Sri Lanka cabinet approves proposed ban on burqas in public

[Bootes Void]

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/28/sri-lanka-cabinet-approves-proposed-ban-on-burqas-in-public

Sri Lanka’s cabinet has approved a proposed ban on wearing full-face veils including Muslim burqas in public, citing national security grounds, despite a United Nations expert’s comment that it would violate international law.

The cabinet approved the proposal by Public Security Minister Sarath Weerasekera at its weekly meeting on Tuesday, Weerasekera said on his Facebook page.

[Estrella]

Watch all those noble Western Christian fighters for religious freedom take a break from pearl-clutching about how not being able to discriminate against gay people is literally the end of the world, and take a stand here.

(lol)

[CumbrianLefty]

What are these "national security grounds"?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What are these "national security grounds"?

Moosleems Scary.

Sri Lanka is almost as lousy with hardline Buddhist religious nationalism as Myanmar, and the religious element of Sinhalese identity politics goes back a long way. Look into Anagarika Dharmapala as a seminal figure.

(On the other hand, unlike in the rest of South Asia, relations with Christians have been improving in recent years. The Archbishop of Colombo supports the maintenance of Buddhism as Sri Lanka's state religion!)

[TDAS04]

Of course, there's also the persecution of the predominantly-Hindu Tamils, though that's supposed be more about ethnicity than religion.  Persecution bad either way.

[It’s so Joever]

This whole “Buddhists are peaceful” stereotype has always appalled me. All religions can be used as a weapon/excuse for violence, including Buddhism.
This only further proves that extremism is not an affliction confined to one belief.

[CumbrianLefty]

Burmese are mostly Buddhists, as well.

[Хahar 🤔]

Of course, there's also the persecution of the predominantly-Hindu Tamils, though that's supposed be more about ethnicity than religion.  Persecution bad either way.

Sri Lankan Muslims are more or less all Tamil. Obviously violent anti-Muslim rhetoric has been commonplace in political Buddhism for the last decade or more, but it's impossible to disentangle this from the ethnic dimension.

[ingemann]

What are these "national security grounds"?

The Sri Lanka Easter Bombings.

[CumbrianLefty]

Do expand?

[Samof94]

Of course, there's also the persecution of the predominantly-Hindu Tamils, though that's supposed be more about ethnicity than religion.  Persecution bad either way.

Sri Lankan Muslims are more or less all Tamil. Obviously violent anti-Muslim rhetoric has been commonplace in political Buddhism for the last decade or more, but it's impossible to disentangle this from the ethnic dimension.

Their old racist beliefs about the people of a certain Dravidian ethnolinguistic group.
Buddhism isn’t any prettier than any other religion. It has its own issues, like the fact that Buddhist monks are considered to be above other humans and have their own set of rules.

[ingemann]

Do expand?

The Easter bombings was shocking in how random and irrational they were, while Sunni Muslims do think Easter is one of the biggest Christian heresy, attacking Christians in Sri Lanka is pretty weird, the fact that they were able to hit so many places showed a shocking level of organization. At the same time the tourist target was a direct attack on the Sri Lankan economy. Of course there’s also the element that Christians are pretty much the only non-troublemaking minority in Sri Lanka, something the Sri Lankan government likely prefer continue, so showing they take these attack very serious is important and banning burqa is a pretty easy symbolic move with few domestic and international consequences.

But the deeper element in the targeting of Christian on Easter show a theological radicalization which to large extent is caused by contact with and money from the Gulf states similar to what we see in Indonesia, the burqa is also a result of this same contact. As such this create a pressure against the the people most inspired by the Gulf states. In best case they will make enough noise about it that the central government discover they exist.

[ingemann]

Of course, there's also the persecution of the predominantly-Hindu Tamils, though that's supposed be more about ethnicity than religion.  Persecution bad either way.

Sri Lankan Muslims are more or less all Tamil. Obviously violent anti-Muslim rhetoric has been commonplace in political Buddhism for the last decade or more, but it's impossible to disentangle this from the ethnic dimension.

Their old racist beliefs about the people of a certain Dravidian ethnolinguistic group.
Buddhism isn’t any prettier than any other religion. It has its own issues, like the fact that Buddhist monks are considered to be above other humans and have their own set of rules.

I disagree, while Buddhism have its warts like every religion, there exist religions which are worse than other religions, Islam being foremost among them (at least among the big ones).

[Samof94]

Of course, there's also the persecution of the predominantly-Hindu Tamils, though that's supposed be more about ethnicity than religion.  Persecution bad either way.

Sri Lankan Muslims are more or less all Tamil. Obviously violent anti-Muslim rhetoric has been commonplace in political Buddhism for the last decade or more, but it's impossible to disentangle this from the ethnic dimension.

Their old racist beliefs about the people of a certain Dravidian ethnolinguistic group.
Buddhism isn’t any prettier than any other religion. It has its own issues, like the fact that Buddhist monks are considered to be above other humans and have their own set of rules.

I disagree, while Buddhism have its warts like every religion, there exist religions which are worse than other religions, Islam being foremost among them (at least among the big ones).

Islam, of course, wasn’t always that way.  Islam has a past that was much better(especially compared to pre Enlightenment Christianity).   Salami Jihadism, Sunni fundamentalism used by terrorists, didn’t even exist until the 20th century in any recognizable form.

[Хahar 🤔]

Islam has a past that was much better

Real trenchant analysis here!

[Samof94]

Islam has a past that was much better

Real trenchant analysis here!

That’s big my point. Depicting Islam as “pure evil” is a mistake. That is what Trump said.

[ingemann]

Of course, there's also the persecution of the predominantly-Hindu Tamils, though that's supposed be more about ethnicity than religion.  Persecution bad either way.

Sri Lankan Muslims are more or less all Tamil. Obviously violent anti-Muslim rhetoric has been commonplace in political Buddhism for the last decade or more, but it's impossible to disentangle this from the ethnic dimension.

Their old racist beliefs about the people of a certain Dravidian ethnolinguistic group.
Buddhism isn’t any prettier than any other religion. It has its own issues, like the fact that Buddhist monks are considered to be above other humans and have their own set of rules.

I disagree, while Buddhism have its warts like every religion, there exist religions which are worse than other religions, Islam being foremost among them (at least among the big ones).

Islam, of course, wasn’t always that way.  Islam has a past that was much better(especially compared to pre Enlightenment Christianity).   Salami Jihadism, Sunni fundamentalism used by terrorists, didn’t even exist until the 20th century in any recognizable form.

Islam wasn't better in the past, it was rotten from the moment Muhammed left Mecca. It was that moment Islam changed from a obnoxious cult which just irritated their neighbors to a bunch slaving bandits, who needed a lot of rules for how to split the loot and avoiding murdering each other over who got to rape the captives first and who got to keep them as slaves.

The Islamic Golden Age was just a bunch of urban centers extracting capital from rural population without giving anything back to the rural population not even safety and it was the start of the biggest expansion of slavery in human history. 

The strongest Muslim states have always been on the frontier of the Islamic World, because these was the areas, where Muslim could unite in extract loot and slaves from their non-Muslim neighbors and subjects.

The Muslims conquered the richest areas of western Eurasia and their rule was one long decay compared to their non-Muslim neighbors.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Of course, there's also the persecution of the predominantly-Hindu Tamils, though that's supposed be more about ethnicity than religion.  Persecution bad either way.

Sri Lankan Muslims are more or less all Tamil. Obviously violent anti-Muslim rhetoric has been commonplace in political Buddhism for the last decade or more, but it's impossible to disentangle this from the ethnic dimension.

Their old racist beliefs about the people of a certain Dravidian ethnolinguistic group.
Buddhism isn’t any prettier than any other religion. It has its own issues, like the fact that Buddhist monks are considered to be above other humans and have their own set of rules.

I disagree, while Buddhism have its warts like every religion, there exist religions which are worse than other religions, Islam being foremost among them (at least among the big ones).

Islam, of course, wasn’t always that way.  Islam has a past that was much better(especially compared to pre Enlightenment Christianity).   Salami Jihadism, Sunni fundamentalism used by terrorists, didn’t even exist until the 20th century in any recognizable form.

Islam wasn't better in the past, it was rotten from the moment Muhammed left Mecca. It was that moment Islam changed from a obnoxious cult which just irritated their neighbors to a bunch slaving bandits, who needed a lot of rules for how to split the loot and avoiding murdering each other over who got to rape the captives first and who got to keep them as slaves.

The Islamic Golden Age was just a bunch of urban centers extracting capital from rural population without giving anything back to the rural population not even safety and it was the start of the biggest expansion of slavery in human history. 

The strongest Muslim states have always been on the frontier of the Islamic World, because these was the areas, where Muslim could unite in extract loot and slaves from their non-Muslim neighbors and subjects.

The Muslims conquered the richest areas of western Eurasia and their rule was one long decay compared to their non-Muslim neighbors.

What does any of this have to do with anti-Muslim laws in Sri Lanka?

[ingemann]

Of course, there's also the persecution of the predominantly-Hindu Tamils, though that's supposed be more about ethnicity than religion.  Persecution bad either way.

Sri Lankan Muslims are more or less all Tamil. Obviously violent anti-Muslim rhetoric has been commonplace in political Buddhism for the last decade or more, but it's impossible to disentangle this from the ethnic dimension.

Their old racist beliefs about the people of a certain Dravidian ethnolinguistic group.
Buddhism isn’t any prettier than any other religion. It has its own issues, like the fact that Buddhist monks are considered to be above other humans and have their own set of rules.

I disagree, while Buddhism have its warts like every religion, there exist religions which are worse than other religions, Islam being foremost among them (at least among the big ones).

Islam, of course, wasn’t always that way.  Islam has a past that was much better(especially compared to pre Enlightenment Christianity).   Salami Jihadism, Sunni fundamentalism used by terrorists, didn’t even exist until the 20th century in any recognizable form.

Islam wasn't better in the past, it was rotten from the moment Muhammed left Mecca. It was that moment Islam changed from a obnoxious cult which just irritated their neighbors to a bunch slaving bandits, who needed a lot of rules for how to split the loot and avoiding murdering each other over who got to rape the captives first and who got to keep them as slaves.

The Islamic Golden Age was just a bunch of urban centers extracting capital from rural population without giving anything back to the rural population not even safety and it was the start of the biggest expansion of slavery in human history. 

The strongest Muslim states have always been on the frontier of the Islamic World, because these was the areas, where Muslim could unite in extract loot and slaves from their non-Muslim neighbors and subjects.

The Muslims conquered the richest areas of western Eurasia and their rule was one long decay compared to their non-Muslim neighbors.

What does any of this have to do with anti-Muslim laws in Sri Lanka?

Around as much as Buddhism have to do with them.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Of course, there's also the persecution of the predominantly-Hindu Tamils, though that's supposed be more about ethnicity than religion.  Persecution bad either way.

Sri Lankan Muslims are more or less all Tamil. Obviously violent anti-Muslim rhetoric has been commonplace in political Buddhism for the last decade or more, but it's impossible to disentangle this from the ethnic dimension.

Their old racist beliefs about the people of a certain Dravidian ethnolinguistic group.
Buddhism isn’t any prettier than any other religion. It has its own issues, like the fact that Buddhist monks are considered to be above other humans and have their own set of rules.

I disagree, while Buddhism have its warts like every religion, there exist religions which are worse than other religions, Islam being foremost among them (at least among the big ones).

Islam, of course, wasn’t always that way.  Islam has a past that was much better(especially compared to pre Enlightenment Christianity).   Salami Jihadism, Sunni fundamentalism used by terrorists, didn’t even exist until the 20th century in any recognizable form.

Islam wasn't better in the past, it was rotten from the moment Muhammed left Mecca. It was that moment Islam changed from a obnoxious cult which just irritated their neighbors to a bunch slaving bandits, who needed a lot of rules for how to split the loot and avoiding murdering each other over who got to rape the captives first and who got to keep them as slaves.

The Islamic Golden Age was just a bunch of urban centers extracting capital from rural population without giving anything back to the rural population not even safety and it was the start of the biggest expansion of slavery in human history. 

The strongest Muslim states have always been on the frontier of the Islamic World, because these was the areas, where Muslim could unite in extract loot and slaves from their non-Muslim neighbors and subjects.

The Muslims conquered the richest areas of western Eurasia and their rule was one long decay compared to their non-Muslim neighbors.

What does any of this have to do with anti-Muslim laws in Sri Lanka?

Around as much as Buddhism have to do with them.

That's bullsh**t and you know it.

[ingemann]

Of course, there's also the persecution of the predominantly-Hindu Tamils, though that's supposed be more about ethnicity than religion.  Persecution bad either way.

Sri Lankan Muslims are more or less all Tamil. Obviously violent anti-Muslim rhetoric has been commonplace in political Buddhism for the last decade or more, but it's impossible to disentangle this from the ethnic dimension.

Their old racist beliefs about the people of a certain Dravidian ethnolinguistic group.
Buddhism isn’t any prettier than any other religion. It has its own issues, like the fact that Buddhist monks are considered to be above other humans and have their own set of rules.

I disagree, while Buddhism have its warts like every religion, there exist religions which are worse than other religions, Islam being foremost among them (at least among the big ones).

Islam, of course, wasn’t always that way.  Islam has a past that was much better(especially compared to pre Enlightenment Christianity).   Salami Jihadism, Sunni fundamentalism used by terrorists, didn’t even exist until the 20th century in any recognizable form.

Islam wasn't better in the past, it was rotten from the moment Muhammed left Mecca. It was that moment Islam changed from a obnoxious cult which just irritated their neighbors to a bunch slaving bandits, who needed a lot of rules for how to split the loot and avoiding murdering each other over who got to rape the captives first and who got to keep them as slaves.

The Islamic Golden Age was just a bunch of urban centers extracting capital from rural population without giving anything back to the rural population not even safety and it was the start of the biggest expansion of slavery in human history. 

The strongest Muslim states have always been on the frontier of the Islamic World, because these was the areas, where Muslim could unite in extract loot and slaves from their non-Muslim neighbors and subjects.

The Muslims conquered the richest areas of western Eurasia and their rule was one long decay compared to their non-Muslim neighbors.

What does any of this have to do with anti-Muslim laws in Sri Lanka?

Around as much as Buddhism have to do with them.

That's bullsh**t and you know it.

Not really these laws are a result of a counterreaction to terrorism, because Sri Lanka have finally gotten LTTE under control and they're afraid of having to deal with a new wave of terrorism. The burqa is a foreign tradition brought to the country by Gulf money and in the same way single out Easter celebration for attack is a result of the Gulf money radicalizing the local Muslim population.

I must admit the fact that you people's first thought is to blame Buddhism seems like bigotry to me. Yes people claim Buddhism is far more peaceful than it is, but this is a pretty common reaction to religious terrorism.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I must admit the fact that you people's first thought is to blame Buddhism seems like bigotry to me.

It's awfully rich that you of all people would accuse other posters of religious bigotry.

[ingemann]

I must admit the fact that you people's first thought is to blame Buddhism seems like bigotry to me.

It's awfully rich that you of all people would accuse other posters of religious bigotry.

Well I'm always surprised by lack of self reflection among people like you. There's nothing in my comments which is more extreme than in the comments which blame Buddhism, the only difference is that you think Buddhists are legitimate targets and Muslims are not.

There's little evidence that this is caused by Sri Lanka being Buddhist majority, the more obvious explanation is that Sri lanka is poor as dirt and anything which target tourist and foreign businessmen is pretty bad at their attempt to get foreign capital and investments. At the same time it's a good idea for the Sri Lanka government to send a signal to the local Christians, who haven't made trouble that the government take the attack on them very serious, so that they don't start making trouble too.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I must admit the fact that you people's first thought is to blame Buddhism seems like bigotry to me.

It's awfully rich that you of all people would accuse other posters of religious bigotry.

Well I'm always surprised by lack of self reflection among people like you. There's nothing in my comments which is more extreme than in the comments which blame Buddhism, the only difference is that you think Buddhists are legitimate targets and Muslims are not.

Oh for God's sake. I'm sorry you think I'm an anti-Buddhist bigot (wtf) for surmising that Buddhist nationalism is a motivating factor in a constitutionally Buddhist state passing a law targeting a non-Buddhist religion at a time when religious tensions in the relevant part of the world are at a historical high, but you're just not going to convince me that that's a bigoted conclusion to draw, much less an "extreme" one. If you're saying this dishonestly then stop being dishonest, and if you're saying it honestly then get the hell over yourself.

See, I hold the old-fashioned belief that religious hatred is always wrong no matter what the power relationship between the religions in question is, a belief that you're mendaciously paying lip service to in between four-paragraph-long screeds about how evil the Mussulmen are and how none of their societies have ever achieved anything of value. I wouldn't say anything remotely comparable about Buddhism because I don't believe anything comparable about Buddhism is true; observing that the religious element of Sinhalese nationalism just might be relevant to Sri Lankan politics (say it ain't so!) doesn't constitute a statement about Buddhism in general, whereas you post about Islam in explicitly general and absolute terms. You're either projecting or lying. Either way, I'm not going to put up with your sh**t.