Reconciling Religion and Government Through Discussion in Thailand

   Recently, in May of 2025, eleven Maryville College students including myself embarked on a two-week long study abroad trip to Chiang Mai, Thailand. The purpose of the trip was to study religion and society through an immersive experience in which we engaged daily with the customs and habits of the Thai people. The following blog is what I wrote around halfway through the trip, when asked to reflect on the teachings and lectures of one of our professors at Payap University, Ajahn Dr. Le Ngoc Bich Ly.

The class with Ajahn Dr. Le Ngoc Bich Ly at a Sikh Gurudwara in Chiang Ma

    

    Dr. Le Ngoc Bich Ly opened her lectures with a confrontation on how we define religion itself and what it means to students personally. By opening her discussion first to students’ own experiences, the classroom climate became a much more vulnerable place, allowing students to more closely examine religions in Thailand and how prominent religions can sometimes hinder global conflict resolution.

    Despite there being no official state religion in Thailand, Buddhism receives government support and the king must be Buddhist. This entreats students to examine what it means if a religion is not officially recognized — in the United States, the government is proscribed in law from recognizing, controlling, and prohibiting religion and religious practice. Of course, like Thailand, there remain customs that would suggest otherwise, but both countries posture as ones that are egalitarian in their acceptance of religious practice. So, if constituents practice a religion other than one of the three subsidized and five recognized, they receive no official governmental support. This is one of the ways that religions can change and differ over time and space; members of a congregation that would be financially supported in a neighboring land but not in Thailand might adapt their views and lifestyles to fit more comfortably in society. As Professor Mark Tamthai mentioned, how an entity is recognized directly impacts the entity itself. To illustrate, Saeng Chandra-ngarm’s publication, “Buddhism and Thai People,” explains that many wats (Buddhist temples) have been taken over for management by the state rather than by rural communities. The reasoning, Dr. Le explains, is that the strength of Buddhism directly reflects the strength of the Thai nation, displaying how interwoven the government and Buddhism truly are (evident by the existence of the Office of National Buddhism in the Royal Thai Government). 

The view inside a Buddhist temple during Sunday evening chanting

    

    Buddhism in Thailand is largely impacted by the rigid social order and etiquette that Ajahn Mark Tamthai explained in his lectures, especially in its interactions with the RTG. Akin to the rules about insulting the monarchy, citizens are not to insult the Buddhist religion and clergy; it then becomes impossible to take an accurate census of opinion on Buddhist practice, especially as it interacts with the government. Dr. Le’s lectures on conflict resolution in Buddhist tradition centered upon how to speak wholesomely towards reconciliation — the question becomes how Buddhists can use their language to confront the very structure that subsidizes their religious practice. She writes, in “Truth Telling and Peace Building: A Buddhist Contribution,” that truth telling is an essential factor for maintaining humanity and dignity for victims in the face of extreme atrocity, quoting scholar Richard Goldstone. This is complicated by dynamics of power from the Thai government, including efforts for “national unity” that might prevent telling the full truth when tragedy occurs. Dr. Le makes an argument that Buddha’s teachings can serve to widen global understandings; Dr. Le did not say this, but the irony is easily shown that the legislation of the RTG then serves as a hindrance, at times, to the teachings of the Buddha. In preventing the whole truth, the RTG stands in its own way for peace building efforts, including the necessary element of self-evaluation. In her selection of scriptures, Dr. Le compiles evidence towards Buddha’s intentions for truth telling and peace building, including a quote from the Majjhima Nikaya 104 that advises against “weapons of the tongue.” It can be easily seen how, when given power to do so, governmental structures might interpret conflict and efforts towards reconciliation as attacks and examples of these weapons.

    Despite some differences, these dynamics are applicable to common challenges for religion and society in the United States. Religion in the U.S. is often examined for its role in the government, and how the government and representatives might accept or endorse Christianity despite laws that say otherwise; Buddhism’s function in Thai government becomes familiar to American students in this aspect. Coming from a background where citizens currently enjoy more freedom to criticize religion and the nation, American students can utilize Dr. Le’s lectures on religion and conflict resolution in Thailand to inform how we approach both global and domestic policy issues.

        Samantha Swann