The central claim: “Our findings show that religion-state integration emboldens Buddhist vigilantes to attack religious minorities.”
Which can’t be a surprise to anyone, especially to Tamils who have witnessed the pogroms in Sri Lanka the last half century.
k310 · 9h ago
> Our findings suggest that states would be better off pursuing policies grounded in religion-state separation, religious equality, and freedom of religion.
One can then ask how they become entangled. The relationship between the state (and its representatives) and religion varies. Politicians often see religion as justification for their actions, rightly or wrongly, and religions often benefit from being "recognized" explicitly or implicitly (as the U.S. does in its currency and symbols).
Both government and religion IMO exist to help a multitude of people. When they exist for their own preservation benefit instead, or chiefly for the power and wealth of leaders, they abandon their mission.
Sangharakshita writes, in a discussion of the Vimilakirti Nirdesa (The Transcendental Critique of Religion) [0]:
> We should never allow any of these things to become ends in themselves, should always remember that they are means to an end. If we can do this, then we will ourselves be living embodiments of the reality of religion.
People so often confuse the ends with the means, as in money as a means to achieve comfort and happiness or as a goal in itself, one that is never achieved as long as someone else has more, and you see that battle played out in society by billionaires. David Loy wrote several books on this topic.
Which can’t be a surprise to anyone, especially to Tamils who have witnessed the pogroms in Sri Lanka the last half century.
One can then ask how they become entangled. The relationship between the state (and its representatives) and religion varies. Politicians often see religion as justification for their actions, rightly or wrongly, and religions often benefit from being "recognized" explicitly or implicitly (as the U.S. does in its currency and symbols).
Both government and religion IMO exist to help a multitude of people. When they exist for their own preservation benefit instead, or chiefly for the power and wealth of leaders, they abandon their mission.
Sangharakshita writes, in a discussion of the Vimilakirti Nirdesa (The Transcendental Critique of Religion) [0]:
> We should never allow any of these things to become ends in themselves, should always remember that they are means to an end. If we can do this, then we will ourselves be living embodiments of the reality of religion.
People so often confuse the ends with the means, as in money as a means to achieve comfort and happiness or as a goal in itself, one that is never achieved as long as someone else has more, and you see that battle played out in society by billionaires. David Loy wrote several books on this topic.
[0] https://www.freebuddhistaudio.com/audio/details?num=146