Plus

Plus

The right to choose one’s religion
It is a fine line that divides “unethical conversion” and “conviction”.
By Chris Deraniyagala
Sri Lanka has been traditionally known as the ‘Pearl of the East’. She has been a nation blessed with natural endowments and inhabited by a multi-ethnic, multi-religious population known for its tolerance, equanimity, spirit of compassion and love towards the needy and forlorn.

At this time when a genuine attempt is being made by local and international friends to help Sri Lanka to usher in a period of political and economic stability built upon racial tolerance and harmony, it is most discomforting to know that attempts are made to thwart the peace moves in yet another sphere - namely the right to choose and practise the religion of one's own choice.

Persecution
We have seen a new ‘terror campaign’ unleashed on places of religious worship and the freedom of religious observances has been interfered with, by interested parties who are trying to bring religious intolerance and disharmony into play, when every effort is being made to bring about racial amity and mutual co-operation.

This problem needs to be brought under control soon by those in charge of the governance of this nation. The crime rate is increasing steadily in all quarters which reflects an erosion of public observance of the rule of law.

There has been a well conceived attempt to attack places of Christian worships in recent times from the experiences seen at Ratgama, Kesbewa, Hikkaduwa, Thanamalwila, Lunugamvehera, Horana and Ganemulla amongst others.
Furthermore, worship in homes has also been interfered with by threats and violence. Religious leaders have been assaulted, publicly disgraced and some even put to death.

Tolerance
A recent issue of the Buddhist Times (September 2003) has called for "an alliance between Hindus and Buddhists to stop unethical conversions by unscrupulous Christians for money and privilege". In this article they have referred to the Christians in the most despicable language calling them the ‘New Marauders’. This is sad as Buddhism is a religion which teaches tolerance of all religions but disgruntled adherents have given a different slant to serve their hidden agendas.

Christianity is not a mere religion, a programme, an adherence to rituals but is a relationship with the Person of Jesus Christ. He taught, preached, lived a sacrificial life and demonstrated His love to all of mankind. He showed a ceaseless love even to those who misused, persecuted and attempted to destroy others.

Persuasion
Christianity forbids conversion by force. It does not follow the convenient label given today of ‘unethical conversion’ by the offering of inducements in kind. It is a fundamental tenet of Christianity to share the good news with others. It does not in any way force anyone to accept anything which he/she does not agree with or do not wish to follow. It is not teaching for ‘filthy lucre’.

If any Christian seeks to do so by inducements offered by his/her own effort it will end in failure. It is wrong. It is against the Bible. Conversion is never the work of man. It is a work of God alone and results in a change of heart - a regeneration experience - to lead a new and holy life. Mankind should have the opportunity of hearing the good news of the power of Christ to save, to transform lives which is best seen not by precepts but by righteous living.

Christianity is not a religion of the West as often made out to be. It is not a device to pump Western funds to “buy people” through unethical conversions. How long can foreign monies be pumped unabated? This is a twist of the truth. Christ came from the East.

Buddhism is not an indigenous religion. It too came from the East - India. During the reign of King Devanampiyatissa, Emperor Asoka sent missionaries to Sri Lanka to propagate Buddhism. Many accepted the Buddhist faith. Is this “unethical conversion”, or is it “persuasion”?

Privilege
It is a fundamental right of a person to be able to accept the faith of one's persuasion and conviction whether he/she be a Buddhist, a Christian or a person of any other faith. It cannot be muzzled by law. Christianity forbids coerciion to get people to change their faith. But sharing is an absolute tenet of the Christian faith. They have the right to share. People have a right to accept or reject.

It is wrong to conclude that once a Buddhist or a Christian or a person of any other faith, you should always remain so. In a free market mechanism under which consumers can buy their wares from wherever they want, there are no proprietary rights enforced by law to get them to buy from the same shop for life.

Today, Buddhism is the foremost religion, enjoying state funds and privileges not enjoyed by any other religion. In such a context there appears to be a baseless fear of losing them. If a Buddhist is lost then whether he was a Buddhist by conviction in the first place is questionable. The same applies to the Christians.

Buddhists have enjoyed the freedom to preach Buddhism in the West, Australia and in other countries. There have been no restrictions placed on the opening of Buddhist temples although we hear of complaints against prayer halls in Sri Lanka and attacks on new churches. Evangelical Christians are not new militant religious sects but emulators of the Bible, Christians who love their Lord with a passionate heart.

Restriction
It is a fundamental right for every person to have the freedom of thought, conscience and religion/belief of his choice. This was clearly enshrined in Article 10 of our 1978 Constitution. Further, Article 14 -1 C declares that every citizen has the right to manifest his religion in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

Today there are moves to surreptitiously introduce new laws in violation of Article 10 and 14-1 C on the grounds that public order is affected or a law is needed to prevent unethical conversions. This is a fabrication of the truth to restrict religious freedom in this country and to prevent the adherence of the basic tenets of an individual's faith.
“Unethical conversion” is a grey area. It is a fundamental rule of law where retrospective legislation cannot be introduced. It is a rationale for the rule of law that when a person does something, he must know that he is committing an offence or not.

Every religion has the right to propagate its beliefs by ethical means. Any religion will say “to do good to all” - not only to persons of your faith. Religious bodies have the right to preach, teach and also to do good to all.

It is important that the courts of law at the highest level in any country, the Supreme Court in Sri Lanka, should not violate this unfettered right to choose one’s religion conferred by the Constitution by interpretations given out of context.

I recall that Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1980 has ensured the “right to religious freedom”. The Sri Lankan government in 1980 ratified the International Covenant on Political Rights which includes Article 18 relating to religious freedom.

Freedom of choice
Christians have supported the government’s peace efforts, prayed for national leaders and played an active part in healing the wounds caused by mistrust. Good governance demands protection of the rights and natural freedoms of all races and all creeds and also ensuring that the law enforcement authorities take appropriate action to prevent the escalation of violence in the racial and now in the religious sphere.

Let me conclude with the word of God that teaches Christians to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions and to live self-controlled and godly lives in this present age.

May this nation enjoy the love and peace that passeth all understanding, given as a gift by God in the regeneration experience of life. May all citizens have the right to live with dignity and honour practising the language and religion of their choice unfettered by public sentiment or legal enactments.

Back to Plus