Do Buddhists in America Need a Civics Refresher?
by Danny Fisher
[This post has been updated as of 6:55 p.m. EST on 4.17.09. The original title was "Do American Buddhists Need a Civics Refresher?" After a good conversation in the comments section (see below), I rethought things a little bit and decided to change it. So much for my efforts to reclaim the term "American Buddhists!" ☺]
The Associated Press is reporting that Republican Assemblyman Curt Hagman of Chino Hills, CA, has repaid $6,100 in improper campaign donations made by the Buddhist Temple of Chino Hills, the Bu-Sha Center and Buta Buddhism Research Center. Though their nonprofit status expressly forbids donating to political campaigns, the representatives of the Buddhist temples “say they did not know the contributions were illegal.” Hagman claims he was unaware of the donations until the AP contacted him.
Not to be unkind, but, with regards to this issue, don’t we have a giant cautionary tale in the history of Buddhism in America…?
Are these really American Buddhists? Or are they Buddhists in America? There is a major difference. Eastern Buddhists in the U.S. may not really know American civics and may make big mistakes a native would intuitively or expressly know not to make. The Hsi Lai-Al Gore scandal, which I reported on back in my journalism days, was a result of Hsi Lai’s unfamiliarity with Ameircan civics. The real problem was not that Hsi Lai is a non profit but that the money it wanted to give Al Gore originated from a foreign country. Hsi Lai isn’t American Buddhism. They are very clear that they represent and propogate Chinese Buddhism. You could see how they could make a poor decision when it comes to civic participation, because they are not steeped in American civics.
All really good points, Jason. Thanks for making them.
To clarify for everyone: the Buddhist Temple of Chino Hills is a Thai wat, and the other two East Asian communities.
I tend to prefer the phrase “Buddhists in America” myself. At the same time, Asian-American Buddhists are American Buddhists too. I don’t think “American Buddhists” necessarily means only “American-Born Convert Buddhists.” (But I certainly could have been clearer about that in this post.) Of course, that said, in both this case and the Hsi Lai Temple case, the players probably represent a mix of Asian-Americans, Asians living in America, visitors, and others.
I should say too that in Diana L. Eck’s book A New Religious America: How a “Christian Country” Has Become the World’s Most Religiously Diverse Nation, her recounting of the incident at Hsi Lai temple makes clear exactly what you said: that the root of the problem was cultural misunderstanding and a lack of familiarity with American civics.
Still, would it be cynical of me to point out that in both cases the leaders of these communities seem to have been sufficiently saavy enough to apply for and successfully obtain 501(c)3 status? No matter what they’re propogating, these organizations can’t get started here without negotiating a lot of paperwork that’s very, very clear about what nonprofits can and can’t do. It’s true that not everyone involved with these organizations has had to wade through all this material, but the ones in charge would have had to.
I agree, amigo. Regardless of whether or not they are “American Buddhists” or recent immigrants who are Buddhists, they should still be held accountable, as an American immigrant to an Eastern country would be held accountable. In my mind, it’s worth making a distinction between an American Buddhist and a Eastern Buddhist living in American, because the way each type of person behaves may seem contradictory without that cultural context. I have personally seen where an American Buddhist and an Eastern Buddhist in America can’t even understand each other’s perspective. I’ve also seen a Thai monk and Chinese nun talk about Buddhism as if they were talking about two completely unrelated religions, but that’s a whole other story. The Buddhist population in the U.S. will heavily consist of immigrants, recent immigrants and descendants of immigrants for the next few decades at least. For the U.S. Buddhist community to make political and social inroads, some of these issues, like civics, need to be worked out, disseminated, explained and internalized by all parties.
You’re turning me around on this title of mine, pal. : )
I guess I like “American Buddhists” because it seems like a good response to the ugly, hypocritical anti-immigrant voices in some parts of the country. But, as evidenced here in our conversation, it requires me to say a lot where other phrases probably wouldn’t so much.
And, to your point about different Buddhisms, I have adopted “Buddhist religions“–an emerging term in Buddhist studies–for the very reason you raise.
Anyway, well said, sir–all of it.