The big LGBTI news for East and Southeast Asia is that Taiwan has apparently won the race to be the first nation in this conservative region to mandate same-sex marriages. On May 24 the Council of Grand Justices ruled in favor of gay and lesbian marriages, or rather ruled against Article 972 of the Civil Code that was preventing them. The legislature has two years to decide, we are told, whether to let the court’s ruling stand, which would simply remove the definition of marriage as between a man and women from the law and therefore equalize all marriages, or to pass some other law which might stipulate some exceptions for same sex marriages, such as the right to adopt or raise surrogate children. Polls show that 71% of Taiwanese favor letting gay and lesbian couples get married. Large Pride parades and rallies in the past few years have made the issue front page news without major protests. This year’s Pride Parade in Taipei promises to be the biggest yet. [Thanks to Carrie Kellenberger for the picture from Taipei that accompanies this article.]
Thailand, up to a few years ago, has been the betting favorite to be the first country in the region to legalize same-sex marriage and equal rights. Tiny steps have been made, such as the right for Trans women to be treated equally by the military, rather than being branded for life as “mentally ill.” Just this month, activists have been negotiating with the government with some apparent success to get fair treatment in the forthcoming constitution and new laws being drafted. Other activists have lamented that dealing with the military regime is like “polishing the military’s boots with the rainbow flag” (a phrase from a very recent issue of the Bangkok Post English language newspaper). As Taiwan takes the last step toward the finish line, it looks like Thailand will be among the “also ran”.
It could be worse. This week the authorities in Banda Aceh, a conservative province of Indonesia subjected a young gay couple to 83 strokes of the cane while the crowd of thousands cheered, and the police in Jakarta arrested a hundred in a raid of a gay venue for having a “gay party”. [The news picture is by CNN] Regional headlines are saying that Indonesia’s moderate secularism, a Muslim model, is crumbling.
Malaysia is likely to be impacted by what happens in Indonesia, but in the meantime LGBTI progress is doubtful. Singapore this week declared that the government’s position is neither for nor against LGBTI rights, but foreigners will be banned from attending or participating in an intended Pink rally in 2017 that has drawn tens of thousands. The Philippines has been waging a war on drugs, with the same deadly excesses such wars usually incur, and has been distracted by an ISIS take-over of a town in Mindanao, resulting in the declaration of martial law for the province. Reports from the barrios are that LGBTI advocates are seeking shelter. Myanmar persists in operating under the same century and a half British laws that put Oscar Wilde in prison. Brunei has declared that Sharia law will be applied to homosexuals, meaning that the automatic penalty is stoning to death, although no such have occurred.
The only other gay news from this part of the world this past week is that South Korea put a army captain military officer in jail for consensual sex with another man; the sentence was suspended. China shut down the dating app., Rela, the world’s largest lesbian website with 6.5 million users, in the wake of the Taiwan news.
Essay 3: Realms of Faith in America
“My religion is different from anyone else’s,” a friend recently confided. He explained that it was personal and did not need the authorization of any organization to be valid. He has joined the “None of the Above” movement. I would argue that he may have religion but he does not have A RELIGION. Unless he can identify with a tradition he is missing something, including a supportive religious community. But the problem in the United States is bigger than the issue of exercising personal preference in designing a belief system. That freedom exists, of course, even in organized churches with rigid doctrines; every member’s set of beliefs is unique.
Religion is the beliefs and practices of people that give them a shared sense of connection to the transcendent-sacred and thereby to each other. The purpose of religion is to bridge a gap between the holy and the mundane. Religion-in-general is detached from particular narratives and is personal, perhaps even private and secret. “A religion” has achieved a committed following. This essay is about the difference between a religion and religion-in-general.
Religions of the world have various characteristics in common:
A CORE NARRATIVE All world religions and most regional and ethnic religions have a story or collection of stories about one or more primal divine-human encounters. This central story may have literary attachments such as hymns, poems, wise sayings, and especially stories of more recent divine-human encounters that reiterate the first encounter.
RITUAL Religious practices also re-enact that encounter and make it current. These enactments are designed to be peak experiences of the religion’s central issue, a salvation issue involving a transformation, enabled by a primary intermediary. The Buddha, Krishna, Jesus, and Zoroaster are such intermediaries, as are Moses and Mohammed (in a somewhat different sense). Ritual re-enactments engage participants emotionally, intellectually, physically, and socially. The ritual implies a suspension of time, an alternative living reality, symbolic transcendence, and physical commitment. This central ritual is repeated in life-passage rites and in regular services.
DOCTRINE Creeds, rules of discipline, and central theological statements are refinements of a religion’s core narrative to derive specific truths that impact personal and community life. Some doctrinal statements are meant to be essential for membership in the religious organization, while other religious organizations merely have an implied doctrine that is intuited.
COMMUNITY Most religions have organized religious societies of adherents. Those societies may be natural communities, e.g. “everybody who lives around here.” Christianity adopted the Roman mystery religions’ practice of a long impressive orientation and initiation. Depending on how the religion is comprised, most societies have local associations that are part of a larger organization. These local societies in most religions erect special places for the conduct of their rituals and as gathering points for social events. Within those places one space at least is designated as particularly sacred, although that may be just when sacred activities are being conducted there. If the organization is old enough, some of these places become heritage sites with special significance. Most religious societies also have important leaders, usually designated as teachers, whereas key persons from the past are noted for their affinity with the divine. There is a tendency in religious societies to form sub-groups to render particular service, and for ranks of membership to develop. These ranks often undertake specific disciplines.
To be clear, “a religion” (rather than religion-in-general) is a society with rituals based on a core narrative that illustrates or defines that society’s understanding of the divine-human encounter. Briefer, “a religion” is a group of people, whereas “religion” is what the group has and does.
It would be worthwhile if there were agreement about some such non-controversial delineation as this. Instead, modern history is rife with arguments and wars about whether this or that religion is “true” and valid. Renaissance Europeans were surprised to find full-fledged religions in civilized lands they newly explored. There was quite a flap when Jesuit missionaries began to describe how fully developed Buddhism had become. Buddhism had sophisticated scripture, a core doctrine of salvation (i.e. enlightenment), a central figure bridging the gap between the sacred and the secular, complex rites, and a society of believers who lived disciplined and restrained lives. Buddhism even had a celibate rank of priests, as all respectable religions should have, the Jesuits reported.*
On the other hand, well into the 19th century, English imperialists refused to accept Hinduism as anything but primitive superstition and heathen idolatry. The effort to eradicate Native Americans (First Nation groups) from their ancestral lands and lifestyles was fueled by the prejudice against indigenous religion. The same dynamic applied to the treatment of aborigines in Australia, Maoris in New Zealand, and Polynesians in Oceania. Some anthropologists still insist on using the term animism indiscriminately.
However, confusion about what is “a religion” and what is better called spirituality or just “religious” becomes an important civil issue when a particular religion gains official status. It is important to delineate between realms of faith, and this becomes difficult in secular cultures and nations.
The 19th century was a time of major religious innovation in America. Being without a state religion, nothing officially prevented the development of sects, cults and denominations. Most of them faded as did the New Harmony community in Indiana. Some became part of mainline religion, as did the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Others, like the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) and the Seventh Day Adventists, prospered after gaining traction and respect.
The confusion in the USA now at the dawn of the 21st century is ridiculous. The USA has taken a broad view of what a religion is – to the extent that Scientology is classified as a church even though its founder was really seeking tax-exempt status and Scientology lacks all indicators to be a religion rather than a spirituality and personal improvement program. In the same way, “ministers” of the Universal Life Church gain tax exemptions despite having no established practices, social organization, or scripture. Their web-site declares that any beliefs or none at all are fine with them. Ordination is free, but they charge for a certificate. A Doctor of Metaphysics diploma costs $35, no questions asked. County clerks in Illinois report that marriages officiated by ministers of Universal Life Church outnumber those of any traditional church.
When anything can be a religion, no distinctions are possible. The USA has arrived at this point. Franklin Graham has absconded with his father’s prestige to presume to speak in behalf of American Christendom in the effort to de-legitimize Islamic religion in the USA. He’s getting away with it among the extreme right who fear the loss of their patriarchal white Protestant cultural position. Meanwhile, a movement is gaining momentum to extend religious privileges to individuals (to discriminate on the basis of religious loathing) without reference to declared affiliation with any organization or particular religion. Separation of church and state has become refusal to distinguish between what is a religion and religion-in-general.
[Next essay is this “Realms of Faith in America” series will be “Folk Faith” in July.]
*[Thanks to Eva Pascal for this research insight.]
The following article was provided by the Thai National Reform Council for academic personnel to be apprised of what the present Thai government would like us to understand is its rationale and agenda. The endnotes are not from the NRC or the newspaper article.
The Model of Thailand 4.0 is security, prosperity and sustainability
Dr. Suvit Maesincee, chairperson of Thailand Visionary and Future Design Committee of National Reform Council (NRC)[i] has stated that Thailand had been through major systematic reformation only once, during the time of King Rama the 5th.[ii] Since then, Thailand has been lacking consistent major reformation till present. As a consequence, while the country has been developed to a certain point, it is now facing the middle-income trap, inequality and corruption, as well as serious conflicts within the past decade.[iii] Without “The Second Major Reformation,” Thailand may fall behind and become underdeveloped.[iv] If Thailand continues to see through this major reformation consistently, with the help from every sector, it may become one of the first world countries with security, prosperity, and sustainability.
To enable the transition to digital economic system in the 21st century, many countries have had major systematic reformation to manage new opportunities, risks and threats. Furthermore, improvements were made for economic and social infrastructure, value system and living culture, as well as education and work. This means upgrade is needed in every sector in order to become a first world country.[v]Therefore, the goal or the vision of Thailand is to become a first world country through development, by the year 2032 (or the 100th year anniversary of the revolution – editor).
Following are the 6 characteristics of a first world country within Thailand context; 1. Pride in Thai culture and nation. 2. Holistic development of Thai people. 3. Social quality. 4. Good quality environment. 5. Strong economic infrastructure. 6. Having important roles regionally and globally.[vi]
The driving force behind Thailand’s prosperity has been under constant change. From “Thailand 1.0” which emphasized enhancing the agriculture sector, to “Thailand 2.0” which emphasized light industry, followed by “Thailand 3.0” which focused on heavy industries. The transition for Thailand to the 21st century, means the transition from “Thailand 3.0” to “Thailand 4.0” in order to become the first world country. From “middle income” country to “high income” country and from “efficiency” driven economics to “innovation” driven economics.[vii]
Thailand 4.0 consists of 3 “New Growth Engines,” which are 1. “Productive Growth Engine,” 2. “Inclusive Growth Engine,” and 3. “Green Growth Engine.”[viii] Under Thailand 4.0, it is necessary to improve the national economic infrastructure; from “Comparative Advantage” to “Competitive Advantage.” This is to improve the industrial economic infrastructure from “Added Value” to “Creating Value.” There are 5 main groups, which are 1. Bio-industry. 2. Renewable energy industry. 3. Design and engineering industry. 4. Quality of life related industry. 5. Creative economic industry.[ix] These 5 industries stem from “natural” and “cultural” advantages that Thailand originally has, and that are to be improved with management, new knowledge, and technology. These 5 new industries correspond with the global transition from the emphasis on “knowledge” to the emphasis on upgrading “quality of life.”[x]
In the past, Thailand emphasized building economic prosperity as a priority and over-looked development in other areas. For this reason, Thailand 4.0 emphasizes “Balanced Development” in 4 areas, which are, economic prosperity, preserving the environment, wellness of society, and strengthening human knowledge by balanced development, based on “Sufficiency Economy Philosophy,”[xi] which is described as “fill-in where there are lacks, stop when there is enough, share when you have more than you need.” On a small scale, to know when to “fill, be content, and share” will help guarantee people with economic and social security. This creates a sharing community, encouraging and strengthening bonds between communities.
On a bigger level, to know when to “fill, be content, and share” will help Thailand handle the global dynamic, increase ability to compete, as well as strengthen the connections between every sector. To “fill, be content, and share” is the “new value system” that will equip Thailand with security, prosperity and sustainability as a first world country. It is necessary for Thailand to have all-around readiness in order to become a first world country.[xii]
But the present situation in Thailand prevents the country from achieving its goals. There are many problems yet to be solved, such as, internal conflicts, social inequality and corruption. Therefore, Thailand has 2 important missions to achieve in order to become a first world country. 1. Reform Agenda, which is to resolve the conflicts Thailand has been facing for many years in order to neutralize the country’s situation. 2. Transformation Agenda, which is to prepare and increase Thailand’s potential to become the first world country. These reform and transformation agendas have different characteristics. “Reform Agenda” concerns the infrastructure, systems, and behavioral improvement. After a study and analysis of the issues, National Reform Council (NRC) has proposed 37 reform agendas, such as, budget system, justice process, land reform, tax infrastructure, and establishing an ethics council. The “Transformation Agenda” concerns new missions to be implemented to prepare and increase the country’s ability to develop, such as, a new country driving force, support for foreign investment, a water management system, transition to digital economics, and major database management. Due to the problems Thailand is facing presently, it is necessary to emphasize the Reform Agenda as a priority, with the goal of neutralizing the country’s conflicts. After these issues have been resolved, the emphasis will shift to a Transformation Agenda to increase the country’s potential to become a first world country.[xiii]
From Thansettakij Newspaper 35th year, issue 3083, 30 August – 2 September 2015
[i] The NRC is the military government, also known as the junta, presently in power.
[ii] HM King Chulalongkorn, Rama V, modernized the Thai administration along 19th century European lines.
[iii] The author does not define the “middle income trap”, but the phrase casts a shadow over the middle class. “Inequality (“red shirt” up-country supporters of the pre-coup democratic governments vs. the “yellow shirt” Bangkok elite), corruption and conflict” are the issues the military used to justify replacing the government.
[iv] “Second … Reformation” implies that the “reform” will be as beneficial as the first one was.
[v] Thailand is to catch-up to the major economic powers without a hint of sacrificing sovereignty by joining the globalization processes those countries employ in doing international business, international power politics, and international information technology.
[vi] These are obviously abstract. It is interesting that the list is called “characteristics of a first world country … within a Thai context” and that it begins with celebration of cultural nationalism, as if there is no intention of actually joining the international scene but only to get a competitive advantage, as the author says two paragraphs later. The main concerns of 90% of the Thai population are to acquire a better quality of life through income levels that afford comfort and convenience and life-long health care.
[vii] It should be noted that every step has increased the gap between those that work as well as their dependents and those who control and manage. Each step has reduced the number of real beneficiaries, and left behind most of those who had pulled themselves up to the next step. Today there is still a great preponderance of people whose lives largely depend on agriculture, but the national emphasis has moved away from support for them. In the current era of heavy industrialization, moreover, the prime movers are international corporations with Thai bankers and government as partners, while on average a very small percent of anyone’s personal income comes from that manufacturing done by heavy industries. This article is the clearest indication we have had that industrial laborers are soon to be similarly marginalized as industries seek cheaper work forces overseas.
[viii] It would be helpful to have these “engines” described in terms that show how they will move the 5 “industries” listed below.
[ix] These five “industries” are all “white collar” types. If that is where the country is going to derive its first world status, a very large area of labor is being ignored or calculated as exploitable.
[x] This is perhaps the most fascinating suggestion made in this article. Education is to be replaced by quality of life, which can presumably be had without education. Education, incidentally, is a key contributor to democracy. A cynic might wonder if this is a tacit recognition of the overall failure and bleak prospects of the Thai educational effort at all levels as measured by O-level performance by secondary students and the disappointing ranking of Thai universities on international lists.
[xi] “The Sufficiency Economy Philosophy” is a contribution of HM King Bumiphol. Rama IX. The use of this reference is a second attempt to legitimize the “reform” proposal being described. In fact, the Sufficiency Economy Philosophy was a collection of suggestions and royal initiatives to enable subsistence farmers to make it through a time of economic decline and to gradually improve the lives of both highland and lowland farmers, whom HM insisted were the people that comprised the nation.
[xii] The elevation of HM’s Sufficiency Economy Philosophy to become national policy has been a calculated attempt to utilize the esteem of the King to benefit those in the government and commerce who wanted to expand production beyond agriculture.
[xiii] This, then, is the crux of the matter. At present things must be on hold because there is reform to be accomplished. The “Reform Agenda” is to “neutralize the “country’s situation”. That situation includes things that are sensitive, such as the increased involvement of the military in government, the transition of the monarchy from the legacy of HM Rama IX into the hands of HM Rama X, the attempt to limit the voice of the majority of the people because they insist on demanding benefits, and the inconvenient tradition of having functional political parties. Once a neutral situation is restored the Transformation Agenda can be undertaken that will move the economy into the digital, hi-tech type of production, elevate the country into first world status, and give the population a high quality of life while all the hard work will be done by … um … somebody.
The abbot and I were waiting for the funeral procession to come to the cremation grounds. The deceased had committed suicide and we were discussing various views about the matter. I asked the venerable Buddhist whether the deceased could be reincarnated into another life.
“Definitely not,” he said. “She committed a great sin by killing a human being.”
“Herself,” I said, in order to be sure we were still talking about the same being, because in a sense her suicide had destroyed some parts of the lives of her husband and children, as well.
“Yes,” the abbot agreed. “The Lord Buddha was quite clear about it. A person who kills a human being will be consigned to hell – นรก – for sure.”
“Can merit be transferred to her?” I wondered, since her son had entered the novitiate at the abbot’s own temple that morning to do that very thing. His 9-days of ordination were understood by everyone in the family to be efficacious in his mother’s behalf. Her son told me he certainly would have felt derelict not to have done at least a 9-day term.
“There are 5 realms of existence,” the abbot had explained in his sermon earlier in the morning. As we waited, I asked him to talk about them because I thought I understood the first four: the realm of divinities and angels, and the realm of human beings, as well as the realm of animals. Hell, the fourth realm, is a popular subject in Buddhist mythology, although there is quite a bit of variation about the details, such as whether one’s residence in hell can come to an end or whether it’s eternal. The abbot explained to me that one might be reincarnated as another life-form, an animal or insect, for example. And one’s soul might also be transformed into the most horrible realm as a demon. That realm is replete with terrible hunger that cannot be satisfied. He went on to explain that merit cannot be transferred to one who is consigned to the lowest realms. There is nothing we can do for them. “But we cannot know how a person’s soul will migrate,” as it does according to its merit – karma. Then the abbot talked about how special services are held for up to 7 days during which time the transmigration will be complete to one of the realms. That very evening the first service was held back at the house, designed to prevent the woman’s spirit from trying to come back home now that the body in which it has resided in the house was being cremated; the spirit-soul needs to find its destiny.
I had a lot more questions about this, such as whether there are any exceptions as when a murderer (or a warrior) seriously repents. The abbot touched on one familiar exception as the funeral procession was coming, but we had to suspend the discussion. He began a story of a famous suicide (by a disciple of the Buddha, Channa) who apparently got an exoneration from the Buddha, “A person who commits murder has no future except hell,” the abbot reiterated.
This ‘hard line” is far from a consensus point of view in Thailand. But it reminded me of “Hellfire and Damnation” sermons I have grown up with in Christian America. The “hard line” defends traditional morality, insisting that some actions are over the line. They are both unforgiveable and identifiable. One can make a list of them and know them when they are seen. The point, initially, is cautionary. This list of hell-bent infractions is designed to warn people not to do them, and to insist that these unforgiveable actions are indelibly imprinted on human consciousness, although failure to exercise wisdom and yielding to emotion can override one’s conscience and render one temporarily confused. The down-side of the “hard line” is that a type of finger-pointing judgmentalism is almost inevitable. Absolutism is socially destructive even as it tries to protect society.
The alternative is subjectivism. Damien Keown explains it this way [https://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/suicide.html]:
Subjectivism holds that right and wrong are simply a function of the actor's mental states, and that moral standards are a matter of personal opinion or feelings. For the subjectivist, nothing is objectively morally good or morally bad, and actions in themselves do not possess significant moral features.
Then Keown rejects the notion that it might be OK for enlightened disciples to commit suicide, as Chenna did, but not for someone not yet enlightened.
To say that suicide is wrong because motivated by desire, moreover, is really only to say that desire is wrong. It would follow from this that someone who murders without desire does nothing wrong. The absurdity of this conclusion illustrates why a subjectivist approach to the morality of suicide is inadequate. Subjectivism leads to the conclusion that suicide (or murder) can be right for one person but wrong for another, or even right and wrong for the same person at different times, as his state of mind changes, and desire comes and goes.
It is perhaps just as well that the abbot and I did not have time to develop this, since there is no one I know of who would say that the woman whose cremation we were conducting was an enlightened disciple seeking a shortcut to Nirvana. According to the evidence and her suicide note, she was seeking to stop living this life and had no concern about what comes next.
As I ruminate on this, the following thoughts occur:
We are apt to make two mistakes when we think of the Holocaust, Professor Timothy Snyder of Yale instructs us in his extremely important analysis, Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning (Vintage, 2016). The murders of 6 million Jews were not primarily carried out by a tyrannical state that had overwhelmed terrified citizens into passivity. But the facts are complex and the plans were continually shifting.
First, Hitler and those who ideologically agreed with him, considered human reality in racial rather than political terms. The natural state for races is competitive, a state of eternal enmity and conflict in which the fittest race is victorious and the defeated are unworthy of pity or consideration. This noble warfare, however, is interfered with and prevented by Jews, who everywhere intervene to prevent the natural way of doing things. Hitler’s goal was to wipe out this interference so that the contest could regain its natural character. He was confident that the Aryan race could prevail in a natural field of combat.
Second, in order for the Aryan race (Teutonic Germans and their kin) to prosper they needed room to spread out – they needed “black earth” to grow food and be secure. Germany, as hemmed in by political history, had to regain its natural extent, and that meant taking over land from the inferior Slavic race, especially land in Russia and Ukraine. To proceed with that eastward expansion, however, Germany had to close its back door by defeating the French and others in the west. With France defeated, Great Britain would either join the Reich or they would have to be defeated, too.
Things did not go as Hitler expected.
Although Hitler thought political states were irrelevant to the eventual configuration of racial territories, they counted in the meantime. The strategy for gaining living space (lebensraum) in Russia and the Ukraine was to gain access to it through the territory in between. This was accomplished between 1936-1939 by annexation, treaties, and agreements (many of which were duplicitous, but temporarily useful). Then the war began. When Germany over-ran lands to the east beginning with Poland, the rhetoric was that those places had never been real or legitimate political entities. This rendered the people there as essentially stateless. So, as war came there were nation-states that had been absorbed (e.g. Austria) or regained (Poland), some that had been forcefully taken over (Poland, followed by Netherlands, Belgium and France), some that had become allied in the Axis (e.g. Italy), and some that resisted (e.g. Great Britain), and a few that hung onto neutrality (Switzerland).
Snyder makes a solid case that it was the rendering of areas stateless, dissolving their political authority and legitimacy, and turning all the people into unincorporated individuals that enabled the first phase of the Holocaust to begin and proceed with dizzying haste. Nearly half of the Holocaust victims were shot by cooperative residents in order to gain some advantage (such as Jew’s property or positions) under the new regime – and to expunge guilt and gain credibility after collaboration with the preceding regime.
Citizenship, it turned out, was the most dependable protection one could have as the Nazis took over. The Nazi plan to dissolve political entities was to include all of Europe and then the whole world, but the Aryan Army was not invincible after all. Wherever a country got rid of Nazi control as the Germans retreated after losing the war in Russia, the deportation and killing of Jews stopped. Meanwhile, the killing became mechanized as Hitler believed one last thing he could do for the world was to rid it of Jews. He expected to be remembered and appreciated for that.
But details are important, and that’s what makes Snyder’s exhaustive analysis persuasive. He concludes with two somber warnings. 1. “A common American error is to believe that freedom is the absence of state authority.” The burden of Black Earth is to document that it was precisely where state authority was most thoroughly eradicated that the Jews were completely decimated. In most places they were accepted by the people of the region as the convenient scapegoat group, chosen by common consent, to be terrorized and cleansed. 2. “As Russia demonstrated [when they regained Poland and Belarus], the Second World War can shift quickly from being a cautionary tale to an instructive precedent.” Russia used the Nazi model in its empire-building. Even today Russia is positing a new scapegoat, homosexuals, as being responsible for modern decadence, in hopes, Snyder asserts, that the right and left on this issue will engage one another in mutual destruction that will undo the European Union.
I heartily endorse this book, if only for the data and forceful analysis that leads up to his final paragraph which begins, “We share Hitler’s planet and several of his preoccupations; we have changed less than we think.”
Rev. Dr. Kenneth Dobson posts his weekly reflections on this blog.