Focus

  Point of view 

Anti conversion or anti religion?

THE Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) and the government have both, separately, prepared 'anti conversion' bills to be passed in parliament. The government bill is still in its early stages, while the JHU bill has been gazetted and was tabled in parliament on July 21. Both these bills, (the JHU bill and the government bill) seek to regulate the process of converting people from one religion to another. It is hoped that, if these bills are passed by parliament, that there would be at least some form of control over the process of 'conversions.'

It is perhaps understandable that certain groups have reacted to the current situation in the form of a 'bill' and such constitutional methods. As a friend of mine said to me "this is the first real step the government is taking after a very long time to do something about this situation." There is of course no doubting the grievance that these so called 'conversions' have been causing over the past so many years.

While seeing the need to address this situation, we still have to raise the question however as to whether a 'bill,' a 'law,' is the best answer? And moreover, as to whether it is an appropriate first step. Such measures as a 'bill' should be enacted to address a situation, which is clearly understood. Can we say that we clearly understand what is happening in our country?

It is argued that certain groups, certain sects are engaged in turning religion in to an industry. For them religion is a commercial enterprise and a nice way to make a living. Though they perhaps pose off as Christians one could say that their actual religion is 'money.' For money they will do what they do, and more of it for more money. Undoubtedly Christians at large must also be appalled by the actions of these groups. The church also must see this as the decadence of materialism eating its way into the spiritual. Surely it would be very much in the interests of Christians also to see such pseudo spiritual groups reformed or restrained.

But the matter is not as simple. Christians at large may chose to see anyone and everyone who does not subscribe to the 'church's version' of the faith as being pseudo Christian. Christians at large would perhaps like to bundle all these groups together and label them with one label and make them all appear counterfeit. And yet what ever the view of the church may be, people are entitled to their own opinions and versions of religion and this freedom also needs to be upheld.

Further complexities

The complexities and problems arising out of this bill has much more far reaching effects than merely how it may apply to the church. The bill that has been presented to parliament poses issues not only for Christians but also for any believer of any religion. The bill clearly posits that any conversion by 'force' will be a criminal offence. This concept is embodied in international instruments such as the 'International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.' So the concept itself is not new. What is relevant to our context though is the definition given to the word 'force.'

According to the JHU bill, 'force' can be equated to 'the threat of religious displeasure or (the) condemnation of any religion or religious faith.' Such a definition of 'force' has devastating consequences. Were this bill to be passed, it would be a criminal offence for any one to explain their religion to someone outside of their faith, as it is impossible to do so without causing some amount of 'religious displeasure' towards that person.

Values

There are many lessons in the sacred texts about how the Lord Buddha brought people literally to their knees by helping them realise the folly of their ways. The Lord Buddha, demonstrated to such people the futility of their self centred or violent life style and showed them that there was a better way. Does not this process abound with 'value judgments'? Is not one lifestyle valued above the other? Does not the self-centred, violent lifestyle immediately come under judgment? Isn't such a life style implicitly and explicitly disapproved of? Adherence to the JHU bill however would necessitate us to look at this process as the use of 'force.' After all, to show (or even propose to show) 'religious displeasure' is equated to 'force,' which is then pronounced to be a criminal offence.

In fact would Buddhism still stand, as a coherent and complete philosophy if we took away from it all its teaching that is discouraging of materialism, violence and unhealthy desire? Clearly not! Surely a virtuous lifestyle is key to attaining Nirvana, which is a foremost goal of all who practice Buddhism. Or can Buddhism look at the killing of animals and be completely ok with it? Clearly not! In fact there is no religion on earth that we know of which doesn't have its own set of values which it approves and disapproves of.

Or is it even the case that religions can disapprove of certain values, and then not attach any negative consequence to the actions and values that are disapproved of. Can Buddhism disapprove of a violent, indulgent lifestyle but yet hold no discouragement for such a lifestyle? Again, clearly not! All religions would tie-up the disapproved life styles with some adverse effect, be it an increase in Karma, a rebirth in a lower form or the sheer prospect of hell.

Under the JHU bill however, to disapprove of a person's unhealthy, indulgent lifestyle through the values enshrined in Buddhism would clearly be to subject such a person to 'religious displeasure or condemnation of religion or religious faith.' In fact the bill states that even the 'threat' of such an activity would be a criminal offence. It is useful to consider then as to how (were the bill to be made law) we propose to teach or even explain Buddhism (or any other religion for that matter) to someone unaware of it.

After all, to put it simply, any such explanation would necessitate the sharing of 'good values' and 'bad values' with an explanation of what happens when you go with the 'good' and what happens when you go with the 'bad.' Clearly since the person to whom things are being explained is not a Buddhist, he/she will probably not fall within the lifestyle approved of by Buddhism. In the process of explaining Buddhism to this person it will be nothing but inevitable that some degree of 'religious disapproval' will be directed at this person - of course with the hope of helping him/her to understand and adopt the 'better ways'.

Under the JHU bill however even sharing one's religion in this way would be a criminal offence punishable by a prison sentence of up to five years. Isn't it a bit disconcerting to think that if our religious leaders be it Lord Buddha, Lord Jesus or Prophet Mohamed, lived in Sri Lanka today that this bill would find them to be criminals and imprison them?

Surely no religion, certainly none of the main religions in Sri Lanka, advocates anything and everything. Each religion based on its premises and ideologies will approve of certain lifestyles and disapprove of others. Isn't the concept of 'Karma' a strong discouragement against mindless indulgence? Isn't the concept of 'hell' a strong discouragement against living an indulgent self-centred life? How can these religions continue to exist in any coherent manner if such distinctions can no longer be drawn, if adverse consequences can no longer be attached to disapproved behaviour?

Hearsay

So what do we do? Clearly this bill cannot be the answer. While the problem of 'unethical conversions' has persisted for some time, in reality we know very little about it. Often we have gathered facts off tabloids, anonymous messages and spurious articles, which have clearly, intended to discredit and sling mud at people rather than to genuinely present the truth. Is it based on the findings of such material and hearsay that we prepare to take constitutional measures?

It is tempting to think of constitutional reform as a quick, clear and concise answer to our problems. But if there is one thing we have learnt as a country that is that, this is not the case. Constitutional reform of this nature, which directly addresses the dignity of human beings, may be soon passed in parliament, but will never be laid to rest. Such a measure would engage Sri Lanka in a slow downward spiral to the terror and destruction that most of us know only too well.

We hope therefore that the policy makers of our country will not take rash decisions with the hope of quick answers. Let there be 'truth commissions' of sorts. Let the reality and truth of all these issues be openly discussed and demonstrated. Let the issues be publicly known, openly engaged with and answers sought through an inclusive process. Time has brought us once more to a place we found ourselves in many years ago. Sri Lanka has been here before, she will not take the same road again.

Back to the Page