One of Thailand's most revered shrines destroyed.
March 21, 2006 3:53 PM   Subscribe

One of Thailand's most revered shrines destroyed. Bangkok's most popular religious site -- the shrine to the four-headed Hindu god Brahma at the Erawan corner (ศาลพระพรหม) -- was smashed to pieces early Tuesday by a hammer-wielding mentally-ill Thai Muslim man. In the context of Thailand's current political instability, the disaster is seen by many in this deeply spiritual country as a terrible omen.
posted by soiled cowboy (59 comments total)
 
According to a witness who is a flower seller, the man broke into the shrine when it was closed early Tuesday morning and destroyed the statue of the god with hammer before running away.

People who saw the incident followed him and attacked him. The man died at the spot.


Wait... Who's mentally ill here?
posted by brundlefly at 6:09 PM on March 21, 2006


brundlefly wins
posted by punkfloyd at 6:37 PM on March 21, 2006


punkfloyd wins for saying brundlefly wins.
posted by billysumday at 6:38 PM on March 21, 2006


It makes me think of the burning of the Kinkaku-ji.
posted by Alison at 6:52 PM on March 21, 2006


As my deeply devout Roman Catholic ex-mother-in-law said shortly before her death, "there's too much goddam religion in the world."
posted by 327.ca at 6:53 PM on March 21, 2006


It was a revered shrine built by a hotel in 1956? That's a bit odd isn't it? I was thinking a thousand year old relic, not a 50 year old good luck charm. Too bad for them either way though, I guess.
posted by loquax at 7:01 PM on March 21, 2006


If the shrine was built in 1956, that makes it two years younger than the words "under God" in the US Pledge of Allegiance. You tell me which is more revered.
posted by Hogshead at 7:14 PM on March 21, 2006



posted by joe lisboa at 7:17 PM on March 21, 2006


One day religion will die, and we will live forever.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 7:24 PM on March 21, 2006


You tell me which is more revered.

I don't know. The shrine?
posted by loquax at 7:32 PM on March 21, 2006


People who saw the incident followed him and attacked him. The man died at the spot.

If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him.
posted by doctor_negative at 7:41 PM on March 21, 2006


"Other PAD leaders including Somsak Kosaisuk, Piphop Thong-chai and Somkiat Phongphaiboon did not respond."
posted by JParker at 8:20 PM on March 21, 2006


If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him.

Dead Buddha = = Enlightenment


plus 1,800 Marlboro bucks.
posted by Atreides at 9:04 PM on March 21, 2006


from "terrible" link:
Bricks floated upward;

While buoyant melons sank.


Sounds like the end-times to me.

*prepares wonder bra of the lord*
posted by If I Had An Anus at 9:15 PM on March 21, 2006


[this is sad]
posted by If I Had An Anus at 9:15 PM on March 21, 2006


I feel fucking evil for how much I just laughed. God damn you all.
posted by panoptican at 10:04 PM on March 21, 2006


If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him.
posted by doctor_negative at 7:41 PM PST on March 21 [!]


Doctor Negative wins.
posted by onegreeneye at 10:20 PM on March 21, 2006


Having spent quite a bit of time in Thailand, I'll betcha $50 that the people who beat the guy to death were smiling and laughing when they did it. "The Land of Smiles" takes on a whole new meaning after you've spent a bit of time in Thailand.
posted by onegreeneye at 10:21 PM on March 21, 2006


I hardly ever think vandalism is funny.
posted by Cranberry at 10:27 PM on March 21, 2006


billysumday wins for saying punkfloyd wins for saying brundlefly wins.
/howard johnson is right

Perhaps it was Yama, he carries a mace.
Shiva is a destroyer too.

Why don’t people think of these things? Attachment.

So perhaps onegreeneye wins for saying Doctor Negative wins.

...maybe it was Thor.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:42 PM on March 21, 2006


Shades of Lazlo Toth...
posted by starkeffect at 12:05 AM on March 22, 2006


I was thinking a thousand year old relic, not a 50 year old good luck charm.

Every 1000-year-old religious shrine was 50 years old once.

What matters to the locals may be that someone with a hammer has risked putting the universe out of balance or (and?) that some one with a hammer has destroyed a popular tourist attraction and therefore a top source of local income. Either way -- or both ways -- I can understand why a couple of locals, suddenly confronted with this in the middle of the night, might (over)react by beating him to death.
posted by pracowity at 12:47 AM on March 22, 2006


"Other PAD leaders including Somsak Kosaisuk, Piphop Thong-chai and Somkiat Phongphaiboon did not respond."
posted by JParker at 8:20 PM PST on March 21 [!]


Haw haw, JParker! Them slant-eyes shore got sum fuckin' ka-ray-zee names, don't they? How 'bout them there now squiggles they use fer wurds? If it ain't fuckin' 'Merican, it ain't a language, am I right?

You're a douchebag, and your comment was flagged.
posted by quite unimportant at 1:10 AM on March 22, 2006


Oh shut up

OOOH I FLAGGED YOUR COMMENT!!!
posted by Spacelegoman at 1:26 AM on March 22, 2006


[...] shrine which traditionally helped barren women have children, the unemployed find job, lovers to resolve their quandaries and those confronted by impossible burdens to find relief.

Perhaps, after years of worshipping, this man's wife was still sterile, or he was still unable to find work, or his love quandaries had been left unsolved, or the impossible burdens were still weighing him down, so he decided to put an end to the scam and spare other people the frustration he had experienced.
posted by elgilito at 1:34 AM on March 22, 2006


Perhaps, after years of worshipping, this man's wife was still sterile, or he was still unable to find work, or his love quandaries had been left unsolved, or the impossible burdens were still weighing him down, so he decided to put an end to the scam and spare other people the frustration he had experienced.

You read the part where the main article said he was a muslim, right. You know, Islam, the religion of peace? Thank goodness there's no precedent for this sort of behavior amongst muslims.
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:57 AM on March 22, 2006


Hey, that's not fair, MC. Everyone knows that in the Middle Ages, "peace" wasn't broken by breaking things. Or killing people.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:24 AM on March 22, 2006


Blow up buddha!
how sad.
posted by dabitch at 3:29 AM on March 22, 2006


elgilito : "Perhaps, after years of worshipping, this man's wife was still sterile"

Mayor Curley : "You read the part where the main article said he was a muslim, right. You know, Islam, the religion of peace?"

I was thinking more along the lines of "Islam, the religion of being very unlikely to worship Buddha".
posted by Bugbread at 5:02 AM on March 22, 2006


I'd just like to take this time to mention that the full ceremonial name of Bangkok is:

Krung Thep Mahanakhon Amon Rattanakosin Mahinthara Ayuthaya Mahadilok Phop Noppharat Ratchathani Burirom Udomratchaniwet Mahasathan Amon Piman Awatan Sathit Sakkathattiya Witsanukam Prasit (กรุงเทพมหานคร อมรรัตนโกสินทร์ มหินทรายุธยามหาดิลก ภพนพรัตน์ ราชธานีบุรีรมย์ อุดมราชนิเวศน์ มหาสถาน อมรพิมาน อวตารสถิต สักกะทัตติยะ วิษณุกรรมประสิทธิ์)


Which means "The city of angels, the great city, the eternal jewel city, the impregnable city of God Indra, the grand capital of the world endowed with nine precious gems, the happy city.
posted by furtive at 5:22 AM on March 22, 2006


Wow. I'm sorry I had to discover it in the context of this depressing story, but I'm thrilled by the Erawan link. We moved to Bangkok just a couple years after the hotel was built and lived right around the corner on Rajadamri Road; I spent lots of time at the Erawan, and those pictures gave me an intense hit of nostalgia. Sorry to hear it was demolished in the '80s; that's just one more reason not to return to Bangkok (which was a charming little city when I was there, full of canals down which the royal family occasionally floated on a gilded barge, years before the Vietnam buildup turned it into a sex-crazed polluted hellhole).
posted by languagehat at 5:54 AM on March 22, 2006


You can't win at the internet you fucktards.

God I'm sick of that joke.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 6:33 AM on March 22, 2006


Baby_Balrog : "You can't win at the internet you fucktards."

Tell that to my wall of trophies.
posted by Bugbread at 6:36 AM on March 22, 2006


"It was a revered shrine built by a hotel in 1956? That's a bit odd isn't it?"

Yeah - it is odd, loquax, but not unusual. I don't have any sources other than my recollections from my days as a comp. religion undergrad, but in many parts of India people will decide something is a shrine and suddenly it becomes one -

My prof recounted a story of her travels in Kerala where government workers had painted a large stone in the middle of the road white to warn drivers of it's presence. One day someone had place a bundle of flowers in front of the stone.
She said that within weeks the stone was slowly being covered with bits of gold leaf and their were tons of flowers piled up in front of it.
Doesn't seem like it takes much to create a religious icon over there.

Which gives me a particularly nefarious idea...
*strokes beard*
posted by Baby_Balrog at 6:38 AM on March 22, 2006


...maybe it was Thor.

I'm tho thor I can hardly thand up.

/old joke mode

Now the circle is complete.
posted by Enron Hubbard at 7:38 AM on March 22, 2006


Um, the south of Thailand is having (and has been having) serious problems with the muslim folk. I imagine this was somehow related. Also, that statue was a freaking cash cow. The amount of flowers purchased and deposited there every day boggles the mind.

In addition to the tsunami damage and financial impact, Thailand is dealing with a corrupt government, murderous muslims down south, and now this. Chok dee, Thailand.
posted by shoepal at 8:06 AM on March 22, 2006


that makes it two years younger than the words "under God" in the US Pledge of Allegiance.

good luck tearing that down with a hammer
posted by matteo at 9:08 AM on March 22, 2006


I once took a hammer to a box of lucky charms. Thank god no one was watching.
posted by MotherTucker at 9:40 AM on March 22, 2006


Doesn't seem like it takes much to create a religious icon over there.


Well, it's not like they're alone in that regard.
posted by mzanatta at 10:36 AM on March 22, 2006


This is pretty serious stuff, actually. Apart from the provinces in the south (which are completely fucking obviously Malay, but national pride can't admit that), Thialand has been pretty integrated and safe. I lived in a muslim street in Bangkok, and taught a few muslim students in a predominantly buddhist school, and everyone got along just fine.

Then Al Quaeda happened. And Thaksin's stupid, stupid comment at the deaths of 50 muslims who had been arrested and stacked on top of each other in a truck, and so suffocated ("they were too weak, because of Ramadam"). And now this.

One thing I did learn in Thailand is that, underneath all the smiles and the "jai yen" (cool temper) of Thais lurks deep ferocity if roused. Something as seemingly trivial as this could conceivably spark nasty communal strife in the area.
posted by Pericles at 11:52 AM on March 22, 2006


You're a douchebag, and your comment was flagged.
posted by quite unimportant


Thanks, QI! I really appreciate the hypersensitivity. You know what? Those names are funny. Read them out loud. I don't really care what ethnicity they are, and certainly not all Thai names are funny, but that was a three-fer in one line and if you are so emotionally constipated that you can't laugh about it, I feel sorry for you.

I'm leaving for a week in Thailand on Sunday, and so of course I read the article out loud to my wife. I finished that line and we both cracked up. Yes, I laughed. I laughed like I would laugh at you if your name was Epluribus Mays or April Furst. I once met a black guy whose name was Cool Breeze Jones, and you know what I did? I laughed at him too. I think part of our collective problem these days is simply that there's not enough laughter. What do you think?
posted by JParker at 4:09 PM on March 22, 2006


In addition to the tsunami damage and financial impact, Thailand is dealing with a corrupt government, murderous muslims down south, and now this. Chok dee, Thailand.
posted by shoepal at 8:06 AM PST on March 22 [!]


As Pericles touched on, there is indeed a ferocity that lies beneath the outward, smiling "face" worn as a matter of custom, and a class/race system that enforces that. It can be quite a shock to be mugged and punched by someone who is smiling and laughing, until you realize that it's the norm in an uncomfortable or stressful situation to smile and laugh, and that racism allows some to be victimized with little guilt. As for "murderous muslims" Thailand has been a murderous place for ages, not just since Muslims became disgruntled. I lived in Thailand 20 years ago and it wasn't uncommon in Bangkok for people to be beaten to death, young women traveling abroad for the 1st time to disappear into the sex slave trade, tourists to be killed for their passports and belongings after getting in illegal cabs at the airport, or children to be sold en masse in child brothels patronized by American, German and Japanese tourists. The government there has been corrupt throughout my life time, and it was quite common while I was working there to pay off officials (often times with almost comically odd things from the West) to get what you needed. Thailand is a beautiful, fascinating country but, like anywhere else in the world where there is great poverty, it can be a violent, dangerous place as well and that has little to do with any Muslim presence.
posted by onegreeneye at 4:13 PM on March 22, 2006


people to be beaten to death, young women traveling abroad for the 1st time to disappear into the sex slave trade, tourists to be killed for their passports and belongings after getting in illegal cabs at the airport, or children to be sold en masse in child brothels

This could be a description of many large American cities today. I'd prefer my chances in any slum in Bangkok than in the crime-infested cities in the West. There is violent crime in Thailand of course, but the victims are those usually engaged in high-risk activities like gambling or drug dealing or icon-smashing. There is much less of the senseless, random, brutality you can expect in, say, the Bronx.
posted by soiled cowboy at 6:19 PM on March 22, 2006


Fair enough, onegreeneye. I didn't mean to imply that only the muslims in the south were murderous. Just that things haven't been going well down there.
posted by shoepal at 8:34 PM on March 22, 2006


People who saw the incident followed him and attacked him. The man died at the spot.

A human life for an overglorified lawn flamingo? This would make the writers of Leviticus blush. Sorry guy. RIP.
posted by dgaicun at 2:19 AM on March 23, 2006


By the way, who here wouldn't trade an innocent human life for the Mona Lisa?

In a sea of six billion+ people, my intuition says that most people really value irreplaceable cultural artifacts over interchangeable nobodies by a wide margin. But since there are no real life circumstances where this trade-off must occur, it can't be proven. But it seems self-evidently true that the world values a lot of nonhuman and inanimate things more than a single insignificant life (like mine!), from species of plants and animals to famous works of art.
posted by dgaicun at 11:31 AM on March 23, 2006


dgaicun, the thought of an angry mob of frenchmen chasing a Mona Lisa slasher brings a smile to my face for some reason. And I totally agree with your theory.
posted by shoepal at 6:43 AM on March 24, 2006


By the way, who here wouldn't trade an innocent human life for the Mona Lisa?

*raises hand, looks around self-consciously, then lowers it again*
posted by brundlefly at 2:38 PM on March 24, 2006


*raises hand, keeps it up*
posted by languagehat at 3:25 PM on March 24, 2006


*suddenly re-raises hand, pretends never to have lowered it*
posted by brundlefly at 4:58 PM on March 24, 2006


*raises hand*
posted by Bugbread at 6:08 AM on March 25, 2006


Another thing to consider is that people report their preferences and behave in different ways. It's an easy virtue to report that each human life is an invaluable snowflake, but do people act that way? The answer is certainly 'no'; people put a lot of selfish concerns ahead of humanitarian concerns. It's obvious. I can easily live on $6000 a year; nearly every dollar earned in a lavish Western lifetime could go to keeping people alive in the third-world. It's an uncertain estimate, sure, but over my entire life I will probably be guilty (in the cosmic sense) of murdering dozens of people due to a refusal to live a life of charitable squalor. Human lives hang in the balance on my decisions, buy my revealed preference is a comfortable, leisure-filled life over other human lives. That is a fact. And I am in no way extraordinary.

So it is disingenuous to say the Mona Lisa isn't really regarded as worth more than a human life when many more mundane things, such as the lifetime extra cost of double-soft toilet paper, is demonstrated through revealed preference as more important than human life by the average person.
posted by dgaicun at 10:22 AM on March 25, 2006


First of all, dgaicun, your comparison of the Mona Lisa to the Brahma statue in this incident is a little off. Many of the people who worship this particular icon believe that it is more than a mere representation of the deity, it is, in a way, a "living" being itself. From this perspective the dead man's attack of the statue was more than just defacing an "overglorified lawn flamingo" or a treasured work of art, it was a personal assault on an earthly incarnation of the Brahma. I would guess that if the men who killed the attacker were questioned about why they did what they did, their response would be along the lines of avenging their god rather than punishing a vandal. It's an important distinction in the context of your assertion.

Second, I don't think anybody said the Mona Lisa isn't regarded as more valuable than a human life. Brundlefly, languagehat and bugbreat simply stated they wouldn't trade a life for it.

Finally, when you speak of the value of extra-soft toilet paper, I think you're actually referring to a way of life -- specifically the modern Western lifestyle of comfort. Seeing as how human warfare is frequently about defending or preserving a way of life, it's no great revelation that people would rather some anonymous someone suffer or die than have to wipe their rears with that cheap-ass CostCo stuff.
posted by soiled cowboy at 12:56 PM on March 25, 2006


your comparison of the Mona Lisa to the Brahma statue in this incident is a little off

I wasn't really equating them, per se. The killer(s) obviously felt an object was more important than a human life. My follow-up thoughts were simply the unfolding realization that the killers weren't very aberrant.

Second, I don't think anybody said the Mona Lisa isn't regarded as more valuable than a human life. Brundlefly, languagehat and bugbreat simply stated they wouldn't trade a life for it.

And my point was they trade lives for far less, regardless of stated preference. I wasn't singling them out, my question was rhetorical.

it's no great revelation . . .

I think so. That we've all chosen mundane comforts over human lives is an important point. I don't think many people are able or willing to see themselves as murderers. Emotionally no one here will ever let that sink in. It's a fact that the grand majority of normal people value many trivial things over human life. Their stated and revealed preferences tell two wildly different stories.
posted by dgaicun at 1:48 PM on March 25, 2006


That we've all chosen mundane comforts over human lives is an important point. I don't think many people are able or willing to see themselves as murderers.

I think you're stretching yourself by equating the enjoyment of comfort with the murder of the less fortunate. That view is too simplistic to encapsulate the huge complexity with which the world works. You're saying that some other person has a small amount of money because I have a larger amount, which is based on the idea that there is a never-changing amount of money in the world. That idea just isn't true.

Or you're saying that somebody died because I chose not to help, which is also wildly simplistic in that it ignores the more immediate circumstances which led to that death.

If your point is that humans are selfish, then that, again, is no profound revelation. But I would agree that it's a point that most people are unable or unwilling to accept.
posted by soiled cowboy at 2:49 PM on March 25, 2006


I think you're stretching yourself by equating the enjoyment of comfort with the murder of the less fortunate . . . you're saying that somebody died because I chose not to help, which is also wildly simplistic in that it ignores the more immediate circumstances which led to that death.

We're going to get into a much more involved discussion if we have to argue whether murder is the appropriate term for allowing a preventable death to occur through chosen inaction. I'll just stand by the equation, because it's beside the point.

You're saying that some other person has a small amount of money because I have a larger amount, which is based on the idea that there is a never-changing amount of money in the world.

Umm, no. I'm not saying that at all. I know how economics works, thank you.

If your point is that humans are selfish, then that, again, is no profound revelation.

No, my point was that there is a dramatic disjoint between most peoples' stated and revealed preference about the true value of a human life. Regardless of how priceless people will eagerly and angrily tell you they think human life is, we know through their actions that they actually rank anonymous human life as very low in value. Regardless if we call it murder, a deliberate decision has been made that a certain comfort or possession is worth more than a human life.

Oscar Schindler: I could have done more. I should have sold this car. It would have been 10 more if I sold this car. This pen, it would have been five more…This ring, the gold in this ring, I could have gotten two. . .

-------------------------

Salesman: Looks like you called me just in time. This home isn't secure at all.
Marge: What do you recommend?
Salesman: . . . I recommend sealing off every door and window with bullet-proof Lucite. . . And you can have it all for only five hundred dollars.
Homer: Five hundred dollars? Aw, forget it.
Salesman: But surely, you can't put a price on your family's lives?
Homer: I wouldn't have thought so either, but here we are.

posted by dgaicun at 3:45 PM on March 25, 2006


dgaicun : "It's a fact that the grand majority of normal people value many trivial things over human life. Their stated and revealed preferences tell two wildly different stories."

I won't disagree with you there. I just think that your example using the Mona Lisa was a bit off.

dgaicun : "Regardless of how priceless people will eagerly and angrily tell you they think human life is, we know through their actions that they actually rank anonymous human life as very low in value."

And this is why the example was off. Perhaps by my actions I think that human life is low in value. However, I think the Mona Lisa is even lower in value. Again, I'm not disagreeing with your central point, just that I can't think of any works of art/music/the like which I value as highly as human life. That isn't so much a high ranking of human life, but a realization that there are tons and tons and tons of art in this world, and much of it very, very, very good, so that the value of any individual work of art (to me) is very low. The value of art itself is high, but any individual piece of art is low.

If it helps to understand the difference, I think the value of food is extremely high. I love food. Food is great, and it keeps me alive, and it tastes good, and it smells good. And I like pho. However, the value of any given bowl of pho is lower to me than the value of (pretty much) any given human life (obvious exceptions like "Hitler" aside). The value of food in general is higher than the value of any given human life.
posted by Bugbread at 5:35 PM on March 25, 2006


The other part of the issue, of course, is that we're talking about what people think is worth direct killing, and what is worth indirect killing. Yeah, the person is dead in the end, but I think there's a big difference between the two. I just had a son. When he grows up, if he marries someone who drives a car, I wouldn't be too bothered. Sure, he's marrying a person who indirectly kills folks (and this isn't a case of forgiving the same sins that you take part in yourself, because I don't drive a car). Or, to put it in more MetaFiltery terms, I would be more bothered if he married someone who had once, in order to buy cheap gas, hacked a person to death with an axe (but had a psychological block against killing him) than if he married someone who voted for a politician who supported some war somewhere. In the first case, it's one dead person. In the second case, it's many dead people. But I'd prefer the latter to the former. So I think there is an important psychological distinction between the two, and what people are finding abhorent here is probably not just the killing, but the directness of the killing.

That said, soiled cowboy frames the issue well:

soiled cowboy : "Many of the people who worship this particular icon believe that it is more than a mere representation of the deity, it is, in a way, a 'living' being itself."

If someone killed a guy just for destroying what the killer thought of as an overglorified lawn flamingo, well, that would be pretty much indefensible from any position. The problem here is that person A killed person B over what person C considered an overglorified lawn flamingo. That disconnect makes discussion pretty hairy.

Comparing to kids again: I'd find it abhorrent if two adults died just so that one kid wouldn't die. I wouldn't find it nearly as abhorrent if two adults died so that my kid wouldn't die.
posted by Bugbread at 6:56 PM on March 25, 2006


No, my point was that there is a dramatic disjoint between most peoples' stated and revealed preference about the true value of a human life.

Okay, people say that human life is valuable but they don't act that way. I'll agree with that, but I still think the idea that comfort equals murder is silly. Your use of this idea distracts from and weakens your argument.
posted by soiled cowboy at 8:32 AM on March 26, 2006


« Older the professors   |   Micro Econ Comix Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments