indi.ca

343 Comments

1. 

   David Blacker,

   As for “ad hominem” attacks, please practice what you preach.

   The constitution states ““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 the rights granted by Articles 10 and 14(1)(e). “.

   Article 10 states that “Every person is entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.”

   Article 14(1)(e) states that “Every citizen is entitled to the freedom either by himself or in association with others, and either in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.”.

   As you can clearly see, CONTRARY to what you have been saying all along, giving buddhism the foremost place and protecting and fostering is NOT separated from Articles 10 and 14(1)(e). It is in fact mentioned in the constitution in the same sentence. BTW that particular sentence is NOT in the constitution in relation to the presidency as you claim. It is there in Chapter II in relation to Buddhism.

   You state that”A constitution that does not allow for the teachings of all religions (if those teachings are not illegal), is discriminatory. There’s no way around it.”.

   You statement doesn’t pass muster because as per Article 14(1)(e) the constitution expressely ALLOWS citizens of Sri Lanka to TEACH their religion or belief. Artcle 10 grants the citizens of Sri Lanka the right to religious freedom including the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of their choice.

   Hence a president who is a non-buddhist has absolute freedom to practice and propagate his or her religion if he or she wishes to. That right is enshrined in the constitution. In addition the non-buddhist president has to ensure that buddhism is given the foremost place in the COUNTRY and not in his or her personal life. That is an important distinction that you choose to ignore. Furthermore the non-buddhist president has to protect and foster buddhism but NOT at the expense of other religions, including his or her own.

   I really don’t see how this can go against the religious beliefs of a Christian or a Muslim or a follower of any other religion. Any tolerant person should not find this duty discriminatory.

2. 

   hp, sorry to butt in, but you seem to think that Article 9 is completely superfluous. If a religion is given special protection over and above other religions, then that religion is considered to be of more importance to the state that other religions. This establishes that not only is Buddhism the state religion, it is also entitled to enhanced and special protection that other religions don’t have. Like a kid who is treated better than his siblings. The other kids aren’t starved or anything, just not treated as well. This is generally called discrimination. Any other interpreation would be to render Article 9 nugatory.

   Re the President, the public-private dichotomy that you strive hard to establish does not exist in the teachings of Christianity and Islam. In Christianity for instance(at least certain interpretations of the religion), one is exhorted to practice one’s beiefs and convictions even in public life. The implied exclusion of people who do not subscribe to a public private split is unfair.

   I have other reasons for believing that the 78 constitution is an instrument that could easily be used for discriminatory ends, but that is another debate.

3. 

   dude,
   if you want to talk history you’ll have to quote sources that are a little more renowned for credible historical work. I mean the ministry of defence and the island and some unknown writer just doesn’t cut. It’s just as bad as Tamils who read Tamil Canadian to get a grasp of their history and think that all Sinhalese are cinnamon peelers. These two bit, racist, cock historical pieces are screwing up our country.

   There’s alot of credible academic stuff that’s been put out in the last two decades by two very respected Sinhalese Professors. I’ve mentioned it earlier in this post. I recommend you try and get a hold of the research done by these two guys – Prof Sudharshan Seneviratne from Pera and Gananath Obeysekere from Princeton.

4. 

   HP, Christian teaching is in direct contradiction to the constitutional requirement of giving a particular religion the foremost place. A Christian therefore (either in public or private) CANNOT give Buddhism the foremost place. This is not open to interpretation. It is an exhortation from the Old Testament that is reinforced in the New Testament. Therefore, “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,” directly contradicts Article 14(1)(e) which states that “Every citizen is entitled to the freedom either by himself or in association with others, and either in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.” A Christian president cannot “manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching” if he or she is obliged to “give Buddhism the foremost place”. You may choose to interprete Christian teachings according to your personal views, HP, but that will be your interpretation alone, for it doesn’t change the bulk of theological opinion on the subject. Islam (which forbids ANY form of scriptural interpretation) is even more strict on the same subject.

5. 

   Christian teaching is in direct contradiction to the constitutional requirement of giving a particular religion the foremost place. A Christian therefore (either in public or private) CANNOT give Buddhism the foremost place.
   does christian teaching allow giving even equal status to any other religion ?
   almost all religions when faithfully practiced do not allow for any tolerance of other religions. intolerance and religions go hand in hand.
   fortunately most ppl are not religious.
   –
   isn’t secularism as enshrined in most constitutions with strict separation of church and state, discriminatory against anyone who is religious? doesn’t such constitutions in effect give atheism the foremost place?

   in the same way, is any state that implement capital punishment , and has constitutional right to abortion, gay marriage, etc. discriminatory against anyone following a religion that forbids them ? for instance can a good catholic become a president of such a state and ‘manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching’ ?
   –
   anyway, hope everyone will eventually come down to earth, if they admit to its existence of course . :-)

6. 

   s’nut, I’m sure David will anwer your questions himself, but I can’t resist pointing out that you misunderstand the point.

   “in the same way, is any state that implement capital punishment , and has constitutional right to abortion, gay marriage, etc. discriminatory against anyone following a religion that forbids them ? for instance can a good catholic become a president of such a state and ‘manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching’ ”

   It’s not certain that good a Catholic will have a problem with the above in the same way that he would have to if he had to give another religion the foremost place as a public official. Capital punishment remains highly debatable within the principles of the Bible and will always be a source of diagreement within Christendom. The point however is that no Catholic president will ever be forced to abort or marry his best buddy in a countries that permits abortion and gay marriage! However, in SL he is forced to give Buddhism the foremost place which contavenes his convictions. There is a fundamental distinction. In the first country, he does not necessarily have to believe in abortion or gay marriage to become President. He may disagree with the current law and yet become President. In SL however, rejecting your religious beliefs is a condition precedent to being eligible to become President. This is what is discriminatory.

   Besides, even in its most fundamental form, Christianity does not preach intolerance for members of other religions. It preaches exclusivity, that Christ is the true expression of God and all other theories or individuals that deny Christianity are mistaken. It believes that all other religions are mistaken, but it does not believe the adherents must not be treated as equal. And that includes giving them equal opportunity as creatures made in the image of God to practice their own beliefs. It’s a doctrine that is predicated on the free choice theory which is a fundamental tenet of Christianity. So Christianity is internally exclusive in that is is intolerant of the claims made by other religions, but it is tolerant of the external expression of other’s beliefs.
   As an aside, even the inclusivists are actually exclusivists, because they exclude the exclusivist. Exclusivity of doctrine is a fundamental quality of any coherent truth claim.

7. 

   Snut, Aadhavan has covered most of the points already, but let me give it another angle. You are mixing up the constitution with judicial law. I do not know of a country which has a constitution that protects or promotes abortion, gay marriage, capital punishment, or any of the other things that you point out. Could you point one out? If there was such a constitution, a Christian head of state would not in good conscience swear to protect it.

   No, secularism is not discriminatory, because it gives ALL religions an equal position (or lack of one). Jesus Christ himself agreed with the separation of church and state when questioned. In his words: “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God that which is God’s.” A Roman Catholic (or any other Christian) would have no problem defending a secular constitution, because a secular constitution does not contradict his religion. It does not insist that he give secularism the foremost place. It is defined as secular for the simple reason that it professes no religious leaning. A lack of discrimination can hardly be deemed to be discriminatory.

   Aadhavan, while the Old Testament does list death (and other forms of capital punishment) as a penalty, the New Statement does not either agree or disagree with it. In most major issues, it is accepted by theologians, that a lack of comment is in fact tacit agreement. For example, the New Testament specifically does away with the law on eating of certain meat, it also reinforces laws such as the Ten Commandments with new ones such as the ‘love your neighbour’ exhortation. On the other hand, nowhere in the Bible is imprisonment advocated as a punishment, though I believe exile is (in certain circumstances).

8. 

   One more thing: Snut, you’re quite wrong to say that “almost all religions when faithfully practiced do not allow for any tolerance of other religions”. The Bible specifically exhorts (in the New Testament) Christians to respect the religions and beliefs of non-Christians. Christianity is a religion of personal belief and devotion; part of which is to spread the word and convert the willing. Nowhere in the Bible are Christians told to protect Christianity or to promote it by rule. Similarly, Islam and Judaism also promote respect.

   Any constitution which insists on the protection or promotion of a particular religion over others is discriminatory. How would you feel if you were to apply for a job in a company and were told that part of your duties will be to protect a particular religion (not your own) and to give it the foremost place in all business dealings?

9. 

   Aadhavan,

   Please get off your high horse and point out what is inaccurate and /or racist about the article without attacking the author who happens to be relatively unknown.

   I am amazed that you chose to discredit an article simply because you don’t like the forum in which it is presented. I expected you to be more interested in the content rather than the origins and reputation of the author.

   Please don’t equate the the Tamil Canadian and the Tamil net with this article or the Island newspaper.

   The MOD carries the article at the moment and I don’t see how that can demean the contents of the article.

   BTW the Tamilnet is one of the more muthpieces of the LTTE.

10. 

    David Blacker and Aadhavan,

    “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,” directly contradicts Article 14(1)(e) which states that “Every citizen is entitled to the freedom either by himself or in association with others, and either in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.”

    I can’t see a contradiction here. What I see is Article 14(1)(e) and Article 10 ensuring that Article 9 isn’t used in a discriminatory manner.

    Article 9 in isolation can be construed as discriminatory but not in combination with articles 14(1)(e) and Article 10.
    David Blacker’s comment “Any constitution which insists on the protection or promotion of a particular religion over others is discriminatory. ” would be true if one considers Article 9 in isolation but not discriminatory when taken in conjunction with Articles 14(1)(e) and Article 10.

    I really can’t see how giving another religion the foremost place in the country and NOT in ones personal life, can undermine ones personal belief and devotion. To quote David Blacker “Christianity is a religion of personal belief and devotion; part of which is to spread the word and convert the willing.”. A christian president is completely free to do this under the present constitution of Sri Lanka.

11. 

    HP, shall we try it this again, I’ll go slower.

    Christianity demands that Christians are faithful to Christ in ALL areas of their life, piblic and private. Is that clear?

    Being faithful to Christ means being faithful to Him ALONE. Is that clear too?

    Giving another religion ‘the foremost (foremost = a position above other religions) place’ is to be unfaithful to the teachings of Christ and the Bible. Still clear, HP?

    A Christian CANNOT spread the word and convert the willing if he must give ‘Buddhism the foremost place’, because Christianity demands that CHRIST (and Christ ALONE) be given the foremost place in ALL areas of a Christian’s life. Are we still clear?

    Therefore Articles 14(1)(e) and 10 contradict the consitutional leaning towards Buddhism (‘foremost place’ etc) in relation to Christianity. Do you now understand?

    It would be the same if the constitution demanded that pork be given the foremost place, and that pigs be protected. Your claim that Muslims have freedom to practice their religion because of 14(1)(e) & 10 would have no meaning.

    HP, I’m sorry if I sound condescending, but your arguments are just repetitions of earlier ones and therefore I’m forced to break down my own arguments into bite-sized pieces for you. I already gave the example of a company that demanded an employee give a particular religion prime place. Don’t you think that would be discriminatory?

    Finally, what is the reason for a constitution to enshrine one single religion over another? Does Buddhism require this? Will no one follow it if it isn’t protected? If so, does it matter? Religions are all of personal belief, and if a religion dies out of lack of interest, so be it. It has no place as an entity of its own — only in the hearts and minds of believers. Religion has no place in constitutional and state affairs. If it is felt otherwise, then ALL religions must be given equal status. Do you feel that ALL religions are given equal status in the SL constitution? If so, the words ‘Buddhism the formost place’ etc would not be present.

12. 

    David,

    I am repeating my arguments because I don”t think you have understood them.

    I am glad that you presented your interpretation of what a christians duty is, even at this juncture.

    Articles 9, 10 and 14(1)(e) act as a balance and NOT as a contradiction.

    If one were to take your interpretation of christianity , yes then a christian would not be able to give buddhism the foremost place in the country while giving christianity the foremost place in his or her life. 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? In my undertsanding it wont be any of that.

    Giving buddhism the foremost place in the country DOES NOT mean denigrating christ or not practising christianity or not expressing ones faith in public.

    Furthermore the president’s role is as that of a facilitator and he or she DOES NOT need to personally get involved in promoting or propagating buddhism.

    However a christian or muslim who doesn’t have a problem with giving buddhism the foremost place in the country while giving their religion the foremost place in their personal lives, would be able to uphold the present constitution. Giving their religion the foremost place in their lives includes teaching and propagating the religion.

    Although you attempted to be condescending by bringing up the analogy of pork and pigs, it does bring up an interesting point. Malaysia which is a Muslim country, allows piggeries and the consumption of pork. This is to cater to the non-muslims, in particular the people of chinese origin. In fact Malaysia has a pork industry. It looks like a matter of interpretation here doesn’t it?

    I am sure there are many interpretations of christianity as well and your claim may not apply to all christians.

    Your statement “I already gave the example of a company that demanded an employee give a particular religion prime place. Don’t you think that would be discriminatory?”.
    – This would be discriminatory if that rule prevented that employee is from practising and propagating his or her own religion. Hence it is an incorrect example.

    Then as to why this clause is in the constitution. It is due to historical reasons. Since buddhism was introduced to Sri lanka 2500 years ago during the reign of King Devanampiyatissa, Buddhism has enjoyed state patronage and protection. That is how it has survived numerous invasions and attempts to destroy it.

    BTW even in the ancient times state protection of religions was not limited to buddhism alone.

    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. if not for that protection Islam and Roman Catholicism would not have the numbers that they have today in Sri Lanka. I am quite happy that this protection was given and is continued to be given.

    I hope my point is clear to you at least now.

13. 

    In case someone misinterprets the state patronage and protection given to Buddhism in Sri Lanka since the time of King Devanampiyatissa, as being a requirement of the buddha’s teachings, I must state that
    – At NO time did the Buddha place his teachings above or below or next to any other religion, belief, doctrine.
    – He did NOT state ANYWHERE that buddhism muste be given state protection and patronage.

14. 

    first theology is irrelevant here. what matters is that there are ppl who believe their religion is against death penalty , abortion, gay marriage etc.. that there ppl who think that secularism ( that outlaws school payers and punish students who pray in a huddle before sports events etc.as in usa ) is against their beliefs. since there are such ppl, it doesn’t matter what is in the bible, what jesus said, and what conclusion a particular group of theologians arrived at regarding what is correct belief.

    another thing, this ‘discrmination’ is not limited to president .

    The point however is that no Catholic president will ever be forced to abort or marry his best buddy in a countries that permits abortion and gay marriage!
    but he will have to approve funds for abortion clinics and sign in to law legislation that will implicitly accept gay marriage( say a new law on a marriage tax credit) .
    he may have to deal with final appeal in death penalty.

    in usa ppl who oppose death penalty are not allowed in to jury service. isn’t that discriminatory?

    He may disagree with the current law and yet become President
    You are mixing up the constitution with judicial law. I do not know of a country which has a constitution that protects or promotes abortion, gay marriage, capital punishment, or any of the other things that you point out.
    in the first place all laws should agree with the constitution or they will be made invalid. ( btw are you saying if the relevant article was a mere law, that a religious person will have no problem disobeying it ? )
    in the second place in usa right to abortion etc, was found by the supreme court ( as part of right to privacy) in the constitution. in the same way the constitution does not limit marriage to one between man and woman. some lower courts in usa have already ruled that way invalidating as unconstitutional laws that tried to define marriage as one between man and woman. that is why there they are trying to ban gay marriage by a constitutional amendment ( so far unsuccessfully ).

    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

    even in its most fundamental form, Christianity does not preach intolerance for members of other religions
    Nowhere in the Bible are Christians told to protect Christianity or to promote it by rule.
    that is your belief. and claims about christianity’s tolerance (internal, external, or whatever) is beside the point.
    bc there are plenty of historical examples of christians who thought otherwise. that they may have not practiced christianity as you think it should be practiced, does not make them non christians. they acted according to their religious beliefs, and that is the important thing here, as i said before, not the correctness of their belief.
    and there are ppl with such religious beliefs still. their convictions do not allow for equal treatment of all religions. (of course there are such ppl in all religions not just christianity ). to them a constitution that stipulates equal treatment will be discriminatory .

    It does not insist that he give secularism the foremost place. It is defined as secular for the simple reason that it professes no religious leaning. A lack of discrimination can hardly be deemed to be discriminatory..
    no so . in practice and in theory secularism insist on foremost place. if anybody thinks otherwise he is discriminated against. so in usa students are not allowed school prayer. in france muslim girls are not allowed to wear the head covering in public schools. this definitely and intentionally favor the non religious. and discriminates against religious. any one pledging allegiance to constitution has to accept all that.

    attempts to stop one kind of discrimination ( in this case discrimination between religions) can create new discrimination (against the religious ).

    in the end, constitutions(any one of them) will not agree with everyone’s beliefs . there will always be ppl who think their religion disagree with some provision in constitution. in so far as that prevents those ppl from accepting any position that requires conformity with constitution, that constitution is discriminatory.

    in other words all constitutions are discriminatory against somebody.
    it is the political, social, cultural and economic conditions of each country that will determine who will be discriminated against in th constitution of that society . in sri lanka it is strictly practicing non buddhists, in america it is ppl with certain religious beliefs.
    –
    in the real world however most ppl are flexible. most ppl ( esp. politicians) in democratic states compromise with each other. that is almost a requirement in democracy. even most of the religious do . mps of other religions do sit in the parliament here( congressmen and presidents who oppose abortion in usa) pledging loyalty to the constitution.
    some inflexible ppl do get discriminated in such states. that is the price they pay for inflexibility.
    some of those ppl who want all or nothing instead of making compromises will resort to violence. as ltte have done here. that is their mistake for not recognizing how democracy operate.

15. 

    hp: mate, the piees on Tamil Canadian and the pieces in the island that the Ministry of Defence picked up are of the same brand. They are not written by eminent historians and are politically motivated hogwash. The claims that the Sinhalese are cinnamon peelers is not racist on the face of it. But it denies a people their true place in history. And this is what this article tries to do. Tamil Canadian maybe the mouthpiece of the LTTE, and the Ministry of Defence is the Ministry of Defence!! You have to take this shit with a sack of salt mate.

    I don’t know about Buddhism, but church history demonstrates that whenever the church has had the protection and patronage of the state, the vitality and vibrancy of the church has declined. It works the other way as well, the church has always thrived under persecution. I think this is probably true of most religions.

16. 

    Snut,
    when secularism prohibits people from legitmately expressing their beliefs, then it too has become extremist. Like extremist manifestations of religions. If this what secularism necessarily entails, then Christian dogma is against it. I don’t think the separation of church and state necessarily entails the suppression expression of religious preference by individuals.

17. 

    If you are unable to point out factual inaccuracies in this article, I am afraid your comments do not carry any credibility. In those circumstances I see your comments, to borrow a term from you, as mere hogwash.

    I haven’t read the article about Sinhalese been Cinnamon peelers and hence can’t comment on it either way. If the assertion is that all Sinhalese are cinnamon peelers or descendants of them, then that is completely false. There are enough archeological and written evidence to dismiss that out of hand.

    If there are inaccuracies in this article why don’t you point it out without condeming it out of hand and then equating it with the racist rubbish espousedby the Tamil Canadian?

    If an article by deliberately suppressing facts and twisting facts tries to distort history, then I would accept a claim that it is political hogwash. Not otherwise.

    If the historical facts back the assertion of this article, what is wrong with it? If the facts are accurate then I think the problem maybe with your inability or unwillingness to accept facts.

    Also as far as I am concerned one doesn’t need to be “eminent” to present facts.

18. 

    hp,
    I don’t have an adequa

19. 

    I have understood your arguments (they are probably as old as Devanampiyatissa who you constantly refer to) and I have replied to them. We can continue to repeat our arguments, but it’ll take us nowhere.

    “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?

20. 

    hp,
    I don’t have an adequate knowledge on the claims made by Rasanayagam who is the writer’s primary source. The writer though seems to question the existence of a Tamil kingdom, while a mere google check on Rasanayagam will reveal that Rasanayagam, like Arasaratnam, Tambiah, Obeysekere and others believed in the existence of an independent Jaffna Kingdom.
    The second part of the article is just a writer’s narrative of the end days of Sankili, of which there are many versions. In any case does it matter how Sankili died. Does it matter that this letter was said to be signed in Sinhala. Does it matter that the Kandyan nobility are said to be Tamil. Does it matter that the Kandy Convention was signed in Tamil. I don’t think so.

21. 

    Surely, HP, you don’t think the country should be governed according to the practices from centuries long past (though with the recent closure of sat TV stations, etc, it seems it is)? Huge mistakes have been made in history because religion wasn’t separated from the state. We should learn from them and not repeat them. Religion has no place in a national constitution, nor in rule of law.

22. 

    “that there ppl who think that secularism… is against their beliefs” Again, Snut, you’re confusing issues. Secularism isn’t aethism. The former takes no stand, the latter says there is no God or gods. Therefore, secularism isn’t against anyone’s belief, it’s just a lack of belief. Aethism is against religious belief.

    “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.

23. 

    Aadhavan, Good. At last you are talking about facts. I’ll get back to you on your comments over the week end.

    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.

24. 

    Yes, it was rejected, we know. But it was presented because of the wording of the constitution. If the ‘protection of Buddhism’ part wasn’t there it would have been laughed out of parliament in the first place. It was even entertained because of a discriminatory constitution.

    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?

25. 

    “If the historical facts back the assertion of this article, what is wrong with it? If the facts are accurate then I think the problem maybe with your inability or unwillingness to accept facts.”

    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.

26. 

    Looks like you have got your knickers in a twist here. I seemed to have touched a raw nerve of yours without intending to.

    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.

27. 

    David Blacker,

    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.

28. 

    David Blacker,

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

29. 

    I won’t comment on the Indian anti-conversion bills because I’m not really sure where the Indian constitution stands on religion. Either way, it has little to do with the discriminatory wording of the SL constitution in regard to the president (which is what we are discussing).

    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.

30. 

    Your point that religious discrimination is encouraged by Sri lanka’s constitution is incorrect. It is precisely because it is not discrminatory on religious grounds that the supreme court was able to rule that certain clauses of the private members bill “Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of Religion”, are unconstitutional. In the ruling the supreme court referred to Article 10 of the constitution amongst others .

    The Indian constitution is secular.

31. 

    “Your point that religious discrimination is encouraged by Sri lanka’s constitution is incorrect. ” Well, HP, as I said before, if all you have as an argument is your insistence, we might as well drop it. I asked you before, but you didn’t answer — what is your definition of discrimination? Do you disagree with the fact that the selection of a single religion is 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.

32. 

    You keep repeating the same mantra. Please read my comments.

    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.

33. 

    “You keep repeating the same mantra. Please read my comments.”

    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.

34. 

    Everyone who lives in virtual reality, just look at this …….
    Ruhunu Voice

35. 

    cool newsgroup.

36. Pingback: Portrait :: the ones i loved the best :: October :: 2006
37. 

    Xtfer, I bet you’re a Singalese!

    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.

38. 

    Dear Tamil Nationalists, don’t worry. With Sinhalese fuckwits like Indi who pit Buddhist and Christian Sinhalese against each other, Tamil Eelam is only a step away. Just sit back, grab a bag of popcorn and watch Indrajit create a religious war here with his inane comments and “pontification”…..he is doing Sinhalese unity a BIG favour.

39. 

    Nope, sorry, not singalese. = )

    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.

40. 

    Ceylon has always been a Tamil Land – Even before there was a Sinhalese race – This has been recorded in history. We can never live with Sinhalese – especially after the 1983 slaughter of our innocent hardworking and more educated, higher caste Tamils by lower caste, uneducated sinhalese thugs – which incidentally was the becoming of the great Tamil Army defending the Tamils from the decendents of immigrants into our great Tamil land…We will give you the South – after all it is our land that you are occupying – the North and East we keep…and then Ceylon will find peace. Sri_Lankan girl, if you want to make peace how about some Tiger loving

41. 

    “We can never live with Sinhalese”

    Good thing you’re in Australia then. :)

42. 

    Indi,

    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

43. 

    Such hatred thought will take you no where. Dont you simply realize that we all are human beings. I can understand your feelings especially if you were a victim under the circumstances in 1983. But people like us gave refuge to tamil families in 1983. I am man who is fighting the war in Sri Lanka. Irrespective of the race we do it. LTTE or EPRLF or JVP, we will stand against terrorism. You being far away, do not percieve the true picture. People manupulate things for their convenience, LTTE or the government. But the true picture is seen by us. If the poor souls in Jaffna could have access to this e media, they would comment. With 20 years of war what have you brought? Nothing but sufferings. I have seen Jaffna before the problems started. It was better than Colombo then. But today? You people fight the war with pens. Go there, witness what is really happening. Come and see how the Tamil community accepts us. How friendly we are with them. Ofcourse bad things happened in the past. We all have suffered for it. Put everything behind and let us turn over a new leaf and be happy as one nation.
    I wish you Good Luck!

Comments are closed.