Submission from The Friends of the Western
Buddhist Order
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on
the Religious Offences Bill.
1. We would very strongly support the proposal
to abolish the offence of blasphemy. We would argue that in an
open society, religious ideas should be subject to the same scrutiny
and debate as any other idea. Peoples' religious beliefs are precious
to them, but from the point of view of Buddhism, they have a purpose,
and they have a test to meet: are these ideas true, and are they
spiritually effective? The ideas and beliefs of religion need
be examined through philosophical debate, in art and literature,
in individual practice and in the ordinary discourse of society.
Traditionally Buddhism has always engaged in rigorous, tolerant
debate with other religions in the cultures in which it has been
practised. Whether or not an argument causes offence is not a
sufficient test of whether or not it is true. A famous Zen Buddhist
aphorism says: "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill
him". Such a statement is meant to be shocking to the devout
Buddhist, but its intention is serious, to challenge any lapse
into mere dogmatic belief, and to encourage the receptive, inquiring
attitude into truth of that Buddhism considers to be the foundation
of spiritual experience. It is sometimes precisely where beliefs
are most passionately held that they need to be most rigorously
examined. Buddhism applies the same test to itself. The Buddha
said that his words should be tested as a goldsmith uses fire
to test gold. The special protection afforded religious ideas
by the blasphemy laws, we believe, are not helpful or appropriate
in an open, pluralistic society.
2. We are sympathetic to the circumstances
that have led Lord Avebury to ask whether incitement to religious
hatred should be made an offence, and we are aware that some faith
communities might feel a need for a more explicit protection by
the law.
Our concerns with such a proposal would be similar
to our objections to the blasphemy law. We would be very concerned
if the effect of any legislation even inadvertently inhibited
the legitimate debate and discussion of religious beliefs. Some
famous examples of recent artistic/religious controversy come
to mind, the relatively innocuous "Life of Brian" by
the Monty Python team; Rushdie's Satanic Verses, Serrano's
Piss Christ, (a serious piece bringing together an image of Jesus
and the artist's urine, the spiritual and the physical, in a way
that some Christians found shocking). We would be concerned if
such intelligent but controversial explorations of belief, and
the emotions of faith, were made more problematic, or more vulnerable,
by new legislation.
We would completely support the protection of
faith communities from hatred and violence. If it is possible
to do that within the powers of existing legislation, we believe
that would be preferable. If it is judged to be necessary to introduce
new legislation, we believe it is important to include the safeguards
that would allow the widest possible freedom of expression and
debate.
8 July 2002
|
