Editorial

By Paul Schratz

The monks at the front of the protest lines in Myanmar are not only making things difficult for that repressive government, they're also posing a prickly conundrum for those who insist that one's faith can practically be separated from one's actions.

The partitioning of how we behave from what we believe has come to be a virtual guiding philosophy in much of the Western world.

Politicians are expected to check their faith into some sort of an umbrella stand at the door of their legislature.

Some are more than happy to comply. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, for instance, frequently breaks with the Church on issues such as abortion and homosexuality. He has been quoted as saying, "There are very few political leaders who would allow all of their actions to be informed exclusively by dictates of the Church."

Likewise, schools are forcing students to separate their faith from their daily lives by warning or suspending them for wearing pro-life T-shirts or religious articles, while ignoring the pornographic clothing worn by others.

Similarly, workers regularly find themselves in conflict at the workplace when employers ban religious behaviour or symbols, and worse, try to make employees conform with attitudes they morally object to.

Atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchins, authors of bestselling tomes against religion in public life, would probably applaud. One wonders what they think of the monks who are leading the protests in Myanmar, offering a shining example of faith in action, and the inseparability of the two.

Suppose for a moment the monks were to abandon their spirituality. Would they still be where they are, leading people in protest against a military junta ruling the country?

For that matter, if people throughout the world were to separate their faith from their public actions, how many soup kitchens would continue to operate? How many homeless would no longer be sheltered? How many schools and hospitals would never have been founded?

It was Christian outreach that first extended a hand towards AIDS patients, and that put the last nail in the coffin of slavery. Would these have taken place if people had to turn off the portion of their being that says Love Thy Neighbour?

Those who want a society whitewashed of religion argue that Buddhism is different since it's a philosophy rather than a revealed religion, and therefore more compatible with "a secular society."

This is splitting hairs. Buddhism in action is every bit an example of the extraordinary lengths to which people will go in the name of their beliefs. Strip the monk of his Buddhist philosophy and he'll no more be at the front of the protests than Mother Teresa would be caring for lepers had she not heard the Good News and accepted the Cross.

As Dawkins et al like to point out, religion has made its share of contributions to evil in the world, but it has largely been a force for truth and light. Ultimately it's hypocritical to say a politician cannot let his faith influence his decisions, or a teacher the way she instructs her students, while permitting a philosophy of atheism and worldliness to indoctrinate the world instead.

* * * * *

I erred in the Sept. 10 editorial when I wrote the Ontario government was proposing to extend funding to non-Catholic religious schools. Several people pointed out to me that the proposal actually came from Conservative Opposition Leader John Tory. Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty is opposing it. Apologies.