Buddhist Temple on the National Mall:
So, it seems there is to be no wall of separation between temple and state. Only between the church and state.
Now I must say that I am not upset that the United States has allowed a Buddhist Temple to be built in the middle of the National Mall. It was placed there for the Smithsonian Folklife Festival. Bhutan is highlighted this year, and the temple has a rightful place in the festival, because it demonstrates a core aspect of Bhutanese life. And as one who studies Buddhism and one who thinks that Christians and Buddhists can learn much from each other in inter-religious dialogues, I welcome the kind of opportunity this will allow for such dialogue to take place.[1]
But I hope that this means that other nations, such as the Vatican, would be welcomed to present their own cultural heritage at the Folklife Festival in the future. And if they are, that they would be free to construct, as need be, religious buildings to suit their own cultural needs. Otherwise, I fear a double-standard is being allowed here: some religions are welcomed by the state (and, I assume given financial support), while others (especially Christianity), are not given such respect.
I am in total agreement with the notion of religious liberty. The state should not coerce people to follow a specific religious tradition. And the state must allow all religious traditions as much freedom as is acceptable in a well ordered society (so, of course, no human sacrifices are allowed). However, I have never understood why this means there can be no public celebration of religion by a state, if done in a proper fashion. Indeed, I would argue that it is now being done on the National Mall. It’s a very good thing, and I am glad I went to see it for myself. I just wish that this kind of opportunity given to the Buddhists would be given to one and all.
[1] Many important Catholic and Orthodox theologians and leaders agree with my sentiment on Buddhist-Christian dialogue, as can be ascertained, for example, from the writings of Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Thomas Hopko, and John Garvey. Of course, it is always important to note that such dialogue must not be syncretistic.
I would join in your appreciation of the folk life festival. I would suggest, however, that there is little evidence of a double standard, save the bogus claims of certain hard-edged right wing political operations. If your view is that the state allows government hosted Buddhist culture but not Christian, I would suggest you take a short walk from the folk life festival to the National Gallery of Art or some of the Smithsonian museums (the same sponsor of the folk life festival) and view the cultural treasures there. The Blessed Mother, the Crucified Christ, St. Sebastian, St. John the Baptist, the Last Supper, chalices, vestments, and altar pieces all under the same state sponsorship as the temple.
Kurt
The temple is not just being set up as a work of art; real worship and services are performed there by the monks from Bhutan. It’s not just a “look and what it looks like” model, it’s the real thing, with real Buddhist practices going on. Indeed, the altar in the temple was collecting quite a bit of money as I went through…
Henry,
I like this post! Especially this:
“But I hope that this means that other nations, such as the Vatican, would be welcomed to present their own cultural heritage at the Folklife Festival in the future. And if they are, that they would be free to construct, as need be, religious buildings to suit their own cultural needs. Otherwise, I fear a double-standard is being allowed here: some religions are welcomed by the state (and, I assume given financial support), while others (especially Christianity), are not given such respect.”
Seems to me to be a very sensible request.
Well we did have a huge Papal Mass on the Mall in the late 70′s. I am not sure such a event can occur today though or not
JH
Obviously, things were differet in the past and I am reflecting the current situation. I have experienced first hand how the “separation between church and state” has, in the last couple of decades, forced all kinds of long-standing monuments to be removed from the presence of “the state.”
Interestingly enough, a controversy in Bloomington, IN surrounded the city hall as it welcomed a display of Tibetan Culture and religion in honor of the Dalai Lama. It would not allow a display of the Ten Commandments, when Christians asked for it. And once again, I think the Buddhists should have been free to do so (The Dalai Lama was coming to town, and some of his family has more than made it a home away from home). But I also think others, like Christians, also should be free to do so, too.
Some folks read the Constitution and Bill of Rights and find the unalienable rights to abortion and gay marriage; and then can’t locate the rights to possess a firearm or private property.
Where does the US Constitution say “separation of temple and state” or “separation of church and state”?
Only place I know of that even approximates is the First Am. and that one says, “Congress shall make no law as to the establishment of religion.” How hard is that? Er. see first para. above.
Seems certain constitutional principles sprang fully-armed out of some federal judges’ egg-heads. More constitutional modernism.
“The temple is not just being set up as a work of art; real worship and services are performed there by the monks from Bhutan. It’s not just a “look and what it looks like” model, it’s the real thing, with real Buddhist practices going on. Indeed, the altar in the temple was collecting quite a bit of money as I went through…”
The more recent papal Mass was also held in a (DC) government owned facility, Nationals Park. Masses are held regularly in the San Antonio missions churches, which are owned by the National Park Service.
On the other hand, you might walk up Massachusetts Avenue whre a Buddhist temple is under construction after being held up for a year by neighbors because it was not a church (NIMBYs using religious bigotry rather than religious bigots would be my guess if I was the type to judge, but I’m not). :)
I wouldn’t call Buddhism a religion.
I wouldn’t call Buddhism a religion.
Interesting. Why?
Now now, that sounds like something the bad old Gerald Augustinus would say, not the new reformed Gerald!!!
Kevin
I think we will have to agree to disagree about the situation and the differences. I think being in the middle of the National Mall on the Fourth of July performing religious services in a special temple built for you is quite different from using a building that 1) either was once yours (the missions) or 2) wasn’t but is not normally a religious building itself.
Just, as I said, I have no problem with this and indeed, I am glad it was done. I just hope, in the future, we can see others there in the future (Zoroastrians, Mandaeans, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Christians, Native Americans, etc). And that this could be used to show that “separation of church and state” isn’t overcome when the state displays religio-cultural symbols.
Gerald
That would depend upon what the meaning of is, is. Wait, I meant religion. It depends upon how one defines religion.
I know of Christians who say “Christianity isn’t a religion, but a relationship.” I know Buddhists who say Buddhism is not a religion. There are a lot of reasons why various people might want to say their religion is not a religion — for religion has gained, in the Western secular culture, a negative connotation.
But if one suggests a religion is an ultimate concern surrounded by various teachings which are used to explain it and ritual practices which brings one into some sort of union with, experience of, or relationship to, that ultimate concern, then yes, Buddhism is a religion. And many Buddhists, of course, recognize this as well.
Well, there’s no god in Buddhism. The Buddha himself didn’t address the issue. Sure, there are aspects of cultus. I do like quite a bit about Buddhism – I got an 80 lbs Buddha that I painted myself. (The actual Buddha in full lotus, not the fat-guy talisman) I’ve read a lot of books. Of course, there is a Western filter that presents Buddhism differently than in its original countries. But, that can lead to interesting syntheses. The books by Dr. Mark Epstein are very interesting, for example – “Going to Pieces Without Falling Apart” or “Thoughts Without a Thinker”, for example. As far as Buddhist writings are concerned, I recommend the Dhammapada, sayings by Gautama Buddha himself.
In the original sense of re-ligio one could say it’s a religion.
Gerald
Notice my definition. I didn’t say anything about a god in it. However, for a point of fact, Buddadharma teaches that there are in fact many gods (they are, however, contingent beings and one of the possible levels of samsara). But that is one of the questions — is there the need for a worship of a God for something to be a religion? The definition I provided above shows that is not the case. But if your definition is “the worship of a God” then you are right, Buddhism isn’t a religion. OF course, as I have said, people also make other definitions, some to suggest Christianity isn’t a religion.
And I have sufficient background in the Buddhadharma; I don’t write upon it here, but I read far more than the Westernized pop-Buddhism you see on the shelves at Borders and Barnes and Noble. I get sanskrit texts from India. There is a reason for this — it’s one of my areas of scholarly study.
Now, what is the Buddhist response to the question: is Buddhism a religion? There is no one response. Some, like Chan Master Sheng Yen, make it clear it is. Others, of course, entirely dismiss the association of religion with the Buddhadharma (because, of course, they are following a Western association of religion with the worship of a god). Indeed, the violent reaction against Buddhism by some missionaries and colonial powers have influenced many Buddhists in some regions to be hostile to the term religion. Those areas which have not faced those problems tend to be the ones more open to the term religion.
For simplicity’s sake, I include it in the religion category on my own new blog :)
Now, do you have texts in Pali ? ;)
Well, I felt inspired to a little Buddha post: http://www.geraldnaus.com
The two Dhammapada translations I link to are quite nice.
As far as personal interest goes, reincarnation and all the realms etc. never meant anything to me. But I think it’s very interesting overall – and I haven’t met a Buddhist that pissed me off ;) Maybe I should drop by Mt. Shasta, it’s a few hours north of here. Not to worry, not becoming a Buddhist, didn’t the first time around. At heart, I’m really an eclectic person. The witch-hunter persona went away as soon as I started taking OCD medication, which is when my old blog started to be doomed. Or, as I said to my wife, give a Catholic an SSRI and you’ll get an Episcopalian ;)
My copy of the Dhammapada is the edition from the Sacred Writings series, which includes a transliterated edition of the text.
The fact that religion itself is a construct is also relevant to whether or not Buddhism is a religion.