Religious Tolerance, Nah!

Indonesia would be our home if we were not currently residing in the Land Downunder. Yet, a recent story our of Tanjung Balai in North Sumatra has me wondering whether Indonesia is all that it claims to be when it comes to arguing that it practices a moderate form of Islam and that there is a constitutionally guaranteed right to the freedom of religion. To my mind, this piece of news out of North Sumatra suggests that not all religions are equal under the constitution, particularly if they are a minority faith. This piece of news is also indicative of a lack of leadership across all levels of government and the community.

The news relates to a rather large 6-meter statue of Buddha which finds itself sitting atop of a 3-storey temple located in the heart of Tanjung Balai. After a great deal of agitation by a local Islamic group, the Forum for United Muslims, there was allegedly an agreement reached that would see the Buddha moved to a more "respectful" location. More respectful seemingly means out of the eyesight of Muslims. I am not sure that there are all that many Muslims that would be tempted to convert to Buddhism based solely on seeing a large statue of the Buddha, but then again, perhaps the temptation is just too great that it is better to remove it.

However, the longer the statue remains where it is the more likely it is that there will be protests to see it removed with all haste. The local Islamic Community Council seems to think that removing the statue is all about maintaining religious harmony. Perhaps some other minority religions in Indonesia would beg to differ. This is about one religion using its numbers to dominate other religions by forcing compliance and issuing threats. If the situations were reversed and some followers of a minority faith linked together with others and demanded that all local mosques not use loud speakers to make the call to prayer as it disturbed them, what then would the likely outcome be?

Tolerance is a two-way street. It requires the ability to tolerate and be tolerated. Yet, I am not sure this current dispute evidences a two-way street. It seems more likely this is a one-way street where you do as your told or suffer the consequences of your non-compliance.

The cold hard reality here is that Buddhism is an officially sanctioned religion. Followers of the faith have a constitutionally guaranteed right to practice their faith. They also have a right to their religious symbols and deities in order to fulfill their religious obligations.

The government and courts at all levels must do all that they can to protect religious freedom. Unfortunately, another cold hard reality is that populism means that elected officials rarely maintain the testicular or ovarian fortitude that they extol as candidates.

I wonder whether this is another nail in the coffin of tolerance in Indonesia?

The Buddha Reincarnated?

This is a story I have been following for a while. I have not written about it in the past and there is not any reason as to why I have not. I studied a little bit about Buddhism when I was younger and first exploring the idea of my own personal spirituality and what I believe in. I have always believed in an idea that we as people can reach an enlightened state of being and that things become much clearer to us and for us.

For some this is a belief in God and for others this might just be a simple belief that there is something greater than ourselves out there. This post is not getting into a debate on the pros and cons of religion per se and arguments that if one does not accept a belief in God then they are a poster child for the devil.

This is a post about a kid who has meditated for months without food and water. There are some that even go so far as to say that this meditation and no (or reduced) food and water intake has been ongoing since 2005.

The kid, Ram Bahadur Bamjan, was first sighted in the jungles of Nepal. He was by all accounts easy enough to spot, as he was sitting cross-legged in deep meditation under a tree with his eyes closed and no movement.

This ability brought the masses out in order to witness this spectacle. The crowds became so large and so frequent that Ram did a runner. He disappeared deeper into the jungle and was not to be seen again. Well, not until he re-emerged this week at Ratanpur.

Ram looks pretty healthy for an 18-year-old that has been in deep meditation and without food and water for an extended period (photo courtesy of AP).

However, the kid is not without his detractors and skeptics. The skeptics cite the fact that the original Buddha is the enlightened one and that becoming enlightened is the end of the journey and not just another stage on the reincarnation trail.

Simply, the rationale is that being born a Buddha is the last birth, you have attained enlightenment. Now, the problem here is that Buddhists believe in reincarnation. However, I am accepting enough that I can accept that ultimately those few that do manage to reach enlightenment are rewarded with not having to go back to square one and start all over again.

Other scholars seem quick to point out that just being able to meditate and go without food is hardly proof positive of the boy being the reincarnation of Buddha.

Nevertheless, there are plenty of devotees who remain undeterred and unswayed by the skeptics. These devotees are convinced that Ram is the real deal and line up for hours to receive his blessing, which is a touch of one's head.

Freedom of Speech Under Attack?

I am an advocate of free speech. I have never considered free speech to be an absolute right but rather one that is modified by defamation laws and protected by an ability to prove what one says.

However, it seems that this freedom of speech is slowly but surely being whittled away as vilification and hatred laws are introduced to the regulatory framework and discourse is restricted to agreed truths that cannot be questioned.

This is a direct attack on the freedom of speech! The cartoon is a statement about the Canadian Human Rights Commission system and it can be found here at the FreedomSite Blog.

I have always wondered for example why it was wrong to publish a cartoon of Muhammad, or more specifically how that was any more wrong than say publishing a cartoon of Jesus or Buddha or some other religious icon?

I have always wondered why there cannot be academic debate say on the holocaust or why saying that the numbers of Jews killed under the "Final Solution" might not have been six million. To my mind there is no doubting that Nazi Germany as led by Adolf Hitler adopted a policy known as the "final solution" and that the purpose was to rid Europe of the Jews.

Yet, I do not understand the fear of having to defend this position. If someone questions whether the gas chambers were capable of poisoning the number of people claimed, then they are labeled anti-Semitic and threatened with jail. Where is the free speech in that and who is protecting the rights of these people to exercise their right to free speech?

Or is it the case that when you want to talk about Muhammad or Israel or other things you can only do so within the "agreed" discourse and to stray from this very limited path makes you a criminal?

Whatever happened to the idea that I might disagree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it.

How can we ever live in a truly functioning democracy if the narrative and the discourse is dictated by the few? Many vilification and hatred and denial laws are used purely for the purpose of stifling legitimate debate. And, this is a sad development and sets back our ability to live in peace and harmony with each other as these laws foster the ill-will and hatred that they seek to overcome.

It is time that we started behaving like adults rather than allowing our politicians to regulate us like we are children.

The freedom of speech must be a freedom to disagree, a freedom to challenge, and a freedom to question. Anything less makes a mockery of the freedom of speech as a legitimate human right.

Thus endeth the sermon!

Food for Thought

The following are all attributed to the Buddha

A dog is not considered a good dog because he is a good barker. A man is not considered a good man because he is a good talker.


A family is a place where minds come in contact with one another. If these minds love one another the home will be as beautiful as a flower garden. But if these minds get out of harmony with one another it is like a storm that plays havoc with the garden.


A good friend who points out mistakes and imperfections and rebukes evil is to be respected as if he reveals a secret of hidden treasure.


A wise man, recognizing that the world is but an illusion, does not act as if it is real, so he escapes the suffering.


All that we are is the result of what we have thought. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him. If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him.


An insincere and evil friend is more to be feared than a wild beast; a wild beast may wound your body, but an evil friend will wound your mind.


Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.


Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment.


Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others. He who envies others does not obtain peace of mind.

Believe - The Buddha Way

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions only because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

-- Gautama Siddharta