Religion should not be above criticism

On the topic of not automatically respecting all religions (see the previous post), The Australian ran a piece two weeks ago by Pamela Bone on why religion should not be protected from criticism:

Despite the general view that religious belief is on the rise everywhere, the picture around the world is that in nearly all prosperous liberal democracies, atheism is strong.

In Britain, about 44 per cent claim no religion; in France it is 48 per cent; in Canada, 30 per cent; in Sweden, surveys have put the proportion of those who describe themselves as agnostic or atheist at between 46 per cent and 85 per cent. Even in the most religious of Western countries, the US, a 2004 Pew Forum survey found 16 per cent of Americans had no religious affiliation.

Japan also falls into the above category, despite most of its citizens professing to follow Shintoism and Buddhism, often together.

One reason the trend to non-belief can be welcomed is that those countries with high rates of voluntary non-belief (that is, where atheism is not forced by the regime) are also the healthiest and wealthiest countries in the world, as judged by the annual UN Human Development Reports. Cause and effect should not be confused here: it may be that people who are comfortable and secure have less need for religion, rather than that an absence of religion leads to greater happiness; but it does show that an absence of religion doesn't cause societies to break down. I don't think the Swedes are notable for their criminality.

The other reason is that the briefest study of world history will show that religion has been directly responsible for countless world conflicts, resulting in the loss of millions of human lives, whether it was Christians killing Jews in Europe, Muslims and Hindus killing each other in Kashmir, Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland or Muslims and Christians in Sudan. Meanwhile, a look at the nightly television news will show the extent to which religion is still tearing up the world.

At this point religious people will jump in to point out that more people have been killed by communism than religion. Leaving aside the fact that communist ideology is similar to a religious ideology, this is like saying there is no point in curing tuberculosis because malaria kills more people.

Also, comparing the raw numbers obscures the fact that most of the killings by the Communists took place in recent history, and thus they had access to more efficient means of killing, and dealt with larger populations, than existed during the times of the historical wars of religion. If the Christians and Muslims of a thousand years ago had access to modern weapons and technology, and a population numbering over a billion on each side, they would undoubtedly have killed many more people than the Communists have. Unfortunately, there is still a segment of the world's Muslim population whose minds are stuck in the mentality of a thousand years ago, and who are intent precisely on waging religious war on the rest of the word using today's weapons and technology.

The truth is that it is now too dangerous for religion to be given the special status it has always had. When large numbers of people, some of them living among us, want to kill us and our innocent children (surely "innocent children" is a tautology) for no other reason than that we do not believe in their God, we can no longer afford to tiptoe around religious sensitivities. It is time to get rid of the taboo that says religious beliefs have to be quarantined from criticism. It is time to hold some religious beliefs up to ridicule.

God may or may not exist; I don't presume to know. But I am fairly certain that a god does not exist who wants everyone killed who does not believe in a certain book; or a god who takes an obsessive interest in what women wear; or a god who cares about whether we eat pork rather than lamb (though if I were god I'd be pretty annoyed at human beings eating any other animals); or a god who wants little bits of babies' genitals cut off.

The holy books on which Jews, Christians and Muslims rely were written at a time when ideas about human rights and the scope of scientific knowledge were very different from today. We are expected to respect religious texts that contain invitations to genocide, rape and slavery. We are supposed to respect all religions when the central tenet of every religion is that its holy book is the right one and all others are in error or at best incomplete. Unbelievers are those who declare, "God is the Messiah, the son of Mary," says the Koran. "Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people." We are supposed to respect beliefs that if they were held by one person, rather than millions of people, the person holding them would be judged insane. Catholics are enjoined to believe that during the mass a piece of wafer is transformed not into a symbol of the body of Christ, but into the actual body of Christ.

Millions of people also once believed that witches cause crops to fail, or that thunder is the noise made by the gods fighting. They stopped believing in such things either because scientific knowledge proved them wrong, or because they discovered that sensible and reasonable people found the beliefs ridiculous.

In Victoria, politicians are tying themselves in knots over whether to support or reject the state's racial and religious tolerance laws. Once I would have written in support of these laws; but as we have been reminded yet again in recent days, the world has changed. Millions of kindly Christians may be able to ignore the nasty bits in their holy books but, though most Muslims are not extremists, too many are unable to ignore what's in theirs.

Yes, let's have laws against racial vilification, because people don't have a choice about their race and in any case racial slurs are based on assumptions that are unfair and scientifically wrong. But unless we accept there is no such thing as free will, religious belief is a matter of choice.

As the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved, it is no more moral to believe than not to believe. The best hope for a less religious and thus safer world is for religion - all religion - to be open to rational and stringent examination and criticism, and yes, to ridicule.

I could not agree more. A view of the world that is in accord with reality has nothing to fear from criticism or ridicule.

南無阿彌陀佛

Hollywood cluelessness about Buddhism

Buddhism is rumoured to be popular in Hollywood, but the people in Hollywood often seem to be quite ignorant of it. Two stories today on that theme.

Actress Sharon Stone is missing the Venice Film Festival, ostensibly so that she can meet with the Dalai Lama:

The 'Basic Instinct' actress has reportedly pulled out of the prestigious event this weekend, where she was supposed to be promoting her latest film 'Bobby'.

Stone's representatives have so far been vague about the reason behind the star's absence and only revealed she will be meeting the Buddhist spiritual leader in Los Angeles.

Her representative, Cindi Berger, said the 'Casino' star "never committed" to the festival and is "doing something with the Dalai Lama in Los Angeles" instead.

However, rumours are rife the Stone decided to pull out of the festival because organisers' refused to accommodate her diva-like demands.

I wonder if the Dalai Lama will accommodate her diva-like (or should that be "deva"-like) demands?

Meanwhile, another Hollywood actress, Penelope Cruz, defends Tom Cruise's adherence to Scientology by comparing it with Buddhism:

"Tom and I are good friends and in many ways he's shown me to have a kind heart.

"Scientology is positive. When you read a book of Buddhism, you could apply it to your life in any way you need to, so with a book of Scientology it's the same thing.

"I think we should respect all religions."

For respect to be meaningful, it must be earned. To respect everything equally is to respect nothing at all. It is well-documented that Scientology was created by science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard to make money. Scientology treats Hubbard's science fiction as fact and teaches, among other things, that humans are biologically descended from clams and are possessed by alien entities. The website Operation Clambake exposes Scientology in detail. While I believe in respecting a person's right to believe in Scientology if he so chooses, I cannot see why Scientology itself should be respected.

L. Ron Hubbard also claimed that the Buddha had attained only a low level of enlightenment and that he himself was, naturally, much more enlightened than the Buddha (see here, here, and here for some examples). Scientology is itself disrespectful of Buddhism. All religions make claims to truth, claims that are often mutually exclusive between religions. So how is one to "respect all religions" when most religions don't respect each other, and couldn't do so without compromising their core truth claims?

Instead of respecting all religions, which is both silly and impossible, we should instead respect and uphold each person's right to choose his religion (including the choice not to have a religion).

南無阿彌陀佛

Buddhism goes hi-tech in China

Buddhism is big business in China:

PIETY and a knowledge of Buddhist scriptures used to be just about the only qualifications needed to become a Chinese monk. Now computer skills, foreign language ability and a degree in financial management are also desirable.

Three decades after temples were destroyed and scriptures burned during the Cultural Revolution, Buddhism is making a comeback in China. And, like most things in the super-competitive, rapidly developing country, it has become both big business and a field in which people are eager to get ahead.

That's creating a new breed of multi-tasking, tech-savvy, upwardly mobile monks.

"Our recruiting process is highly competitive," said Hui Jue, the deputy general manager of the 120-year-old Jade Buddha Temple in central Shanghai, who recently completed a master of business administration degree at Jiaotong University.

Fifteen monks from his temple have been on foreign language courses at the Shanghai International Studies University, and another batch have started MBA studies in Jiaotong's business school.

Such skills are necessary, Mr Hui believes, for the temple to spread Buddhist teachings in the modern world and to manage its growing business interests. As well as its grounds, Jade Buddha owns a vegetarian restaurant, a four-star hotel, a seven-floor office building and a food factory.

The restaurant and the food factory I can understand, since the monks are vegetarian and have special dietary requirements, but why would they need a four-star hotel?

It goes without saying that one cannot mention Buddhism in China without referring to the famous Shaolin Temple:

The ancient Shaolin Temple in Henan province has capitalised on its reputation as a birthplace of the martial arts to host international guests and stage kung fu displays around the world.

It owns a martial arts training school and Shaolin Development, a company producing vegetarian snacks and Zen tea. It also co-operates with entertainment companies in film-making and online game production.

Guangxiao Temple in Guangdong province has launched online worshipping, so users can offer virtual incense, fruit and flowers to electronic Buddhas.

This picture, which accompanied the article, shows what appears to be a common computer desk as one might find in any workplace. What's unusual is that the picture is taken in Shaolin Temple, and person sitting at the desk is a monk, who is just about to go online:

A monk at China's Shaolin Temple, which helps produce computer games, logs on to the internet.

Picture: Cancan Chu/Getty Images

南無阿彌陀佛

University of Toronto Receives Gift for Buddhist Studies

The non-profit Buddhist organization Tung Lin Kok Yuen (東蓮覺苑), headed by philanthropist billionaire Robert Hung-Ngai Ho (何鴻毅), has just donated $4 million to the University of Toronto at Scarborough for their Buddhist studies program. From The Toronto Star:

Born into a Buddhist family, Ho, 74, said he did not enjoy going to temples or Sunday religious school until he turned 40 and began seeking spiritual growth. After studying various religions, he felt Buddhism suited him best because of its principle of self-salvation.

"It teaches you to do everything on your own, to rely on yourself instead of any supernatural powers or gods," explained Ho, who retired in Canada in 1989 after retiring as publisher of Hong Kong's Kung Sheung Daily Press. (A master's graduate of Columbia University's journalism school, he had worked at the Pittsburgh Press and National Geographic, for a time as White House correspondent, before returning to Hong Kong.)

"Unfortunately, people mix up their superstitions with Buddhism, turning it into a mythical chop suey, so others think that Buddhists are a bunch of voodoos."

That's why Ho has put his energy and resources into building a strong global network of Buddhist studies programs at academic institutions, which can help debunk misconceptions about this ancient religion.

The gift will support a visiting professorship and lectureship program in Buddhist studies, as well as conferences, public lecture series and scholarships.

There's more on the gift from U of T Magazine, which says that the money will go towards establishing an endowed visiting professorship and a series of conferences and public lectures at U of T's Scarborough campus. And News@UofT says that the gift will be the largest in the history of U of T Scarborough.

This follows a similar gift made to the University of British Columbia earlier this year.

For some reason, I just can't get enough of the phrases "a mythical chop suey" and "a bunch of voodoos."

南無阿彌陀佛

The purpose of this online journal, if it had a purpose

I have started this online journal to document my thoughts on a number of topics mostly having to do with religion and society.

I have had a deep interest in religion ever since I was very young, and embarked on a serious study of the subject as a teenager which continues to this day. I converted to Buddhism in university, and have taken refuge with teachers of both the Theravada and Mahayana traditions.

When I began to study religion, I was told that it was not a useful subject since the world was moving inexorably towards secularism and irreligiosity. Whether or not that will be the case in the long run, in this last decade, at least, religion has been a preponderant force in global politics. The world seems to be moving towards a massive conflict, and the contenders on one side are very explicit in proclaiming that they are motivated by a religious ideology.

So religion is big news nowadays, and I intend this to be a place to comment, from a Buddhist perspective, on issues having to do with religion and society.

南無阿彌陀佛