“As I recall, Obama did not say that he was going to govern in accordance with Jewish principles.”

That’s exactly my point! Obama did meet with religious constituencies, but he did not say anything about governing in accordance with religious principles. As such he stayed within the secular government sphere. Whereas Rajapaksa did say that about governing in accordance with Buddhist principles–and that clearly crosses the line with regard to secular governance. Of course, he did not say he would govern in accordance with Hindu principles. Which means he’s not only transgressing secular governance, but is not being equal either.

I too think what you say is true regarding the JHU monks, but what I highlighted was not the qualitative aspect of the Buddhist monk.I wanted to say it’s the same concept that runs through the Sinhalese psyche from the time of king Duttagamini to the present time.Maybe you can’t compare the great monks of yesteryear to the ones who are protesting now,but their motive is the same.

Heshan

I dont think the fluency in English has anything to do with a person’s intelligence or his usefulness to the society. You can gain knowledge by knowing English,but it doesn’t mean a person who knows English is knowledgable as well and you may fit to be a prime example!

“Did he also say that he was going to govern in accordance with Hindu principles?”

As I recall, Obama did not say that he was going to govern in accordance with Jewish principles.

I addressed some of your questions in posts to other forummers, and didn’t see the need to repeat myself. And others had mischievous intent, which I couldn’t be bothered to pursue. The occasional tokenistic featuring of Hindu rites at state functions take on a particularly malevolent meaning when it is contextualised with on-going suppression of Tamil rights and alleged war crimes against Tamil civilians (questions about which have not been answered).

The question demanding which part of the Constitution describes Buddhism as the state religion was redundant, considering that I had previously said that it was nowhere in the Constitution.

‘Once again for your reading pleasure, here is Mahinda also addressing “various constituencies”:’

Did he also say that he was going to govern in accordance with Hindu principles? Because if he didn’t, I don’t know how this is relevant to my argument about the place Rajapaksa accords to Buddhism in governance.

You have not addressed my rebuttal of your points on July 25.

“Obama had televised talks with one Christian Evangelist leader, but then he also addressed Jewish associations and the NAACP. He wasn’t bringing religion into politics but addressing various constituences of voters.”

Once again for your reading pleasure, here is Mahinda also addressing “various constituencies”:

http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2010/07/23/president-receives-hindu-adi-vel-procession/

“The bottom line is there is a tradition in Sri Lanka that gives the Buddhist monks the previlege to protect the country when threatened.”

That may be true but it then begs the question whether the current “patriotic” monks are protecting the country or undermining it through idiotic posturing and lack of vision.

I would be personally insulted if you compared hamudurus like Sumangala or Gunananda Theros to modern clowns like Omalpe Sobhitha or Athuraliye Ratana who have made us a laughingstock and made “Sinhala Buddhist” synonymous with genocidal racist. These “patriotic” monks are no different than Devadatta who committed all sorts of misdeeds in the name of his interpretation of the Dhamma (and his own personal ambition).

Fortunately it seems that the JHU is dying out and the current MPs hold their position only by bootlicking King Mahinda.

I left you a response on the Moving away from democracy thread.

“The 1948 constitution was accepted by all as the basis for building a just nation;”

Actually it was designed by the British and put into place without anyone’s input. I’m not surprised that few people in 1972 were attached to it that they put up a strenuous defence on its behalf.

“I think that the existence of the LTTE had put a lid on the Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinism for greater extent during the last 30 years.”

You are dreadfully wrong, and you are not helping your cause at all by trying to attribute good things to the LTTE while pointing out only the negative aspects of the current regime.

If anything, the LTTE helped revive Sinhala nationalism which was fading in the early 1980s as the public was becoming increasingly disenchanted with the govt. JRJ was hoping to scapegoat the Tamils for his failure, and to his great fortune the LTTE killed 13 soldiers in 1983.

The JHU- the very embodiment of everything wrong with the Sinhala Buddhist ethos- appeared in 2004 in response to the govt’s appeasement of LTTE terrorism. Mahinda later won the 2005 election on a Sinhala nationalist platform largely because the non-nationalists had lost credibility (and also because the LTTE prevented Tamils from voting).

“Certainly the Tamils who supported the LTTE appear to be beaten and subjugated…. and contrary to your illusion they too talk to me….. but the others including the Muslim people have a different view… but your arrogance to assume without even knowing the relationship i have with them, that they do not tell me how they feel is both insulting to me and to those people. So in your opinion Tamils speak openly only to Tamils… what a joke??? And you think you can build consensus??? Good Luck but with that attitude.. I have not much hope!!!!”

Yes, going around in circles will achieve nothing. However, I would like to start on this point; almost all Tamils, whether they supported a separate state or not, had no choice but hope that the LTTE was not fully destroyed. This is to do with not out of love for the LTTE but out of fear for their security. At present, they are ambivalent as to how things will pan out. The North is fully under the grip of the military; the EPDP armed gang is terrorising the ordinary people. They do not even talk politics to their neighbours let alone to a stranger! My brother, very recently has been to Jaffna; the people with whom we grew up with would not open their mouth about the goings on; this is the basis of me saying what I said. If you think that the Tamils of Jaffna openly talk about their perceptions, you are very naive indeed!

If you detect arrogance in my posts, then it is the reciprocation to your posts; please re-read what you write before commenting about other peoples’ arrogance! Yes, there are many on these forums, from all communities, who subscribe to a Secular Sri Lanka. We have had this discussion many a times; I am not expecting that it will happen tomorrow, but it will happen at some point.

“You view is that all post independent Govt’s of SL have been devoid of any redeeming qualities and have been evil, existing only to employ discriminatory policies at the expense of the minorities and to emphasize Buddhism to the exclusion of others… While i accept that, wrongs have been committed in the past some very grievous and may even today, it is not some large conspiracy”

My point has been that, after a 30 year war with the Tamil militants; following of course from two insurrections from the Sinhala youth; in the face of over 160,000 to 200,000 people perished on all sides; it is about time that we look at what should be done to bring about harmony. What better way than galvanising all under a common Sri Lankan identity than trying to maintain the status-qua as if to say that the past is immaterial! Everyone; all communities must compromise and come together in harmony; the state should create a platform on which this can materialise. I strongly feel that secularism is fundamental to this quest; equality is one of the pillars of that foundation.

“If as you say –”Sri Lanka practiced majoritaniarism since 1948 and not democracy”
Then by the same standard The US has practiced Majoritaniarism for nearly 200 years until they passed the Civil Rights Act in1964…and even beyond one can argue.. by the same standard Australia has practiced Majoritaniarism Vis a viz their treatment of the Aboriginees untll even as late as the the 70′s.. and Canada has practiced Majoritaniarism for nearly 100 years until their passage of the Bill of Rights in 1960…….”

I totally reject your above arguments. I do not disagree with your claims that many countries openly practiced discrimination; however, this is irrelevant to the Sri Lankan context. In Sri Lanka, both Sinhala and Tamils coexisted, the Muslims later, for many millennia; the Tamils had their own kingdom for over a half a millennium; not to mention the assimilation processes on both sides. Moreover, until 1838 the North & East were separate territory and had no social connection with the rest of the territories. In this context, comparing Sri Lanka with the countries mentioned by you is purely and simply illogical and specious!

“Don’t be ridiculous…how does one prove a negative??? it is an impossibility!! However, if you say it does.. show us the facts…”

Why is it ridiculous? If the state has not been funding, then another body/individual should have been funding the erection of Buddha statues. You can publish on this forum the funding source/s; there is nothing impossible about it at all!

“I think we are just running around in Circles here”

That’s right, and that’s because you’re deliberately taking the argument around in circles, repeating your selected European countries’ constitution ad nauseum when others have already pointed to constitutional amendments in these countries, to the historical context, and also to these countries’ firm commitment to secularism, and how that emphasis on church-state separation was an important part of the Protestant Reformation. These countries you mention are constitutional monarchies, where the king/queen is only a figurehead, a symbol with no power. The fact that the monarch is entrusted with the religion only goes to show how unimportant the religion is to the state and to governance.

As you have said, you don’t want to engage in semantics. Well, words happen to be the crux of argument. “I’d rather look at the totality of actions and their intended purpose!!!”, you say. Good luck with that because everyone will perceive the totality of actions differently and nobody can say what is the “intended purpose” of anything anybody says except in terms of the action it brings forth. If you want to opt out of an argument because you don’t know how to take it forward, just say so.

None of the examples you gave of political leaders in USA and religion talk about a decision to adopt a religious direction in policy-making as Rajapaksa does, i.e. of using the principles of a specific religion to govern. GWB stated a personal belief of his: “I believe” that God wants me to me president. He also merely invokes a “God”, not a Christian God. People can interpret that in accordance with their own belief. To hope for a transcendental power to guide a country is not the same as saying that governance will be according to its principles. As for “the time has come to set aside childish things”—what’s religious in that? Obama also happens to frequently quote from literature and also from non-Christian scriptures. Obama had televised talks with one Christian Evangelist leader, but then he also addressed Jewish associations and the NAACP. He wasn’t bringing religion into politics but addressing various constituences of voters.

Rajapaksa does not stand for the country? I’d like to hear you say that to him and to all those who voted for him! Who makes the day to day decisions that determine the civil life of Sri Lankans? You?

Why do you assume that Sri Lanka will exist forever? It only came into existence in the 1940s—there was no nation called Sri Lanka before that, though there was an island called “Lanka”. So, maybe 100 years from now, there may be no nation called Sri Lanka, after all. Who knows?

You wanted a reference for religious leaders being barred from politics in Denmark:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_National_Church

“Ecuador – I take your word but honestly, is Ecuador the country you want SL to emulate??”

At least it’s not as screwed up as Sri Lanka.

I think it is time to put this matter to rest as i get the feeling we are just going round and round the mulberry bush… So let me just recap and thereafter be silent… You are welcome to rebut!

You view is that all post independent Govt’s of SL have been devoid of any redeeming qualities and have been evil, existing only to employ discriminatory policies at the expense of the minorities and to emphasize Buddhism to the exclusion of others… While i accept that, wrongs have been committed in the past some very grievous and may even today, it is not some large conspiracy … some of these wrongs have been rectified already over time and genuine attempts to rectify these have been also been made… Therefore, my view of SL is very different to yours. I see SL and their Govts fallible but not evil!! You see everything that is happening here through this “evil” prism, hence your stand!!!

If as you say –“Sri Lanka practiced majoritaniarism since 1948 and not democracy” –
Then by the same standard The US has practiced Majoritaniarism for nearly 200 years until they passed the Civil Rights Act in1964…and even beyond one can argue.. by the same standard Australia has practiced Majoritaniarism Vis a viz their treatment of the Aboriginees untll even as late as the the 70’s.. and Canada has practiced Majoritaniarism for nearly 100 years until their passage of the Bill of Rights in 1960 where previously Jews, Canadians of Japanese, origin, Native Americans etc were discriminated against…. and todays France with their Burkha ban, and today’s Switzerland with their Minaret ban… and these are the countries touted as the beacons of democracy!!! I do not think this is so!! However, if you are right then all countries practice or did practice Majoritaniarism in their early years and some even today and maybe this is a common phenomena in their growth in to mature democracies!!! I think you theory of Majoritaniarism is.. in your words “nonsense” .

I say on this forum that, planting Buddha statues are funded by the state; you need to prove me wrong! –

Don’t be ridiculous…how does one prove a negative??? it is an impossibility!! However, if you say it does.. show us the facts… Its easy for anyone to make unsubstantiated claims knowing very well that it is impossible to prove a negative!!! Really, how can you prove something never happened??? So in your book… one is guilty till proven innocent!!! Good Lord what double standards??

“It does not matter whoever you are; do you think that the Tamils will tell you as to how they feel? There voices have been silenced; they appear beaten and subjugated!” –

Certainly the Tamils who supported the LTTE appear to be beaten and subjugated…. and contrary to your illusion they too talk to me….. but the others including the Muslim people have a different view… but your arrogance to assume without even knowing the relationship i have with them, that they do not tell me how they feel is both insulting to me and to those people. So in your opinion Tamils speak openly only to Tamils… what a joke??? And you think you can build consensus??? Good Luck but with that attitude.. I have not much hope!!!!