|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 18 July 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Anti-conversion Bill - a gross violation of religious freedom The prohibition of forcible religious conversion Bill gazetted on May 28, 2004 is Bill is to be presented in Parliament with a view to prohibiting the so-called forced conversion of people to another religion. Such unethical conversions need to be condemned. At the same time, if legislation is to be introduced to prevent unethical conversions such legislation should not infringe on the basic human rights of the people. The Bill in question is a gross violation of the right of religious freedom as incorporated in Article 18 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights which states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change one's religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community wit others and in public or private, to manifest one's religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance". Furthermore it goes against Article 10 of our Constitution, which guarantees every person's right to "freedom of thought, conscience and religion", and Article 14 (1) (e), which grants every citizen the "freedom of worship, observance, practice and teaching of his/her religion". Some of the observations on the proposed Bill are detailed below: (1) The Bill denies the freedom to choose which is a basic human right. Section 2: Denies the freedom to choose his/her religion. Section 8 (a): Deprives people of the freedom to decide between genuine help and an allurement. (How can the courts decide whether an offer of help is an allurement, if the recipient does not treat as such? This is different from giving a bribe). (2) The Bill infringes on the basic human right to be engaged in Social Action in order to bring solace to the poor, the needy, the sick, the aged, the mentally and physically impaired, the victims of war, violence and natural calamities, etc. etc. (Section 8 (a) and Schedule 1). (Jesus commanded us to "feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, visit the sick and those in prisons" and said that we would be judged accordingly (Mt. 25:31-46). Thus, preventing Christians from engaging in acts of charity, mercy and kindness to the less fortunate brethren by placing legal constraints, is tantamount to placing obstacles on the practice of the Christian faith in accordance with the command of Jesus Christ). (3) Schedule I referred to in Section 4 (a) of the Bill describes the type of people who are being specially protected from being subjected to unethical conversion. They include students, Samurdhi beneficiaries, inmates of hospitals, refugee camps, detention centres, rehabilitation centres etc. Those who attempt to convert such people by use of force or by allurement or by any fraudulent means are liable to be punished with imprisonment not exceeding 7 years and also be liable to a fine not exceeding Rs. 500,000. (What will be the position of non-Catholic students attending schools run by the Catholic Church and non-Catholic inmates of charitable institutions/hospitals run by the Catholic Church? Will the Rectors and Principals of these schools as well as those in-charge of charitable institutions / hospitals take the risk of being brought before the courts, fined and jailed on trumped-up charges of attempting unethical conversions that can be fabricated by any disgruntled student, parent or inmate intent on setting a personal grudge? Just imagine the chaos, confusion and tension that will be caused if all non-Catholic students/inmates are asked to leave schools/institutions run by the Catholic Church because of the genuine fear that those in charge could be the victims of false accusations). (4) The Bill is one-sided and therefore bad in law. It is aimed at protecting mainly the non-affluent people who are in need of employment/better employment and of material/financial assistance, from being subjected to unethical conversion, whereas it is silent with regard to the following: (a) Those who change their religion solely for the sake of accumulating wealth and/or gaining high positions in politics, judicial service, public administration, Police and Armed services, etc. etc. (Thus, there should be an additional Section 2 (a) to punish such persons and a Section 8 (a) (iv) to prevent the granting of high positions in politics, judicial service, public administration, Police and Armed Services, etc. etc. to such people). (b) The participation in religious observances and forms of worship by those who do not belong to that particular religion. e.g. Non-Buddhists being requested to offer flowers at Temples or participate in Pirith Ceremonies organized in their places of work. (There should be a clear distinction between participation in and attendance at, such religious ceremonies). (c) The attempt to force children attending certain government schools to convert to another religion by depriving them of instruction in their own religion and compelling them to study another religion as religion is compulsory for the GCE (Ordinary Level) examination. (Thus, there should be an addition to Section 8 (c) to prevent such forced conversion of school children). (5) Section 5 defines the categories of people who can institute proceedings in a court of law. Could sub sections (c), (d) and (e) lead to court proceedings being instituted because of a personal grudge against someone? Legislation How effective are the provisions presently enshrined in our Constitution and other legislation in protecting and fostering a religion? Although our Constitution has several provisions to safeguard and promote Buddhism as the State Religion, it is rather unfortunate that our values, our behaviour and our morals have now reached the lowest level where even the respected Buddhist monks are abused, man-handled and even physically harmed in Parliament by the very MPs who were elected to this august assembly by a large majority of Sinhala Buddhists. If Buddhist monks are not safe even in Parliament despite all the provisions enshrined in the Constitution, how can a mere piece of legislation prevent conversions? The JHU monks had been agitating for legislation to ban unethical conversions even before they decided to contest the April 2004 General Election. Hence, the move by them to table this Bill in Parliament is understandable (though one may question the prudence of such a move). But, what is unbelievable is that the UPFA Government is also preparing to table an anti-conversion Bill in Parliament. Was this move ever mentioned in the election manifesto of the UPFA? Wide publicity was given recently to this proposed move by the government. Is this aimed at taking the 'credit' away from the JHU monks, or at diverting the attention of the people from the more serious economic issues such as the galloping cost of living, the depreciating value of the rupee, unemployment, etc. etc? Given that the majority of the MPs are Sinhala Buddhists, this Bill could even be passed with a two third majority and later at a Referendum. The passage of this Bill will very likely create a certain sense of satisfaction and elation in the minds of a large majority of Sinhala Buddhists who are unaware of the inherent dangers. When the 'Sinhala Only' Bill was passed in the late 1950s the majority of the Sinhalese felt the same. But, what happened thereafter with the unfortunate loss of life and limb as well as the displacement of thousands of people and the destruction of property need not be elaborated. It is to be hoped that if this Bill is passed it will not have the same disastrous consequences as that of the 'Sinhala Only' Bill. Extremism Anti-conversion legislation will only create further division among Sri Lankans who are already divided on ethnic grounds. This Bill, if passed in Parliament will portray to the world that the majority of the Sinhalese are extremists - both racial as well as religious, and will only help the LTTE to regain sympathy and turn world opinion in their favour as being the unfortunate victims of Sinhala extremism. Already in certain areas the burning of Churches, smashing of statues, desecration of places of worship and the beating up of people have taken place much to the horror and shame of peace-loving true followers of the Buddha. For centuries Buddhists, Hindhus, Muslim and Catholics and Christians of the mainline Churches have lived peacefully in this beautiful country. There have always been conversions either way. But there were no protests. The protests emanated only a few years ago after certain Christian fundamentalist sects who are also referred to as Evangelical Christians (they are not members of the mainline Christian Churches such as the Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist or Dutch Reformed Churches and the Salvation Army) began to evangelise. The real meaning of conversion, in the present context, is to change one's religion after being convinced of the teachings of the particular religion one is changing to. Conversion, therefore, follows conviction. Every Christian firmly believes that his/her faith in Christ is a gift from God. Therefore no person can be hoodwinked to acquire faith in Christ by means of allurement because faith is a gift from God. If a person becomes a Christian because of financial or material gain or for some similar reason, there is no conversion but only a change of religion for obvious reasons. The main reason for introducing this Bill is to prevent a person from being allured to change his/her religion. It is claimed that Evangelical Christian Sects are offering money, employment and other material assistance to get the low-income category Buddhists to change their religion. Thus, the root cause of these unethical changes of religion as well as most of the problems facing us, is poverty and unemployment. Therefore, the priority of the UPFA government must be to take immediate steps to improve the economy, have better health services (without strikes), bring down the COL, introduce welfare services for the aged, improve educational facilities, etc, etc, in order to bring solace to the poor and the under-privileged. This is only way to prevent unethical change of religion by allurement. If, however, a person wants to become a Christian because of conviction, then no force on earth can stop it because faith in Christ is a gift from God. The Sunday Observer forum on Religious conversions invites readers to send in their views on unethical conversions and the proposed anti-conversion bill. The article should be limited to 500 words or less and sent to Editor Sunday Observer by mail - No. 35, D.R.Wijewardena Mawatha, Colombo 10 or via e-mail. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
