Churchill on Islam – not too different from Kusal on Theravada Buddhism ….. read on – and when Tunisia and the rest wake up ask yourselves where the embers were, and who and what nurtured and cherished the inner strength of these people …. human rights??? yea
in their broadest sense – not in this narrow slavish sense that the pseudo cosmopolitans of colombo imitate – get real!

CHURCHILL ON ISLAM

Unbelievable, but the speech below was written in 1899! (check Wikipedia – The River War)

I am sending the attached short speech from Winston Churchill, delivered by him in 1899 when he was a young soldier and journalist. It probably sets out the current views of many but expressed in the wonderful Churchillian turn of phrase and use of the English language, of which he was a past master.

He was a brave young soldier, a brilliant journalist, an extraordinary politician and statesman, a great war leader and Prime Minister, to whom the Western world must be forever in his debt. He was a prophet in his own time; He died on 24 January 1965, at the grand old age of 90 and, after a lifetime of service to his country, was accorded a State funeral.

HERE IS THE SPEECH:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

Sir Winston Churchill; (Source: The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 London

Fortunate we are
To live in these times
When all belief
Is open to question
And nothing indeed
Is sacrosanct

Fortunate we are
To live in these times
When all security
Is stripped away
To reveal
An anxious human being

So don’t climb up
Another tree
To look down
On your fellow beings

Welcome back
To share with us
This hard and awkward
Earth

APPROACHES TO EFFECTIVE CRITICISM OF BUDDHIST DOGMA AND PRACTICE

In the journey of a Buddhist born as a Buddhist in this country nominal creed comes first and this may in time ripen into a dominant conviction. The nominal creed includes many beliefs and many practices that are not strictly Buddhist but they are part of the natural adulteration that takes place through the inter-mingling of the faith with popular practice and sometimes with political religion. In criticizing these false beliefs and practices there are certain approaches that seem ill-advised. When we look at the whole survival mentality of Buddhists that began during the British occupation and continued thereafter with the struggles against the English speaking elites and finally with Tamils it is very clear that the Buddhist leadership has now mastered the art of confrontation and disputation – in short politics has become second nature to them.

As such all challenges that emanate from various quarters are pre-identified and disposed of in a very professional and political way. Some of the strongest responses are given to arguments based on western norms. These norms, according to popular thinking are only an institutional lie to cover up the desires of the westernised elite to continue their domination of the masses. This is especially so when those western concepts are presented as ‘universal norms’ that shut out criticism and discussion instead of opening the doors to a dialogue.

In fact even some of the new engaged Buddhist approaches that come closest to the spirit of Buddhism can be attacked as new fangled machinations of the Dalai Lama and other westerners who have arrogated the dhamma that priceless gem of which the highest guardian is the Sinhala Buddhist – to themselves. When the texts are the ultimate touch stone of spiritual authenticity any attempt to set up other sources attract immediate suspicion, if not resentment.

All these aspects leave a number of approaches intact for the effective criticism of Buddhist dogma. First and foremost is our personal example. A life that is lived with wisdom and compassion cannot be rivalled by any verbal approach. It also gives credibility to the voice which is then used for the purpose of advocacy.

Another approach is to avoid direct confrontation and seek a closer level of interaction with the offending Buddhists. This gives a better insight into their behaviour and places you in a stronger position by removing the whole confrontational environment. Another idea is to emphasize the positives rather than the negatives. Silence is of course another time honoured practice as by giving attention to something bad you may serve to keep it alive.

Finally one of the most effective ways of challenging Buddhist dogma is to set up the dominant conviction of Buddhists as a clear alternative. For example:

It is the nominal creed here that Buddhists are the majority (being 70%) of the population. Now the Buddha said very clearly that one is not born a Brahmin but can only become one through right action. Here we use the substance of Buddhism to expose the fallacy of form.
This approach is well taken by Ven Walpola Rahula in his Sinhala book satyodaya – the dawn of truth. Many false beliefs are well criticized and exposed using the powerful logic of the Buddha’s own teachings.

More recently Manuka Wijesinghe has taken the same approach in Theravada Man

There is no doubt that the Kalama Sutta must be revived and be fully utilized in reviving our critical tradition. On of the key aspects of this sutta is the need for a benevolent state of mind when deciding philosophical issues.

Strong value systems or their derivative practices can be attacked from outside but they almost always fail to make an impression because arguments proceed on the basis of two value systems at a superficial level without ever realizing the common core of universality that lies beneath both. On the other hand where the participants have depth a rich dialogue can take place between different value systems and cultures without the risk of offending and misunderstanding.

So come on, Heshan, quote us a portion of Mandel’s text that proves Hitler’s anti-Christianity. You spend a lot of time stamping your foot and insisting, but cannot actually show us the proof 😀

“In fact, I quoted directly from yet another text, called “Hitler’s table-talk”, that shows his anti-semitism”

Er… yes, the Holocaust kinda tipped us off that he was anti-Semitic, but the question is whether he was anti-Chistian 😀 Got any proof of that [Edited out]?

”
One detailed publication that describes how Hitler was anti-Christian was written by Jewish writer Julie Seltzer Mandel…”

A “publication” is a text. I guess they didn’t teach you that in government school. In fact, I quoted directly from yet another text, called “Hitler’s table-talk”, that shows his anti-semitism.

“I think you have fallen prey into Tamil propaganda against Sinhalese.”

You are wrong. I am saying that the Jaffna kingdom in medieval times was not a “Tamil nation.” You do not understand my argument at all, perhaps because you may not have studied Sri Lankan history, which may explain why you have not provided evidence to back your claims when I asked for it.

Thank you for the link, but I already saw the article and comments and responded to the Eelamists. Clearly you have missed my comments there.

“Some Tamils their ancestor was Ravana.”

I have not seen anyone in Groundviews make this claim, and I do not think anyone in dbsjeyaraj.com made that claim either. However, when I say that the Jaffna kingdom was not “illegitimate,” you have no responses.

On the other hand there are Sinhalese like Douglas Wickramaratne who claim that Sinhalese were descended from Ravana.

1. What facts do you have to say Ravana is an ancestor of Tamils?

2. What facts do you have to say that the inhabitants of the country were Tamils when Vijaya came.

3. If the Tamils were decedents of the inhabitants when Vijaya came here in 600 BC, why there was no Tamil dynasty from 600 BC to 1200’s until the Aryachakravarthi? Doesn’t “No Tamil kings” during that period mean there was no Tamil community during that period over 1800 years after Vijaya came here? Doesn’t it indicate present Tamil population started after the Aryachakravarthi invaded Sri Lanka? Can a community contunue without without a ruler? How do you fill that gap? Please not that Sihalese had unbroken rule of kings from 600BC until the Britishes captured our last king, for an unbroken period of over 2300 years. You can claim a separate king only for the period of 1215-1624 CE and that is only for the Jaffna peninsula. Further,those kings too are not of Sri Lankan origin, but came from India as invaders. All in all none can claim that Sri Lankan Tamil king had ruled even an inch of this country even for a single day.

3. Some Tamils try to say there were parallel Sinhala and Tamil cultures growing from the early inhabitants. Then how come Tamils had no rulers until 13th century while Sinhalese had an uninterrupted rulers? Si Lanka had no single Tamil king arise from the ancient inhabitants. Why is that?

4. Some try to say Sinhalese were outsiders and they took the country by force from “ancient Tamils”. Then from where Sinhalese came here, and what happened to the original inhabitant(they say Tamils),until the
Sinhalese spread through out the country? How come a totally different language called Sinhala developed in the country? How come historical monuments of Sinhalese are present all over the country, including Jaffna peninsula, while there are no ancient Tamil monuments in the country? Why there are no signs of your civilisation, as of Sinhalese? Sinhalese have built over 2500 Wevas (Irrigation tanks) in the country and many thousands of shrines (Dagabas). Why Tamils don’t have the signs of their so called ancient civilisation?

Can anybody answer these questions? I have many more. Do you still want to take my questions as a joke? Don’t give false excuses. Please answer the problems/contradictions arising from your false theories.

Thanks!

Thanks!

So you’re unable to find even a single text that shows Hitler’s anti-Christian bent? 😀

David,

RE: “However, as we see here in SL and India, even peaceful religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism can be misinterpreted by people to justify their unscrupulous acts.”

I accept your points. The only thing I don’t agree with is:

RE: “You’re basically agreeing with Kusal’s theory that because the religion is flawed, its adherents are misguided and thereby their actions are flawed.”

I think Kusal’s theory holds no water, mainly because there doesn’t seem to be anything in Sri Lanka that cannot be accounted for by faults in Buddhism. Yet, other countries display these same pathologies, but they don’t follow Buddhism. Ergo, the theory makes no sense. Unless Kusal writes a more targeted essay that specifically isolates Buddhism over other variables as the causative factor for some pathology, his essay degenerates into a frustrated rant in search of a scapegoat.

Buddhism can be just as silly as any other religion, but not more so than others, and it’s certainly not as equally destructive. This is why I went ahead with comparing donkeys and mules, to show that certain religions like Christianity had done far worse, although you are right in saying that it’s a mostly pointless exercise. Sadly, Kusal seems disinterested in addressing any of these points, raised at various times by others, and appears content with Heshan’s cogent, water-tight arguments which have amply demonstrated that one need not be even mildly inconvenienced by logic and reason when participating in public discourse.