{"id":98178,"date":"2020-01-23T23:07:37","date_gmt":"2020-01-24T05:07:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/?p=98178"},"modified":"2020-01-23T16:05:24","modified_gmt":"2020-01-23T23:05:24","slug":"why-secularism-is-good-for-sri-lanka","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/2020\/01\/23\/why-secularism-is-good-for-sri-lanka\/","title":{"rendered":"Why secularism is good for Sri Lanka"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Rohana R. Wasala Courtesy The Island<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n

Secularism and nationalism are two terms which are deliberately\nmisdefined by internal and external destabilizing agents in various forms in\nthe current political context in Sri Lanka for confusing and misleading the\nlargely monolingual Sinhala or Tamil speaking electorate. Properly understood,\nsecularism will be found to be quite compatible with the country\u2019s\naccommodating religious background, which is predominantly Buddhist and Hindu.\nSimilarly, these diabolical destabilizers and their mindless dupes attack the\nrising nationalism as something  reactionary that is not found in the\nWest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The purpose of such verbal misrepresentation is not far to seek:\nit is to suppress the emergence of a truly independent stable state where the\nmajority and minority communities live together in peace and harmony as equal\ncitizens while realizing their potential for achieving contentment and\nhappiness in accordance with their different ethnic and cultural identities and\nworldviews, without having to experience any discrimination based on those\ndifferences. Such suppression seems to be the wish of the powers that be whose\nagendas prescribe a politically destabilized and economically disabled Sri\nLanka. Here I will focus only on what secularism  means and why it need not\ncause any anxiety among Sri Lankans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The word secularism is usually translated into Sinhala as\n\u2018anaagamika\u2019 (not concerned with religion, not having to do with religion),\nwhich is usually misunderstood by common people as meaning anti-religion, or\nrejective or dismissive of religious values. This, I think, is mainly because\nof the term\u2019s novelty. Hypocritical anti-Sinhala Buddhist champions of sham\nreconciliation propagate this misconception. What the word actually means in\nthe relevant (political) context does not involve a rejection of religious\nvalues or any hostility towards religion in the affairs of ordinary life. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In terms of general dictionary definitions, secularism involves\nthe rejection or exclusion of religion from social and political activities, or\nneutrality towards religion in these spheres, which is not a bad thing. But\nlet\u2019s go to the origins of secularism in the West. The idea of\nseparation  between church and state\u201d came to prominence in political\ndiscussion after its advent in a letter dated January 1, 1802, written by\nThomas Jefferson (1743-1826), who was the principal author of the American\nDeclaration of Independence of 1776 and the third president of the USA, among\nother things. It was addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in\nConnecticut. The letter was later published in a Massachusetts newspaper.\nJefferson was a steadfast advocate of democracy, republicanism, and individual\nrights and freedoms. He wrote thus in the above mentioned letter:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018Believing with\nyou that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that\nhe owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate\npowers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with\nsovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that\ntheir legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of\nreligion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall\nof separation between Church & State\u2026.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The phrase\n\u2018separation of church and state\u2019 is actually a rewording from the First\nAmendment (1791) to the US Constitution. However, the idea behind separation\nbetween Church and State\u201d did not originate with Jefferson. The credit for that\ngoes to an Englishman who preceded him by nearly one and a half centuries,\nRoger Williams (1603-1683). Williams was a Puritan minister, theologian and\nwriter. (Puritans were English Protestants who sought to free the Church of\nEngland from Roman Catholic influence and its practices.) He was the 9th\npresident of the Colony of Rhode Island and the founder of Providence\nPlantations on the east coast of America. Williams supported religious freedom,\nseparation of church and state, and fairness in transactions with American\nIndians. He was a pioneer abolitionist, who organized events urging the\nabolition of slavery in the American colonies. Roger Williams was expelled by\nthe Puritan leadership from the Massachusetts Bay Colony for propagating new\nand dangerous ideas\u201d. In Thomas Jefferson\u2019s language we hear echoes of this\nearlier revolutionary politician who, in 1644, wrote of the time<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018When they [the\nChurch] have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden\nof the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the\nwall itself, removed the Candlestick, etc., and made His Garden a wilderness as\nit is this day. And that therefore if He will ever please to restore His garden\nand paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself\nfrom the world, and all that be saved out of the world are to be transplanted\nout of the wilderness of the World\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The term\n\u2018secularism\u2019 itself was coined by British writer George Jacob Holyoake\n(1817-1906), an agnostic, to describe his idea of a social order that is\nseparate from religion. Like his predecessors in his line of thought, Roger\nWilliams and Thomas Jefferson, George Holyoake did not actively dismiss or\ncriticise religious belief, though he did so as a private person. Jefferson\ndidn\u2019t go that far in his secularism, but he was unorthodox in his religious\nbeliefs and rejected such doctrines as that Jesus was the promised Messiah or\nthat he was the incarnate Son of God. All these secularists accepted the moral\ncode of Christianity, while refusing to mix government with religion. So,\nJefferson\u2019s attitude was that the government should be indifferent to the\nChurch: religion should not be persecuted, nor specially protected. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Holyoake\u2019s\nfollowing argument was compatible with Jefferson\u2019s enunciations:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 \u2018Secularism\nis not an argument against Christianity, it is one independent of it. It does\nnot question the pretensions of Christianity; it advances others. Secularism\ndoes not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there\nis light and guidance in secular truth, whose conditions and sanctions exist\nindependently, and act forever. Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of\nknowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this\nlife, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by\nthe experience of this life.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Holyoake also\ndescribed secularism in more positive terms (in his 1896 publication \u2018English\nSecularism\u2019):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018Secularism is a\ncode of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human,\nand intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate,\nunreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three: (1) The\nimprovement of this life by material means. (2) That science is the available\nProvidence of man. (3) That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good\nor not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that\ngood.\u2019 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Professor Barry\nKosmin of the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture\ndivides modern secularism into two types as hard and soft: Hard secularism\nconsiders \u2018religious propositions to be epistemologically illegitimate,\nwarranted neither by reason nor experience\u2019; according to soft secularism \u2018the\nattainment of absolute truth was impossible, and therefore skepticism and\ntolerance should be the principle and overriding values in the discussion of\nscience and religion\u2019. According to the Wikipedia as of January 11, 2020 (which\nis the source I consulted in developing my  argument up to this point and\nwhich is also the source of all the extracts given above), contemporary ethical\ndebate in the West is predominantly secular; the work of well known moral\nphilosophers like Derek Parfit and Peter Singer, and the whole field of\nbioethics (that is, ethics of medical and biological research) are described as\nclearly secular or non-religious. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is a fallacy\nto believe that secular states in the West are indifferent or hostile to\nreligion. Former British PM David Cameron (2010-2016) took pride in claiming\nthat the British are a Christian nation; he described what his government had\ndone to support the Church. His predecessor Tony Blair was fanatical about his\nChristian faith. The Americans flaunt their faith even in their currency\nnotes.Evangelical Lutheran Christianity was the state religion of Norway until\na constitutional amendment in 2012; even after that, though, the state of\nNorway continues financial support to the Lutheran Church of Norway where\nLutheran Christians form 69.9% the population, with non-affiliates, Muslims and\nCatholics accounting for 17.4%, 3.3%, and 3% respectively, according to 2018\nfigures. Though these avowedly secular states are, for the most part, protected\nby the enlightened principle of a \u2018wall of separation between church and\nstate\u2019, they can\u2019t exist in denial of their traditional religious culture that\ndecides the moral standards of the ordinary society. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nconstitutional makers of the Yahapalanaya were determined to make Sri Lanka a\n\u2018secular\u2019 state by denying Buddhism the prominence given by Article 9 of the\ncurrent constitution. They and the anti-national forces they represented held\nthat giving special recognition to Buddhism was prejudicial to other religions.\nIt was apparently because of that they supported secularism. But it is a known\nfact that the country\u2019s  Buddhist cultural background is the best guarantor\nof the rights of other religions. Some others of the same bandwagon who pose as\nfriends of the Buddhists, seem to take the opposite course: they oppose\nsecularism deliberately misrepresenting it as a rejection of religion. But\nBuddhists don\u2019t have to worry about secularism, because it is compatible with\nthe soundest moral principles that can be worked out – science based secular\nethics, which they can have no problem with. While this is true, the\nBuddhasasanaya itself needs to be protected from the destructive activities of\nreligious extremists of other persuasions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 This is why\nPresident Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, while opening the new session of parliament on\nJanuary 3, 2020, was able to state confidently: (NB: He doesn\u2019t say \u2018the\nmajority community\u2019)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We must always\nrespect the aspirations of the majority of the people. It is then that (the)\nsovereignty of the people will be safeguarded. In accordance with our\nConstitution I pledge that, during my term of office, I will always defend the\nunitary status of our country and protect and nurture the Buddha Sasana whilst\nsafeguarding the rights of all citizens to practice a religion of their\nchoice\u201d.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Rohana R. Wasala Courtesy The Island Secularism and nationalism are two terms which are deliberately misdefined by internal and external destabilizing agents in various forms in the current political context in Sri Lanka for confusing and misleading the largely monolingual Sinhala or Tamil speaking electorate. Properly understood, secularism will be found to be quite […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":true,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[91],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-98178","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-rohana-r-wasala"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98178","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=98178"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98178\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=98178"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=98178"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=98178"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}