Religion, non-religion, and human rights
Posted on July 7th, 2019

By Mario Perera, Kadawata

I do not know whether Mangala Samaraweera is the adherent of a religion. I only know, from a photo published in the newspapers some time back, that he has no respect for the Lord Buddha. The photo showed him holding a Buddha statue by the neck and behind his person. I remember the strong criticisms levelled against him for that act, which if done by a Catholic with regard to a statue of Jesus, would have been considered as being sacrilegious. But Mangala S. as do other high ranking politicians, visits the Temple of the Sacred Tooth Relic, pays his respects and obeisance, and then visits the Mahanayakes for the same purpose. In Sinhala you call all this ‘AS BANTHUNG’

But Samaraweera’s problems with Buddhism are of a wider scale. Recently even when Hindu and Muslim political leaders openly stated that Sri Lanka is a Sinhala Buddhist country, Samaraweera publicly declared it was NOT. Also a venerable monk recently pronounced Samaraweera to be a persona non grata in Buddhist temples. It was also said that Samaraweera’s name should not be displayed in the precincts of Buddhist Temples.

Since recently Samaraweera has been going hammer and tong against the Cardinal Archbishop. The latter was accused by Samaraweera of fanning religious conflicts. Now the Cardinal has been taken to task for his stand against the imposition of the ‘human rights’ ideology on Sri Lanka. Samaraweera’s view has been seconded by a lawyer who calls himself a Catholic. What the Cardinal said was that Sri Lanka with its religious background had nothing to learn from the West about human rights.

Delving into what the Cardinal said, religions are rooted in the human conscience, while concepts such as ‘human rights’ are mainly, even purely political weapons. Indeed when one reflects on all the ongoing military conflicts in the world, and the crimes against humanity that are being perpetrated, all ten fingers could only point at those ardent promoters and defenders of HUMAN RIGHTS.

This brings .us to the pivotal issue. Since when did this ‘human rights’ concept emerge and take root in the Western consciousness? That happened at a time the world was divided by the Western capitalist powers into two blocks: FREE and COMMUNIST. The West posed as defenders of PRO-HUMAN values while the communist block, literally the iron curtain countries were branded as anti-human. At that time the West prided itself and put on show its open arm policy about welcoming into its fold all who fled from the communist block.

But now the iron curtain has fallen. It will be remembered that the architect of that fall was no other than Pope John-Paul 11. It was the anti-communist revolution in Poland inspired and promoted by the Pope that brought about the domino effect on other iron curtain countries. Ever since the iron curtain ceased to be and since the two block division of the world has been done away with the emergence of new powers, the human rights issue has lost its universal impact and is seen as a partisan Western weapon to promote its political dominance, in spite of the erosion of its moral foundation. It is now nothing more than the cloth bandage over the eyes of nations ready to say ‘EHEY SWAMINI’ to them, the qualification for receiving loans.

Where do Sri Lankan non-adepts of religions stand in this matter? How were their consciences formed? Was it by Western human rights activism or by the religious foundations on which this country stands? The answer is so obvious that only a West dependent brain and loan money ambitions of Samaraweera and his ilk would fail to see.

The iron curtain fell a long time ago. They are now being replaced or intended to be replaced by concrete walls by the foremost proponent of HUMAN RIGHTS. Finally there is only one difference between the communist iron curtain, and the American concrete curtain. The former was set in place to keep the hungry, the starving, the sick, and the impoverished within the wall. The latter curtain has as its objective to keep all such people whose plight is largely due to American hegemony politics, outside the wall. ‘Human rights’ politics have lost every conceivable moral purpose for its being.

Mario Perera,


3 Responses to “Religion, non-religion, and human rights”

  1. Ancient Sinhalaya Says:

    Buddhism bashing is to please tamils, mussies and catholics who are their block votes. Mega lies are for Sinhala
    modayas. Then traitor alugosuwa (against Sinhalese Buddhists, Buddhism and Sri Lanka only) thambi
    mudiyanselage jr@’s constitution to tweak for UNPatriotic_rats to run to courts and get the verdict in their favour.
    Plant some yes men at the judiciary and UNPatriotic_rats can party happily ever after.

    Thambi mudiyanselage jr@ started the total rot of Sinhalese race, Sri Lanka and Buddhism. Now its disciples
    putting the finishing touches to bury Sinhalese race, Buddhism and Sri Lanka for good. But these traitor anti Sri
    Lanka, anti Buddhist, anti Sinhalese UNPatriotic_rats don’t know there are no Buddhists in former Buddhist iran, afganisthan, pakesthan, bangladesh, malaysia and indonesia (very few left in the latter 3 and are being
    persecuted severely). But most of the UNPatriotic_rats don’t care since top rung doesn’t have any off spring.

  2. Ananda-USA Says:

    Sri Lanka Reconsiders the Nature of Its Relationship With Saudi Arabia

    July 10 (Soufan) Concerns over the spread of Saudi-funded Wahhabism throughout religious institutions, charities and mosques are not new. For decades, Riyadh has spent millions or more to spread an austere version of Islam throughout Southeast Asia, Africa, Europe, and elsewhere.

    The money is earmarked specifically to build Wahhabi mosques and train hardline preachers to take the Saudi version of the faith back to their home countries. Sri Lanka is just the latest country to take a more discerning look at precisely what the Saudis are funding in their country and what the implications might be. This comes as the government is still dealing with the impact of the devastating terrorist attacks that occurred this past April on Easter Sunday that were targeted against churches and hotels frequented by Westerners that killed at least 250 people. The Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attacks, which were carried out by nine Sri Lankan members of a local terrorist group

    The investigations into the attacks are still ongoing, and hundreds of people have been detained for alleged involvement. At the center of the inquiry are concerns over Saudi-funded institutions and possible connections to Salafi jihadist ideology. In May, police arrested the founder of the Saudi-supported Centre for Islamic Guidance, Mohamed Aliyar, on charges related to the financing of terrorism. Aliyar had links to Zahran Hasim, a radical preacher who mentored many of the Easter-attack bombers. Locals have claimed that they relayed concerns to security officials about Hasim�s extremism, although these leads were never acted upon. Other prominent Sri Lankan Muslim leaders have also come under scrutiny as authorities review financial transactions between Saudi Arabia and religious leaders in the South Asian island nation. Several of these leaders have been forced to step down due to pressure from politically influential Buddhist monks.

    Read More:: Soufan (Source)

  3. Ananda-USA Says:

    Landmark FR case before Supreme Court :Teacher petitions right to wear Abaya, Hijab
    Wednesday, July 10, 2019 – 01:10

    Lakmal Sooriyagoda

    The Supreme Court yesterday allowed a Fundamental Rights petition by a female school teacher seeking an Interim Order staying the school authorities and State from preventing her from reporting to work at school wearing an Abaya and Hijab.

    The Supreme Court three-judge bench comprising Justices Sisira De Abrew, Murdu Fernando and S. Thurairaja fixed the case for support on September 4.

    The petitioner, Mohamed Ibrahim Fathima Zahrin, 44, a teacher in a school in Kandy, filed this petition challenging the operation of the provisions of the Public Administration Circular No. 13/2019 dated 29th May 2019, which denies the right to wear an Abaya.

    Meanwhile, Additional Solicitor General Indika Demuni De Silva appearing for the Attorney General informed court that after the filing of the case, a new public administration circular dated 26.06.2019 has been published, making it clear that there is no prohibition on wearing the Abaya and Hijab.

    In view of this development, the Court re-fixed the matter for support on September 4 with the agreement of counsel, to enable the petitioner to see whether steps are taken to comply with the position that there now should not be any obstruction to the wearing of the Abaya and Hijab.

    Senior Counsel Viran Corea with counsel Thilini Vidanagamage instructed by Latheef Ashar appeared for the petitioner.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.



Copyright © 2021 All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress