Thoughts on Buddhism in America (Part 2)

I decided to break up my thoughts about the two news programs into two different sections, for length and due to my inherent laziness.

The second video, from KTRK ABC 13, talks about how American Monks may be the future for Buddhism in America. I am not sure if Bante Kassapa is one of the first Anglo-monks (the American monk from the temple near my home town was first ordained in the 70's), though American born monks are a rare occurrence. Most monks in America were born outside the country, and came here to teach Buddhism to westerners and immigrant communities. And while Buddhism has become influential within the United States during the last half century, it has yet to establish an independent sangha comparable with the monastic communities in traditional Buddhist countries.

An argument could be made that an American sangha, independent from oversight by sanghas outside the United States and composed of members drawn mainly from the American populace, will develop in the future. However, I find the idea suspect. Buddhism is not alone in its trouble attracting a significant monastic population. Catholicism, an established and popular religion in America, is also struggling to find Americans to fill offices of monks and priests.

Possibly due to its Protestant roots, American religion emphasizes lay participation within religious communities. Clergy speak with greater authority on matters of faith and doctrine, but that authority does not carry the same weight as in countries that traditionally have a well-defined religious hierarchy. The egalitarianism characterized by American religion leads religious traditions to play down, or outright eradicate, the differences in spiritual merit/insight between lay practitioners and the clergy. The clergy, then, becomes less of a locus for spiritual power and more of an expert in religion; a person who is well versed but not essential more spiritual than his community.

For Buddhism, the egalitarian relationship is translated into offices, such as meditation teachers, who are more advanced in meditation techniques, but lead lives similar to that of the rest of their community. They have homes, pay taxes, get married, have kids, and go to a movie on a Friday night. Therefore, to establish an American sangha with its own independent monastic system has to overcome the challenges of countering the trend within American religion to laicize religious traditions.

I have yet to see anything in American Buddhism to suggest it can meet the challenge.

Thoughts on Buddhism in America (Part 1)

Due to a hectic move into a new apartment, my first update is later than I would have liked. I'm hope apologizing for never updating does not become a mantra of mine. Also, I've noticed that this post is heavy on the claims and light on the reference. Without access to a well-stocked library, I can't give citations in my posts.

During the last week, I've searched Youtube for videos about Buddhism in America, and have repeatedly run across two news segments documenting the growth of Buddhism in the "heartland" of America. The first broadcast aired on NBC Nightly News in October 2007:



The second video comes from KTRK ABC Houston, and its topic focuses on an American Monk, and the hope that Buddhist Monasticism will take root in America.


Watching the videos, I noticed that, except for Bhante Kassapa, the converts were either young between 18-25 or well into middle age. When I researched American Buddhism last summer for my never completed honor's project, I ran across similar observations from scholars. The two age groups most represented in Buddhist convert communities do not share the same relationship as in other religious communities; that is, the younger members are not the children of the older members.

The lack of familial ties between the older and younger members creates two problems within the convert community: retention and cross-generational growth. While many converts to Buddhism fall within the 14-25 year old age demographic, they also leave Buddhism in high numbers. Without the familial ties found in other religious communities, members who become dissatisfied with the religious practice have an easier time leaving the community, due to a lack of pressure from their family to stay with a longstanding tradition.

Similarly, converts not religiously educating their children hamer Buddhism's growth in America. A surprising number of American converts come from either Jewish or Catholic families; two religions with entrenched traditions of religious education aimed at young children. In the first half of last century, both catechism and Yeshiva schools instilled a sense of religious identity within their pupils, but consequently offered an incomplete picture of the world's religious landscapes, and often warned their pupils against adopting other traditions as part of their religious practice.

When converts from those traditions had children of their own, they were reluctant to raise their children as Buddhists, fearing that a narrowed religious education would stifle their child's spiritual path. I've read essays in publications like Blue Jean Buddha and Tricycle by people my age (18 to 25) who were raised by Buddhist parents. The attitude of the Buddhists parents was that if the child had an interest in Buddhism, then they were welcome to develop their practice with their parents. But if the child was interested in other religions, it was acceptable for them to develop their non-Buddhist practice as well.

Presently, baby-boomers, who were the first generation to have significant numbers convert to Buddhism and now make up a significant portion of Buddhist converts, are growing older. There has been talk in both Buddhist and academic circles that Buddhism could wan in the coming decades. Without structures to retain younger converts and programs to introduce Buddhism to the children of present converts, Buddhism place in American religion remains uncertain.

The Second Coming?

Now that I have graduated from college, my life has changed in two ways. I now have loads of time on my hands and no outlet for examining religion. With that in mind, I'm trying to solve both problems by resurrecting this blog. Hopefully it will work.

I have a few ideas for the first few posts, and then a five or six part series examining the book The Gods Drink Whiskey by Stephen Asma; a travelogue about an American professor who teaches Buddhism to Cambodian students. From there, I'll branch out into any sort of questions or observations about religion or other cultural topics that I either observe in real life, or see on the web.

Post-Immigration Buddhism

From the Washington Post:

SEATTLE— They immigrated to America seeking new lives. Instead they re-discovered their old religion.

Grandmothers Junko Nakano and Aiko Fujii were new brides in those early years after World War II. Etsu Shimbo lived with family and studied in Seattle. All were in their early 20s and, for the most part, lived secular lives when they came to this country.

In Japan, where the three women grew up, Buddhism was “entwined in every day life,” explained Shimbo, a retired accountant whose religious training didn’t really begin until after she had children. “We didn’t have structure like we do here.”

Their families were required to belong to a Buddhist temple. For weddings, Nakano said, they would go to the Shinto shrine. For funerals, to the Buddhist temple.

But it was only in America that they discovered Buddhist teachings.

Maybe it was loneliness or searching for a meaning and identity that drove them back to their old religious roots. But immigrating to America somehow sparked in them a need to go deeper into their Buddhist beliefs.

I also wonder if the reason their religious faith expanded is the lack of societal pressure in America for an immigrant to belong to their traditional faith. Whereas in Japan each form of Buddhism would demand certain prescribed believes integrated in culture, America offers them a more personal forum of Buddhism.

Update in Myanmar

From the Washington Post, an update on Myanmar since the Military Junta started their campagn against the protesting monks.

I find it quite surprising the level of violence the government used against the monks in such a heavily Buddhist country. The most interesting (and disturbing) quote in the article was said by a five year old boy:

I don’t want to become a soldier. If I have to kill a monk, the worst thing will happen to me in my next life.

Panties for Myanmar

An Interesting Method of Protest:

BANGKOK, Thailand - Women in several countries have begun sending their panties to Myanmar embassies in a culturally insulting gesture of protest against the recent brutal crackdown there, a campaign supporter said Friday.

"It's an extremely strong message in Burmese and in all Southeast Asian culture," said Liz Hilton, who supports an activist group that launched the "Panties for Peace" drive earlier this week.

The group, Lanna Action for Burma, says the country's superstitious generals, especially junta leader Gen. Than Shwe, also believe that contact with women's underwear saps them of power.

To widespread international condemnation, the military in Myanmar, also known as Burma, crushed mass anti-regime demonstrations recently and continues to hunt down and imprison those who took part.

Hilton said women in Thailand, Australia, Singapore, England and other European countries have started sending or delivering their underwear to Myanmar missions following informal coordination among activist organizations and individuals.

"You can post, deliver or fling your panties at the closest Burmese Embassy any day from today. Send early, send often!" the Lanna Action for Burma Web site urges.

"So far we have had no response from Burmese officials," Hilton said.

I'm usually against foreigners protesting on the behalf of other people. But this may actually be effective, and it is hilarious. If anyone is interested in taking part, more information here.

The State Department and Saudi Schools

A Federal Pannel Urges State Department to Shut Down Islamic Saudi Academy in Fairfax County Virgina:

A federal panel yesterday urged the State Department to shut down a Saudi government-supported private
school in Northern Virginia unless it can prove it is not teaching religious
intolerance.

In a report released yesterday, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom criticized what it called the promotion of religious extremism in Saudi-run schools around the world, including in the kingdom. It leveled particular criticism at the Islamic Saudi Academy, which operates two campuses in Fairfax County, expressing "significant concerns" that the school is promoting a brand of religious intolerance (emphasis mine) that could prove a danger to the United States.

...

State Department spokesman Karl Duckworth said the department is studying the commission's report. "We continue to engage the government of Saudi Arabia on the need to address the intolerant references toward other religious groups in their textbooks and in other educational materials," he said. "There has been progress . . . but they still have a ways to go."

The commission and other religious-freedom groups have been complaining about Saudi textbooks for years, and congressional hearings have been held on the subject. Last year, the Saudi government agreed to make changes. The commission is following up but said it has not been given access to the revised texts.
Ordinarily, the U.S. government would have little power to close a private religious school, said Kevin Seamus Hasson, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

But because the school is funded by the Saudi government, the U.S. government could consider the school a Saudi entity and, thus, subject to a U.S. law that gives the government wide discretion in regulating the non-diplomatic activities of foreign governments in the United States, Hasson said.

My question: Is the law allowing the US Government latitude in dealing with the school as a Saudi government agency unconstitutional when it is used to stifle religious speech?

I don’t have any knowledge about prior court cases near the nature of this situation, but it would appear they are trying to subdue speech found to be intolerant, which it clearly is. But I just do not see any legal way the government can justify shutting down the academy. Even if the speech called for killing Jews, Christians, Shias, and just about anyone else who is not a strict Sunni, unless they called for their deaths immediately it cannot be construed to produce “immanent lawless action.”