do
officially limits the numbers of preachers of other religions from
proselytizing in the country, it has not try to enforce, stop or
ban non-approved preachers from carrying out their activities of
conversion with the Thais. This is one area the Thai authority
should seriously look into.
If
Buddhism is accepted as the state religion, changes should be made
to the present Sangha Supreme Council structure to make it more
inclusive with appointments not just based on seniority and rank
alone. More power can also be delegated to this Council in
the control on inter-denomination dispute arising out of or
involving doctrinal issues and the punishment of wayward
monks.
Thailand practiced monoculturalism.
There is no necessity for diversity of religious beliefs in the
country. Diversity in religious beliefs brings along unnecessary
problems to society as well. This can be seen in the southern part
of Thailand. Enshrining Buddhism as the state religion in
Thailand’s constitution will also send a clear message to other
religions on where they stand in relation to Buddhism in
Thailand.