In the following article shared by John http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1619100,00.html

the author said "Could the world be home of a new theocracy ?" because thousands of thai people have marched in Bangkok streets demanding that bouddhism be declared State religion in the future constitution comparing that with the Taliban and the Iranian rulers.

That's a very big mistake. To declare a religion to be State religion don't means theocracy. Pakistan's name is "Pakistan Islamic Republic", but the imans have never been in power.

That's a very big mistake. To declare a religion to be State religion don't means theocracy



agreed! theocracy is a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler,/ the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.

but wait a minute jacques,

in thailand, the king is a god! or a form of diety am i right? it is like the pharaoh in ancient egypt which is considered as a god among egyptians! and when they do declare a state religion then it might be according their perception would be theocracy ?
i stand to be corrected.


<br><br>Post edited by: linsi, at: 2007/05/13 18:13

Hi Linsi

In Thailand, the king is not a god. The current one, Rama IX is said to be venerated, but that means the people love him. It was not the case of his predecessors and surely not the possibility for his son who is not liked, at a point some people think that one of his sister could be the next soverein.

Concerning the forum discussion on state religion v theocracy, surely its a theocracy only if the religious rulers actually have political power and run the country according to their religious doctrine?

We should all be weary of &quot;state religion&quot;, whether it's Buddhism or something else. In fact, Buddhism cannot be regarded as a 'religion'. Buddhist do not have a sense of 'God'. The Buddha is not a 'God' fos as as in other major religion.

The downside of making religion as 'a state religion' is that it can be a way of exploitation. Dividing rahter than uniting the people who may have different 'belief systems'.

We should have learnt from history by now. People who regarded themselves as Buddhists, may they be Thais or Burmese or any other nationality that Buddhism is to be practised and not to be used by politicians as a marketing tool. If one can eliminate 'greed, anger and innorance' in oneself and others then one could regard as being a good Buddhist.

Why is Burma in such a state today? It was because of the late Prime Minister U Nu's stupidity in declaring Buddhism as the state religion in Burma which led to the disintegration of the state and the reason for the military to step in.

Whatever our 'belief system' is we don't have to wait for the next life to experience either 'heavan' or 'hell'. It's in our 'inner self'.

[i][size=4]

wow!

hand clap for that warazein!

[/i][/size]

Hi Warazein and Hinsi,

We can discuss if buddhism and confucianism are, or are not a religion, but the ferver of people make them like religion.

As you, except if I am not wrong, I think that Thailand, even with 95 % people practizing buddhism, would be wrong declaring bouddhism as the nation religion.

Hey Linsi

I don't think so. A State religion is the expression of what is the cement of the country. The values of a religion share by almost the whole population of that country.