Buddhism in Britain

TICK THE BOX FOR BUDDHISM - CENSUS MARCH 2011

The next – and probably last – UK Census is to take place on the 27^th March 2011. For the second time it includes a controversial voluntary question about religious affiliation.

 

Many commentators are critical of the design of this question and even the originators – the Office of National Statistics - accept that it only measures the weakest form of religious affiliation. Given that the question is voluntary and it is not clear why the ONS want the data, it might have have been better omitted from this census.

The design of the 'religion' question is based upon an outdated view of identity where each of us is assumed to have a strong and exclusive identity with just one major faith / religion / belief system / philosophy.  This is clearly unreasonable: many have sympathies or strong connections with more than one such 'religious ideology'. So we have jewish - buddhists; christian humanists; pagan - vegan - buddhists; islamic - buddhist - humanists; and just about every other combination that is possible. 

One cannot help wondering whether the real purpose of this question is to get a (misleadingly) large christian vote as a proxy for 'britishness'. 

However, even though the question and the thinking behind it are flawed, it seems important that we heed the UK’s Network of Buddhist Organisation (NBO) campaign to encourage us to Tick the Box for Buddhism. Unfortunately, the figures from the last census question on religion have been directly used to justify government policy towards  faith groups.

During the year I spent as the NBO development officer, I found that although Buddhism and its values are widely respected, some practitioners – mainly western converts - are reticent and sometimes confused about the nature of their involvement with Buddhism. Even those who turn up regularly to Buddhist retreats may be uncomfortable with declaring themselves as Buddhist.

There are other complex factors.

Declaring oneself a Buddhist seems to imply for some, a more serious devotion to their practice, and to require beliefs (perhaps rebirth) with which they are uncomfortable. So to be Buddhist requires that we must be some sort of 'pious saint'. This is  obviously a distorted view, since like most spiritual paths, Buddhism supports all levels of involvement and conviction.

Many Buddhists have a knee-jerk opposition to anything that smacks of government control or monitoring. There is a concern with what appears to be ever greater invasions of privacy though CCTV, questionnaires, and databases of various kinds. Although these may be well-intentioned, they are often clumsy, based on flawed thinking (like identities) and the data has a way of falling into the wrong hands.

And there are others who have a rather undiscriminating (naive?) view of politics and avoid any civic involvement which might involve some sort of Buddhist influenced opinion – this is the ‘don’t mix Buddhism with politics’ attitude. Whilst I strongly agree that Buddhist practice traditions should keep well away from political affiliation and party political activity, at a mundane or grassroots level we are all involved in deciding on policies in our communities and we can all influence those who govern us.

And as citizens of a democratic country we have the right (often hard won and with great sacrifice by our ancestors) to make our opinions known and to stand up for what we believe will help our communities. And we can all peacefully and patiently publicise campaigns, activities and attitudes that are motivated by compassion and kindness, rather than their opposites.

And if we start to be more open and public about Buddhism and our practice we are helping others to become aware of the benefits of this path.  

I am not suggesting a chauvinistic or aggressive proselytising Buddhism, but simply taking opportunities to present the ways that Buddhist practice helps us to understand our human condition and to lead better lives. Looking at what is going on in the world under the banner of ‘religion’, where even an act of cold-blooded and cowardly murder can get applauded by 'religious' leaders, there seems to me an urgent need for more sane and moderate religious practitioners to stand up and be counted.

And looking at the way that greedy capitalism and inequality seem to dominate our social structures and livelihoods and the way these are leading us into environmental degradation and huge social problems, we also need well-motivated social activism and engagement, and this is also a strength of the Buddhist path.

I think it would be a very helpful outcome for all if the Census showed an increase in numbers of Buddhists. I don’t see this from a partisan perspective of wanting Buddhism to dominate in some way; just that I see Buddhism as strongly espousing good basic human values and behaviour, and this is what we need at the moment: kindness, courtesy, a willingness to listen and the avoidance of dogmatic attitudes.  

So spread the word. Encourage friends and networks to Tick the box for Buddhism at the Census on March 27^th.  

 

The Pope in Westminster Hall

Some weeks ago I accepted an invitation as part of the group of ‘Members of Parliament and Civil Society’ to listen to an address by His Holiness Pope Benedict in Westminster Hall on 17^th Sep 2010. I had been invited because of my position on the executive committee of the Network of Buddhist Organisations and because I had contributed to a variety of government led committees over the past few years. The previous government had made efforts to include individuals from faith groups in a wide range of interfaith and consultative faith councils and I had offered a Buddhist viewpoint on proposed legislation and community matters where I felt it possible to do so.

And so I found myself negotiating several security checks and entering a large and drafty Westminster Hall, the oldest part of the Palace of Westminster and a space which I had  previously only walked through on my way to meetings.

On this occasion the space was filled with rows of seating sufficient for the nearly two thousand guests invited to hear the pope. We had to arrive much earlier than the pope and his entourage and so I had over an hour of sitting amongst the ‘great and the good’ and observing them arriving and taking their seats; for some reason the peers in particular reminding me of Bertie Wooster's observation that his great aunts greeted each other – ‘like mastodons meeting across primeval swamps’.

There were some theatrical moments, such as when a troop of household cavalry (unfortunately without their horses) marched across the end of the hall with swords drawn, and then just before the pope’s entry the state trumpeters sounded an impressive fanfare. Various groups of senior Catholic and Anglican clerics and a few from other faiths had already arranged themselves as the pope and Rowan Williams and attendants arrived, descended the steps and took their positions on chairs at the head of the hall.

I noted that the speaker of the House of Commons made some welcoming remarks which also included a reference to the trial of Sir Thomas More, who had been found guilty of treason for siding with the then pope rather than with King Henry the eighth in events which led to the great split between the English Church and the Church of Rome and created our current rather complex and curious brand of democratic theocracy.

This reference made it clear to all that the relationship between the Holy See and the English state has not often been an amicable and constructive one. 

The pope’s address (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2010/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20100917_societa-civile_en.html) contained no surprises. He asserted the Churches primacy in matters of  morality and ‘truth’  stating - ‘If the moral principles underpinning the democratic process are themselves determined by nothing more solid than social consensus, then the fragility of the process becomes all too evident.’

It is unfortunate that the pope’s claim for the moral superiority of the Catholic Church has been so seriously compromised by many damaging revelations of sexual abuse and the reluctance of the Church to respond compassionately and honestly to this. The Churches reaction to problems has always seemed to be a self-serving one intended to hush things up and blame others.

There are also many, including me, who regard the policies of the Catholic Church on sexual matters, contraception, and the status of women, as deeply misguided and harmful. (See The Pope and AIDS for example). Having myself experienced cruel behaviour from Catholic nuns when at primary school and heard my mother speaking of the emotional and physical cruelty inflicted on her and her sister at the hands of Catholic nuns, I am understandably sceptical when I hear the Catholic hierarchy making claims for its moral superiority.

The pope also asked that religion not be marginalised and Christians be allowed to follow their conscience when this clashes with the requirements of their workplace. 

But considered properly, this is a much more complex issue, and perhaps the simplest response is to say that employees have the ultimate choice of resigning if they do not like what they are asked to do; and in a democratic society, of contributing their voices to opposing legislation or behaviour in the workplace with which they disagree.

An awkward fact for the senior Catholic hierarchy, and which applies to all other major faiths, is that faith communities do not all support the same beliefs, doctrines and policies, but are actually tapestries of different opinions, practices, conflicting teachings and different schools. So to speak of Catholic conscience as though it is obvious what this is, and is synonymous with the Vatican's policies, is to misrepresent matters. For example, see Catholics for Choice at: http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/about/default.asp

So who defines the 'Christian conscience'? Is it the Vatican, or individual Catholics, or protestants, or methodists or any of a large number of other denominations? If the workplace is allowed to become a battleground for conflicting (and subjective) religious conscience and different religious groups are given what amount to special privileges in the workplace, the result will be an increase in division and conflict. Our innate tendency to tribalism needs no such encouragement.

The pope also dislikes secularism and atheism, even though it is secularism that supports freedom of religion (surely a good thing?) and atheism cannot simply be equated with inhuman behaviour such as exemplified in Nazism. This was a comparison that the pope could hardly wait to make soon after he landed in Scotland. Surely Hitler was motivated by 'religious' nationalism, the glory of the fatherland, and the acquiring of personal power rather than any great opposition to religious belief? 

And there are many philosophical and religious movements such as the various traditions of Buddhism that are acknowledged for their peaceful and compassionate behaviour and their profound psychological and ethical systems, and yet which are non-theistic, since a creator god does not feature as a core belief.

It is tempting to think that the instincts of the Catholic Church were set in antiquity by its position at the political heart of the Roman Empire with a large dose of arrogance,  self-serving attitudes and wealth coming from that inheritance. The Catholic Church was forged towards the end of the Roman Empire by the Emperor's Constantine and Theodosius as a political tool to bring cohesion to an empire under threat.  The resultant self-importance and sense of entitlement to interfere in the internal politics of any nation has never left the Catholic Church. Perhaps this close and long connection between the Catholic Church, politics, and power is why politicians can feel so at home in this church. And perhaps it is more accurate to regard the Catholic Church as primarily a politically motivated organisation, than one interested in truly spiritual matters. 

Although there are many good Catholics at all levels in the church, they behave well in spite of, and often in opposition to, the teachings coming from the male clerical hierarchy at the head of their Church. The Vatican hierarchy seems blind to alternative viewpoints.

Lest we imagine that it is only the Catholic Church which suffers from these issues, we should look carefully and objectively at the institutions with which we engage. Power really does seem to corrupt and one can find examples of authoritarian, self-serving and misogynistic regimes in other faith institutions. And Buddhism is not exempt from this problem.

The problem may appear to be that of keeping institutions true to their aims and yet in sympathy with current conditions. However, it is probably at least as helpful to consider this as an issue of how power is held and used and how livelihoods and status are maintained. And of course, these factors are interwoven. Whatever else they are, religions are often the source of livelihoods and social status for many, and good livelihoods and status are things that people have always been prepared to fight for.

There is little doubt that the Catholic Church feels embattled in its former European heartland and that it  characterises this as the result of recent aggressive secularism. This seems misguided. There has been a protracted retreat of most traditional religions in Europe over several centuries and this is as much to do with citizens feeling sufficiently confident and financially able to make their own choices as it is to the values of the enlightenment and the scientific world-view gaining greater currency. The old religious model of a dominant male clerical hierarchy, institutionalised autocracy, and unquestioning obedience from followers, is an oppressive hang-over from antiquity that is unacceptable to modern, well-educated and prosperous citizens.

At the end of the programme, after the pope had individually met previous and present parliamentary leaders, he walked down the aisle passing close to the guests on the way out. A frail figure involved in powerful religious, political and social upheaval.  I was surprised to feel some sympathy towards him as he passed by – or perhaps the pope was simply getting the benefit of my sense of relief that my stint as an ‘extra’ was over.