Waking Up to [no] Religion

“My religion is different. We don’t discriminate against people. We’re loving and compassionate toward everyone. We’re a good religion.”

No, your religion is not different. It is not a “good” religion compared to other “bad” religions. There are no good religions. There are no bad religions. There are just religions. Religions sometimes do good things, and sometimes do bad things. Mostly they just do what they do.

But it’s very clear to me now that any religion, no matter what its stated principles and values, can be used to exclude and oppress certain groups of people. It can even be used by the US Supreme Court to justify discrimination against an entire class of people, queer people. It can make it legal to refuse to serve an entire class of people, queer people, in businesses that are otherwise open to the public. This is what happened in the Colorado case that went to the Supreme Court, which decided that a person’s religion gave them the right to say to queer people “we don’t serve your kind here.” The powerful influence of the US Supreme Court reaches across the globe. The Court’s legal justification using religion to exclude an entire class of people can and will be used in any governing regime that favors religion over human rights.

But Buddhism is different, right? Buddhism is a good religion. No, it’s not different and it’s not necessarily good either. In countries were Buddhists constitute a plurality, or where it is aligned with state and military power, Buddhism has been used as justification to discriminate against, exclude and even eradicate entire classes of people that don’t practice Buddhism. The most recent examples of this are the genocidal expulsion of the Rohingya from Buddhist Myanmar, and the 20-year war of a Buddhist majority government against the Tamil Hindus in Sri Lanka. Avowed Buddhist Suella Braverman is a mitra, a member of Triratna Buddhist Community*. As the UK’s Home Secretary, she has stated that migrants who arrive at UK shores in small boats “possess values which are at odds with our country” as well as “heightened levels of criminality”, justifying her policy of detaining migrants without legal aid and deporting them to Rwanda. Furthermore, I don’t know of any Buddhist sect that hasn’t perpetrated harm through the abuse of its lay members. All the world’s major religions, including Buddhism, have sects which are against homosexuality and transgenderism. As a non-binary transgender person, I cannot be ordained in any Buddhist tradition.

I often ask myself why do I continue to practice a religion that has such a history of violence, especially when it has aligned itself with fascist dictators and military regimes? Why do I continue with this at all? With all that I have learned about the history of religion, all religions, I cannot justify support for any religious institution any longer.

So I make what I believe is the moral choice to practice a modern secular Buddhism that does not align itself with a religious institution. I am fundamentally against religious institutions of any kind. Yet I also follow the example of my teacher and guide, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, who though he took refuge vows, was never ordained. Though he commissioned people to teach Buddhism to new converts, he never set up a system of ordination. Ambedkar wanted to laicize, secularize and modernize Buddhism. He crafted a Buddhist practice that was fundamentally democratic, secular and able to meet the needs of people in a modern society.

But as I follow the example of Dr. Ambedkar and make the choice to practice modern, secular Buddhism, I am accused by other Buddhists of misappropriating and destroying the Buddhist tradition. I am no longer persuaded by that argument. At this point, secular modern Buddhism, now over a hundred years old with many outstanding teachers and exemplars, is as much a part of the Buddhist tradition as other more recent sects like Soka Gakkai. I choose to practice outside of any Buddhist institution, and will no longer support any Buddhist organization, no matter how “good” they purport to be. My sangha is the loosely associated web of modern secular Buddhists who practice in small groups with no institutional support, or mostly alone.

Fuck religion.

*Triratna Buddhist Order published a statement on their website that Suella Braverman is not ordained and therefore not a member of the Triratna Buddhist Order. They admit that she is a mitra, or “friend” of the Triratna Buddhist Community. As far as I’m concerned, that makes her a member. However, Triratna tries to distance itself from Braverman by saying that there are no standards for anyone becoming or remaining a mitra. They said that Braverman is just one of many people who come to the London Buddhist Centre to learn about Buddhism. I don’t buy that argument. Regardless of whether or not Braverman is a formal member of Triratna Buddhist Community, she is some kind of publicly avowed Buddhist.