The Holy Bible Justifies War and Retaliation to Protect the Nation and Law and Order
By Thomas Johnpulle
It is one thing when elected members of the clergy making political statements; it is unacceptable when unelected (and unelectable) clergy start making remarks with political sensitivity. They misuse their influence and power contradicting the Holy Bible in doing so. It is remarkable how their pulpits silently approve (yes, no condemnation equals approval) LTTE’s genocide and barbarianism. They should understand that there couldn’t be a compromise of the good and the bad and there is no middle path equally distant from the good and the bad either.
War
The Holy Bible (Old Testament) contains vivid descriptions of war and conflict. King David (970-930 BC), became a Biblical character because of his military prowess. He fought such ferocious battles against forces that tried to put his nation into history. The brutality and effectiveness of his intelligent military strategies quickly won him his nation. In many ways, his conduct resembles that of our gallant Prince Dutukemunu. This prince did not fight for the Sinhalas alone as according to history, the Eastern commander of King Ellalan defected to the side of the prince and was appointed a deputy king later. Thus, the nation not only survived, but also prospered. More than any other reference what Sri Lanka needs today is a David to do exactly what he did with his country. His successor King Solomon (970-930 BC), also used similar if not more effective military means to protect his nation.
Those apolitical priests who preach us that “war is bad” have conveniently forgotten the Holy Bible – their bread and butter! True enough war is not a good thing and should be avoided, as much as possible but only to the extent that such avoidance doesn’t jeopardise the nation, its people and its law. Stereotyping that all wars are bad is completely impractical and has no relevance whatsoever to humans and other living beings. Believe it or not, evolution has spared the homo sapiens because of their superior fighting ability that made the Neanderthals who ruled the earth for more than 100,000 years extinct. The bottom line is we have to fight for our nation, its democratic existence and the civilised existence of its people. There is no justification to tolerate ethnic cleansing, a Tamil only state, underage recruitment, suicide, authoritarianism, division of the country, etc.
There are other instances in the holy scripts that justify war and violence against the likes of modern day LTTE.
Even Jesus didn’t dispute his countrymen paying taxes to Caesar knowing very well that the Caesars strived for expansionism and war. Ultimately, it was the Roman Empire the Caesars built that spread Christianity the world over.
However, it is a sad situation that has befallen the birthplace and other important places where Jesus traversed. Bethlehem and Jerusalem are in everyday news for all the wrong reasons. It is hypocrisy at its best that some Christian priests support the “saving” of the Holy Land from Muslims (who are the rightful owners of these places today) while criticising conflicts elsewhere.
This is where Sri Lanka will end up if we follow the impractical “teachings” of modern day “priests”. Lawlessness will rule in the name of “non-violence”, “peace” and religion.
Retaliation
The Holy Bible states in unequivocal terms how to maintain law and order in the society when it is threatened. “……….But if there is further injury, the punishment must match the injury: a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise”. Exodus 21:23-25. For non-Christian readers, this was an extract from the detailed laws introduced with the wisdom of the Lord – the creator of heaven and earth. These relate to the society and NOT to the individual. Later Jesus further reiterated that these are societal laws and not personal laws when he declared that eye for an eye, etc. should not be the basis of the treatment of one another (personal relationships), instead it should be love. He never contradicted the laws affecting the society at large (against those who try to destroy such society) in saying so. Today this has become a very effective military means in protecting civilised societies the world over.
Some self-appointed Messiahs with overriding political interests try to contradict the Holy Bible in a shameful manner. God always wanted the law to reign supreme over the society and that means use of force against perpetrators depending on their strength. There is no point in trying to enforce the law in Northern Sri Lanka with the police, judges or priests, instead heavy mortars, bunker buster bombs; MBRLs, etc. should be used.
The logic behind retaliatory remedies is that it deters the aggressors by convincing them in a language that they understand “if you attack us, you will pay equally”. In a ridiculous statement, a politician once declared that this strategy would leave a blind and a toothless society. On the contrary, the most peaceful and law-abiding nations do follow this retribution strategy with remarkable success and it is those nations that do not retaliate the aggressors that have become refuge camps of the disabled, blind, deaf and amputated individuals. As practicing Catholic let me tell our priests that the laws of the Lord are supreme and have proved effective against the jokes of this politician.
Nationalism
Nationalism should be contrasted with racism. If anyone claims “Tamil Elam” or “a separate Muslim administrative unit”, that is racism. If anyone says Sri Lankan or Indian or American, that is nationalism. It doesn’t need rocket science to prove that Nationalism is in fact the exact opposite of racism.
Therefore, “racist-federalism” as proposed by so many pundits-turned-idiots in the name of ‘peace’ is nothing but racism. There should not be any division, demarcation, devolution, decentralisation, disintegration, self-determination or any other form of separation of this country based on RACE. If we allow this, we become the only country in the world out of more than 200 countries to legalise racism and we will be the pioneers of ‘racist-federalism”. There are no Tamil homelands in this island and the Sinhalese and Muslims have equal rights to live in Jaffna, etc., to colonize any part of the country with or without the help of the government as long as it doesn’t violate the enacted law and they have the same right to exploit economic resources of the North and the East. Similarly, there are no Sinhala or Muslim homelands either.
If anyone has a problem with Sri Lankan nationalism, they should respectfully leave this island.
In a bizarre allegation, some “racist-federalists” have mixed up Sri Lankan nationalism and “Sinhala nationalism”. There is no such thing as “Sinhala nationalism” as there is no Sinhala nation! Similarly, there is nothing called Tamil nationalism as there is no Tamil nation and there will never be one unless Tamil Nadu gets independence from India. Feelings of nationalism surges during ODI cricket matches, but it should not be limited to that! It is very encouraging that the Sri Lankan majority have rejected racism and of course have taken up Sri Lankan nationalism. I can justify my claim by analysing the constituency of the parliament. There are more than 20 seats held by Tamil-Only parties, another more than 15 by upcountry-Tamil-Only parties and another more than 10 seats by Muslim-Only parties. Whereas there are only 9 seats for the one and only Sinhala-only party. So much about the race based parties. No wonder most of them promote “racist-federalism”. It is a very sad reality that the Muslim group among them was different when its founder – Mr. MHM Ashroff was around; then it had a Sinhala MP as well making it a national party than a race-based party. It is no surprise that party has gone to a dodgy leader.
On the other hand, the SLFP, UNP and the JVP are multi-ethnic nationalistic parties though only one has the term “national” in its name. The LTTE loves the race-based-parties for obvious reasons and hates the nationalistic parties and calls them ’successive Sinhala-only’ governments. It only displays LTTE racism.
It is despicable that one of our priests had painstakingly analysed the race of our cricketers when nobody cared about it. Race-centred thinking that unfortunately transcend on ethnic minorities of this country has done enough damage. Tamil Catholics can trust the Sinhala majority but not the LTTE, their henchmen and their racism.
Jay said,
July 30, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
Wow………….take it easy mate!!!
Thomas made some valuable points, but their validity got lost in the abhorrence tone & style. It’s bit on the extreme side (or should I say more on the extreme), which would not help. It’ll make Sinhalese racist happy & detest Tamil racists, outcome? The same we see everyday, hatred, skepticism and all the rest of the jargon created by this conflict. One more point, with all the due respect to your choice of religion Sir, I don’t think one should go to war just because the Bible approves of it. After all, it was written more than 2000yrs earlier looking at the Society that was then, since then the human race have traveled so far.
Raj said,
July 30, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
Excellently put Thomas Johnpulle. Christianity, unlike certain other religions, believes in the fight against evil. This evil takes many forms. And the evil in Sri Lanka is the LTTE and its cronies. It is distasteful to see certain Catholic priests attending LTTE rallies and holding up placards of Prabhakaran as if he is their new God. It is absolutely abominable that some of them let their churches be used as weapons storage sites. Recently, the Madhu Church grounds were used by the LTTE to launch mortars at the Sri Lankan army – without any protest from the Catholic priests there. This is blasphemous and highly un-Christian. Christians must not side with evil and the racist forces that want to divide Sri Lanka into two countries.
Dave Jayasinghe said,
July 30, 2007 @ 9:51 pm
The peacenick call for “non-violence and conflict resolution” is simply unrealistic. The irrational – such as Hitler, Prabhakaran etc – are incapable of striking an accord. Even God has enemies: Acts 13:10; Romans 11:28; Philippians 3:18. He never compromises with evil.
God commanded Israel to destroy evil nations, and he rebuked them for their acquiescence when he ordered their defeat. (Joshua 10; etc.) Those who cried “peace, peace” were false prophets. (Ezekiel 13:16; etc.)
The lives of David, Saul, Elisha and Moses are filled with examples of God’s judgment upon evil throught the hands (and, yes, the weapons) of His people.
To compromise with evil is to approve of corruption. To be passive is to protect evil’s interests.
In God’s perfect world, the wolf will lie down with the lamb, but only after the earth is cleansed of evil (Isaiah 11:6; 2:4) Until then, the Bible says, wars are inevitable (Ecclesiastes 3:8; Matthew 24:6).
Is war always wrong? Only if the Bible is inaccurate–and God, a liar. And if that’s the case, nothing really matters, ultimately. If God is not true, then there is no right or wrong; and nothing is immoral – even war.
S Rasalingam said,
July 30, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
Excellent write up. Thank you Mr. Johnpulle.
Today, instead of calling racism by its true name i.e., “racism”, there are people who call it “celebration of ethnicity”, “ethnic identity” etc.
God forbid. It is not just the priests who are mislead, but the sinhala intelectuals like Michael Roberts (historian, see his essay a few days ago in this site), and tamil intelectuals like Neelan Thiruchelan (who paid for it with is life).
They think a “constitutional arragement” to celebrate the Ethnicity of the Sihala and tamils is all that is needed. This same delusion is found among marxist deadwood like Vasutheva, Vikrampahu, Kumar David and others who write from time to time.
But you have said it all. Thank you again.
Praveen S. Medis said,
July 30, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
Dear Sir,
I am well educated Sinhalese, yet a Christian by faith, who follows (or more likely struggles to follow) Jesus Christ, may be not a “practicing Catholic” as you are.
It is a well know fact that anybody can take any statement and can either prove it or disprove it just by picking the necessary statements or verses from the Bible. Ideally speaking, the Holy Bible should be taken as a whole or at least one should read the scripture and try to understand it according to the context, any deviation could produce a catastrophic outcome (as far as I know the same is true for the Holy Koran and Tanakh as well).
Unfortunately I have no time to carry on a Theological discussion on this matter, but as a Christian I have a request, should you prefer war, please go ahead and continue killing or support killing, or should you prefer peace please support the people who promote it and I personally I believe that you have every right to decide, But please don’t use the our HOLY BIBLE so loosely thus tarnishing it, for which I don’t think that you have Any right what so ever.
Harold Senadhira said,
July 30, 2007 @ 11:54 pm
Thomas Johnpulle’s thinking and Bible quotations does not apply to the present crisis in Sri Lanka. The Tamils and Sinhala people lived together like brothers before mad politicians took reins in this beautiful country. They disintegrated people on ethenic and language issues. There after every politician came in to power selling peace but not war. They not only failed bring peace but some of them under hand helped rebells with money and meterial. Lives of thousands of youths were distroyed fighting same coutrymen.We need a David To distroy bloody croocked politicians first.. Niether Bible Nor Thripitaka can justify the war in Sri Lanka.
Adrian de Silva said,
July 31, 2007 @ 2:24 am
An amazing story. It now dawns on me what Race can really does to a Nation. I live in Switzerland but still very interested, in what goes on in Sri Lanka. A real pleasure to be able to read such articles.
Ratna said,
July 31, 2007 @ 6:37 am
Interesting article.
I copied the article to microsoft word, used the feature ‘find and replace’ to replace the word LTTE to GOSL.
Read it again.
Still, interesting article.
Anonymous said,
July 31, 2007 @ 6:38 am
federalidea
R.G.Goonetilake said,
July 31, 2007 @ 7:25 am
This article not even worth eading.! Just pure LTTE bashing. I am just laughing my A.. off.
Buddhism preaches non-violence. what did our Sinhala catholic minister Cyril Mathew do in 1983 July? He was given the task of wiping off all Tamils from South and Central by none other than the big Christian J.R.
J.R also was the instigator of 1958 riots via his march to Kandy. Then, Tamils were non-violent and LTTE didn’t exist. So, from 1958 to 1983, all violences against Tamils is to protect the nation, right…????
Okay, fighting the terror dog LTTE is fine. How about the innocent civlians who were dumped in mass graves in Chemmani…? Now, Lord Buddha said, “you kill the innocent and dump them in mass graves”. Lord Buddha also said “You rape the old and feeble and kill them”. He also said, as you celebrate full moon poya day, please also kill a few Tamils who are arrested on suspicion and disappeared in custody..!!
The Old Testament is so old and is only history of God’s people. Take the new testament and the Ten Commandments what J.C gave. It’s about forgiveness, love, kindness and living a life full of joy and happiness.
“Thou shall not kill” only applies to Tamils. Thou shall not steal others lands” only applies to Tamils.
Even lord Buddha would be turning in his grave fro stepping into Sri Lanka and teaching his way of life. Lord Buddha, the prince, gave his throne away to attain nirvana.
I feel sorry for the fellow sinhala brothers. Sinhalese were treated bad by colonialists. Tamils on the other hand moved with the times and bettered their lives under colonial rule. Now, Sinhalese tried to even out the undue advantage Tamils enjoyed in Employment, Education and economy, the Tamils fight and the country is in ruins. So Sinhalese were suffering under colonial rule and worse off in their own rule.
The reason is simple. D.S.Senanayake didn’t have to colonise East to even out sinhalese shortcomings. S.W..R.D didn’t have to play the race card to win the 1956 elections. S.W.R.D knew very well, that Ceylon will go down the gutter if his policies were implemented. He just wanted to beat UNP in the elections.
So, if sinhalese can’t enjoy their freedom, tis because of their choice of rulers and policies.
Sri Lanka is not far off from Eritria and Ethiopia, Somalia. Soon, the Sri Lanka will join the fourth world.
Lanka putra said,
July 31, 2007 @ 7:36 am
Thanks for opening the eyes of those so called peace -Racists. Most of those guys act for dollers. Sri Lanka is a multy ethnic country.We all should have the right to live anywhere in that country.
-Lanka putra-
L.Ratnayaka said,
July 31, 2007 @ 8:51 am
“Nationalism should be contrasted with racism. If anyone claims “Tamil Elam” or “a separate Muslim administrative unit”, that is racism. If anyone says Sri Lankan or Indian or American, that is nationalism. It doesn’t need rocket science to prove that Nationalism is in fact the exact opposite of racism.
What a silly argument. This article is not worthy of publishing on “Federal Idea”. I think this writer needs to take few lessons on racism and nationalism.
Amal Rajamanthri said,
July 31, 2007 @ 9:07 am
When nationalism allied itself with racism it made racism operative, we have seen this happening around the world and its consequences.
If nationalism made racism a reality, racism came to dominate nationalism once an alliance between the two movements had been consummated.
Sam said,
July 31, 2007 @ 11:22 am
Biblically, there is a difference between murdering and killing. The former is always unjustified while the latter may be justified. There are several instances in the Bible where it is morally acceptable, if not mandated, to kill. Exodus 22:2 allows for killing in self-defense, and Genesis 9:6 commands killing in the form of capital punishment (which is reconfirmed in the New Testament in Romans 13:4). Going further, God approved certain wars in the Bible and even blessed those who obeyed Him in His military decree (Abraham in Genesis 14; a war to defend the innocent). God also commanded Joshua (in Joshua 10) to wage war against the wicked Canaanites and to exterminate them for their sins. In the New Testament we have Paul who sanctions “just war” indirectly and capital punishment directly in Romans 13. Also, John the Baptist approved of the role of the military when he was asked by soldiers what they should do now that they have become Christians. John’s reply–interestingly enough– was to simply “be content” and be good soldiers (Luke 3:14). He did not tell them to leave their posts. So there is good, biblical basis for current military actions taking place.
Anonymous said,
July 31, 2007 @ 11:47 am
This is a utter stupid article. person who ever has written this article have Zero knowledge about the Holy bible. if you not sure about something you should not write such type of things to the paper.
Arnold A said,
July 31, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
What a sacrilege of the bible teaching. As long the ignoramus like Johnpulles exist, we cannot ever find a solution at home for anyone or anything.
It shows that church has to do a lot of work. More importantly, the informed has to be enlightened.
As for me, I do not want to even comment on his article. I can only say the last prayer of Jesus Christ.
“Father, forgive likes of Johnpulles, for they don’t know what they are doing.”
Sam said,
July 31, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
Dear writer,
Thank you very much for putting these facts together. I fully agree with you on your comment on ” there is no Sinhala nation” , of course yes, there is no Sinhala nation. As you rightly point out, every citizen in this country should have the right to live where he wishes to live, be it North, South or the East. I strongly believe that it is the this fundamental right of the all other groups other than Tamils that has been violated. This fact is proven when you consider the statistics that more than half of all Tamils live out of North and East and that about 40% of the population of the district of Colombo is Tamil, there was no “Thesavalamai” to restrict the Sinhalese from selling their land to Tamils or any other ethnic group, which as far as I know is still effective in the North against selling land owned by Tamils to other ethnic groups.
I think it is time for all of us to leave the past behind us, forget about bits and pieces of power, which will invariably lie in the hands of those priviledged and will be of no use to the general public – and try to develop this nation economically. A vibrant economy will bring solutions to most grievances, which are not only restricted to Tamils as is depicted by the LTTE but to the whole country and all peoples. Look at the sad story of Rizzana, the little girl maid, is not that a good example? we definitely need better politicians, not just them though, but also good brains make proper plans, not that I am saying politicians have no brains.
Thanks again for the article.
Del said,
August 1, 2007 @ 12:29 am
I am in total agreement with the writer of the this article. There are no Sinhala or Tamil nations, and we as Sri Lankans need to fight against the forces that want to separate our country. Christians have always stood for unity and brotherhood and this will be tarnished if Christians side with the vile force that is the LTTE. The LTTE represents Tamil racism, facism and all things bad. Military action against the LTTE is necessary, just as is our action to become better human beings.
Preethi said,
August 1, 2007 @ 4:07 am
This is not an analysis. .The author had made his mind and used the Bible to justify himself.
1. The author says: “..it is unacceptable when unelected (and unelectable) clergy start making remarks with political sensitivity” ? I see a few interesting words here: Unacceptable, unelected and unelectable. The question is: by whom? Unacceptable, unelected and unelectable by the auther, people, law or God? If the answer is the first one, I donot care. He has the right to accept things or not, to vote or not to vote to a person and to believe or note to believe the crow is black. If it is by any of the later, I have questions.
2. Why he specifically mentions the clergy only? Is his rule applicable only to clergy? What about non-clergy? Can they make remarks with political sensitivity? If, what makes a layman better qualified than a clergy? If not, what right he has to write this article?
3. What does the author refers as ?Unelected (and unelectable)?? Unelected by people or law? The law of the country allows all those who have a sound of mind and the age to vote, have rights to make comments. People agree to it and using their right too. Does the author says even though the law accepts the freedom of speech (on any public issue) he does not accept it? As the author refers to the Bible, I want to use the Bible as a source of information. In the Bible, there are enough and more examples where prophets made comments on political decisions, approve or reject the decisions of the rulers and brought judgments over nation. At times, they anointed the kings elected by God. People elected none of prophets on the Bible.
4. If the author refers [to unelected by] God, how does he know that the priests are unelected and unelectable by God? What right he has over God to make this statement.
5. Interestingly, the author refers to LTTE?s acts of killing but completely silent about the genocide carried out by the government with the help of armed forces and thugs not only in 1983 but also in 1956, 1958, 1961, 1977, 1979 1981 in the name of ?Ethnic riots? (where one side attacked the other side) and in the name of ?anti terrorist activities? especially after 1983? Is it part of silent approval (yes, no condemnation equals approval) what he refers to?
6. The article says this: ?King David (970-930 BC), became a Biblical character because of his military prowess.? But the truth stands clear: King David became a biblical character long before he showed his military might. He was a poor shepherd playing harp when God chosen him as the next king, and he was chosen not because of his might but because he was a man after God?s own heart (1 Samuel 13:13-14). All the victories he won are actually won by God because he was on God?s side and not ?..by his brutality and effectiveness of his intelligent military strategies.? Additionally, David did suffer in the wilderness for years before he became the king. It is also important to note that he was not allowed to build the temple of God because he shed too-much of blood. (blood of the innocent)
7. There wasn?t much war during the time of King Solomon. Please read the Bible (and the history books) carefully. His time is known for peace and prosperity.
8. Clear enough the author never touches what happened after King Solomon. The bible clearly shows how the undivided country became two due to the unwise act of the son of the wise King Solomon. It warns the rulers to be just and wise in their act and not to show partiality.
9. The author contradicts himself in this article: ?The bottom line is we have to fight for our nation? Vs ?Even Jesus didn?t dispute his countrymen paying taxes to Caesar knowing very well that the Caesars strived for expansionism and war.? Does the author know the fact that Jesus was talking to the Jews who were under the Roman rule and were fighting against it? He didn?t tell the people that the bottom like is they have to fight [against the Romans] for their nation. He asked them to surrender to the higher authorities [the Romans] by going an extra mile.
10. The author quotes from Exodus 21:23-25. I totally agree with this paragraph. But the bible never advocates justice as a form of Revenge or vengeance. Justice should prevail as it is essential for peaceful living; justice should prevail as it is good; justice should prevail as it is God?s desire.
11. The author speaks about nationalism and says all forms of racism should be opposed. Is he willing to accept that having the lion on the national flag too as an act of racism? What about the ?Sinhala Only? act? What does the author thinks about the celebration day speech delivered in Sinhala and without Tamil translation? What does the author says about sending official letters to Tamils in Sinhala while Tamil too being an official language?
12. The author is confused with the term ?Nationalism?. The author?s definition of nationalism is citizenship. (One country ? One nation) This is the official definition of all governments. It is easy for governments to rule when they use something people feel about. But it is not correct. When Germany was divided (during the cold war period) were the citizens of East Germany belong to a different nationality from their blood relatives who lived in West Germany? No. They were, are and will be German irrespective of the country limit they were, are and will be in unless and until they feel themselves as something else. What about the people who were forcefully made country-less by various citizenship acts? What about Mr. Kottabaya Rajapakse, Dr. Palitha Kohana and many others who enjoy dual citizenship?
13. Marxism defines nation as a group of people who have the ability to live as a separate county which is more appropriate as it was proved in history that a national group lives together. Nationalism is a belief people have. The bible too uses almost the same meaning. (I am using the word almost as bible does not speak about the ?ability to live as a separate country?.) Nationalism is feeling. If you feel yourself as part of Sri Lankan nationality ,
14. The author says, ?Nationalism should be contrasted with racism? why? Why nationalism is better than racism? Whether it is nationalism or racism or any other ism it is used to identify people. It also divides people. Nationalism the author uses (As I said before he refers country-ism and I am using the same term to simplify) divides people based on the ruler you are under. (Country is simply a name to denote the borders where the ruler has control of). Racism divides people based on the ethnic group they belong to. Interestingly, a person?s nationality can change based on the citizenship he/she has. But race will not change until the person dies. Sri Lanka among with India and many other countries became a country because the British captured the whole country and left it under one rule. If they had left Sri Lanka under the Indian rule, we all would have been called as Indians. This is an hypothetical question: Tomorrow if India captures (Invades) Sri Lanka and adds as a part of India we all will be called as Indians. Will the author say the same statement then? If so, why doesn?t he promote that India and Sri Lanka to be one country?
15. The author talks about ?racist-federalism? (In his own words). As expected, the Bible was not quoted here. The Bible gives a good example of federalism not on the basis of race but on the basis of clan (which is smaller than a race). When Israel was divided it was divided among clans (Joshua 14 – 15) and each clan had the right of ?self determination? which they exercised during the time of King Rehobeom. (1 Kings 12:16) Interestingly, the Bible says, God directed the division of the country. (Joshua 1:6; 1 Kings 11:11-13; 1 Kings 12:15)
16. The author gives an example of what is happening in Jerusalem today. [I agree that many Christians (not only priests) accept whatever Israel does in the name of God, contrary to what the Bible teaches.] Interestingly, the author refers the Muslims as the rightful owners of Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Does he agree the Muslims in Palestine have a right to form their own country? If so how does he name it? (I know that he will not call it as racism) I do agree that Israel invaded places beyond it?s limits during various wars (mainly Gaza and West Bank) and still occupying the land. Jerusalem and especially Bethlehem were not invaded during any war but purchased (by various methods).
There are unconfirmed reports stating that the Jews used various tactics which made the Muslims to leave the place or sell the place. They were part of Israel even before the first war between Israel and Arab countries. The author who calls Muslims as the legitimate owners of the land which Jews have purchased, suggests that Muslims and Sinhalese should live (he didn?t mention that they should buy the land; may be he refers to get the land lawfully, or make it lawfully) in Jaffna and other places where Tamils live for centuries. This is one of the grievances Tamils have: The land which they lived was divided to outsiders. They were done lawfully when possible. The rest of the time, either a new law is made or happened illegally and the law and order was not enforced.
17. The author declares that ?If anyone has a problem with Sri Lankan nationalism, they should respectfully leave this island.? What a wonderful thought? This is what the rulers were doing to all Tamils for the last sixty years. First they made the upcountry Tamils as non citizens. Then they forced them to leave the country. Later they sponsored terrorism against Northeast (and upcountry) Tamils and forced them to leave the country. Now the author does the whitewashing to government action. Interestingly, according to his thought, if tomorrow some one comes with another thought of regionalism saying all Asian should think as Asian and all Europeans should think as European those who disagree with that thought should leave the region, Later when another person says all on earth should agree with his ?Internationalism? people don?t agree with that thought should respectfully leave the earth and go to heaven or hell. (Unfortunately there too they can?t live because their thought is not recognized there)
Let we analyze what the Bible says:
The bible definitely justifies war to protect law and order. There are enough passages in the bible to say that. Just to avoid this article from being a religious sermon I quote only one passage. ?Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer? (Romans 13:2 ? 4).
May be the author is not aware of this passage. I will not be surprised if so as his writings show that he tried to use the bible and not interested in knowing the truth and submitting to it.
Dos this passage command to accept everything the ruler does? No. In the current context, the ultimate rulers are the people as people elect the government. We should raise our voice, and use non-violent methods to show our objection, choose not to elect the wrong person (thought) and support the right person (thought) not to mention the duty to stand as a candidate if no one is right. But we also should be subjected to law and order.
However, the problem in Sri Lanka is more than just law and order. Some people feel that they are not treated equally. They complain that the government made special laws to deprive their job opportunities, higher education, and right over the land, right to live in the place of their choice and the right to elect a representative. Government also made several acts, which made them feel that the government is not their government. They tried so many methods to change the situation, but nothing worked. The agreements the leaders had were torn into pieces. Even certain laws and provisions, which protected the minority, were removed.
In this juncture, the people decided that this is not their government and they want to have their government. Their efforts to solve this issue peacefully were destroyed legally and illegally. Additionally, when a handful of youth used violence as a means to solve the problem, government forces retaliated against civilian and cultural targets. Then Asia?s best library was burnt into ashes and not built back for decades; it is yet to back to its own glory. During this time, the executive president of the country openly proclaimed that he does not care for the Tamils. Within a month a full scale ethnic cleansing was carried out in the capital of the city. The made the youth to chose violence as the means to solve the problem. Thousands and thousands of youth joined the militant groups, which lead to the current situation.
If any one who read this article thinks that I am justifying or supporting the LTTE, please understand: I am not supporting any armed group or their acts of violence. But I equally condemn the acts of violence committed by the government and other groups against civilian. Because LTTE uses violence, the government?s activities against people are not justifiable and vice versa. As Christian, we are supposed to raise our concerns only in non-violent ways and depend on God, as He is the ultimate ruler of the universe.
Does Bible say anything about protecting the nation (country)? Yes and No. Bible gives enough examples where God used people mightily to protect the Israelites from their enemies. But it also keeps examples where God handed the (the chosen people) ..? Israelites over to raiders who plundered them all around, whom they were no longer able to resist.. ? (Judges 2: 14) due to the lack of faith. The bible further says that the God protected the people even when they were slaves in the foreign land. (books of Daniel, Esra, Nehemiah and Esther) All these examples show one thing: God loves and for protecting the people and but not the country barriers. The Bible never worried about country boundaries. God is not bound to the country limits.
What bout the Sri Lankan identity? As I am a citizen of Sri Lanka, I am a Sri Lankan. This is by law. If I am not willing to subject myself to the law, I am revolting not only against the government law but also against God. But should I identify myself as Sri Lankan? It is true I am a Sri Lankan. That is a way of identifying and not the way of identifying.
There are so many ways of identifying myself. My faith, name, age, sex and religious belief are some of them. I need to decide which is more important. No one else have the right to decide on my behalf. If someone says his country is the most important identity for himself. he has every right to say so. For me my faith is more important than the country. I am willing die for my faith (which is different from religion) than for my country.
The Bible repeatedly teaches that. God is first. Country, ethnic group and all other things we use to identify ourselves are next to it. This draws a very important point: If someone feels his/her country identity is less important than his race identity I agree with his right to make his decision. If I want him to have the country identity to precede his race identity I need to work for it.
The author has all rights to support the government. But he has no right to use the Bible for it. All Scripture (i.e. the Bible) is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3: 16-17)
Now an important point comes: When a group of people are suppressed (in the name of race, caste religion or something else) they (not only the suppressed) need to raise their voice. A just society is God?s dream; and God wants it to be a reality through our action. But God also concerns about the way we choose to achieve it. When people slide away from it, God will not be with the fighting people. Rather God uses this time to bring judgment among nations.
Jude Lal Fernando said,
August 1, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
I was only reminded of Jesus’s words on the cross when I read Mr. Thomas Johnpulle ’s text. Let me improvise the words on cross as follows :’ Father, forgive them for they do not know what they write’. Peace be with you Mr. Thomas!
Nihal.Goonetilleke said,
August 1, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
I think the Bible is written 300 years after Christ.One has to take any religion with a pinch of salt,must not allow it to dictate government policy simply can’t see moment when Bush,Blair or Gordon Brown would refer to the Bible,when making a decision at the Cabinet.It would be advisable to learn from these progressive countries.
Jenis said,
August 3, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
Um Nihal? Are you serious. Bush is famous for going to war in Iraq because apparently God ‘talked’ to him.
Jay said,
August 5, 2007 @ 7:39 pm
That’s very funny to see there are people still see Bush as “progressive”, and ask others to follow suit with Bush…..what a joke!!!
P.Nathan said,
August 6, 2007 @ 8:06 am
Archbishop Rowan Williams said the same during his recent visit to sri lanka.