Archives

Should state govern morality?

by Sameer Saron, Researcher, International Centre for Ethnic Studies

(Continued from the September 12th)

An even deeper worry about this attitude is that should the state really be governing the morality of people? People choose or change their religion of all kinds of motives, marriage, community support, money, etc.

While it may be one thing to disapprove of or condemn some of them at a private level, but it takes on a completely new dimension when the State makes this matter its concern and promulgates a law to regulate it. In a liberal society the State ought not to be prying into the ethics of people's reasons for taking decisions on matters which fall into the realm of their private lives.

But there is a flip side to this coin too. The constant accusation levelled against the evangelical churches is 'Unethical conversion". So much so that the words 'unethical conversion' have become synonymous with 'conversion'. The accusations that conversion is carried out by duping the poor to embrace a foreign religion by tempting them with material benefits and money. The advocates of the Anti Conversion Bill allege a definite strategy by one religion to convert the members of other religions. According to them, this conversion business is not about religious freedom, but about one religion triumphing over all the other religions. It is about making all the members of humanity follow one religion, giving up and, generally, denigrating the religion which they have been following. Christian missionaries are converting innocent and ignorant people to Christianity by offering various inducements such as free education, free medical facilities and employment opportunities. These institutions receive funds and other contributions from foreign countries and are controlled by the churches of foreign countries.

Supporters argue

The supporters of the Bill argue that the law does not prohibit Christians from selflessly helping out others in need. Their argument is that social uplift and charity are good, but should be separated from religious conversion and therefore if Christians genuinely wish to help poor people, they should offer help without any constraints or expectations; hence there is nothing wrong in enacting laws that prevent conversion by deceit, bribery an other forms of coercion.

One might ask why is it so problematic if conversion is a prerequisite for most missionary organisations to offer help/support/benefits as long as the people who are getting converted do not have a problem with it?

To answer that, one must take a look at the Joshua project, ponder over the Vatican's programme Evangelisation 2000, then look back and see where the original religions of the peoples of Albania, Africa, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Malaysia, etc., have vanished. Politics in the garb of religion is the major problem. As Jomo Kenyatta said in Absurdities in the name of Religion, "When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the land and the missionaries had the Bible. They taught us to pray with our eyes closed.

When we opened them, they had the land and we had the Bible." The phenomenal financial wherewithal available for Christian missionaries for proselytisation and evangelistic activities to facilitate conversion of people of other religions to Christianity is indeed mind-boggling.

Focal questions

But then again, the focal question still remains, why is it so unethical and appalling to change one's religion in exchange for any small or big, short-term or long-term benefits? And what gives the right to a government to regulate someone trading their religious orientation for whatever advantage they gain from it? The answer is that religion is viewed differently by people in different circumstances. People in the majority, see conversions as a tool to increase the numbers of Muslims and Christians at the cost of followers of their religion, and in our communal times and democratic society, numbers translate into voting power. For this very concern, the minorities seek to increase their numbers while the majorities seek to protect theirs.

Representative democracy has taken a new meaning and in our political climate, there is a steadfast refusal to see conversion for what it might essentially be. It might be a form of political dissension, a form of social protest, and an act of choice in a world which gives many of those who exercise it very few choices. In effect, anti-conversion legislation is an abridgment of fundamental political freedoms as well. Anti-conversion ordinances of the Tamil Nadu variety are illiberal in their very conceptualisation. They care neither for the sentiments of the religious communities, nor genuine religious piety.

They are manifestly aimed at the sole objective of consolidating constituencies on religious grounds.

Trading

At the end of the day, is not using religion in this manner equally unethical as trading religion for monetary or other benefits? And is offering money, education, etc. in lieu of conversion anymore unethical than forcibly preventing people from changing their religion to serve someone else's selfish interest?

Forcing a religion on to a person is a violation of her right, whether the State does it or the Christian missionaries.

What is more important, saving a culture and religion for the perpetuation of interests of the people who are in an advantageous position due to it, or allowing the people the choice of renouncing it for whatever reason they choose to?

A major issue which does require thought is that there is no real change in the problems of the people even after conversion (in most situations). So, can it not be rightly termed as committing fraud on those who convert? But I say, the law preventing conversions is not the remedy for this. Maybe what we need is a system of guaranteeing fulfilment of these promises. Institutionalisation and monitoring could be better responses than a total ban.

The right approach

In my view, the right approach to tackling the so-called problem of conversion would be to identify the problems faced by the people who choose to convert and eradicate them. Efforts should be targeted at abolishment of the caste system and descent based discrimination and ensuring a just and equitable distribution of resources in the society. Providing disadvantaged people with a better social status and a stronger support system would go a longer way in giving them a feeling of being part of the culture and religion, making them embrace it willingly rather than forcefully confining them to it.

This is the strategy that the protectors of religion and culture should adopt.

Moreover, there are several problems that may arise at the time of the practical application of the Bill, if it does take the form of a legislation. Unless conversion takes place on a large-scale and is reported, there is no way of monitoring it, because people or families converting in small numbers would go unnoticed by authorities.

A major fear about the ordinance arises due to the unclear language employed.

Allurement is an elastic term and can be stretched far to mean anything and police can book anyone under this. Even the term fraud is susceptible to being stretched to any limits. The ambiguity of the Bill gives the police and other authorities ample opportunity to abuse and misuse it.

Christians fear the new law will hinder their free exercise of religion by embroiling them in restrictive regulations.

The law may also encourage many to bring false charges against Christian ministers and intimidate new Believers. Some fear that chapel services in Christian schools, hospitals and children's homes may even be viewed as violating the new law. The anti-conversion Bill is legitimate as far as it prohibits forced or coerced conversions, since a common tactic used by the missionaries is to induce the fear of after life and eternal damnation, etc. in the minds of the people; but it should not be allowed to take the form of a comprehensive ban on conversion per se.

Deplore the methods

With these considerations in mind, I suppose, one must deplore the methods used by some missionaries, Christian, Muslim as well as Hindu, which include fraud, inducement and threats of the terror of eternal damnation. Every religious group ought to enjoy the right to practice, preach and publicise its faith, but this must be conducted according to well-defined ethical criteria, for even in so vital a matter as religious faith, seemingly noble ends can hardly justify unethical means.

On the other hand, to attempt to ban all conversions, in the name of protecting 'national security' or a particular 'culture' or 'religion' is equally unethical and undemocratic, and can only lead us further down the fascist path, stifling all voices of dissent and protest.

www.crescat.com

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries

Produced by Lake House
Copyright © 2003 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager