groundviews is a Sri Lankan citizen journalism initiativeregister here.login.find out more
inicio mail me! sindicaci;ón

The Anti-Conversion Bill violates the freedom of Conscience and the freedom of expression

January 25, 2009 at 9:18 pm · Categories: Colombo, Constitutional Reform, Human Rights, Religion and faith | by RMB Senanayake

There is a trend to convert the triumph of the Armed Forces over the LTTE in the north into a triumphal Sinhala-Buddhist ultra nationalism. Their ideology is that the country belongs only to the Sinhala Buddhists and that the other communities be they of different ethnicity or religion must live on the sufferance of the Sinhala Buddhists. It is also part of the ideology that no Buddhist should embrace any other religion and therefore the Christians who seek to make converts of Buddhists should be punished severely, never mind if the convert voluntarily and genuinely accepts the Christian religion and not out of any inducement -material or otherwise offered by anybody who preaches to him. The politicians and civil society groups that are protesting against the killing of journalists and the violation of media freedom must oppose this so-called Anti-Conversion Bill since what is involved is the freedom of expression in preaching different religious  doctrines and it removes the freedom of conscience to change ones religious beliefs.

We as Christians may tolerate the deprivation of social and economic benefits on the ground of being Christians, for that is in accordance with the teachings of Jesus who said “Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you and ill treat you or persecute you. But he also said that his teachings – the Word of God must be proclaimed throughout the world. Jesus warned that it was not going to be easy for it would entail persecution but it is not an exhortation but a command which every Christian is expected to follow. We Christians are required to follow Gods commandments rather than man’s where they clash. So it is our duty to oppose the so-called Anti-Conversion Law tabled by the JHU in Parliament on the 6th of January. It will be taken up in Parliament for the Third Reading after which it will be passed.

Why do we oppose it? It is because it poses a serious threat to genuine conversions and also to the work carried out by Christians in looking after the poor, the disabled, the suffering by running homes for them. It is specifically directed at conversions to Christianity which alone has initiating ceremonies like baptism. Didn’t the cricketer Dilshan who was a Muslim convert to Buddhism?

It is aimed at discouraging if not exactly criminalizing conversions including genuine conversions. Why should this be so if the Bill is aimed only at unethical conversions? The Bill does not cover persons who have no religion although their parents may be Buddhists and they may be discouraged to genuinely convert for they run the risk of becoming branded as criminals owing to the requirement to report their conversion to the Divisional Secretary.

It assumes that just because someone is born to Buddhist parents he or she must be Buddhist. What about the children of mixed marriages between Buddhists and Christians and Muslims or Hindus? Whose religion do they take on? What about parents who don’t believe in any religion and their son or daughter decides to convert to Christianity? They will have to report any such conversion to the Divisional Secretary. Another common circumstance is where the parents of a Christian girl may refuse to marry a Buddhist when the parents may threaten to cut her off from the family inheritance. If the boy then converts to Christianity the parents could be accused of an unethical conversion under this Bill since it could be alleged that the boy’s conversion is not genuine.

There are several matters such as the above which could pose a serious threat to the preaching and social service work of Christians.

This Bill violates the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights. The Supreme Court cited the Kokkinasis case in Greece in support of restricting the right to manifest the religion. But the European Court on Human Rights (Strasbourg) held that penal provisions imposed upon a Jehova Witness who was instrumental in converting a Christian of the Greek Orthodox Church to being a Jevoah witness was a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights [Kokkinakis v Greece (1992) 3 ECHR 348].The European Union requires the government to implement international Covenants on Human Rights to continue to be eligible for GSP plus, a duty concession of 10% which benefits particularly the garment exports. If this Bill is passed it would constitute another ground to refuse GSP plus.

This Bill seeks to legalize persecution of Christians. Armed men and Buddhist monks have attacked Christians using mob force. Pastors have been killed. The anti-Christian Buddhist activists will cite this law to argue that the Christians are resorting to unethical conversions prohibited by law and will prevent the Police from giving protection to Christians under attack. The present State is not in a position to prevent or investigate such attacks for law and order has broken down with armed groups carrying out abductions, kidnappings and murders.

Many Christians are not aware of the dangerous provisions of the Bill. Lay Christian groups are seeking to make the Catholics aware of the serious threats posed by the Bill if it is passed. Other Christian denominations too are engaged in such an awareness campaign. The Christians must oppose the Bill and impress upon politicians that it is a violation of the freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. 

Print this post
1,881 have read this this article so far. You may also find these articles interesting:
  • A Matter of faith By Citizen Throughout history, there have been good men who did good things and bad men who did bad things. But it has taken an unquestioning acceptance of religious doctrines or preaching or a tribal affiliation to a race, to motivate good people to do bad things. History is at best a romanticised compilation of half-truths... Global Citizen, February 2, 2009
  • Living Secular in the ‘Sinhala Buddhist Republic’ of Sri Lanka Two years ago, in a moment of panic, I rushed my young daughter to Colombo’s only children’s hospital. To be honest, I don’t normally turn to our overcrowded government hospitals for healthcare. But a doctor friend had recommended the Lady Ridgeway Hospital as the best place for administering the anti-rabies vaccine. As with all government hospitals,... Nalaka Gunawardene, February 27, 2010

| Share this article on Facebook

Milroy Perera said,

January 26, 2009 @ 4:14 am

[Edited out - Please desist from mindless speculation.]

In fact this unethical convention is not only a problem to Buddhists but also to other main religions of the country.

[Edited out - I suggest you try a better way of expressing the contestation between and within religions in Sri Lanka]

Freedom of Conscience and forced convention is two different issues. If you stand up in any of our major cities around 12.00 Noon you will hear loudspeakers chanting Muslim verses and that is freedom of Consciences (Some one might think he/she is in an Arabic Country) but that is how this Buddhists respect other religions.

[Edited out - Please desist from mindless speculation.]

As I remember it was George Bush who was so against anti convention bill because he was a born again christian.

Ruwan Kotuwelle said,

January 26, 2009 @ 2:34 am

Please find another country to convert and help the poor. Leave SriLanka alone as it is. Do no talk about the freedoms in Europe and other countries. Sri Lankan buddhists have always tolerated the acceptable activities all religions. Portugese, Dutch and the English spread christianity in the country and they have lived in harmony for centuries. With millions of dollard flooding in for convrting the majority buddhists to various denominations of christianity, we buddhists have to take actions; drastic actions. Let those actions be legal and peaceful.

kuruwitage_silv said,

January 26, 2009 @ 2:56 am

Pertaining to anti-conversion bill-It is sad to see a person like RMB Senanayake,spreading lies in the media.Buddhists are the most tolerant belief in the world,where every body can practice their faith freely.&it is true in Sri Lanka.

Shame on Senanayke..

KURUWITAGE SILVA
Montreal,CANADA

Thomas said,

January 26, 2009 @ 3:02 am

This Bill is act of desperation, look out for more in future as this is not going to end here, Christians in history have preached in the face of death, and they will continue to do that, whatever laws you want to pass.

wijayapala said,

January 26, 2009 @ 3:22 am

Thomas- Christians have a more well-known history of forcing others to convert to their religion. Hence the need for such bills. You should read up on your colonial history some time.

Chandra said,

January 26, 2009 @ 3:33 am

Now the Anti-conversion bill is required than ever before. Sinhala Buddhists drag in to present level because of their extra ordinary tolerating nature. We should stop it and STOP allowing outside forces to convert Sinhalese to various other religions by means of donating their needs. This is unethical behavior of other religion's leaders and supporters.

chandra jayawardana said,

January 26, 2009 @ 3:39 am

portuguese came to srilanka on year 1505. since then upto the independence on1948,they(portuguese,dutch,and british) tried to convert sinhalese to christianity.all those 450 years with government powers they could convert only 5% sinhalese. why? because only buddhism sees the things as really they are and this is unique religion. i don't think we really need a anti convertion bill since sinhalese are educated people. as example , how much money somebody offer me to convert to christianity, i don't

Nalin_Fernando said,

January 26, 2009 @ 3:55 am

This bill is as need as Destroy LTTE terrorists. we have to get rid of all the Christian converters pastors and other foreignNGO missions who wanna destroy Sinhala Buddhist culture from Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Is Buddhist country as USA is Christian country. you people survive here in Sri Lanka because of great Buddhism otherwise you may be washout long ago.
Do you know by constitution Sri Lanka is a Buddhist country. if you wanna to create sri lanka multi religious multi cultural country go to USA and ask president of USA to change his believes to some other religion. ask him to declare USA is not a Christian country .
Mr you better mind on your own business than criticizing Buddhism you guys have a separate hell to go

Somasiri said,

January 26, 2009 @ 4:33 am

Unfortunately what Sri lankan Buddhist's don't understand is what happened to Buddhism in India where Buddha was born. India has ban conversions of Hindus to other religions. Majority of indian's are Hindus. But Dalits (untouchables) still get converted to Buddhism due to suppression of cast difference. Our Buddhist monks too have cast system (Nikaya). And they preach Buddhism.
Best thing is to let people decide what religion they should follow. Its fundamental basic right of people to have faith in what ever the religion they like to follow.
Srilankan Buddhist monks are already in politics as no other Buddhist country in the world. They will eventually teach a good lesson to Buddhist people. It may be too late then……at least keep the freedom you all have now.

neville mangalagama said,

January 26, 2009 @ 5:12 am

It is democretic right of every sri lankan to belive or convert to the religion what they like , if enyone honestly convert him self to a nother religion no one can stop him by introducing this types of bills , alson noter religion or a group or a person doesn't have any code or power to controll indipendent person to deside what religion he or she should be choose. I think now is the time everyone should understand this , without looking for nother disaster in future like LTTE, Please do not viollate the freedom of an individual to choos his/her religion

Neville

manori said,

January 26, 2009 @ 6:04 am

Religon is something personel. if any one converts to another religion no one can stop that. You dont need to have bills its only tolarance let any one convert to buddism or christianity. there are much more important things to look at especially the courruption of our politicians.

Walter_R said,

January 26, 2009 @ 7:45 am

Hello Neville

I am Walter Rajaratne. Just reading from Sydney Australia. So you are contributing to fora that involved matters of interest. I have been a keen reader of many an article written by RMB, ex Civil Servant on array of topics. Though I would not see eye to eye with some of his writings they are quite informative.

As for anti conversion bill it looks bit extreme hurting those who have become Christians with the advent of European invaders who ransacked our countries for which we are still subjugated to their economic invasion we are struggling to escape though we manage to win freedom on other fronts. It’s this horrendous experience that the Sinhalese Buddhists still look at anything coming from west with a hackneyed eye.

continued

Walter_R said,

January 26, 2009 @ 7:46 am

Anyone should have the freedom to choose what is best for ones life. Nonetheless it should be without any bait attached to them which would bring far reaching disaster to nation as a whole. Like in the case of India aiding and abetting Tiger terrorism ultimately were made to pay the supreme sacrifice. In the circumstances it would be best to formulate a multi religious body that could jointly monitor the unethical conversion or the proselytizing. RMB with his wide ranging admin skills could be given the chair to conduct affairs in a balanced format. We just came out of three decade carnage and we don’t need another, do we?

Anoma said,

January 26, 2009 @ 8:01 am

Tilkeratne Dilshan was not forced into accepting Buddhism . No one dangled a carrot for him to be a Buddhist . What the bill aims is to stop is forceful conversions , expolitng the poor and the vulmerable . It is a pity that RMB SENANAYAKE has not grasped this .

The talking Frog said,

January 26, 2009 @ 8:08 am

Is it factually correct that Sri Lankan Buddhists are highly tolerant of non-Buddhists as repeatedly claimed in these comments? The fact that many have converted to Christianity can hardly be used as evidence of tolerance, it could equally well be evidence of Buddhist leadership and teaching in Sri Lanka becoming less attractive.

(That masses of Dalits converted to Buddhism in South India, for instance, was hardly evidence of Hindus being tolerant — they responded with the anti-conversion bill, which Sri Lanka is now trying to copy. In India, however, conversion to Buddhism continues with renewed vigour; see:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/38... )

The freedoms that are provided for other religions in Sri Lanka are in practice less than those provided to Buddhism, which enjoy special status. In most democratic countries no one religion is given such special status. There are numerous incidents of organised violence against churches in Sri Lanka, which (like with the current violence against journalists) are exempt from justice. All this undermines the argument that Sri Lankan Buddhist practice is specially tolerant. Available evidence, including the current anti-conversion bill, seems to be more in favour of the contrary argument about Buddhist tolerance.

Ironically, trying to prevent people leaving Buddhism by such unattractive attitudes and practices, may simply cause good people to be even more disillusioned by Buddhism.

Religious faiths are often attractive for the self-lessness and kindness they espouse in a harsh world, not because they mirror the entrenched selfishness and power dynamics of society.

Buddhists who beat the drums of state power and with it the anti-conversion bill may not have converted to Chrisitanity, but they have already converted away from the teachings of the Buddha. It is indeed a sad time for Buddhism in Sri Lanka.

Faqi said,

January 26, 2009 @ 8:43 am

Religion is a person's private belief. The government should butt out of getting involved in a person's private beliefs. One cannot impose a religion on anyone in a democratic society. One cannot legislate, then its not a democracy, but a theocracy like most Muslim un-democratic countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and so on. No country in the West legislates religion to its citizens, anyone is free to worship or not worship, its left to the individual. Buddhists better keep in mind that that many of them are immigrating to majority Christian countries and they do not stop them practicing their religion or erecting temples and so forth. If this bill passes there may be a backlash in Christian majority countries against Sri Lanka which is dependent on Aid and trade with the Western Christian majority countries. Is it that you just want to accept their donations and you want them to buy your goods, which they could do without very well. This bill will have repercussions in the future. Don't go with a begging bowl to the West in future. Why should Christian tax payer money be given to countries that
harass Christians.

rajivmw said,

January 26, 2009 @ 9:27 am

Christians in Sri Lanka are no different from their countrymen. They are, in the main, genuinely tolerant and respectful of all religious belief. They do not feel the need to impose their doctrines on others, they practice charity without motive, and they are themselves open to wisdom coming from outside their faith.

I suspect that this unsettles Mr. Senanayake. He would rather persuade Christians that they face some kind of existential threat from Sinhala Buddhists. They must march against the heathen, blatantly exploiting social distress and stoking religious tension in order to win those scalps for Jesus.

This is what the great American comedian Bill Maher calls ‘arrogance masquerading as humility’. I wonder if Mr. Senanayake would be such a champion of religious liberty if Sri Lanka was, in fact, a Christian theocracy.

I too oppose the anti-conversion bill. Ultimately, a peaceful, just and liberal society will strengthen Buddhism in this country more than any dubious legislation and the coercive power of the state. For all their other faults, religious conflict does not come naturally to Sri Lankans. It has to be manufactured. And in that, Mr. Senanayake might as well be a sponsor of this bill.

CheeLanka said,

January 27, 2009 @ 12:19 am

Ethnicity is a matter of birth and lineage (even if that too is entirely accidental); religious faith is strictly a matter of personal choice. If I want, I can be a believer of Buddhist faith in the morning, and switch to Christianity in the afternoon and embrace Hinduism by night — and there is nothing in the world that can stop me! Or I can be Buddhist on Monday, Christian on Tuesday, Islamic on Wednesday and Jewish for the rest of the week, etc. You get the idea!

To have clarity in this matter, we must separate religious faith and its cultural trappings. Faith is a matter of mind and persuasion alone. Culture, on the other hand, is closely related to lifestyle and shows in our daily deeds. Living in Sri Lanka, our cultures are overlapping in origin and delightfully mixed up. Simple examples: I say 'Aiyo' which is originally a Tamil word; I also say 'Budu Ammo' (Sinhala) and 'Oh my God' (Christian reference) on occasion. I don't give these much thought. Neither do most other people!

So that's all this fuss about conversion? In the past, when feudal societies deprived individuals personal liberties, people didn't have any choice, and became part of the 'flock' in one faith or another. In those days, everyone defined their strength in terms of numbers of followers. The JHU is either mentally stuck in those Dark Ages, or are keen to drag 21st century Lanka back to those days of the past. Either way, they can't unleash Thought Police on us, even if they try!

There is another aspect of this dubious anti-conversion bill that hasn't received enough attention. It says converting children, mentally disabled persons and women would be a particularly high offence. Does this mean, to the feudal male chauvinists of the JHU and their supporters, that women are not able to think for themselves as men? This is the kind of Buddhist taleban that we see rising in this supposedly tolerant Lanka!

citizen said,

January 27, 2009 @ 1:38 am

I do not mean offence, and in no way mean to belittle the wisdom shared by buddha. I feel compelled however to propose a slight ammendment to the proposed bill to include a bit of popular Sri Lankan political wisdom to Buddha's doctrine (as it seems in dire need of such to keep up with the percieved challenges of these times of greater enlightenment….

Buddhan saranan gachchaami
Sanghan saranan gachchaami
Dhamman saranan gachchaami
'Anti-conversion bill' saranan gachchami??

TwoCents said,

January 27, 2009 @ 4:24 am

The second paragraph of rajivmw seems even more speculative than the first. It would have been better if the comment dealt with the content of the article rather attacking the imagined motivations of the author.

4cents said,

January 27, 2009 @ 8:45 am

actually the reality is that most of these conversions are done by the feel good "new churches" with song and praise and money…
as the stats in US and EU show, catholics and anglicans are the most effected by these new churches, and altough you can lumo all these new found chruches under christians , even catholics are aprehensive of these. but actually we dont need this bill cos the first to go would be the old churches, rather than buddhism.

CCC said,

January 27, 2009 @ 2:14 pm

This is not as straight forward as this author puts it.

1.I have no love for evangelical missionaries. They simply believe they are right and others are wrong. I find this egotistical and unethical in a modern pluralistic society. How can I deal with a man who simply believes that I will rot in hell regardless of my morality? BUT still I don’t agree with this bill. Corrupt and uninformed Buddhist monks waste money on grand statues and temples and live in luxury while the poor faithful suffer. They hold poojas to invoke blessings on Obama while a child next door goes hungry. May be if the Buddhists were proactive and practiced ahimsa then we wouldn’t need laws to keep them in the fold.

2.Then again these evangelists arrive in the country with huge bank accounts. They bribe and intimidate poor people with the flash and might of their international muscle. How do communities maintain their identity and culture in this onslaught?

rajivmw said,

January 27, 2009 @ 2:59 pm

If it's ok for the author to speculate about the imagined motivations of those who supporrt the bill (as he does in his first para), then why can't I speculate about his motivations in opposing it?

In fact, he pretty much lays it all out in his second para. It may be couched in terms which seem innocuous – inspiring even – if you happen to be a certain type of Chistian. But then so may the bill be read as fair and just, if you happen to be a certain kind of Buddhist.

To his credit, Mr. Senanayake does highlight the threat posed to the civil liberties of all Sri Lankans. But his blatant parochialism turns what could have been a call to action for all liberals into yet another piece of petty hate-mongering.

Far too much time is spent exhorting Christians to confrontion. No effort is made to discuss the circumstances and arguments behind the bill, except to chalk it up to Sinhala Buddhist 'triumphalism'.

The authors of the bill as well as the author of this article are clearly appealing to both arrogance and fear in their respective audiences in order to advance their particular ideologies. Neither is being helpful, except to each other.

paul said,

January 28, 2009 @ 4:34 am

I don't believe in taking sides either with the Buddhist clergy or the Evangelical churches. They both have their pluses and minuses, which should be obvious to most people with a brain in their heads.

However, I firmly believe that no 'DEMOCRATIC' government has the right to regulate people's religious beliefs through threats of imprisonment. The religion one believes in is a very personal matter and of no concern whatsoever to the government.

If the government of Sri Lanka does pass this bill, it would be the first step towards turning our country from a democracy to a religious fiefdom.

CCC said,

January 28, 2009 @ 7:58 am

This bill does not aim to "regulate people's religious beliefs". It aims to control conversions through coercive and forceful means. There are examples where primary schools have been infiltrated by evangalists and children brainwashed to fear Buddhist monks, there are many suck examples of practices more people would consider unethical and forceful. This law is to control that. The powerful evangelical media will likely distort this as much as possible. Please try to filter through the hype.

james said,

January 28, 2009 @ 8:49 am

no matter what you say CCC, if a government passes a regulatory bill regarding religious beliefs, they DEFINITELY ARE trying to regulate the beliefs of the people.

And that is UNDEMOCRATIC….!

rajivmw said,

January 28, 2009 @ 10:09 am

CCC does bring up a genuine problem and it cannot be ignored or ridiculed away. This kind of fundamentalism is dangerous in a fractured, poverty-ridden, multi-religious society such as ours. The question is, should legislation be used to tackle it? That is indeed problematic.

Perhaps if the laws were more specific. For example, going by what CCC has pointed out, maybe religious indoctrination should be disallowed at regular school, owing to the sensitivities inherent in a diverse classroom. Surely religion-specific Sunday schools are adequate for that purpose.

And maybe we can look at some of the hate-speech regulation that many Western countries have adopted.

CCC said,

January 28, 2009 @ 1:33 pm

There are many regulatory bills regarding religion in democracies. The US constitution has specific references to “god”, and the currency says “in god we trust”, the UK government has refers to the Church of England…

In my opinion this bill could be and should be an attempt to protect society from unwanted and uncalled for intrusion. Each and every adult in Sri Lanka has the reasonable right to learn about any religion or faith and make a conscious decision. Likewise each adult citizen has the right to be protected from coercion and harassment. This bill could be and should be to prevent aggressive and unsolicited prostelizing and the use of material gain to convert.

Government cannot and should not regulate religious beliefs, but it has the duty to protect the vulnerable in society from coercion and intimidation. The vulnerable should be afforded the dignity to receive assistance and maintain their freedom of thought and association.

R.M.B Senanayake said,

January 28, 2009 @ 4:34 pm

The fact is that during the times of the Sinhalese kings there was no personal freedom. The peasantry were serfs and the caste system dominated with each caste allocated separate occupations. Of course not only in Sri Lanka but in the entire Asia there were only despotic kings with no freedom or rule of law. Of course there was no dissent tolerated even in Medieval Europe. Freedom is the result of the European Enlightenment and those who won it had to struggle against the established Christian Churches. Clergy everywhere has been intolerant because conversions would deprive of their bread and butter. There are enough anecdotes of the arbitrary behavior of our kings. Those who champion the Anti-Conversion Bill are trying to take the country back to the feudal ages.

TwoCents said,

January 28, 2009 @ 7:57 pm

RMB, why imagine that you can know and judge the motivations of your detractors? It would be better to respond to the actual complaints made by those proposing the bill.

Does one have to be feudal and "unenlightened" to say that it might be unethical to try and persuade very young children in to a religion, without parental permission? My two cents is that Christians should not be avoiding these very pertinent questions.

citizen said,

January 29, 2009 @ 7:29 am

Unethical coercions and conversions cannot be disputed. The futility, danger of the draft legislation and the fact that it is counterproductive at best also cannot be disputed with reason. It is easy to look at the problem as a religious issue, but the fact of the matter is that it is not a religious issue at all.
To cut a long story short, the particular demographic that is vulnerable to be “unethically converted” are also vulnerable to every other form of coercion and exploitation. If they are not exploited by what I would call “corporate” churches, then they will be exploited by someone else. Historically their aspirations, fears and anxieties have been exploited by political parties for votes, by thugs, gangs and terrorist groups such as the LTTE for recruitment, and the so called ‘unseen forces’ to do their dirty work.
Unplugging one hole to plug another is not going to fix the leak no?

james said,

January 29, 2009 @ 11:52 am

"There are many regulatory bills regarding religion in democracies. The US constitution has specific references to “god”, and the currency says “in god we trust”, the UK government has refers to the Church of England…"

You quote these as examples, but have either of these countries passed an official law preventing any religion from preaching their beliefs or converting people to them?

Maybe it would be better for you to quote from the Saudi laws, that gives you a more secure foothold for your views!

That's what I believe… but may not be able to for long… someone may pass a law against it…!! :)

R.M.B. Senanayake said,

January 29, 2009 @ 1:42 pm

.
Two cents says I am questioning the motivations. Of course I do because it is obvious to any reasonable man that the punch lies in mob violence and not the law. The law has broken down completely as seen by the numerous murders of media men all unpunished. So it stands to reason that those who brought this Bill being reasonable men cannot expect its provisions to be enforced by law. It is a cover to tie the hands of the Police from taking any police preventive action against violence that is unleashed by the mob. This is what happended in Orissa and earlier in Bihar.
If I am wrong why did the Select committee not accept the recommendation to include a clause that in the event of false or malicious charges being made against any person alleged to have resorted to unethcial conversions which are proved to be false, the person who did so should be prosecuted too for making falase and malicious charges. This is the minimum safeguard that the Christians need in this Bill. There is still time to include such an amendment as a proviso to Section3.

R.M.B. Senanayake said,

January 29, 2009 @ 1:47 pm

Citizen is right This is not a matter of religion. It is a matter of personal freedom. Religion forr ultra-Sinhala Buddhist nationalists is a cloak, a nameboard, a banner under which to mobilise mass support for putting the minorites in their place as per ideology of the Army commander. This ideology has nothing to do with the Buddha's teaching or the Dhamma as any genuine Buddhist would perhaps agree.

Tertullian said,

January 29, 2009 @ 6:11 pm

According to the anti conversion bill any benefit from prayer will be construed as inducement. Any argument will be deemed forcible. Any refuting of doctrine would be defined as misrepresentation. Any one can lodge a false complaint and get the Police to disrupt a Christan meeting. What happens when Buddhists attend a christian marriage ceremont and hear Christian doctrine? Will that be unethical conversion? Why not define what an ethical conversion is? Anglicans or Catholics did not ask for a bill – so it is no point citing them as affected by the conversions. Over 70 million new Christians are found in China who are persecuted. They did not get any money. Evangelical churches are found in majority Catholic countries. They did not convert for money. It is sad that political clout is being sought by the religious party thru a bill when they have lost the popular vote base.

citizen said,

January 29, 2009 @ 10:43 pm

RMB, Thank you for the endorsement, but what follows that, is your interpretation of the problem, not mine.

citizen said,

January 29, 2009 @ 10:54 pm

What surprises me most every time I think about it, is the amount of trust we place on a legislature that has failed us at the best of times during the 62 years of its existence, to solve our problems even those as sacred as personal faith. Regardless of what the problem really is, allowing the state to dictate what we should believe is worse than allowing them to regulate what we think… and feel… while knowing only too well, how inept and corrupt and unreliable and dishonest the actions of all three branches of our government are.
We might as well get wild beasts to nurse and care for our infants!!!

james said,

January 30, 2009 @ 6:18 am

very well said citizen…!

I also feel that the suggestion made by RMB Senanayake regarding the proviso that in the case of a false accusation being made, the accuser should face prosecution for malicious intent, to be a very valid point.

If the backers of this bill are being 100% honest in their intentions, they shouldn't fear or oppose such an inclusion in the draft. I would assume rather they would welcome such a regulation as that would show them to be working with good intentions at heart.

Moses said,

January 31, 2009 @ 2:06 pm

The Catholic church and other traditional churches/missions such as Anglican, Methodist and other protestant missions of Sri Lanka wecomes this move as much as or more than Buddists (Hindus, Muslims) sicne the new age evangelical/born again sects are a threat to them more as much as or than Buddism. Churches in SL have existed for 500 years for genuine conversions, It is the unethical nature and incentives (material and emotional) that pose the problem. This is a problem faced by many nations and some have taken stepps to address it. If Buddist extremism was true, banning the films such as the Davinci code that criticizes the image of the church would not happen. Buddism is also gaining popularity outside SL, especially in western industialized nations.

Anomadassi said,

February 1, 2009 @ 4:33 pm

Naturally, Buddhism is a religion that helps to grow individualism through mere selfishness. The Buddhists do not understand the plight of the human beings. But very fond of speaking about animals. That is the contrast of this so called philosophy. So the majority of the Buddhists are now leaving its eight fold paths and begin to be human beings. The hard-co Buddhists interpret this as conversion. Please understand the reality.

citizen said,

February 2, 2009 @ 1:27 am

Throughout history, there have been good men who did good things and bad men who did bad things. But it has taken an unquestioning acceptance of religious doctrines or preaching or a tribal affiliation to a race, to motivate good people to do bad things. This is as true of Buddhists as it is of all other religions, but I am not going to get dragged into an argument whether the depravations and wars of Sri Lanka's 'glorious' past were religiously motivated or not. History is at best a romanticised compilation of half-truths – useful only as much as we can learn from it without giving into the temptations of using history to justify our actions in the present. The only thing that can justify our actions at present is an uncompromising sense of what is right and wrong and the voice of our moral conscience.

ashan said,

February 2, 2009 @ 8:27 am

we don't deny it. but is that an excuse to kill the real thing Mr. Wijeyapala? Are excuses like these the tolerance you boast about?

ashan said,

February 2, 2009 @ 8:31 am

your last sentence will be ignored. Dear mr. kuruwitage, do you go to a temple in canada? is there a law to stop you doing it? What if you help someone? Will you be arrsting for converting them?

wijayapala said,

February 3, 2009 @ 12:03 am

Ashan (and other Christians), I have some questions to ask:

1) Do Christians believe that all non-Christians (ie those who don't worship Jesus Christ) are damned and will go to hell when they die?

2) Do Christians consider it ethical to specifically target poor people for conversion and bribe them to become Christian (in the name of saving their souls)?

citizen said,

February 3, 2009 @ 4:03 am

wijayapala,
1> Fundamentally, Christians* believe that all those who don't worship Jesus Christ have no salvation and therefore will go to hell when they die. However no Christian can substantiate this – let alone the very existance of heaven or hell. Jesus Christ also said that "the kingdom of God is not 'here' nor 'there' but the kingdom of God is within YOU".

2> No one with a semblance of integrity – let alone a respectful love for 'God' which includes most Christians*, do not consider it ethical to specifically target poor people for conversion or to bribe them to become Christian. They certainly do not believe that such actions would save their own souls or those of the converted.

* I am sorry i had to give you general answers, but you asked general questions.

Andare said,

February 3, 2009 @ 5:03 am

We shall all do as Ruwan says;
1. We shall find another country to convert and help the poor
2. We shall leave SriLanka alone as it is (surely, everything's just fine as it is)
3. We shall NOT talk about the freedoms in Europe and other countries
4. Believe unquestioningly that Sri Lankan buddhists have always tolerated the acceptable activities all religions [and by implication, NOT tolerated the "unacceptable" activities]
5. Believe that Portugese, Dutch and the English spread christianity in the country and they have lived in harmony for centuries [because Ruwan says so]
…from henceforth forever more (or untill Ruwan instructs us otherwise)

But what do we do about the millions of dollard (sic) flooding in for convrting the majority buddhists to various denominations of christianity??? What drastic, legal and peaceful actions shall we take? Perhaps remit them to bolster the alarmingly depleted foreign currency reserves…. or spend it to maintain the 'soft-peg' on the Rupee???
NO!
We shall wait for Ruwan's advice.

Wijepala said,

February 3, 2009 @ 8:17 am

I think Buddhism should be banned in the US and all other countries as well, but that would'nt make sense would it??? Threfore people have a right to choose what they want to beleive, regardless of what they hear…. If a buddhist has a strong faith then he will not convert, as for Bribes….. That just shows the depth of ones faith doesnt it?? So are the buddhists of Sri Lanka afraid that their faith maybe bought for money??? and hence take legal action?? But…. Is a faith so shallow that its followers will accept a monetary reward for leaving the faith?? should we not judge the strength of a faith by letting people decide based on their faith rather than a legal requirement?? Sri Lanka seems to be turning into a little hell hole in Asia……….

wijayapala said,

February 5, 2009 @ 2:10 am

Citizen, thank you for answering the two simple, "general" questions which other Christians here were afraid to answer.

The 1st sentence in your answer to the 1st question actually overrules the rest of your answers and explains a great deal about the very violent history of Christianity and the need for non-Christians to protect themselves. By having a "fundamental" belief that non-Christians have no salvation (whether within or without), Christians learn at a fundamental level that others are inferior to them. From there they learn how to justify atrocities and "unethical" behavior against non-Christians.

Your 2nd answer is incompatible with what I drew from your 1st answer above. Colonial history is largely the history of Christians targeting/bribing native people to convert and abandon their traditional ways- historically, most Christians certainly believed it was ethical to eliminate non-Christian ways of life, because the latter existed outside the "Kingdom of God."

citizen said,

February 5, 2009 @ 8:22 am

wijayapala,
Let me respectfully suggest the possibility that it may not be my 1st sentence or 2nd answer, but your own grasp of reality that is perhaps too simplistic and therefore not quite compatible with reason.
I am sure that you have lived to a sufficiently mature age to realise that life and society and even individuals are full of contradictions and that those contradictions in themselves do not cause conflicts.
It is meaningless to generalise that "Christians are such" and "Buddhists are such" because that’s not how it works. Generalisation can help us organise facts, but it does not lead to knowledge or understanding. For example, it helps to categorise living things into plants and animals, vertebrates and invertebrates, mammals, birds, reptiles and such. But despite similarities, all mammals are not the same. To say that Christians believe such a thing and therefore will behave in such a way is very much like saying that the parrot is a bird, and the parrot is green, the is a crow is also a bird so the crow must also be green. I am not drawing an analogy to the different denominations of christianity, but to the level of individual christians.
It is pointless to presume “what Christians believe” or “what Tamils feel”. A certain batch of wine may have a common trait or a particular model of mobile phones may have a defining feature. But individual human beings say and do things because of who they are as individuals and not because they belong to a particular demographic.

wijayapala said,

February 7, 2009 @ 2:45 am

"It is pointless to presume “what Christians believe” or “what Tamils feel”."

It is actually quite important to know what people feel if there is a motivation behind their actions. I am looking for the answer to the question why Christianity has had such a violent history, and unsurprisingly it traces back to essentially an extremely bigoted *fundamental* worldview. It makes relatively little difference whether some Christians were more or less violent than others when we look at the phenomenon as a whole.

I see nothing wrong with restricting the activities of a belief system which preaches the inferiority of those who are different. If I have misrepresented your belief system, you are free to correct me.

raja_senanayake said,

February 7, 2009 @ 2:02 pm

How did Buddhism spread. Wasn't it the patronage of the king that led to it. In the feudal ages the religion of the ruler became the religion of the subjects. Was buddhism embraced by the peasantry ot of intellectual underrstanding?

citizen said,

February 7, 2009 @ 5:08 pm

wijayapala,
it is not my objective or job to correct you. i can present the fact and help you look at the matter from a different perspective – and it is up to you to make whatever use you can make out of it.
The point i am trying to get across is that "Christian", "Tamil", "Sinhala" etc identify one common belief or language that many people share. The similarities end there. How meaningful do you think it is to assume
what "Sinhala people" think? Each Christian person has a different view of "God", divergent values and biases… it does not make sense to group them all together as "Christians" and make assumptions about all of them as if they were all one single entity. it's too simplistic – and unfairly discriminative to do so.

Shocked said,

May 15, 2009 @ 11:31 am

Why does the Government have to interfere in a person’s religious belief. One has to be convinced to get converted and changing one’s religious belief is an entirely personal decision. According to the constitution of Sri Lanka, can the Government stop a person from changing his/her religion? Before trying to stop conversion, the Buddhist Monks should try to gather their flock in the temples at least once a week and preach the good teachings of the Lord Buddha. If Buddhism has to be safeguarded, those who are following Buddhism should live the teachings of the Lord Buddha.

A.S.Mathew said,

June 22, 2009 @ 9:11 am

How, people can be forced to convert? If any force is used, that must be
illegal. On the other hand, if a person has taken the decision to follow a new
faith according to his or her conviction, nobody can question it. And if a
country is making any law to barricade conversion based on conscience, that
is simply the violation of human right.

The BJP and its allied parties were playing the card of “conversion” to alarm
the Indian electorate, but the game plan did’t work. As people are getting
more educated, the political game of using religion as a bait will not work any
more.

aruna said,

November 24, 2009 @ 10:16 am

Please find another country to convert and help the poor. Leave SriLanka alone as it is. Do no talk about the freedoms in Europe and other countries. Sri Lankan buddhists have always tolerated the acceptable activities all religions. Portugese, Dutch and the English spread christianity in the country and they have lived in harmony for centuries. With millions of dollard flooding in for convrting the majority buddhists to various denominations of christianity, we buddhists have to take actions; drastic actions. Let those actions be legal and peaceful.

Off the Cuff said,

November 27, 2009 @ 1:37 am

The PRIMARY law of the country cannot be over ridden by any secondary law. This fact is overlooked by most posters who allow emotions to override sanity.

What is the Primary law regarding Religion? This is what it states

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

10. Every person is entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

If for any reason the above is interfered with the aggrieved person can and should obtain relief from the Supreme Court. The relief requested should include punitive damages (if such is allowed)

All arguments that claim that the State is interfering with a person’s religious belief fails due to this

This is what the Supreme Court said of the Original bill in 2004

“In view of our findings that clause 3 arid Clause 4(b) of the bill violate Article 10 of the Constitution the bill in its present form has to be passed by not less than 2/3′d of the whole number of members (including those not present) and approved by the people at a referendum in terms of Article 83(a) of the Constitution.”

You will note that the Supreme Court makes a direct reference to the PRIMARY Law

This bill is not an Anti Conversion bill but an Anti FORCIBLE conversion Bill

Here is what the bill says

1. This Act may be cited as the Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of Religion Act, No. of 2004

2. No person shall convert or attempt to convert, either Forcible directly or otherwise, any person from one religion to another conversion by the use of force or by allurement or by any fraudulent legal, means nor shall any person aid or abet any such conversion.

Omission of the word FORCIBLE in discussing this bill amounts to Deception and Dishonesty

Being sanctimonious about freedoms and Democracy after such dishonesty would sound very hollow indeed.

Heshan said,

November 27, 2009 @ 8:29 am

Yet another fine example of Sinhala-Buddhism in action.

Just Someone said,

November 27, 2009 @ 12:19 pm

Perhaps a bill is necessary to control Christian Fundamentalism in Sri Lanka. Several Indian states already have such a bill (despite India claiming to be a secular country) and it seems to have worked in stemming Hindu-Christian conflict. I think we could learn from the Indians in this regard. Christian Fundamentalism is not amenable to reason and takes advantage of the poor and those who are desperate, as seen in the recent deaths of two women at Viharamadevi Park. It deserves to be challenged, I think.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment

This is a moderated forum. Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. Please do not post comments that are off topic, defamatory, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Comments are automatically scanned for spam and obscenity.

Comments are only approved if they are in line with the site guidelines. Those that do not will be edited or deleted without prior intimation. Comment approval may take up to 24 hours.

Thanks in advance for your civil and constructive engagement.

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free