Buddhism, Politics and Separation of Church and State

Burmese Buddhist monk Ashin Mettacara has written a thoughtful essay called "Religion cannot be separated from politics; what did the Buddha say about Political Involvement?" His essential point (please read the entire essay if you want to comment on it) is that monks are not separate from the world, but live in and are supported by communities. Therefore, monks should do what they can for those communities. The historical Buddha sometimes became involved in the worldly affairs of his day, after all. Ashin Mettacara concludes,

Clearly, religion and politics are something analogous to paper money having two sides. The front can be regarded as religion and the other side can be regarded as politics. They cannot be separated from each other. Otherwise the value of money is nothing. Similarly, Buddhist monks and other religious leaders also should not be separated from politics. I don’t mean to imply that they should rule the country, but just to present and to advance their Buddhist precepts throughout the workings of a government in order to prevent so many wars and conquests, persecutions, such egregious atrocities, rebellions, and the destruction of works of art and culture.

In the last post I mentioned the establishment clause. This is a clause in the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits Congress from establishing an official state religion. The same amendment also prohibits Congress from interfering in citizens' free exercise of religion. In 1802, Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" as a metaphor explaining the establishment and free exercise clauses. The 14th Amendment extended these prohibitions to state governments, also.

On the surface, one might conclude that Ashin Mettacara wouldn't like the wall of separation. However, I think we can look at the situation of Buddhism in many Asian countries to see why the wall is good for both religion and government.

The basic purpose of the establishment clause is to prevent a majority faction from using the power of government to impose religious beliefs and practices on others. The Founding Fathers, 18th century men, were aware of the bloody history of religious wars in Europe, in which Catholics and Protestants fought to seat monarchs of their own faith on Europe's thrones.

These wars were fought because it was accepted practice for nations to establish an official state religion. The "established" church could expect to be subsidized with tax money and property granted by the monarch. The heads of the established church also could expect to have some influence in government, often to the detriment of the un-established churches.

The American Founding Fathers hoped to prevent bloodshed and oppression by denying government the authority to extend religious patronage or to legislate in matters of religious practice. This prohibition was never meant to be hostile to religion, or to ban religion from public life. Instead, it was hoped that if government had no power to favor one religion over another, religious factions would not fight over who got to control government.

Of course, the ink had barely dried on the Constitution before religious factions began fighting over what the 1st amendment meant and how it would be applied. Americans are fighting about it to this day. Remarkably large numbers of people cannot see the wisdom of the wall of separation until they find themselves in a religious minority.

For example, one fellow couldn't understand why the Supreme Court didn't like prayers before high school football games until he attended a game in Hawaii and the pre-game prayer was Buddhist. Horrors!

Today there is political and religious unrest in several Asian nations with Buddhist majorities. In many of these nations, there are "church"/state encroachments that would be unthinkable in the West. The government of China, for example, gives itself the authority to choose the reincarnated heads of Tibetan Buddhist schools. This is a bit like the government of Italy declaring that it, not the Catholic Church, gets to promote Cardinals and pick the Pope.

In Burma, I understand the military junta tries to justify its leadership by twisting around Buddhist teachings to serve its own ends. Ashin Mettacara says,

Obviously, no one could ever conclude that the current rulers of Myanmar are Buddhists. They have attached themselves in name only, to affiliate with Buddhists, in order to rule the country. They essentially tried to become Buddhists without knowing any teachings of the Buddha. These generals are surviving on truly ignorant and blind faith.

This is a huge topic, and I've already rambled on a bit long. In future posts I'd like to look at Buddhist-state relations in individual Asian countries to shed some light on current events there.

Photo Caption: A Burmese monk holds a placard during a protest outside the Myanmar embassy on September 28, 2007 in Bangkok, Thailand.

Photo Credit: Chumsak Kanoknan / Getty Images