From: wong@rkna50.riken.go.jp (Wong Weng Fai)
Subject: Politics and Religion
Organization: ----
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:52:32 GMT

Hi,

	Mr. Lloyd Carlson brought up an interesting and important point of
discussion : politics and religion. I shall leave aside the issue of how
Nichiren viewed politics as it is still the subject of many scholarly studies.
Instead, I want to address a more important issue/dilemma brought up (if I
read it correctly) by Mr. Carlson. I will be using the Nichiren/Komeito
position to illustrate some of my points and I hope I don't offend anyone -
I know almost nothing about the Christian Democrats etc to make any comments.
First, a point of correction ...

>	"In short, Obutsu Myogo means that an individual can become
>happy both materially and spiritually through the correct religion.
>This problem is a private problem, which cannot be settled by politics
>or policy but by religion.  When the principle of Obutsu Myoho is
>applied to individuals, . . . 'O' means living and 'butsu' means faith.
>If the interpretation is expanded, 'O' becomes politics and 'butsu'
>a religion.  Individual activities naturally develop into social
>activities.  Social activities mean realization of politics.  The
>realization of politics based on the philosophy of life aiming at social
>prosperity can be effected by the activities of Obutsu Myogo."

	In principle, I don't think I have any objection about this but see
below for further comments ...

>	"Almost all religions in the past were confined to spiritualism.
>Only a few of them preached the logic of practical deeds.  When it
>becomes clear, however, that religion deals with the life of all men,
>its relation to society as a whole and every form of culture will also
>become clear."

	I do not believe this is true. I can raise numerous examples of how
religions have (tried to) dealt with "practical deeds". Just look at the
Red Cross, Red Crescent, etc. As the Buddha said, if one is hungry, how can
you expect that person to listen to the Dharma ? 

> [stuff on Obutsu Myoho deleted.]

>	"Obutsu Myoho is not the `Unity of Church and State.'  In the
>past, there were abominable relations between religion and politics.
>In medieval Christianity, religious, authorities ruled politics, or
>political power utilized religion.  Religious prophecies often swayed
>politics.  This should not be confused with Obutsu Myogo.  If a relgion
>is forced on the masses by the Government or by law, of what use will
>it be?  It means the impotence of the religion, its isolation from the
>masses, and the loss of its eternity.  We cannot discuss politics by
>neglecting the change of times."  (end quotation)

	Although a good deal of these past relationship between the state and
the religion (no religion I know of had not have state sponsorship of some
sort), some (though very little) of these were genuine effort by the churches
to promote the "happiness" of the masses. An (ugly) example is the burning
of the witches (see Bertrand Russell's _The Evil that Good Men Do_). By anyone's
standard today, it was a horribly cruel thing to do. But the priests then
seriously believed that these "witches" were causing harm to the general public
and moved the political system to gain the necessary leverage to have them
burned. There are lots of examples where with the best of intentions, an
incredible amount of evil is done. 

>	I've been practicing for a few years, and it just didn't read
>right that Nichiren's Buddhism is to become a state religion.  It is
>an individual, voluntary  practice which entails the twice daily
>recitation of the liturgy, chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo, some study,
>and steady attempts to make improvements in one's daily life.  That
>effort results in an improved life which effects one's environment and 
>in turn has an effect on society.  As  more and more people  find proof 
>for themselves by trying this practice, then there is no need for a 
>'state relgion' because a force has allready been set in motion, and that 
>is the improvement of individual life and by extension the imporvement of 
>the society.  Just by declaring something as a state religion does not 
>guarantee anything.  It is on the alturistic level by improving our lives 
>and helping others that true growth for the society begins.  

	This brings me to the real point : should religion and politics mix ?
On the one hand, one can argue that to change the world, one needs to 
participate in politics. On the other hand, politics is a dirty business which
is not necessary compatible with religion. An example is the Komeito (the
political arm of the Soka Gakkai and the third largest party in Japan). The
big debate in Japan now is whether Japan should sent its armed forces to
participate in the United Nations' Peace Keeping Operations (PKO). This issue
is, as you can imagine, very sensitive to the Japanese and the Asians in 
general who suffered a lot under Japanese Imperialism. The nation is 
effectively divided (as all recent polls showed). Komeito initially leaned
towards opposing the bill. However, after negotiation with the ruling party,
it supported the bill and rammed it through parliament. (The main opposition
Socialist party got very emotional about the whole thing.) I was told that
even within Soka Gakkai, there was very strong opposition to the bill and
many complained against the Komeito. However, as cynical political observers
commented, the Komeito needed to do the "horse trading" with the ruling
party to ensure its own status. (I'm not sure what it is about.) So I think
half of the Komeito's decision can be attributed to its own decision while the
other half have to do with gaining political leverage. My point is : when you
get involve in politics, you have to play the game. It is quite foolish to
insists on "principles". As Perot said, "If I made the right decisions, I'll
lose the election."

	Another example is the recent bloodbath in Thailand. There was immense
pressure on the Sangha to take an official stand against the Prime Minister
then. On the other hand, there were monks who came out denouncing the 
opposition mayor of Bangkok. I think the Sangha did the right thing in calling
for an end to the bloodbath but not taking side - it is NOT the purpose of
the Sangha to do so. Individual monks are of course free to do so, but I am
of the opinion that the Sangha should stay out of it. 

	To take a stand means necessarily to turn some away (in the PKO 
situation, that could mean half the Japanese population). Is it the nature of
religion to discriminate ? This may sound selfish but I can (and have to as
a responsible member of society) take a stand (on some issues) and therefore 
make enemies but I would not expect my religion to discriminate against anyone
by insisting on a unified position (possibly dictated by some "leaders".)

	You are right in pointing out that religion is concerned with human
happiness, but does that mean that religion should dip its hands into 
everything that have something to do with "human happiness" ? An example is
the Moonies. Marriage is directly connected with human happiness, right ? So
they conclude that its the duty of the church to select the mate for the
individual. I think that is very wrong.

	Yes, I would like to see my religion provide the fundamental basis 
for millions' happiness but no, I would not like to see it becoming a big,
influential organization. History have shown that such organizations are
hindrances, rather than aids to the human cause.

	Any comments ?

with Metta,

W.F. Wong.

PS : And remember : 

	Quote 1 : POWER CORRUPTS, ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY !
	Quote 2 : There is no such thing as a free lunch. (Particularly true in 
		  politics.)


Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern