Sri Lanka’s War Burden: Two years on

During the last couple of months, the former UN spokesperson in Sri Lanka – Mr Gordon Weiss has been promoting his book titled “The Cage” and making his case in support of allegations of war crimes committed in the final stages of Sri Lanka’s civil war. The Channel 4, film titled “Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields” being broadcast around the world and accessible on YouTube has added raw emotional visuals, adding much momentum to those claims.

These two features offer glimpses into the recently concluded brutal conflict in Sri Lanka to the wider world that is already saturated with images of an inflamed middle east and Lady Gaga. Our thirty year civil war is a subject that audiences across the world have rarely had to think about, except fleetingly as a piece in the puzzle about ‘boat people’ from Sri Lanka landing on the tightly guarded shores of Australia and Canada. “Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields in particular, has slightly shifted the boundaries of an interesting dichotomy however; one that is mostly visible from outside of Sri Lanka. While it seems to those living in the island that the whole world is out to get us, ordinary people outside of Sri Lanka have largely been unaware of what’s going on to be interested or concerned.

Perhaps it is a testimony of the pervasiveness of violence in our world; that over hundred thousand lives could sink in the quicksands of a country’s history, in a brutal conflict spanning over three decades, without the world taking much notice. Two years after its bitter end however, images from the final battles have found a fleeting time slot in the 24-hour news cycle. They have confronted and mildly traumatised ordinary people who would struggle to find us on the world map even now. Perhaps the terrible images they are being exposed to, will even cause a minor stir in them before slipping out of their collective memory to be replaced by concerns about rising fuel prices and a weekend’s football scores.

I feel Sri Lankans however, must welcome the world’s attention on the conflict even though it comes two years after the cessation of hostilities. As a Sri Lankan living in outside the country and someone who grew up with the conflict, it would be a disservice on my part if a more enduring footnote is not added to the narrative – for the sake of the more discerning citizens of the world among whom I now mostly spend my time.

Even though my interest in the Sri Lankan conflict is not merely academic, I admit there’s a historical value to the account that Gordon Weiss records in his book. It is based on information to which he would have had access in his capacity as a resident UN spokesman during the last stages of the conflict. He truthfully admits however, that no independent observers were allowed to witness the final battles.

Rather surprisingly, I as an ordinary citizen had a more intimate experience of the conflict while growing up. The nightly news had a daily death-toll of terrorists vs. soldiers and everyone sub-consciously cheered when their side had won on any given day. I argued with anyone who bought lottery tickets that they had a better chance of dying in suicide attack on the streets of Colombo than wining the jackpot! Until 2009, I had no memory of the country not being at war.

Now, two years after the end of a three decade long conflict, I find it strange to find serious journalists accusing ‘both parties’ of the Sri Lankan conflict, of failing to protect civilians. I knew that as a naive 16-year old child! Even though Colombo gained infamy for countless suicide attacks, it was the remote villages bordering the conflict zones that actually bore the brunt of the LTTE’s wrath. There are a large number of orphans – now teens and young adults from those villages in orphanages all over the country – who bear the unmistakable scars of war on their faces and disfigured limbs. Their most painful wounds lie deeper – bloody memories etched in three or five year old minds – of watching their parents being hacked and themselves being left for dead.

The first civilian casualty of the conflict however, was Alfred Duraiappa; a Tamil politician and Mayor of Jaffna. The year was 1975 and the assassin Velupillai Prabhakaran, who founded the now infamous and extinct Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE). Subsequently, as communal violence escalated, the Sri Lankan government was accused not only of failing to protect its Tamil citizens from Sinhalese mob violence in 1983, but also of being complicit in those attacks.

As the civil war raged, the number of civilian casualties inevitably increased not only due to the callous disregard of combatants for the safety of their unarmed brethren, but also due to them being deliberately targeted – that is definitively what terrorism is and the LTTE was an internationally designated terrorist organisation credited for pioneering suicide attacks. Among their civilian victims were, politicians – including an Indian Prime Minister, priests, commuters, pilgrims and shoppers.

Apart from the civil war, Sri Lanka faced a violent youth insurrection in the majority Sinhalese south during the late 80s. Tens of thousands of uncounted civilians – mostly youth – died in the ensuing conflict which the Government of the day brutally suppressed. All these civilians mostly lived and died in widely accessible, populated cities; in full view of the world’s media and diplomatic community, but out of their memory. Indeed I am sure the many thousands of western tourists who visited the island over the past few decades would mostly remember Sri Lanka for its beautiful landscapes, delightful tea and the alluring, sincere smiles on her people’s faces. That her people managed to preserve those smiles and continue to toil for the fruits of her rich soil is perhaps the greatest testament of their resilience. That must be why the island is now promoted as a “Small Miracle”… which the poet W. S. Senior at the turn of the 20th century called “This peerless land of beauty’s plenitude”.

But Gordon Weiss appearing on Australian TV remembered a totally different picture. He even made repeated allusions that what happened in Sri Lanka was similar to the genocide in Sudan. That claim is dishonest and blatantly false. Given how he packaged the fictional claim with carefully chosen facts, it may have seemed credible to a majority of his audience who may not have followed the Sri Lankan conflict. Mr Weiss cleverly pointed out that governments of both Sri Lanka and Sudan were able to commit these alleged crimes with diplomatic cover provided by the Chinese government.

The tacit claim that China is a complicit partner in crimes being committed by despotic governments World Wide is rarely questioned by citizens of the Global West – because to them, it sounds reasonable enough to be true. China’s involvement in Sri Lanka must be the subject of a more detailed analysis, but it suffices to point out for the record that Sri Lanka’s closest and most powerful neighbour India was the primary influence in the conflict from its inception and escalation to bloody end. It was the political climate in India that dictated the time-line and tactics that brought about a swift end to the conflict in May 2009 and it was India’s diplomatic cover – equally, if not more than that of China and Russia – that has prevented any international intervention so far. Mr Weiss mislead the audience with a distorted view of China’s involvement in the conflict and such lapses cast doubts about the credibility of his voice and the sincerity of his motivations.

However, anyone who has experienced war as intimately as Sri Lankans (or Iraqis and Afghans) have in recent years would agree that ‘war’ invariably extracts civilian casualties. That is what war is, and that is why War itself is the crime. The LTTE cadres and Government soldiers who died also had loved ones and friends who were civilians. They also had dreams and ambitions like all of us. If the fact that combatants bear arms and is therefore in a position to better protect themselves than civilians is sufficient reason to legitimise their deaths and criminalise the death of civilians, what logic would prevent someone from attacking anyone who bears arms – which includes almost half the United States population – with impunity?

Those who have lived through war realise more readily than those who haven’t, that laws legitimising the deaths of combatants and criminalise the deaths of others is based on corrupt and immoral logic. Those who have seen the brutality of war can speak with more authority for all of humanity – without posturing behind dubious notions that the humanity of combatants is in some way different or inferior to that of their civilian brethren. The thought of it is ironic, but it is by no means a stretch of the imagination to think about how the youth of Sri Lanka who were called to unleash so much violence – on each other and themselves – may have even intermarried had they not been born into the tragic conflict and conscripted by poverty, lack of opportunity and violence!

More specifically with regards to allegations of civilian casualties during the last phase of war, no one with sound mind and integrity can stand by the claim of “zero civilian casualties” as made by the government of Sri Lanka. Yet, anyone who has lived through the conflict in Sri Lanka and even those outside the island who understands its background in more depth would have noticed critical gaps in the narrative that both Mr Weiss in his book and Channel 4 in its film portray. Their naive commentary about civilian casualties in Sri Lanka is both misleading and patronising because It is a war that was sparked off with civilian casualties and raged on a furnace fuelled by a vicious cycle of civilian casualties. It would take the most incompetent journalists and diplomats to wake up and take notice of that fact; only two years after the thirty year conflict had ended.

The story lines of both Mr Weiss and the producers of “Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields” do not provide a holistic reading of the issue and fail to sufficiently grasp its complexity. Perhaps it is no fault of theirs because they are both looking at the problem as outsiders; without any emotional attachments to the place and its people, and without any real stake in the conflict itself, its outcome, or the shared destiny that the warring parties now share. I don’t think it is fair to accuse them of imperialist motivations and racist prejudices because they seem to be driven more by their job descriptions, to think it incumbent on them to selectively pass judgement and seek to punish sovereign nations whose actions and conduct they find offencive to their Western ideals.

On the other hand, Sri Lankans who have had a stake in the fate of their country has failed to articulate the broader narrative intelligently. Surprisingly, an ancient culture steeped in peaceful and tolerant Buddhist traditions have not nurtured enough moderate voices that can accommodate all communities. Sri Lanka’s leaders lack the self awareness and humility to look inwards. They understand the fears and anxieties of the most vulnerable communities that form the bedrock of their constituencies sufficiently to manipulate and exploit them, but not deeply enough to be able to empathise with them. Hope on the ground for the poor and exploited people is thinning. An emergence of a moral leadership that can inspire a humanist approach to the problem and able to bridge the deep emotional divide – particularly between the long estranged elements in the Tamil community in the Diaspora – does not even make-up the most fragile dreams of the hopelessly optimistic.

Yet, the reality is; Sinhalese and Tamils of Sri Lanka do not have the luxury of being able to pass judgement on each other and prosecute each other because their destinies are tightly intertwined. Those who failed to realise it and chose violence and war to settle historical grievances have already sacrificed an unborn generation in their failed cause. The challenge before the Sri Lankan people is to rise up from the ashes of war and try more amicably to make our shared history and common future richer and more meaningful – for our recent history and living memories provide bitter lessons on the consequences of failing to do so.


Any astute historian reading into Sri Lanka’s historical narrative will easily notice an undertone of insecurity; of a people who have been under constant threat of invasion and colonisation for over two thousand years and are now very weary of it. Therefore, any ‘external’ diplomatic threat of International intervention in post conflict Sri Lanka is perceived by Sri Lankans with hostility and justifiably as an attack on their sovereignty.

The Rural masses which form the support base of the current government – whose sons and daughters made up the military rank and file – perceive it as a direct threat to their children. Therefore external pressure for investigations, only serve to solidify internal popular support for what is a corrupt and dictatorial regime.

The common denominator in most drawn out conflicts – Sri Lanka, Iraq or Afghanistan being cases in point – is that populations that sustain the war effort on either side grow tired of war proportional to the cost of life and limb and the drain on their treasuries. However as much as opposition to war increases, every General, foot soldier and military operation that is carried out with the promise of a dignified end to violence gain tremendous public support. The present state of Sri Lankan society is a product of that evolutionary process and everyone – especially the survivors of its most intense violence – welcome the end of hostilities unreservedly. Here, the fact that any residual dissatisfaction in the Tamil population is about the significant shortcomings in the rehabilitation and rebuilding process and not a about the end to violence, is an important distinction to make. It follows therefore that those Generals who won the war are revered as popular heroes by a vast majority of the population – across all communities – who opposed the war.

It is ironic that the terrorism of the LTTE was sustained by a steady flow of funds from industrialised nations. The same government who did little to curb the flow of funds and armaments that intensified and perpetuated the conflict in Sri Lanka, are now alleging war crimes; and that irony is not lost on the people of Sri Lanka. During the last stages of the conflict in early 2009, the Sri Lankan army was accused of using cluster munitions – which the government vehemently denied. The voices of those who championed that allegation are silent now – perhaps after the public revelation that it was none other that the world’s biggest banks that are based in their countries, who had invested close forty billion dollars in eight cluster munitions manufacturers since 2008. Therefore, the credibility of allegations against Sri Lanka – for better or for worse – has been tainted by the lack of credibility on the part of those making them. As a result, the West is widely perceived by Sri Lankans as being duplicitous and complicit in extending and escalating the conflict. Continued diplomatic pressure and blatant hypocrisy is driving Sri Lankan foreign policy ever further from its historical ties with the West and closer to its Asian allies.

The popular war victory and perceived external diplomatic threat has been perfectly exploited by the incumbent government of Sri Lanka to entrench itself in power – aided by an impotent opposition. Any honest, intelligent and inspired political leadership will take time to evolve in the current political climate in Sri Lanka where the narrowing definition of her ‘national identity’ remains a cause for concern and an impediment to reconciliation. Space for liberal and pluralist ideas is hard-fought and shrinking in the self-censored local media which has itself been rendered ineffective by a widely popular government’s intolerance of dissent. The decline is perhaps most evident by the lack of any significant public protest against the killing of a dissenting newspaper editor in early 2009 and the incarceration and disappearances of others like him.

That is why any threat of international investigations could actually be a catalyst for reigniting the fires of violence in a population whose majority is already feeling insecure and under attack. The ultimate objectives of any externally imposed or forced investigation into war crimes in Sri Lanka is not only poorly thought through, but will jeopardise the safety of the most vulnerable sections of society including the rural poor. Though well-meaning proponents of such an investigation may seek to achieve justice and reconciliation, it would achieve exactly the opposite with dreadful consequences for the people of Sri Lanka.

Indeed, Sri Lankans desperately need uninhibited access to truth, opportunity and justice – and they have for two thousand and five hundred years of its recorded history. What most advocates of social justice in the fast paced world of today fail to understand, is that such societal changes are not going to manifest over-night in a country that is still bleeding from the wounds of war. The present generation of Sri Lankans and perhaps even the next, will have to wonder through the desert, for a generation not yet concieved, to reach the ideals of their promised land. The future of their country is not a matter for those outside to impose on. It is for the people within to embrace and be empowered by the values on which their future and the inheritance of their children will be founded on. They must understand by now, that they alone will also have to bear the consequences of their choices. The population is highly literate; and though timid in nature, Sri Lankans are intelligent and innovative people. Given time and the right incentives, truth can manifest and justice can and will emerge.

Fortunately, there is still a semblance of a democratic process left in Asia’s oldest democracy, and it inspires hope. However, recent constitutional changes (the 18th Amendment to the constitution) have removed vital checks and balances on the already dominant executive and removed its term limits. They were far more damaging to the long term peace in the country and the well being of its citizens. Any genuine and well-meant efforts aimed at promoting truth, reconciliation and peace in Sri Lanka have to focus on strengthening the democratic institutions of the country and empowering its people, rather than disenfranchising them of choices that they alone have the right and privilege to make.


Originally published on Groundviews

3. Faith

An unreasonable faith in reason

In a global human conscience that is being stimulated by Hollywood and enlightened by a steady, ubiquitous stream of 24 hour news cycle and celebrity endorsements that conditions our world-view, 'reason' stands guard at the gates of our minds like a bouncer outside a nightclub, letting in only what it deems 'reasonable' and discarding what is not. We take it for granted that capitalism and the free-market is the best economic policy available to us. It seems quite reasonable to believe that politicians that get elected by popular vote would hold the people and their best interests at heart. Statistics that indicate an ever increasing polarisation in the distribution of wealth and increasing levels of poverty in free market economies and facts that expose the blatant disregard for democratic values by politicians have yet been unable to unseat our entrenched beliefs or survive the onslaught of propaganda. Not so long ago, It was quite reasonable for rational and otherwise intelligent people to believe that the Earth was flat and that the Titanic was unsinkable!

It was possible for intelligent people to deduce that the Earth must be flat because 'reason' is merely conjecture that seems arguably true but not factually proven to be so; often because it is practically very difficult to prove with the available technology. It was reasonable to assume that the Earth must be flat as long as we lacked the means to find out for sure or prove otherwise. Indeed, it was logical to assume that if the Earth was anything but flat, people would fall off if they ventured too far! It was not until we could circumnavigate the Earth that the facts could be established that the earth could not be flat. Perhaps it is no accident that the fact had to be first established for the sharpest minds of the time like Sir Issac Newton to search ever harder to bring observed facts back within the borders of reason.

For centuries, science has been synonymous with 'reason' but the two actually have always had very little in common. True science can only deal with the measurable and the quantifiable, whereas reason is most often the process by which we attempt to quantify what is qualitative or practically immeasurable. It is important that we differentiate between the two because science in its essence is a strict discipline that relies fundamentally on facts and data that have been gathered by careful measurement and unbiased and meticulous observation. Indeed it would have been tempting for Johannes Kepler to doubt his measurements and ignore deviations in the data that did not fit into existing hypothesis, but it was his stubborn faithfulness to observation and measurement that led to the discovery that planets revolved around the sun in elliptical orbits. It was a bold and courageous move away from 'reason' and towards quantifiable facts that inspired the forefathers of the scientific revolution and gave credibility to the scientific method that they pioneered.

Early in the 19th century, Albert Einstein advocated the most unreasonable proposition the world had yet encountered. He argued that time is another dimension of space. His argument seemed so 'unreasonable' that, even though he managed to define the relationship between 'space' and 'time' in clear mathematical terms, it took the scientific community many years and experimental proof before the theory was accepted and the genius of Einstein was widely acknowledged. It is often the ability to peal away what commonly seems 'reasonable' and 'intutive' to uncover deeper truth that has been the halmark of genius. Marking an equally significant discovery that remains one of the most brilliant insights about our understanding of the universe, Werner Heisenberg showed in his principal of uncertainty that there is a calculable limit to how accurately we are able to measure the fundamental units of space and time. It is perhaps the most honest admission that science has yet made about its own limitations.

The theory of relativity and the principle of uncertainty are critical in the way they define how the scientific method is reliable only to the degree to which its observations are objective and its measurements are accurate. However, Messrs Einstein and Heisenberg have successfully argued that it is impossible to observe the 'relative' universe with absolute objectivity nor measure it beyond a calculable level of accuracy.

Practitioners of science, myself included, have no choice but to take it on faith that there must be some underlying order to the universe. When we learn about matter for example, the lessons eventually lead to molecules, how those molecules are made up of atoms and how atoms are made up of charged particles called electrons and protons that move, behave and react in predictable ways. These in turn, we are taught, are made up of sub-atomic particles. The tools we have built to observe the universe however are not sophisticated enough to accurately see - let alone measure - at the atomic scale. Neither our present limitations in the way we try to comprehend our immediate environment nor the scale of the cosmos has diminished our faith, in our own ability to understand 'how the universe works' - as indeed they should not. However it is humbling to remember that atomic theory - like the rest of science - has been revised many times in the past and there is no good reason to rule out the possibility that it may be completely overhauled in future. Observation has led us to admit that at the atomic and sub-atomic scale, we cannot clearly differentiate between particles and waves. Niether can we calculate of determine how they move or behave - all we can come up with is the probability that a certain particle would be at a certain point of region at a certain time.

Of course, the model we have established according to the atomic make up of matter and the space-time continuum of the universe is capable of explaining and predicting (with reasonable accuracy) most observable phenomena. It is also able to provide 'reasonable' answers to some of the philosophical as well as practical questions about the universe. It is reasonable to believe in a 'big bang' today, as it was reasonable to believe in a flat Earth a few centuries ago. Yet, all we have is 'strong evidence' at best and 'hypothesis' at worst - not proof - of the big bang or the existence of atoms and their sub-atomic particles for that matter. No one has actually "seen" any atoms or sub atomic particles - but only evidence for their existence. The truth is, what we know about the material make up of the universe is hinged on the 'probabilities' calculated at the atomic scale. The immensity of the number of atoms in most visible chunks of matter magnify those probabilities to the extent that the chaotic behaviour of individual atoms average out and the 'average' of their behaviour seems predictable and determinable.

It is not heresy to admit that there is an element of 'faith' in science. Faith has always been a cornerstone of science and will continue to be so. It is a controversial claim to make in the apparently deterministic world where reason and logic is hailed supreme, but it is demonstrably and irrefutably true. Science in its very core, is based on the 'faith' that their must be consistent laws laid out evenly across the whole universe, which we should be able to decipher using the cycle of hypothesis, experiment and observation.

The practice of science is a humbling experience because science already understands the limits of what is knowable. Even as the 20th century dawned, Max Plank had already derrived what seem to be fundamental units of space and time beyond which nothing would be measurable. Even though we are yet far from reaching the theoretical limits of what we can and cannot know, science indicates that space and time itself may not exist beyond the scale of plank units. We do not yet know of any technology that would enable us to observe space and time at the atomic scale and beyond. What we think we know about atoms and the movement of planets is at least in part conjecture because our measurements at both the inter-planetary scale as well as the atomic scale are crude and only vaguely accurate. Light does not shine on atoms, so we cast beams of electrons and observe their murky, poorly defined shadows. We use simple mechanics and classical geometry to measure or derive inter-planetary distances over which we already admit that space and time itself could be warped and subject to violent distortions within miniscule time intervals.

The fact that we are able to predict the motion of planets and predict the tides may yet leave room for us to ignore the level of tolerance that has been allowed for the inaccuracy of those measurements or the general assumptions that has allowed for intricate - but unnoticeable - details to be ignored. In being able to harness the enormous power of the atomic nucleus, we are tempted to over-estimate our understanding of its inner workings. As we bask in our mastery of the elements and the glory of our technological achievements, it is increasingly becoming ever easier to loose sight of the degree of faith that has enabled those advancements in technology.

The story of human evolution is unique among all the species on Earth because the success of our evolutionary enterprise so far has hinged on our superior cognitive ability to solve practical problems. History bears witness that the rate of our technological advancement is a reflection of our ability to solve practical problems. yet, this capacity to solve problems has been somewhat proportional to our willingness to subject our natural intuition, or 'reason' to the scrutiny of a process we now call the 'scientific method'. The fundamental requirement of faith in the practice of science and the employment of reason adds even more emphasis to the fact that our 'capacity to know' is overwhelmed more often than not, by a far more compelling 'need to believe'.

2. Faith

The tyranny of dogma

The stagnation of a culture or civilization, is often described by historians as its 'dark ages'. It is the inevitable outcome when the outflow of new ideas is stemmed by a slavish attachment to old ones. The shadows of time lengthen as the illuminating evolution of thought is driven to a standstill by tradition, where civilisation itself is held hostage by out-dated perceptions. This strangulation of a civilization's creative output has often coincided with - because they have often been the result of - dominance of religious or dogmatic faith within the political power structure.

A religion's demand of an unquestioning belief in its doctrines, in itself, is not only acceptable but may even be necessary for a person's spiritual growth; the same way that a training routine and a rigorous coaching regime is necessary for athletes to hone and improve their skills. Yet, religious doctrines which have enjoyed monopolies in satisfying our 'need to believe' has been exploited by politicians who had a keen interest in exercising total control over their subjects. Religious faith, where it has been used to claim political power and justify its execution, has enabled rulers to enforce their demand for compliance on a broader population. In most - if not all - of the present and historic examples we have, leaders who had both a religious backing to claim and maintain political power, have had far less incentive to be tolerant of those who dared challenge the political and religious dogmas they sponsored.

Political oppression that was sponsored by religious dogma has done much more to destroy our trust in religion than it has done to tarnish our trust in politics. The reformation, which was a religious movement both in its inception and at its core, when it swept through Europe and much of the world, has been unseating monarchies and dictatorships and establishing republics in its wake since the middle ages. Centuries on, the questioning spirit of the reformation has not only been democratising the political sphere of humanity, but has also led to the resurgence of the human intellect in the creative arts as well as the pure and applied sciences.

Ironically, this spirit of free inquiry that was borne out of the religious reformation, which actively encouraged subjecting dogma to reason, has led our threads of logic and reason on a collision course with the very foundations of what constitutes all 'faith'. Though aided and enabled by the manipulative power of religion, the oppression of free inquiry, the violent punishments meted out to those who exercised the innate curiosity of their human intellect and the discouragement of all intellectual pursuits is essentially a political exercise. These political practices may have evolved over the years to take different forms such as media censorship, the curtailment of public funding for education and the subjugation of research and knowledge creation processes to political and commercial interests. Limiting the efforts of their intellectual resources to only meet political or commercial interests has plunged constituencies around the world at different ages, into cycles of stagnation by stifling human creativity and expression.

The political power and influence of religion over their subjects has often been used by tyrants of history to justify their persecution of those who questioned the state by alluding a direct link between political action with religious doctrine and the claim of sovereignty by the ruling classes with a Divine ordination. The collusion between religious leaders and politicians that enabled the oppression of entire civilizations across many generations has eroded our trust in religion. The practical obstacles that stand in the way of separating religion from the state that are evident even today, continues to undermine any trust that is left in both religion and politics, even after centuries of constitutional and legislative reform of the political process.

The ability to manipulate the faith of its subjects is still an essential tool for every form of government. Some politicians do so by aligning themselves with what their constituencies believes to be just and acceptable systems of distributing the wealth of a nation; be it socialism, communism or capitalism. Societies that believe in the Divine anointment of their rulers may be prone to accept dictators or monarchs while those who believe in their own sovereignty would demand democracy. The people's choice of economic and political systems is therefore based on what they 'believe' to be fair and just. No political or economic system can be absolutely fair and just, yet we accept them because of our persistent 'faith' in the ideals they espouse. Therefore, because our political choices are also based on ‘faith’, the ability of laws and processes to separate the religious influence from politics will continue to be a significant challenge as far as most of what constitutes our faith is seen to be heavily concentrated and structured within a religious framework.

Perhaps there has always been a political and evolutionary imperative therefore, to find a counterbalance to the power of religion in human society. Perhaps there was always a necessity to find something visible to believe in, that is not a deity; and be able to seek its help without having to rely on the intercessions of an organised priesthood. But we are no longer merely sentient beings. We are cognitive beings; so why ‘believe’ when we have the power to ‘know’? Our ‘recently’ acquired ability to create machines and manipulate the environment in ways that previous generations may have thought impossible, has inclined us to underestimate the existence of a greater power than ourselves or a greater knowledge than what we already know (or more modestly put; what we think we can know). Technology seems to have empowered us to believe that we are in control. Therefore it is no coincidence that the twentieth century witnessed a significant shift in the balance of power away from the religious path of spiritual inquiry into the scientific path.

On a fundamental level therefore, religion and science share these common values despite their distinctively different approaches to uncovering 'higher truth'. For all the common ground that science and religion share however, our limited comprehension of both processes have pitted them in a fierce battle by placing them at opposite ends of our intellectual pursuit of knowledge about the world and of ourselves and a meaningful justification of the role we play in it. In the absence of absolute knowledge about anything, we still have no choice but to believe in good faith, much of what we think we know; regardless of whether they are based on logical experiments or reasonable theoretical assumptions about the nature and evolution of the universe.

For centuries, our 'faith' has been monopolised by religion, but now, notably in the realms of theoretical physics and evolutionary biology, science is fighting to posses the awesome power of this singularly most essential and uniquely human, cognitive tool. Though distinctly different in their approach, they are both borne out of our propensity and need to know the unknown and make believe the unbelievable.

1. Faith

The battle to own our minds 

The word "faith" is often associated with religion and mystic beliefs. It generally implies a blind acceptance or unquestioning belief of an idea or a set of ideas and therefore the opposite of 'skepticism' and 'doubt'. Faith forms the link between what we perceive to be 'known', and that which we admit as "unknown". The word itself is often used synonymously with "religion", but that has been primarily because religion has always been the exclusive domain of everything that we did not or could not know; and therefore required "blind acceptance" or "unquestioning belief" to subscribe to. Our conscience however, is a complex web of beliefs that are continuously changed and enhanced by the thoughts we bear and ideas we entertain. As much as humanity is characterised by our curiosity, skepticism and ability to doubt even what seems apparent, there are two distinct forces raging deep underneath our questioning skepticism; one a rational desire to know and the other an irrational need to believe.

Each of us have a varying capacity to distinguish between what we know and what we do not know. It is the ability to identify what we do not know, combined with the curiosity to discover that drives us to acquire new knowledge; to make the unknown; known. Sometimes we feel threatened when an idea we hold to be 'true' is challenged by evidence to the contrary. At one extreme, we are be driven to feel insecure when certain beliefs we hold close to our hearts are challenged, while at other times taking much delight in being presented with new discoveries that may revolutionise our understanding of certain matters. Either way, our 'faith' is defined both by what we have chosen to believe as much as that which we have chosen not to believe; both without the support of reason or logic. Our faith either directly or indirectly becomes the dominant influence on all our preferences, choices and decisions. Therefore, the unique make up of each individual is defined more by their faith than perhaps any other factor.

Our irrational need to believe, has conjured divine forces with promises of heavenly rewards or threats of eternal suffering to make those beliefs compelling. Much of our behaviour and judgements are influenced by our conception of heaven or nirvana or hell - entities we believe to exist even when there is no logic or reason to support such beliefs. But faith drives our secular lives as well. Because of the dominant influence that faith has on our commercial decisions and political preferences, it has always been coveted by those who have any political or commercial interest in us. It is only natural therefore that commercial product advertisers seek to brand their products and link those brand images, not directly with the needs that would require us to buy them (because need would compel us to buy the product anyway), but with our beliefs which in turn influence our preference for one brand over another.

The authority to govern people is always derived from the ability to control their beliefs. Organised religion has not only given structure to our irrational beliefs, but also a sense of security in holding on to them by assembling a vast community that would share those beliefs with us because holding on to irrational beliefs in isolation would make us seem delusional. By virtue of having such an emotional hold on us, religion has been able to dictate how we should behave and sometimes even what we are allowed to eat and the way we ought to groom ourselves. Therefore it is equally unsurprising that those who assumed religious leadership throughout the ages has always been courted and pandered to, or have been in conflict with, those who assumed political leadership. The unmistakable evidence lies in the history of the Papacy and the mistrust between Protestants and Catholics that has been transmuted for centuries stemming from a chiefly political conflict that was triggered by the protestant revolution. The protestant revolution itself, though inspired by religion, has had far more political rather than religious repercussions on societies all over the world. Similar trends can be identified in the conflicts between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhists sects which competed for political patronage for centuries in Sri Lanka and the influence that unelected religious leaders still exercise over democratically elected secular states in all parts of the world. The desire of those who assume political power to monitor the ideas and thoughts of their subjects is fuelled merely by their concern about how those thoughts and ideas may ultimately influence or change their subjects' beliefs.

Our curiosity and the rational desire to know has, in the meantime, driven us to explore and discover reasons to justify our beliefs. The word we use to describe this exercise is "science". There would have been a time when a vast majority of humanity would have depended on their religious faith to answer their most fundamental questions about how things are and how they came to be the way they are, including questions about life and death. Indeed there would have always been skeptics too.

Yet the fact remains that religion espouses 'faith' or actively demands it, while science has despised it and sometimes ridiculed those who gave priority to their faith over reason. It was perhaps an inevitable coincidence that the foundations for the glorification of 'reason' and the vilification of 'blind faith' were laid down in the religious reformation which was set off by the devout German monk - Martin Luther. But why would our desire to know and the need to believe - both of which spring from the same deep cognitive recesses of the human mind - be in conflict and fighting one another to prove the other wrong or typecast them as inferior? If the domain of religion is 'faith' and the domain of science is 'reason', how can there be a conflict between the two since they are totally independent of each other?

Some may argue that the conflict between science and religion is actually a battle to establish which is more superior between 'faith' and 'reason', but that would be to unfavorably compare 'faith and reason' as well as misunderstand the nature of 'science and religion'. As pointed out earlier, authority to govern is derived from an ability to control people's beliefs. The relationship between religion and science does not have many parallels with the previously discussed uneasy relationship between religion and the State, because this is a more fundamental battle. The interests of those who seek authority to governs and those who define and interpret religious doctrine are often complementary, because they often have to work together to gain political authority by manipulating peoples beliefs. Science and religion on the other hand are fighting a more fundamental battle - to actually posses faith itself and gain outright ownership of our most basic and fundamental beliefs. It should be an even battle, but science is currently doing considerably better - but that is because it is cheating!

Transcript of a prayer

What I really want to write about is 'faith'. However, I somehow feel I need to begin with my own beliefs. My faith consists of both what I choose to believe and what I choose not to believe. They lie outside the realm of what I can comprehend using my own reasoning and logic - because I don't need faith to 'believe' in what I can 'know'. So faith constitutes what ever that is left after I have separated the known from the unknown. So it follows that we all 'believe' in what we do not 'know'. God, Karma, Nirvana, Rebirth, Reincarnation - are all articles of faith. We can choose to believe in them - and I think it is perfectly rational to do so - but we cannot yet 'know' for sure that they exist. I believe in God, but I am also aware of the nature of my faith to be honest enough to admit that I don't actually know for sure whether God really exists. I don't find it a paradox, perhaps because I understand 'faith' and 'reason' to be mutually independent. This is where my personal faith in God differs from most established religious doctrines. I am acutely aware that my faith is not 'reasonable', because faith - by definition - cannot be reasonable

Therefore my belief - my chosen faith in God - do not conform to any theological doctrine outside of my own conscience; and I suppose it is only natural that my prayers don't either. Perhaps for that same reason, I am not overtly religious. In fact I surprise myself by publishing this. But I am keen to separate my beliefs from the few things I know or hope to know. I do not subject my faith in God to be dissected by reason because I think it is a useless exercise. Neither do I want to substitute my faith in God where I should rather apply logic and reason, or opt to 'believe' things which I should rather seek to understand. Reason and logic has never lead me to, or away from God.

So yes, I believe in God, but I don't pray to God nearly as often as I ought to. Then again, I don't know anyone who does. When I do pray though, my prayers usually go like this one which I penned many, many, many many (four) years ago.

I hope you don't get too distracted and assume it's all about a girl; because it is not. It is more about 'life' itself and the need I have to include 'God' and 'prayer' in it.



Me: Lord, can you spare a minute for me?


God: Hey… it’s been a while… how's life?


Me: What do you mean "it's bean a while"? I was in church this morning!


God: Oh… yeah... right... I should have remembered… sorry! (Grins…)


Me: Do you ever pay attention to anything that goes on in church...?


 God: No… I mean YES... of course... What is it you want to talk about?


Me: Well… it's a bit complicated… there's a fair bit to explain. That's why I asked you whether you are free… are you sure you've got enough time?


God: Well, I am ok with time I suppose… but why don't we get started and see how far we can go… if we run out of time, we'll do the rest some other time. Does that sound ok?


Me: Well, that's fine… how have you been holding up?


God: Not too bad… not too bad at all… a bit busier than usual, but I am not complaining. I mean… I do like my job, ‘I find it exciting and challenging’ (smirk)… so ‘the hard work usually is its own reward’ (grin). Now tell me what's bothering you.


Me: Nothing is bothering me… well… then again, maybe something is… I mean… as I said, it's complicated.


God: Ok... just go on… spill it out. I am not going to interrupt you


Me: Thanks! And another big "THANKS" for sticking with me during the past couple of months… Getting the thesis out of the way took quite a bit of work – and you know… I couldn't have done it without you. I mean… you were really awesome.


God: Gosh… you are welcome man!


Me: Hey… you said you won't interrupt!


God: But I didn't… (And turning to Cherubim beside him) did I interrupt him?


Cherubim: Technically you didn't, but…


Me: Hey… sorry… nothing personal Cherubim… just that this is about something a bit personal… so I would appreciate some privacy…


Cherubim: Sorry... you should have said so earlier…


Me: No it's ok… honestly! I didn't mean to be rude. Shall I continue please?


God: Yeah… you are not going to be here all night…


Me: Thanks for reminding me. Anyway, as I was saying, it's not really a problem… it's actually this little puzzle… I mean… I don't even know whether it's a puzzle in the first place… that's sort of why I came to you… to find out for sure whether it's a puzzle in the first place… Do you get what I'm saying?


God: Is that a trick question?


Me: Hey, don't play dumb with me… I know that you know exactly what I am talking about!


God: Maybe I do know what you are talking about, maybe I don't. But what do you expect me to do?


Me: Hello… I would appreciate a few clues here… I mean… please…


God: Heh… heh… if it's a puzzle, its up to you to solve it and find out the answer for yourself isn't it?


Me: So are you saying that it IS a puzzle?


God: I didn't say that!


Me: Here… seriously… I don't need this… You know I have had enough of this… you tempt me with these puzzles and I end up spending a lot of time and energy and emotional capital on them… and it has all been a total waste of time… not to mention the disappointment. All I am asking is to know whether this is real. Isn't it only fair that you at least tell me whether this is real or not?


God: "Emotional capital"? Hold on… don't tell me that this is just one big business proposition for you!


Me: You know what I meant by that! Don't twist my words… I would never expect you to twist my words. I take your point though… but the thing is it's quite an accurate description of the situation. I mean, you know I am quite a sucker for these things… but as I mature, and with every harsh experience, I feel like I am gradually becoming insensitive to my own feelings. I don't want to be like that. I want to be able to empathise with others and feel and appreciate my own emotions. But that's beside the point. I want you to tell me if this is my real puzzle.


God: What makes you so sure that I know? As I said before, maybe I do… maybe I don't…


Me: Are you kidding me… you know everything!


God: Who told you that?


Me: Actually a Lot of people say that.


God: They also obviously told you a lot of other crap that they had no freaking clue about. I am surprised to see that you have just taken their word for it. How convenient for you!  It all depends on how you act out of your own free will… you know that!


Me: Fine… but I sort of like these arguments. I really miss having someone around who could sustain an engaging argument with me.


God: Well… I am always around if you want…


Me: Yeah right! (Laughs)… Well, thanks… I know that… and I always appreciated that. But what I meant was…


God: (Laughing) Yeah... I know what you meant. So this girl you like… do you think she could "sustain an engaging argument" with you? (Still laughing…)


Me: What girl…?


God: Now you are kidding me!


Me: But even I don't know whether I like her. I mean… we barely know each other! Besides…


God: Are you giving excuses… trying to cover up your feelings…


Me: You just interrupted me again!


God: Sorry… but I had to… and now you are trying to avoid my question.


Me: You know… its amazing how you always turn these conversations around.


God: What do you mean?


Me: I came to ask you whether this is the real puzzle this time. You know very well that I am not in the mood for any silly games or decoys… but before I know it, you are asking me whether I think this girl is the sort who could "sustain (an engaging argument with) me"… if you didn't understand me the first time, let me be a bit more blunt – how about you tell me whether she'd be able to sustain an argument with me? How about you tell me whether she's the centre piece of the puzzle we are talking about?


God: Loosing the temper are we? Besides, is that what you want from a relationship – someone to argue with?


Me: You know I never loose my temper… and you also know that I know when you are avoiding my questions. But the answer to your question is a complicated "yes"!


God: A "complicated yes"?


Me: Yes. I mean… the fact that you can sustain an engaging argument with someone tells you a lot about your relationship doesn't it. I mean, to sustain a meaningful argument, both parties have to be mature enough to understand that an argument is not a fight and that it's ok to disagree. They also have to have a great deal of respect for each other. And when an argument heats up and some of the words seem harsh sometimes, you should know enough about each other to trust… no, not just trust, but know for sure… never doubt each other’s love… you need to know that the argument itself is secondary and that the love you share is unconditional… disagreements open up opportunities to really get to know each other… They are like stepping stones to a deeper understanding. But you also need trust, to know that the other person is speaking the truth… and respect the other to be truthful yourself. You need to be able to rely and depend on the other never to get judgemental or personal. So in a way, I guess there's a good chance that I could have a healthy relationship with someone whom I can argue with. (Smiling…) Besides… an argument can be a real turn-on… (Laughing…)


God: Hmmm… interesting point of view… and come to think of it, we could take it for granted that this relationship is a good example of that! (Laughing…)


Me: Don't get your hopes up. You don't have a hope of ever turning me on… (Laughs…) Now I have answered your question… but you haven't answered mine!


God: So is that what I am here for now… just to answer your questions?


Me: No… ok… I'm sorry. But I told you I need your help with this. I mean… I need your help most of the time… but especially with this.


God: But you like puzzles. No, you Love puzzles… so why can't you solve this and find out for your self… I will help you if you like. We have done this before haven't we?


Me: Sure we've done this before. But I am the one who's got anything to loose!


God: Don't say that!


Me: But isn't that the truth? I am the one who always suffer. And for what? I mean… why should I bother to find out anything when all I've found out so far is what a sad excuse for a man I can become when I open up myself to be so vulnerable? All I have found out is that it's not even worth trying to find out. I have never progressed beyond "finding out" anyway. I have tried to be noble about it, and never rationed the out pour of my heart, yet all I have ever found out was that everything I have earned so far is for my own keeping – that I will never have the joy of sharing them with anyone.


God: "Anyone" or "Someone"?


Me: Is ‘semantics’ all you care about? Or do you care at all?


God: I do care. I know you know that I do. But you make it sound as if your whole life has been nothing but miserable and lonely... and that all that you have achieved amounts to nothing.


Me: So it's my fault now?


God: Nobody is at fault. But, you have no reason to feel sorry for yourself - if only you learn to appreciate how much courage it takes to let yourslef become so vulnerable. I hope you don't give up the fight because I want to know you have what it takes to pick yourself up and take those risks all over again. There is no other way to face life! If that's not 'being a man about it' tell me what is?


Me: But I don't have time to waste. Tell me when the real thing comes by and I will do it all over again. Untill then, I can't be bothered.


God: What you fail to admit is that if ever you are able to appreciate the real 'puzzle' one day, it is because you know what the fakes are. You have lost nothing. You may have not yet got what you wanted, but that doesn't mean you've lost anything. But it will be sad if you cannot appreciate the things you've gained out of each experience.


Me: But I think I would have been able to appreciate the 'real puzzle' anyway. I didn't absolutely need all this rubbish to "heighten my appreciation" of all the things I don't have.


God: Looks like hindsight has made you wise. I know you are smarter than to actually believe what you just said. So I won’t argue with you for the sake of an argument. If we are to gain anything from this, we both have to respect each other enough to be honest like you just said. You know that I am only trying to make you find the answer for yourself. I am not asking for much… just admit what you already know so that we could have an honest conversation here! How difficult is it for you to admit that your life has been full of deep satisfaction and an abundance of good things all the way. Even despite the fact that you had to bear those joys and a few tears all by yourself?


Me: The point is, I don't know what to think. That's why I came to you in the first place. I mean, this is a whole new experience for me this time. I am confused. But I feel this connection… the amazing bond between our souls that I have never felt before…


God: You are over dramatizing this…


Me: Ok... maybe I am making it sound too dramatic… but would you care to explain how all the dots connect with this one? I mean… look at what's been going on… the shear coincidence of meeting her in two different places when the odds are so remote – not to mention the facts that made me notice her. Then I find out that we are not so far apart in many ways after all.


God: Yeah… But you placed all those dots on the board and you yourself connected them. I can imagine what a pleasant surprise the picture would have been! (Grinning…) But what makes you think I have been conjuring a secret plan "behind the curtains"? (Laughs…)It's all in your mind.


Me: Is this one big practical joke for you? I am sorry, but I am not amused. Whose genius was it then to give me hope of a chance to meet her again? What sort of coincidence is that?


God: I thought you of all people would know that there is no such thing as coincidence!


Me: Actually, I don't know that. And I am not going to speculate anything at this time. That's precisely why I decided to ask you. And please, you owe me an honest and straightforward answer this time.


God: I don't owe you anything. And you don't owe me anything either.


Me: No… I didn't mean it that way… I don't come to you to settle debts – you know that. But if I may borrow someone else's words, why can't you just "tell me and end this torment"? You know very well that I can't afford to speculate. I can't afford to be hopeful about the hopeless. I don't think I can survive that anymore. I am scared… I really am. Sometimes I doubt. For once, I just want to know. It doesn't matter what the truth is, I just want to know.


God: Do you really? But you don't… I know that about you. You never wanted anyone to tell you how things are or how they are going to be. You always wanted to find out on your own, in your own time, by your own methods.


Me: Hmmm… why are you doing this? I mean… how is it that you know precisely where my weaknesses are and exactly when to strike them?


God: Is that what you think I am doing?


Me: No… I mean... I suppose they are actually my strengths and you sometimes turn things around so that I can focus my strengths instead of my weaknesses on the problem.


God: Was that a "Thank you"?


Me: You are a sucker for appreciation aren't you?


God: Don't insult my modesty.


Me: Hey… tell that to the people who are obsessed with the idea that the whole point of their lives is to "sing your praises" and "worshiping" you. They are the ones who are insulting your modesty!


God: This conversation is not about them. It's about you.


Me: Yes. Forgive me for that. I didn't mean to look down on any one. I mean, I am quite sure each individual is free to think and do as they please and it's not for me to judge them. But getting back to the point, I don't think I have found the answer that I was looking for.


God: Are you sure you are asking the right questions?


Me: Give it up. If you are trying to sound like the Dalai Lama, you suck at it! (Laughing…)


God: (Laughing…) Geezzzz… I didn't mean to. Can't you be a bit more subtle with your insults! But seriously, what's your problem anyway. I think you should be more than happy to go all the way and find out for yourself. I mean, keep an open mind. Try not to get infatuated with the idea… I mean… you got to go with your instincts… and just be yourself. I am sure that's good enough.


Me: The problem is… I'm not sure anymore. I mean, I used to trust my instincts and I sure thought I had this sixth sense about people, but I don't know that anymore. I am not sure whether I can trust my instincts because I have been wrong on occasions. I realise that there's a chance that I may be wrong this time as well… that even when my assessment of certain things is accurate, there is so much I simply do not know, and those things can reverse everything I do kno.


God: I know what you mean. But the thing is, if you don't trust yourself, how can you expect someone else to?


Me: Well… actually, I don't expect anyone to trust me per se.   What makes you think I expect that?


God: Ok, let me rephrase. Do you think your family and friends trust you?


Me: Hmmm… I suppose so. At least some of them trust me… as for some; I am not sure if it is trust they have in me or just expectations. I mean… I like the fact that people expect a lot from me… and I realised that I want to live my life in such a way that people will always expect the highest and the best from me.


God: It doesn't matter whether it is trust or expectations… have you ever let them down… have you betrayed their trust or disappointed those who expected much of you?


Me: I honestly don't know the answer to that. I honestly think I may have sometimes. I have tried my best to do what I thought was right. I often tried to follow my heart… but sometimes I have sacrificed what I wanted so that I could please someone else… I have sometimes tried to fill the gaps between people's expectations and my responsibilities. There are times I have been selfish too. But I don't know whether I have let them down in any way. You will have to ask them about that.


God: I think you have done a pretty good job so far.


Me: Am I having this conversation with my own ego-possessed conscience?


God: That was a compliment, but if you don't know how to take it, that's not my problem.


Me: But, I didn't come to you to satisfy my own ego.


God: I was just trying to show you that a lot of people in your life trust you, and that you have earned that trust well. So there's no reason for you, not to trust yourself.


Me: Should I trust myself just because others trust me?


God: No, it is almost always the other way round. But you just said that you are not sure whether you could really trust yourself. So I pointed out that there are many others who trust you… and therefore it must be because you actually trust yourself.


Me: Impressive logic! You are good.


God: I am not here to satisfy my ego either. (Grins…)


Me: Ok. Where were we?


God: We are right here. You don't have to back-track to find your answer. The point is that you need to trust yourself - because you can trust yourself. There's nothing wrong with your judgement. It's just that your mind sometimes gets cluttered and you fail to hear the little voice in the back of your head. Keep that in mind and just carry on. You should be fine.


Me: But I am still not satisfied, because you haven't answered my question yet.


God: Do you mean to say that you have found what you came looking for, even though I haven't answered your question?


Me: Sort of… actually, I don't think I could extract anymore information from you than I already have. Even if I bug you for millennia, you are not going to tell me what's to come.


God: You have better things to do with your time than interrogate me, expecting me to give you a horoscope reading. Trust me!


Me: Better things like what?


God: Like get on with life. Be enchanted by its mysteries, solve its wonderful puzzles, appreciates the precious gifts that life has to offer and embrace its laughter and tears with the same zest. Give it your best and see... after all, there's much to gain from all that.


Me: But what about her?


God: Which "her"?


Me: There's only one 'her'! Don't bother tickling my sense of humour… it's all but worn out.


God: What a pity. I liked your humour.


Me: Why are you trying to distract me? (Frustrated…)


God: Ok… help me out here… I mean… what about her? If you are asking me again, whether she's the one, well, I am sorry I may never know that because it's up to the two of you to figure that out. "It takes two" you know. You guys take chances everyday. Some calculated risks and some uncalculated ones. Each day brings you many moments that take a bit more courage than the rest… or moments that stands out because they are more joyful... or sorrowful than the rest…. or ones that make you doubt… others that are reasuring. Some moments are more memorable than the rest… your days and hers are strewn with such moments. Sometimes you create those moments and sometimes others do it for you. What you get out of them depends on how you react. So, what you do and how you both react will determine the answer to your question. You can't always make good things happen, but you can give it your best and see what happens. Remember this though; while you try to fulfil your own desires, you have no right to expect others to give up their own.


Me: Isn't this getting a bit too philosophical?


God: Why should that bother you? You told me you had all but lost your sense of humour! So I thought you'd be in the mood for a good dose of philosophy. Sad people like philosophy.


Me: I would have cracked more jokes if I knew that the lack of humour was going to make you get overly philosophical…


God: Is that what's left of your humour?


Me: Yeah… sadly! Anyway… thanks. It was nice talking to you…


God: Cut out the formalities…


Me: See, you interrupted me again! (Grinning…) No…I really meant it. The humour and the philosophy… all of it were just great… and I found it very meaningful…


God: Don't you find that all our conversations are meaningful?


Me: Err… no… I mean, kneeling through some of those "prayer meetings" used to be dreadful… and some of those songs were unbearable... Don't get me wrong, the choir and all was great... but then again, there were some nasty sermons you've made me endure… (Laughs…)


God: Oh please… don't get me started on those! Anyway... what are you complaining about? I am the one who had to listen through all those hours without ever getting a chance to utter a word in reply! (Laughs…)


Me: Is that why some of those prayers went unanswered?


God: None of those prayers went unanswered.


Me: None?


God: Why do you think we are having this conversation? What makes you oblivious to the fact that this very conversation is proof that every single prayer is answered and always has been?


Me: Honestly I don't get that logic.


God: Now who's playing dumb?


Me: I never got that mountain bike I prayed for. And so I rest my case.


God: I don’t own bloody Lumala, so go get one yourself! Court dismissed.


Me: But the attorney has not even entered the court yet.


God: She may already be in court for all you know… or on the other hand, maybe she will never come. Either way, you will be ok. What you need is a psycho therapist if you ask me!


Me: Well, you did make me in YOUR own image!


God: True, but I may have been a bit distracted by the donkey I had created a few minutes earlier.


Me: Ok… let's cut it out. I get your point. And hey… Thanks again.


God: Anytime Brother!


Me: Am I supposed to say "Amen"?


God: Amen.


Me: Amen. (Grins…)