At the Tricycle Blog, James Shaheen points to a complaint by conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg. Goldberg thinks Buddhists -- and the Dalai Lama especially -- get a pass.
Goldberg had taken offense at a National Public Radio interview with Pico Iyer, author of The Open Road: The Global Journey of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama. Buddhists get to makes claims of miracles, Goldberg sniffs. He was referring to the story of the 14th Dalai Lama's rebirth.
"I listen to discussions of Christianity from time to time on NPR," writes Goldberg, "and it seems that it's simply required in such conversations to take the 'magic' out of the Judeo-Christian narratives. But when the religion in question is Buddhism, it's apparently fine to suspend ones rationalist mind."
Goldberg also writes that the Dalai Lama is more conservative on social values than most Westerners realize. "As I understand it, he downplays his views on homosexuality and abortion when he's raising money in the West," Goldberg continues.
I don't think His Holiness has ever downplayed anything. When asked, he makes his position on same-sex relationships and abortion clear. But I'll come back to this in a minute. First, I want to discuss whether Buddhism gets a pass from Western liberals.
It's my observation that Western Buddhists, and Westerners who are interested in Buddhism but don't exactly practice, are plenty critical of Buddhism. (It's too Asian! It's too religious! It's not religious enough! And what's up with the rebirth thing?)
On the other hand, if liberals generally are less critical of Buddhism than of Christianity, it's partly because (1) they know little about it, and (2) they don't take Buddhism seriously as a religion. (This is not surprising, considering so many people who claim to be Buddhists say it isn't a religion.)
I get the impression that some liberals view Western Buddhism as a kind of off-the-wall hobby. Even many religious liberals of my acquaintance, people who are perpetually stirring up progressive religious activism and striving to actualize a liberal view of religion in the West, have to be reminded about Buddhism. And our invitations to the ecumenical progressive panel discussions are, ahem, forever being lost in the mail.
I say it's not so much that we get a "pass" from liberals as we get no respect.
And, frankly, a lot of the pushback against Christianity is personal. One cannot be born and grow into adulthood in the United States without personal interaction with aggressive Christian conservatives. In the West, however, aggressive Buddhist conservatives are about as rare as the ivory-billed woodpecker.
So, while non-Buddhist liberals don't quite know what to make of us, at least we're thought to be harmless.
Back to the Dalai Lama's conservatism. James discusses the Dalai Lama's position on homosexuality in a Huffington Post article; the prohibition of same-sex relationships is found in Tibetan texts and is not a view shared by most of Buddhism. There is no indication in the Pali scriptures that the historical Buddha prohibited gay sex for laypeople. The rules for the monastic orders prohibited all sex for monks and nuns, of course.
Buddhist views of abortion run the gamut from strong discouragement to nuanced respect for a woman's choice. Buddhism generally shies away from absolutism and takes a more situationist view of moral questions than the Abrahamic religions generally do. So, while abortion is a serious matter, a pro-choice position is not inconsistent with Buddhism.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama, who does tend to fall on the conservative end of the spectrum, has said,
Of course, abortion, from a Buddhist viewpoint, is an act of killing and is negative, generally speaking. But it depends on the circumstances.
If the unborn child will be retarded or if the birth will create serious problems for the parent, these are cases where there can be an exception. I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance.
I say it’s not so much that we get a “pass” from liberals as we get no respect.
Never thought about it that way, but those words really resonate with me. Thanks for the post!
“I say it’s not so much that we get a “pass” from liberals as we get no respect.”
I think this is totally accurate. Respect implies seeing someone’s views and life as worthy of consideration, even if you disagree. Even though “Buddhism” is in vogue, how many people in the U.S., for example, even know enough about it to show actually respect? I’ve gotten some of that pop-culture awe in response to saying I practice zen. “Oh, that’s so cool! I had a zen moment this morning while drinking my latte. It felt so good!” What can you really do with that, other that laugh
Maybe respect isn’t the real issue here. There doesn’t seem to be much respect between Christians and Muslims, but they at least acknowledge each other as religions. We shouldn’t need anyone else’s respect or even comprehension of our practice in order to have the same recognition. It just requires conventional tolerance and acceptance.
In a previous posting, you said that the definition of religion needs to be broadened to accept Buddhism, and that really strikes to the heart of this matter. If we can’t agree amongst ourselves to accept the label (”religion” and “Buddhist” alike) as a tool for interface with society, we will never get equal acceptance in western culture.
Perhaps a new definition should sound something like:
Religion- a transformative practice taught and learned by more than 50,000 people (or other number)
That way, Buddhist temples earn tax-exempt status and we have a label for interface that the rest of the world seems to need in order to have enough understanding to garner future respect.
If we can’t agree amongst ourselves to accept the label (”religion” and “Buddhist” alike) as a tool for interface with society, we will never get equal acceptance in western culture.
Yes, that’s how I see it. And this guy is definitely not helping.
Ultimately I think it is rather important for me to simply breath in and be aware I am breathing in; to breath out and be aware I am breathing out.
What the liberals, Christians and other religions want to do and faff about is up to them…I am copping out on my cushion this weekend.
Namo Amitofo
I have the label of “buddhist” but i do not need your respect
Metta
I have the label of “buddhist” but i do not need your respect
That’s fine for you, but if your dharma center is in the U.S. it could use the tax-exempt status, no doubt. Also, by not being taken seriously as a religion, Buddhism gets left out of a lot of inter-religious dialogue to which it has much to offer.
In other words, this is not about you.
After reading this article I started thinking about my own experiences at work. Though I live in Australia and people are generally more tolerant about beliefs and the like, I think Barbara is right. We tend to get viewed as being docile people and I think it’s because people don’t understand or care about what Buddhists believe or do and we aren’t respected.
Just my 0.02
- Reshwet
If Buddhists or other faiths get a “pass” relative to Christianity, I think it’s because, unlike Christianity, they don’t get in everyone’s faces telling them that they’ll go to hell if they marry the wrong person, or if their kids read Harry Potter, or if they believe in evolution, or whatever else. Chrisitianity, especially fundamentalist Chrisitians, draw a line in the sand and then get offended if anyone steps across it.
If Buddhism or other faiths get a “pass” relative to Christianity, I think it’s because, unlike Christianity, they don’t get in everyone’s faces telling them that they’ll go to hell if they marry the wrong person, or if their kids read Harry Potter, or if they believe in evolution, or whatever else. Chrisitianity, especially fundamentalist Christians, draw a line in the sand and then get offended if anyone steps across it.
If Buddhism or other faiths get a “pass” relative to Christianity, I think it’s because, unlike Christianity, they don’t get in everyone’s faces telling them that they’ll go to hell if they marry the wrong person, or if their kids read Harry Potter, or if they believe in evolution, or whatever else. Chrisitianity, especially fundamentalist Christians, draw a line in the sand and then get offended if anyone steps across it.
AMEN!
Barbara, good article, but I have to disagree with you about Buddhism not being taken seriously by others. of course, there are instances which could support such a position, Buddhist participants have also taken much welcomed leadership in inter-faith conferences. It’s also very hard to miss Buddhism’s imprint on the United Nation’s Culture of Peace and Non-violence initiatives, where they have borrowed a page from Thich Nhat Hahn and have advocated that educators teach children the principles of mindfulness.
Dharmakara — I think the United Nations does take Buddhism seriously, but the UN is not, strictly speaking, a “western” entity. It is as much Asian as it is western. It is not representative of purely western sensibilities.
Good point about the UN. Maybe it might be more of a issue of demographics when it comes to this… kind of like the difference between Los Angeles and a city in the Bible Belt, though out here we have a problem with Buddhists taking themselves too seriously (LOL)