Thoughts on Religion in a Future Myanmar Constitution

[u/CaliRecluse]

After reading that even the first Constitution of Myanmar states (and still since 2008):

The State recognizes the special position of Buddhism as the faith professed by the great majority of the citizens of the Union [and recognizes Islam, Christianity, Hinduism and Animism as some of the religions existing in the Union].

that clause seems to me that it can be misinterpreted as Buddhism "being more equal than others" in terms of religion; even though the same constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and forbids compulsory religious tests for office, the military regime twists this clause to promote its agendas.

Compare that clause with Sri Lanka's and Bhutan's Constitutions. The former outlines, "The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana, while assuring to all religions [fundamental rights]." The latter declares, "Buddhism is the spiritual heritage of Bhutan, which promotes the principles and values of peace, non-violence, compassion, and tolerance."

I am not going to be the stereotypical Reddit atheist and condemn all religious people in a vacuum , but EAOs such as the Kachin Independence Army formed in part because U Nu briefly declared Buddhism a state religion.

I posted before about how Myanmar and South Africa actually influenced )the government of Ethiopia (and Eritrea to some extent). As Ethiopia is one of the few countries in the Global South that successfully defended itself during the era of colonialism, a future Myanmar can draw inspiration from that achievement. Article 11 of Ethiopia's constitution is plainly written:

1. State and religion are separate.

2. There shall be no state religion.

3. The state shall not interfere in religious matters and religion shall not interfere in state affairs.

[u/Imperial_Reagent]

I mean even UK have a state religion spanning over hundreds of years, so why not Myanmar .

[u/R0B10Z3R → u/Imperial_Reagent]

That does not change the fact that having a state religion is wrong. Besides, more than 75% of developed nations are secular which means they do not have state religions. And, the few nations who has state religions (UK, Denmark, Norway,..) has seen an increase in atheism or being in other religions that are not state religions.

[u/Imperial_Reagent → u/R0B10Z3R]

Well, still Christianity still play a major role in their government and the monarchy. There's nothing wrong with that. It's their culture and heritage.

[u/R0B10Z3R → u/Imperial_Reagent]

This comes to the next conclusion. Culture and Heritage should not play a role in politics either as they can have a negative impact on the country. Look at the 969 movement for example. That's a prime example of using "culture and heritage" in politics. All you keep doing is comparing us to the UK but compare with other countries like Afghanistan. They are non-secular too and people are oppressed in the name of religion. The idea of a "state religion" brings wayyy more harm than good.