[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH: articles about human rights violations
In article <31ED1736.1100@ecn.purdue.edu>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>While you make some good points in the post, I have to note one thing here.
>While the above statement is quite correct (ie, "most human rights etc"). I
>should point out that in Sri Lanka the conflict is also of a religious nature.
>While the problem may have started off as a political one, it has assumed a
>religious dimension also, and is in fact a key factor now.
Agreed. Now, let's look at what religions are involved - Hindus and
Buddhists, for the most part. We can agree on this point, I hope, right?
Now here's where it gets tricky - recall that there are people who
claim that Buddhists are in fact Hindus. So, the entire conflict,
according to them, would be Hindu versus Hindu. So, all human rights
violations would be against the Hindus.
Therefore, using this logic, almost every article about the Sri Lankan
conflict should be allowed on soc.religion.hindu. Do you really want
that? I know you suggested trimming the articles down to their bare
essentials, but this still doesn't solve the underlying problem.
-Vivek
