Buddha Statue Draws Complaints
Matt Campbell of the Kansas City Star reports that a visitor to the Kansas City Zoo complained about two statues of the laughing buddha at the entrance to the Tiger Trail area.
“We can’t have a cross or a nativity scene on public property,” said Engle of Overland Park, who complained to a zoo employee. “It is phenomenal to me that the zoo would put up Buddha statues.”Engle, who said he and his family are Christians, said it was idolatry and “infuriating to God.”
Lama Chuck Stanford of the Rime Buddhist Center spoke up and said the buddhas were not statues of the Buddha, but of Hotei, described by the lama as the patron saint of children in China and Japan and something like Santa Claus.
The director of the zoo said that the statues were purchased many years ago, along with concrete replicas of pagodas and a terra cotta Chinese warrior, to decorate the Asia section of the zoo. Zoo patrons often rubbed the Hotei statues' bellies for luck.
I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, Hotei (or Putai, as he's known in China) is indeed a character from Chinese folklore who is something like Santa Claus, and the practice of rubbing his belly for luck has nothing to do with Buddhism. On the other hand, in China Putai is venerated as an incarnation of Maitreya Buddha, the buddha of the future age. I understand most Chinese Buddhist temples have a Putai altar in them somewhere.
I've come to be a little uncomfortable with any sort of buddha statue being used purely as decoration. Perhaps no harm is done, but it does send a message that Buddhism is not to be taken seriously -- it's just some quaint Asian thing, like chop suey or Charlie Chan. And while we might think that Mr. Engle of Overland Park is biased, he does have a point about religious imagery in a public place. Where a state of Jesus would be a violation of the First Amendment, a state of Buddha also would be a violation of the First Amendment.
Comments
I’m guessing he’d have been complaining even if the First Amendment had never existed.
hmmm… ohw,wanna replace the Hoteis with a cross..ain’t that idolatory too?
images with religious significance shouldn’t be put up as display items in the 1st place….
just in case it offends Hotei believers and non-believers just as well
Well…that’s tough. It seems to me (and I unfortunately don’t have any personal experience) that Buddhas are a near omnipresent item in much of the Asian world – in other words, we see them everywhere. I think that’s probably why they were used as decoration – an unintentional slight, if any. Whether or not Buddhas are seen as religious, well, that, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder (or believer).
Being a Buddhist, raised in a Lurtheran family whos religion was more of a social and political obligation rather than spiritual, I’ve grown up learning when it is appropriate to raise a religious fight and when not. If I was there when the gentleman brought up his argument, I would be right behind him to say, “Though I am a Buddhist, I agree that this is not the place to have religious figures being displayed.” That being said, I try to think of times when a devout Christian brings up the same fact when a cross or and image of Jesus is posted where it shouldn’t be. I probably wouldn’t have brought up the figure at the Zoo because it wouldnt “offend” me but with the usual complaint coming from Atheiests, it just seems odd to me that the problem of displaying idols is always “This offends me, take it down” and never “This may offend someone else” Just something to think about.
As a buddhist, I try to practice tolerance.
I must tolerate God in the pledge of allegiance
and god on our currency.I am willing to tolerate
that along with whatever anyone else believes.
I of course would appreciate the same treatment,
but have no control over that.
I try to think of what the Buddha would say
regarding the statues and the man’s reaction
to it.
I have another situation that you might consider: The Primordial Buddha statue on the grounds of the Convention Center in Sacramento, purchased with art funds that come from a tax on buildings. You can see the Buddha pictured here.
I must say that I am unhappy about the statue, but no one else seems to be.
The statue, or its clone, was first erected in a park in Singapore, but was removed because citizens there objected to it — on the basis that it’s design was insensitive to Buddhists.
As a scholar of Asian culture, I have looked uinto the aspects of why Buddhist statues are displayed in temples, and, while I agree that there is a time & place for everything, I am also angry that this person is trying to force his religious beliefs on others.
Maybe, instead of being so narrow-minded, he should look into things properly & see the beauty within.
I am no longer a Christian, as that was a very negative experience for me personally, but, neither am I an atheist.
I believe that people should have the freedom to believe what they want, after all, it is in the American Bill of Rights or the Constitution.
I consider Lord Buddha as my Tathagata & Lady Amaterasu-o Mikami as my Divine Mother.
worshipping idols is not what buddhist do althought that is a popular misconception, one of the things that first attracted me to buddhism was the tolerance not shared with other religions he has a right to his opinion but we should do our thing regardless of what others think thank you and be happy
All religions have their statues and symbols; this perception is a false perception.
my teacher says tradition is important and that we should go back to our tradition once we are can live in mindfulness.
Mr. Matt Campbell”s complain proves that he is intolerant towards other religions in general. I can’t understand how such a mentality developed in his mind in spite of his having born in one of the most scientifically advanced country. In my opinion even worshipping a cross is idolatory
I wonder if the Christian zoo patron would have been as incensed with statues of St. Francis of Assisi or St. Anthony? His misunderstanding comes from imagining that the Buddha was a God, rather than the saint that he truly was (is). We continue to educate.
this christian follower who was displeased by such a display is a fricken bonehead.i use to be a christian until i was enlightened by buddha.christians are idiots and not very tolerant and the jews cant seem to figure them out either
There are always be people who will be offended by something. I, too, find the proliferation of Buddha images disconcerting but I remind myself that my interest in Buddhism came from exploring what various images signified. I am sorry that images offend people. Protestants & Catholics argue over whether a cross should be presented with the body present. I believe that just about any image can present beautiful messages. Christ on a cross symbolizes, for me, the ultimate love of God. My image of Ganesh reminds me that God clears away obstacles. Kwan Yin teaches me the supremacy of compassion. Cernunos teaches the close relationship of humans & animals. I choose look beyond the source of the image and not to be offended. Being unoffended makes life much simpler. Oh and cannon- some christians are “idiots” but not because they are Christians…they’d be idiots regardless of their religious community.
I wonder how long it took this Christian gentleman to become “offended” by a concrete statue? It seems to me that he, and others like him, hold the view that their god is right and all others are wrong and are fully prepared to become offended when the need suits them.
My question is: How many Buddhists are offended by a Chinese buffet restaurant named “The Golden Buddha” ?
Now take the same restaurant…..say they serve eastern Mediterranean food this time and call it “The Shimmering Jesus” How many Christians would be offended as opposed to Buddhists?
It seems to me that the First Amendment is intended to protect free speech; not to prevent it. We should, I think, find space in our great melting pot of ideas and peoples for all things religious, philosophical, ideological, etc.
I am not offended by a Nativity display or menorah or any other religious display on public property as long as public funds are not used to pay for it and public power is not used to prevent any one faith (or non-faith) from displaying their symbols of belief (or non-belief).
i saw a buddha head today.. displayed and meant to be sold as a decoration.. i will honestly admit my fascination with this culture and i was drawn to purchase the head purely out of the purpose to display it as a decoration in my home. although .. hind sight brought me to feel that this ignorant act of consumerism was almost unusual and imoral.. why do altrenate religious icons intrigue the masses? so much so that they would be bought and sold as novelties at places like homegoods and the like.. it made me think and wonder…. how wrong does that seem,, js some asian decoration like rice paper lanterns and floor pillows.. who are we to exploit buddhism as a decorative novelty.