cyril
July 17, 2012 • 1:44 am

….well that’s only part of the problem.

I see a strong vocal religious minority being a bigger part of the problem.

Small but significant steps taken by successive governments with regards to;

1. Animal Rights (stopping animal sacrifice for religious purposes)
2. Gender Rights (abortion, contraception…)
3. Gay Rights

have been vehemently opposed by religious minority.

As many have suggested, the first step should be to vote for a Secular Constitution so we can say ‘GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR LIVES’ to all the religious bigots.

Dear wijayapala,

If JHU was an insignificant force, nobody would bother to bring in this type of laws. Whatever political solution that is arrived at should be fair by the Sinhalese. That should be their message to the main political parties.

Elle Gunawansa led mobs in 1983. But is that reason enough to accuse all monks who dare to speak up for the rights of Sinhala people as being an impediment to reconciliation?

Dear Navin

“However, in the case of JHU, I would like differentiate between disgraceful monks and JHU’s political message.”

What is the JHU’s “political message” now that there is no LTTE?

“Look at the way, Mr. WR quite liberally says “post-war monks are now an obstruction to reconciliation”. Will he dare say the same about TNA or at least the likes of Sivagnanam Shritharan?”

That is a good question. Similarly, are those who blame Tamil politicians for all the problems able to say the same about Sinhalese who have contributed to the mess, such as Ven. Elle Gunawansa who played a key role during 1983 riots but has never been even investigated?

Even a monk or a moron must have the right to stand for parliament. That is not the business of the state or the law. As a confirmed secularist I am of the view that if religious bodies wish to prevent their quacks from standing they had better incorporate the relevant rules in their own monastic codes. It is not my business nor the duty of the state to prevent religious outfits from making fools of themselves in public.

Separation of state and faith means: No special place in constitution, no money for temples and tamashas, no reserved seats in buses and at functions. If people respect the chaps, they will stand up on their own.

Why a person in a religious garb should or should not enter politics?
In reality and for pragmatic circumstances it does not matter.
There are instances where a priest worked in a water front in order to be able to fight for the workers and he was successful in getting relief for his working community.
BUT SRI LANKA IS DIFFERENT. WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE INCLUDING BUDDHIST PRIESTS WANT TO ENTER POLITICS???
It is very simple, Politics is totally and thoroughly corrupt, Sri Lankans are very innovative Race, they can see the benefits and the loopholes.
They can smell blood a mile away, they have mastered the art of manipulation.
Pardon my saying The Sinhala Buddhists of this Country who took the power of Administration since 1948, has woven around it a maze of amendments, and they too are lost in this maze.
Now they are drunk with power and greed and their imagination is running riot. They are imagining that Towers, Airports and High rise buildings is developement. They are Prostituting this Country.
They honestly think that because they are the majority anything is possible. They rationalize very well and twist any debate in their favour.
You see this Mania I believe started with Premadasa.
He compared himself with the “President” of any Country as equals.
He compared Sri Lanka to any other Country, big or small rich or poor.
The Presidency is equal to another Presidency.seems logical
A father is equal to any other father. seems logical. BUT THE PROBLEM IS
THAT EVERY PRESIDENT AND EVERY FATHER cannot match the other father or another President, it would depend on a series of factors.
The details are far too many and I would leave it to your evaluation.
WE ARE NOT A INTELLIGENT RACE AS A WHOLE, EXCEPTIONS YES.
WE ARE AN OPPORTUNISTIC RACE, WE ARE ABLE TO BEND THE LAWS WHERE AT ONE TIME IF YOU CROSS OVER YOU ARE DISQUALIFIED THE OTHER TIME THE LAW SAYS IT OK.
FOR A VOTING POPULATION OF 14 MILLION WE HAVE OVER 55 REGISTERED POLITICAL PARTIES ALL SINHALA PARTIES.
England and America has about 4 political parties.
India may be having about 60 political parties for a voting population of about 900 million.
So coming back to the original question, Buddhist Priests should not enter Politics.
Because they will never be able to put up a common front, for the common good of this Country, they are divisive.
If more of them enter Parliament it will be “I assure you, worse that the Taliban entering Parliament.
THAT WILL BE THE FINAL DESTRUCTION OF THIS COUNTRY.
YOU AND I WILL BE LOOKING FOR A BOAT TO ESCAPE ILLEGALLY.
Thanks

Thanks for that link.

Agree 100% with Cyril and Strike-one.

With regards to what Mr. WR is giving as his reasons, should we support him? Mr. WR has missed the point in the argument from a secularist point of view.
“Mr. Rajapakshe avers that the bill aims to enhance, not dilute, the status of the sangha as advisors to the rulers of the country, in line with their role for centuries” is not a position that can be supported by us Secularist. In fact it is exactly what secularism oppose.

The only reason that the Sanga should be prevented from taking part in politics is because our constitution presently gives Buddhism a foremost place. Therefore, in a democracy, members of such a group would have unfair advantage over other groups. Imagine if the constitution gave the SLFP a foremost place. Would it not give the members of SLFP an unfair advantage? And would everybody oppose it? Yes, because it goes completely against democratic principles.

All clear thinking citizen who want to create a secular society which is fair to all, should be arguing along these lines and oppose any Sanga from entering politics UNTIL they are stripped of the unfair advantages that our present constitution gives them.

A level playing field is the most basic value for fairness and a just society.

Readers can watch the Derana TV debate referenced in Sanjana’s interview at http://sinhala.adaderana.lk/talk_show.php (10-7-2012) where Mr. Rajapakshe discusses this bill with Ven. Omalpe Sobitha, the leader of the JHU.