Courageous post, I wish those that represent this same view point – of desiring a just peace for all (which I suspect is a
majority of those that inhabit this small blessed island) would stand up and be counted, I am sure it will alter the destructive policies that are currently in operation on all sides of the divide!

Well done!

Rgds

A distant observer

Good thing you’re in Australia then. :)

My point was, the desire for homelands, nationalism – all that rubbish – is not what everyone thinks about. As Indi makes quite clear in his most recent post, the Tamils would have done better with a political solution rather than a military one. Why? Because they’d probably now be living happier, healthier, wealthier lives. It was initial loss of access to this future that caused the current situation, so address the root cause and you might solve the problem. This is not news to anyone, however, a Tamil homeland will not, of itself, solve this problem. The majority of Tamils in SL probably have more important issues to deal with than “homeland”, and would accept a united SL if it meant they could get on with their lives in peace.

Then how do you know that the majority of the Tamils do not want a country of their own in their own TRADITIONAL HOMELAND?

I agree that every single civilian in the Tamil Homeland want to live in peace without the present of the Sinhala Army, but that doesn’t mean that the Tamil civilian do not want a country on their own after all we’ve went through.

So do you, which is why I suggested we drop it. You’re not saying anything new.

“As I have said many times before, Article 9 on it’s own is discriminatiory but not in combination with Article 14(1)(e) and Article 10 it is not.”

Repetition doesn’t make it factual, HP, just repetitious.

“what I have to say is that the Sri lankan constitution can discriminate against a christian or a muslim or a follower of a similar religion from aspiring to be the president, depending on how they interpret their religion.”

Since ALL religious teachings are interpreted, this is hardly an argument. Demanding that a Christian change his interpretation to suit a discriminatory document, just reinforces the original discrimination.

I have asked you, HP, several direct questions, which you avoid answering. I wonder why.

“On the other hand there are christians and muslims who do not find the constitution discriminating against their aspirations to be the president”

How do you know?

“If we look at most constitutions in the world, there will be some group of people who could claim to be discriminated against because of the constitution. Snut has covered thisin detail.”

Maybe you should actually read my reply to him.

“I repeat , the bill presented to parliament was NOT the anti-conversion bill. It was the “Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of Religion” bill. I trust that you have noted the difference.”

Since there is no proof of ANY forcible conversions (Biblically, someone forced into Christianity, isn’t considered one, so it’s a moot point), the wishy-washy wording of the anti-conversion bill is just an attempt to avoid international pressure. Fortunately it didn’t work, and the supreme court saw it as the piece of rubbish it was.

“It is not good fortune that made the supreme court pass it’s judgement. It was precisely because of the the constitutional safeguards against discrimination in the Sri Lankan constitution that forced the supreme court to not allow the bill to be passed in it’s original form. ”

Don’t be obtuse, HP. The constitutional safeguards against religious discrimination are in regard to the common man (do you even bother to read my replies?), not to the presidency. The anti-conversion bill doesn’t concern the presidency.

“Please have a look at the petitions filed in the supreme court and you will then understand how those articles protect AGAINST discrimination. ”

Of course they do. The supreme court isn’t discriminatory. Just the constitution.

As I have said many times before, Article 9 on it’s own is discriminatiory but not in combination with Article 14(1)(e) and Article 10 it is not.

We have covered the issue of the presidency many time over. In summary what I have to say is that the Sri lankan constitution can discriminate against a christian or a muslim or a follower of a similar religion from aspiring to be the president, depending on how they interpret their religion. On the other hand there are christians and muslims who do not find the constitution discriminating against their aspirations to be the president. Similarly I don’t think any Hindu would find the constitution an impediment to their aspirations to be the president. Hence your sweeping statement that it discriminates against non-buddhists from aspiring to be president or from taking an oath to uphold the constitution is incorrect.

If we look at most constitutions in the world, there will be some group of people who could claim to be discriminated against because of the constitution. Snut has covered thisin detail. Hence Sri lanka is not unique in that respect.

I repeat , the bill presented to parliament was NOT the anti-conversion bill. It was the “Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of Religion” bill. I trust that you have noted the difference.

It is not good fortune that made the supreme court pass it’s judgement. It was precisely because of the the constitutional safeguards against discrimination in the Sri Lankan constitution that forced the supreme court to not allow the bill to be passed in it’s original form. You may want to read the supreme court judgement.

Please have a look at the petitions filed in the supreme court and you will then understand how those articles protect AGAINST discrimination.

The fact that the supreme court wasn’t discriminatory but fair in it’s judgement doesn’t absolve the constitution. I never said that the constitution discriminated against the common citizen, did I (and the anti-conversion bill concerns the common citizen)? My original point was that the constitution discriminated against non-Buddhists aspiring to be president, and also against those who must take an oath to protect that constitution. It was fortunate that the supreme court came up with that judgement, but if it had found for the bill, it couldn’t have been faulted either, as on the grounds of the ‘protection of Buddhism’ wording, it would have been constitutionally arguable. It still might be approved in the future. For now, the supreme court has been fairer than the people who drew up the constitution.

The Indian constitution is secular.

If you want to debate the merits of anti-conversion bills, that’s a different subject. However, my point is that when religious discrimination is encouraged by a national constitution, it’ll invariably encourage attempts at discriminatory legislation (such as the anti-conversion bill). It doesn’t mean that discrimination cannot exist without a discriminatory constitution, just that it’s more likely.

The private members bill presented to parliament in 2004 was titled “‘Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of Religion’, and not the “anti-conversion bill” .

Having a secular constitution hasn’t stopped anti-conversion bills been presented in India. In fact the state legislatures of Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Gujarat have already enacted such bills.

I don’t think that there is a correlation between the type of constitution and the type of bills presented in parliament. Any member of parliament can present any bill that they like. That is even if it violates the constitution. This is borne out by evidence as above and by common sense.

As for the JVP’s proposal for providing the material for the Hijab free of charge along with the school uniform, it is not connected to the presidency, but is directly related to the constitution. I have clearly said that I am digressing. Maybe you didn’t read my comments closely enough.

I really don’t think there is any need to get emotional or personal and to engage in childish mud slinging as you have done here.

It is my perogative to write whenever I like and I don’t need to explain my self to anybody about that.

You didn’t make a simple comment. You made a comment which dismissed the article as trash because in your opinion the author wasn’t ‘eminent’ and it was first published in the Island and it is currently published in the MOD web site. I asked you to prove why the you thought the article was ‘trash’.

I put forward an article for people to read, which I thought was relevant to the topic and which has referenced valid sources and which has presented it’s arguments well.

It would be more useful if you could cool down and point out factual errors in the said article rather than engaging in personal attacks.

You seem to have made up your mind as to the “factual” rather than “fictional” nature of the article without having too much knowledge of the facts yourself hp. I made a simple comment. I’m surprised you need time to reply it. It’s more likely you’ll try and read up the issue, which is evidence that you didn’t know much about it when you posted it here. Shame shame.

I’m happy to hear that the JVP is such a shining example of religious tolerance, but what has this to do with the constitution and the president?

BTW, David Blacker the anti- unethical conversions bill was REJECTED by the Sri Lankan supreme court as being UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I’ll try to find the judgement .

A small digression here. Snut brought up the issue of the ban on the wearing of the Hijab in French schools. In Sri Lanka material for the Hijab is distributed as a part of the material for school uniforms to Muslim schoolgirls, free of charge by the government. This policy was introduced by the JVP when they held four cabinet protfolios. It was the then minister of culture Vijitha Herath who is from the JVP who initiated this scheme.

“another thing, this ‘discrmination’ is not limited to president ” You’re correct. Any non-Buddhist required to take an oath to protect the constitution (servicemen, for example) are being discriminated against. I didn’t mention it because the argument stemmed from the context of the president.

“but he will have to approve funds for abortion clinics and sign in to law legislation that will implicitly accept gay marriage” He doesn’t HAVE to. He can refuse if it is against his conscience, and take the consequences. That is if all legislation requires the signature of the head of state. Not all parliamentary systems require this.

“in usa ppl who oppose death penalty are not allowed in to jury service. isn’t that discriminatory?” This is incorrect. First of all, it varies widely from state to state, and even in states where the death penalty is carried out, no one is disallowed. The lawyers concerned have a limited number of vetoe calls. And anyway this is not discrimination, because an opponent to the death penalty may not necessarily be opposed to it for religious, racial, or sexual reasons. This is all very interesting, Snut, but we’re getting sidetracked again.

“He may disagree with the current law and yet become President” I didn’t say this, Snut. Why have you italicized it and added it to what I did say? I hope you’re not trying to misquote me deliberately .

“He may disagree with the current law and yet become President” Sure. But they are not part of the constitution. Agrreing and being part of are two things.

“btw are you saying if the relevant article was a mere law, that a religious person will have no problem disobeying it ? ” No, why do you think so? For instance adultery is legal, though forbidden by the Bible. This law has no effect on a Christian. He merely doesn’t commit adultery. No conflict. Gay marriage is legal but homosexuality is forbidden. Again, no conflict — a Christian simply abstains from homosexuality. If the law compelled a Christian to commit adultery or become homosexual, then it would be a different matter. Again, interesting debate, but irrelevant to our topic.

“there isn’t any distinction between that and sri lankan situation. in both cases ppl are being forced to agree to things that goes against their beliefs when they pledge to uphold the constitution” No, they are not. Ordinary citizens don’t take an oath to uphold the constitution. Laws spring from judicial interpretation of the constitution. Not all laws are enshrined in the constitution. We’re not discussing the laws but the constitution. Using the US is anyway a faulty argument because laws differ from state to state, something we don’t have in SL. Using the British system or German, would be better (if you want to).

“and claims about christianity’s tolerance (internal, external, or whatever) is beside the point.” Quite so. I responded to it because you said religions were intolerant. Why did you bring it up if it’s beside the point?

“bc there are plenty of historical examples of christians who thought otherwise.” Correct. They were wrong. The crusades are a good example. But, as you said, it’s beside the point.

“they acted according to their religious beliefs, and that is the important thing here, as i said before, not the correctness of their belief.” Precisely. That is why a national constitution cannot be based on religion , which is a belief system, and open to interpretation. It must be secular.

“their convictions do not allow for equal treatment of all religions… to them a constitution that stipulates equal treatment will be discriminatory .” Yes, just as a rapist or paedophile would feel discriminated against.

“in practice and in theory secularism insist on foremost place.” Yes, and that is not discriminatory because it treats all religions equally.

“so in usa students are not allowed school prayer. in france muslim girls are not allowed to wear the head covering in public schools.” True, this is discriminatory because it prevents Muslims and Christians from making a public statement of their beliefs. But both these issues are still being debated, and neither are enshrined in their respective constitutions. In the former case it’s not law in all US states. I’m not saying secular govts don’t discriminate. Discrimination is everywhere in all countries. But it’s more so when religious teachings or beliefs are enshrined in the constitution.

Anti-conversion legislation in SL is possible only because of the ‘protection of Buddhism’ part of the constitution. The legislation is even possible because the constitution is contradictory. In a secular constitution such legislation would not be presentable without an ammendment.

“Articles 9, 10 and 14(1)(e) act as a balance and NOT as a contradiction. ” I can say yes, and you can say no ad nauseum.

“If one were to take your interpretation of christianity…” This is not MY interpretation, but that of the majority of leading theologians and Christian scholars. If you have an alternate interpretation, that’s upto you. Doesn’t change Christian opinion or convince me or other Christians, particularly since you have no rationale beyond your simple insistence. I’m afraid that there’s no way to get around the fact that any document that gives preference to a particular religion is discriminatory.

“Again this would depend on what giving buddhism the foremost place involves. Does it involve denigrating Christ or does it involve not practising your religion or does it involve not expressing ones faith in public? ” Do you understand what the word “ALL” means, HP. It means in entirety. In EVERY SINGLE AREA. In every tiny portion of public, private, official, social, commercial, sexual, and other portions of ones life. Can I make it any clearer?

So what’s your point about Malaysia, in relation to the SL constitution? Israel has a thriving pork industry though Judaisim prohibits its eating. The GoSL however forbids the selling of fresh meat on religious holidays. Another meaningless sidetrack, HP.

“I am sure there are many interpretations of christianity as well and your claim may not apply to all christians.” Yes, as many as there are denominations. But in the area of the Godhead of Christ, there is no disagreement. But if your argument is that this is merely my opinion and therefore of no consequence, I can say the same of yours, so we might as well stop arguing.

“Giving buddhism the foremost place in the country DOES NOT mean denigrating christ or not practising christianity or not expressing ones faith in public.” I never said it was. And it doesn’t matter if it is or not. But it’s now you who’s doing the interpreting. The fact that the constitution requires the president to take an oath to uphold a constitution that protects and promotes a religion other than his/her’s is sufficient to contradict Biblical teaching. We can go on like this for weeks, HP.

“This would be discriminatory if that rule prevented that employee is from practising and propagating his or her own religion. ” What a convenient interpretation. Being required by oath to do something contradictory to one’s religion is discriminatory.

Would you be OK with a constitution that required Christianity alone to be promoted and protected?

“Then as to why this clause is in the constitution. It is due to historical reasons.” And what are these reasons?

“BTW even in the ancient times state protection of religions was not limited to buddhism alone.” So why protect ONLY Buddhism now?

“The most recent examples of state protection of non-buddhist religions, is the protection afforded by the SInhala kings to Muslims who were been persecuted by the portuguese and subsequently to Roman catholics who were been persecuted by the Dutch.” Don’t be silly, HP. Protecting a persecuted minority is quite different to protecting or enshrining a particular religion. Of course people must be protected from persecution. If Buddhists are being persecuted, they must be protected, not Buddhism. I think you’re smart enough to see the difference, HP.

Probably the reason this dead horse is till being beaten, is because you and I disagree on what the word ‘discrimination’ means, HP. You’ve said that you would not find it discriminatory if a company required its employees to protect a particular majority religion. I find that discriminatory. If a single religion, race, or cast is singled out for special attention and patronage, that is discrimination. Do you disagree with this?