Hi, I fully agree with your post.
However I might add, what I am talking about is constructive
criticism.
Constructive criticism can become a cause for improvement. It
can also bring awareness of these issues to others.
For example, ck posted his/her negative experience with a
particular church after going there for a period of time.
If he/she did not make this known, then others will 'fall
victim' or rather go through the same unpleasant experiences.
Therefore I suggest that people should write reviews, whether
they are criticism or commendations of that church/temple/monastery
so that people who are interested to go there can be made aware of
the choices they have.
Also, if something they teach is not right or not agreeable it
should be open to scrutiny.
An example is Pastor Rony in Singapore, he was putting down
other religions like Buddhism and making false statements about
Buddhism. This caused an uproar in the internet and got the
attention of the Internal Security Department of Singapore, and
after a meeting with him he formally apologised for his
misbehavior.
This is good because otherwise, he will continue to spread false
information about Buddhism and create bad karma (from a Buddhist
perspective), not to mention sowing discord in our multi racial and
religious society.
Nowadays people use Amazon.com to buy books, electronics, or
whatever... there is a comments section and a ratings section which
is very useful for potential customers to choose and select their
products.
I don't see why we shouldn't and couldn't do this for
institutions of Religion as well.
Of course, it should be noted that any particular institution
does not represent the whole of the religion, and we should not use
an institution as an example to denigrate the entire religion.
In fact I have written in the Christan forum just recently,
saying that I see no point in trying to argue against other
people's faith. If people already chose their path and their faith,
they have already put faith ahead of logic, and therefore no amount
of logic will likely move their faith. They may be offended, or
they may try to defend their faith, but it is unlikely that any
amount of logic is going to change anything. Therefore those
non-Christians criticizing Christianity are actually criticizing it
to the wrong audience, much like the Chinese idiom of playing the
lute to a cow. The cow cannot appreciate anything, to the cow it is
just more noise.
If people have not yet chosen their path, or are willing to find
out the truth for themselves, they will do so regardless of whether
his faith is being criticized.
Furthermore it is not like the other religions are not improving
and transforming the lives of their followers in a positive way, as
many find positive changes in their lives through following their
religions, so there is no reason to try to convert them
Since Buddhists don't consider non-believers as 'destined for
hell', the compulsion to convert others deep into their own belief
isn't strong: instead time is better spent if we focus our efforts
to bring 'potential people' to Buddhism, potential as in those who
have the interest and conditions to explore and seek to find out
the Dharma.
If the dharma is being made more accessible and well known,
people can make a better decision for themselves by comparing the
different religions and seeing what is more suitable or agreeable
for themselves. This, I believe, is much more constructive than
criticising the faith of others.
We contend neither the fortunate or
unfortunate experiences of this person, or that of others, nor
their affability in sharing such experiences. We also do not
contend that such experiences are the evidences upon which fact may
be pursued, as all such pursuit is surely
commendable.
We however are reminded from time to time
that the pursuit of fact, and the relativity of fact itself, may be
distinctly severable from truth due to perception, ego and
attachment, and exponentially the ego’s attachment to perception,
the ego’s attachment to outcome, and the predictable evolution of
the imposter of ego as ‘Trier-in-fact’. If such a distinction is
agreeable, then perhaps the discussion may be favorable to a subtle
ear…
As truth is the exhaustion of all fact, are
there no other instruments within the specter of Dhamma by which we
may garner the improvement of one’s self, germinate potential in
others, and convey goodwill, compassion and prudence? If so, surely
such an instrument would serve to unpin the shackles of attachment,
contention, and all forms of criticisms, constructive or
otherwise?
The sage Lao Tzu of the Dao De Jing has
written that one who does not contend that no other may against
contend, as one yields and overcomes… and considering this one may
acknowledge the willow tree contends not against the wind, yet
yields and overcomes… and considering this acknowledge life
contends against neither death nor death against life, as each
yields and overcomes the other… and considering this acknowledge
Dhamma does not contend against truth as truth is the exhaustion of
all fact, absent the momentum of contention, criticism, attachment
and thusly the dependency of all provenance and
ego…