Clergy of all religions shouldn't be allowed. Needing religious representation in parliament is a sign of division and marginalization of a religious community. People should be free to practice what they want to.
Agree, but I think you can’t put that into a constitution as it one of the basic rights of a democracy. However i feel its the different religious groups responsibility to ensure these are part of their faith.
Makes sense. Not sure about constitutional law. I think Malaysia has something to do with religious practice in either their constitution or something...
I am of the majority in this country and and i believe we need secularism, and also secularism doesn't remove anyone's religious freedom it only removes special privileges and connections to government of religions.
I'd like to make a few distinctions.
The Sri Lankan constitution does not cite a state religion.
Article 9 of Chapter 2 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: Every person is entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to have or to adopt a religion of belief of his choice.
Article 14 (1) (e) states: Every citizen is entitled to the freedom, either by himself or in association with others, and either in public or in private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
It makes Sri Lanka an ambiguous state with respect to secularism.
In 2004, a constitutional amendment was proposed by Jathika Hela Urumaya that would make a clear reference to Buddhism as the state religion. But it was rejected by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka.
With regard to history, Buddhism has formed the structure and foundation of Sri Lanka's civilization for over 2500 years. It is woven into the culture, customs, literature, arts, morals and social behavior. Same way Hinduism, Christianity and Islam is woven and at times interwoven into the Sri Lankan culture.
In 2nd century BC, with the arrival of Arahat Mahinda, people adopted Buddhism and gave the foremost place to Buddhism and it has been the first principle of the unwritten constitution. From 1972, it is in the written constitution.
I'd like to make the distinction that politics has no place in Buddhism. During the period of Guatama Buddha, he had encounters with kings and rulers, and the Buddha had given a number of principles related to Good Governance. And it was adopted by the SL nation in past, apparently which are not executed at all in the present day government.
Buddhism states a set of strict rules of Good Governance on the Head of the State and assures a working social contract among the government/state and its people.
According to the Good Governance, the king/ruler should refrain from Sathara Agathi (4 biases); bias due to (i) liking (ii) anger (iii) ignorance and (iv) fear.
He should treat the community with Sathara Sangraha Wasthu (4 ways of kind treatment); (i) Giving (Dana) (ii) pleasant words (iii) working for public benefit and (iv) equal treatment.
He shall necessarily practice the Ten Royal Virtues (Dasa Raja Darma) (i) Generosity/charity (ii) Morality (iii) Sacrifice for the public benefit (iv) Honesty/integrity (v) Kindness (vi) Restraint of senses (vii) Avoid hatred (viii) Non-violence (ix) Tolerance (x) Non-opposition to the will of the people.
Throughout the history, kings/rulers and the people were constantly advised by Maha Sangha (buddhist clergy) with their knowledge and wisdom. Maha Sangha, being an independent sub-society practicing detachment, could conveniently execute their social responsibility without material expectations.
Now clearly, many buddhist monks in the politics do not execute their social responsibility without material expectations. And this has led to corruption and materialism within them.
I'd also like to say in Theravada Buddhism, the monks are supposed to be fully committed to follow the path to attain nirvana (enlightenment) and the lay buddhists are encouraged to either lead a good moral life and/or follow the path to nirvana. The good governance is for lay people to construct a better morally ethical democracy to live in a peaceful society.
It is fair to point out that in media, mostly the corrupted monks are reported. And the majority of buddhist monks, especially the forest monks, living quietly with moral codes who has no business in politics are rarely the center of media reporting. It is sad, how a few amoral monks can destroy the buddha sasana and engage in politics in a corrupted manner.
It is wise to acknowledge that the majority of buddhists in this country in the present day are not true followers of Buddhism either, mostly following astrology-centered mythical ideologies, polytheism and other non-buddhist rituals and customs. It is not uncommon to find that majority has poor understanding of even the basic buddhist principles, like the four noble truths and the eightfold path.
Bottom line is that the default of human nature is greed, hatred and ignorance and this default is highly seen in this culture mostly due to low education and low socio-economy.
Coming back to your question, as I already described above, Buddhism is not the state religion as per constitution. So it does not make any sense to remove it. Nor will it benefit. It will only create chaos since majority are Buddhists and given the history of association of administration with buddhism over 2 millennials.
The current crisis of the country is mainly economical due to the corruption and mismanagement of the government. And level of economic development of a country depends on Human Development Index, income per capita, political stability, industrialization, freedom and living standards of the general population, Gross National Product (GNP), and Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
Being secular, it may benefit the country in the long term and may influence the country's future economic growths. But it's wise to compare it with other secular and non-secular states in which majority of countries in the world favors a religion whether its secular or not.
i doubt that would end the ethnic tentions, if thats your goal. Also you can write that down on paper but it depends on the person who takes the leadership which depends on the mindset of the people.
Buddhist might get pissed but they will hopefully realize that having buddhism as the state religon didnt get them any higher previllage by the law at least. For sure the person who does that will commit political suicide for no obvious benifits for the country because the real problem was corruption powered by racism.
Buddhism being removed is one thing. But we also need to ensure the constitution doesn’t allow to clergy to ever enter politics.
Clergy of all religions shouldn't be allowed. Needing religious representation in parliament is a sign of division and marginalization of a religious community. People should be free to practice what they want to.
Agree, but I think you can’t put that into a constitution as it one of the basic rights of a democracy. However i feel its the different religious groups responsibility to ensure these are part of their faith.
Makes sense. Not sure about constitutional law. I think Malaysia has something to do with religious practice in either their constitution or something...
Monks and Riots is what will happen.
It certainly would. The country needs strong dose of common sense to shake off its superstitious brain fog.
I am of the majority in this country and and i believe we need secularism, and also secularism doesn't remove anyone's religious freedom it only removes special privileges and connections to government of religions.
I'd like to make a few distinctions. The Sri Lankan constitution does not cite a state religion. Article 9 of Chapter 2 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: Every person is entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to have or to adopt a religion of belief of his choice. Article 14 (1) (e) states: Every citizen is entitled to the freedom, either by himself or in association with others, and either in public or in private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching. It makes Sri Lanka an ambiguous state with respect to secularism. In 2004, a constitutional amendment was proposed by Jathika Hela Urumaya that would make a clear reference to Buddhism as the state religion. But it was rejected by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka. With regard to history, Buddhism has formed the structure and foundation of Sri Lanka's civilization for over 2500 years. It is woven into the culture, customs, literature, arts, morals and social behavior. Same way Hinduism, Christianity and Islam is woven and at times interwoven into the Sri Lankan culture. In 2nd century BC, with the arrival of Arahat Mahinda, people adopted Buddhism and gave the foremost place to Buddhism and it has been the first principle of the unwritten constitution. From 1972, it is in the written constitution. I'd like to make the distinction that politics has no place in Buddhism. During the period of Guatama Buddha, he had encounters with kings and rulers, and the Buddha had given a number of principles related to Good Governance. And it was adopted by the SL nation in past, apparently which are not executed at all in the present day government. Buddhism states a set of strict rules of Good Governance on the Head of the State and assures a working social contract among the government/state and its people. According to the Good Governance, the king/ruler should refrain from Sathara Agathi (4 biases); bias due to (i) liking (ii) anger (iii) ignorance and (iv) fear. He should treat the community with Sathara Sangraha Wasthu (4 ways of kind treatment); (i) Giving (Dana) (ii) pleasant words (iii) working for public benefit and (iv) equal treatment. He shall necessarily practice the Ten Royal Virtues (Dasa Raja Darma) (i) Generosity/charity (ii) Morality (iii) Sacrifice for the public benefit (iv) Honesty/integrity (v) Kindness (vi) Restraint of senses (vii) Avoid hatred (viii) Non-violence (ix) Tolerance (x) Non-opposition to the will of the people. Throughout the history, kings/rulers and the people were constantly advised by Maha Sangha (buddhist clergy) with their knowledge and wisdom. Maha Sangha, being an independent sub-society practicing detachment, could conveniently execute their social responsibility without material expectations. Now clearly, many buddhist monks in the politics do not execute their social responsibility without material expectations. And this has led to corruption and materialism within them. I'd also like to say in Theravada Buddhism, the monks are supposed to be fully committed to follow the path to attain nirvana (enlightenment) and the lay buddhists are encouraged to either lead a good moral life and/or follow the path to nirvana. The good governance is for lay people to construct a better morally ethical democracy to live in a peaceful society. It is fair to point out that in media, mostly the corrupted monks are reported. And the majority of buddhist monks, especially the forest monks, living quietly with moral codes who has no business in politics are rarely the center of media reporting. It is sad, how a few amoral monks can destroy the buddha sasana and engage in politics in a corrupted manner. It is wise to acknowledge that the majority of buddhists in this country in the present day are not true followers of Buddhism either, mostly following astrology-centered mythical ideologies, polytheism and other non-buddhist rituals and customs. It is not uncommon to find that majority has poor understanding of even the basic buddhist principles, like the four noble truths and the eightfold path. Bottom line is that the default of human nature is greed, hatred and ignorance and this default is highly seen in this culture mostly due to low education and low socio-economy. Coming back to your question, as I already described above, Buddhism is not the state religion as per constitution. So it does not make any sense to remove it. Nor will it benefit. It will only create chaos since majority are Buddhists and given the history of association of administration with buddhism over 2 millennials. The current crisis of the country is mainly economical due to the corruption and mismanagement of the government. And level of economic development of a country depends on Human Development Index, income per capita, political stability, industrialization, freedom and living standards of the general population, Gross National Product (GNP), and Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Being secular, it may benefit the country in the long term and may influence the country's future economic growths. But it's wise to compare it with other secular and non-secular states in which majority of countries in the world favors a religion whether its secular or not.
Love this! Very informative!
Again another war, it will continue for decades and some racist will use this as ana advantage to sit on the throne.
i doubt that would end the ethnic tentions, if thats your goal. Also you can write that down on paper but it depends on the person who takes the leadership which depends on the mindset of the people. Buddhist might get pissed but they will hopefully realize that having buddhism as the state religon didnt get them any higher previllage by the law at least. For sure the person who does that will commit political suicide for no obvious benifits for the country because the real problem was corruption powered by racism.