Tonight after attending a Tibetan Buddhist seminar I realized one thing that I have been wrong about for almost 2 years. I once thought that a quality of a successful religion was its success in the political arena; that for a politically powerful religion like Christianity or a theocratic state like those of the Islamic nations, such temporal might was a redeeming quality for the faith. After all, the more power, the more converts.
That all changed tonight when I brought that up with the Venerable who gave the seminar at the cafe downstairs to the seminar room (aptly called “World Peace Cafe”), and he wrinkled his nose in slight disapproval, even scorn, as he said (in referral to Christianity), “yes, it’s very political.”
Religion is above politics and it should stay out. Let the emperors and presidents do their job and let the priests do theirs, lest the priests end up as tyrants more deceitful and hypocritical than monarchs. After all it doesn’t take a theologian to see how tempting ruling a country is compared to caring for one’s flock.
Politics is about the acquisition and maintenance of temporal power. That’s fine and essential to a functioning society, but if a religion is to have a better chance of sticking to its doctrines and ethics it would do best not to have much to do with politics. Financial donations or support from kings and rulers is different from an outright theocracy like Saudi Arabia or the Vatican. Remember, one of the things that makes a religion dangerous is if its proponents attempt to bring about an ideal society on Earth. We have seen that with Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and to a lesser extent, Buddhism with Asoka’s empire (although it crumbled so quickly after his death it hardly merits as a long-standing theocracy).
So why should the practice of spirituality stay separate from power-broking? How about an analogy: one of the reasons for the rapidly rising divorce rate of married couples in the West is that the institution of marriage is no longer a covenant of love between two people (which, in my opinion, is what marriage should be in the strictest term of the word). Rather, it has become a tripartite contract between the husband, wife, and government. As far as I’m aware of the British government gives the best incentives for parties, in particular women, to divorce, and when the government interferes in such a delicate and personal matter with incentives of money and child support, you are looking at not just the dissolution of a marriage and the separation of a family, but also the devastation of conscience on both sides (sometimes only one).
Marriage and religion are both entites of love and salvation (in different ways). Interference in them by power-broking stuffs things up.
Politics is a neccessary evil, but that doesn’t mean it’s good. When religion blurs with politics it makes for really big trouble, as we can see from persecutions, Crusades, theologically-justified racism (used to excuse European colonization and exploitation of so-called “primitive” natives), and more recently, Islamo-facism and Jihad.
I would rather be a financially struggling teacher who lived in a run-down chapel with only a few young students than an emperor who preached Dharma, but at the same time waged war against other nations.
scientology rulz