« home
 
Threat of religious strife
 

I wonder how many realize that there is a threat of religious strife as seen from the many recent attacks on the Christian community in Sri Lanka. The first few instances were observed in 1988 and the Intelligence Services appraised the Government of this potential danger. A special desk was opened at the Police Headquarters to monitor the activity, but other than documenting the various incidents very little positive action was taken to discourage this trend, or make a proper evaluation of the situation.

One can hardly blame the local Police Station for treating such incidents as routine offences, as most do not see the larger picture emerging or understand the ramifications of such activity. It is important that serious note be taken of this trend before it snowballs.

It is incumbent on the authorities to safeguard and ensure the rights of a citizen as enshrined in the Constitution. All citizens enjoy the freedom of worship and the choice of their religion, and these rights should not be interfered with.

What is required is to investigate and analyze these incidents to understand why they occur. In most instances those who oppose the Christians, do so because they feel their status or influence is threatened, or criminal elements find that their nefarious activities are affected by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is preached.

The Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is based on the love of God and the love of one another and I can't see how anyone can find such a teaching objectionable. Some conveniently try to justify anti-Christian activity, leveling accusations that unethical conversions take place.

There is no denying that history records that persons, for selfish personal gain did resort to the use of force and coercion to have people embrace Christianity. This is a thing of the past and I would consider it an insult to the intelligence of our people to claim that they are incapable of making an independent decision when it comes to their religious beliefs and the choice of their religion.

No religion interferes with the way of life of a people. It is the responsibility of political and religious leaders, teachers and parents to ensure that unscrupulous elements are not permitted to exploit situations and create unrest that would be detrimental to the country.

ZERNEY WIJESURIYA, Former Director, National Intelligence Bureau

 
Threat of religious strife - a response (1)
Threat of religious strife - a response (2)

 



Threat of religious strife- a response (1)
 

This has reference to the letter by Zernie Wijesuriya (Sep. 25). The views expressed by Mr. Wijesuriya tends to create a wrong picture as far as the Buddhists are concerned and hence need correction.

Buddhists, on an organised basis or otherwise has never attacked Christians for practising their faith.

Buddhists have been very tolerant of other faiths and Buddhists and Christians have lived in harmony since independence from colonial rule, despite the fact that the colonial rulers, the Portuguese, the Dutch and the British, persecuted Buddhists, razed Buddhist places of worship to the ground, plundered Buddhist property, and converted the Buddhists to their faith by force.

Whist admitting that there was such forced conversions, he wants that to be forgotten history.

That cannot be as lessons have to be drawn from history with a view to prevent a repetition. And if the present unethical conversions are allowed to go on, that too will soon be history and another will say the same things that Zernie Wijesuriya has expressed in his letter. Mr. Wijesuriya refers to 'intelligence' reports, perhaps those put up under his authority, on which no action was taken.

The reports apparently may have been considered as 'unintelligent', tailored to meet certain ends and biased, which did not cover the reasons that led to a clash or two, because of which those reports were ignored and not acted upon.

In our country, anyone has the right and freedom to follow his or faith without hindrance in full freedom or embrace any faith of choice. Buddhists and Buddhism do not consider Buddhism as the only true faith as other faiths do, and direct their activities on that basis.

What the Buddhists and Hindus oppose is unethical conversions using foreign funds directing such operations on the poor sections of the community. What the colonialists did by the force of the sword is presently being done with the force of financial clout, as resorted to by over 350 NGOs throughout the country without restrictions. That is why MP T. Maheswaran, wants to bring legislation against unethical conversions, when others are dragging their feet over the problem.

There is a difference between embracing a faith on one's own free will and the use of coercion through bribery and corruption for purposes of conversion.

What is opposed is the latter. So the opposition is to fundamentalism based unethical conversions and not the practice of the Christian faith. There is no religious strife in the offing and Mr. Wijesuriya should not harbour any fears about it.

I would as such invite Mr. Wijesuriya to join hands to see the back of the fundamentalists resorting to unethical conversions and thereby ensure that the circumstances that may lead to religious strife will not arise.

NIRODHA GAMAGE, Secretary, Bambalapitiya Flats Buddhist Society

 
 
Threat of religious strife - a response (2)
 

>I wonder how many realize that there is a threat of religious strife as seen from the >many recent attacks on the Christian community in Sri Lanka. The first few instances were >observed in 1988 and the Intelligence Services appraised the Government of this potential >danger. A special desk was opened at the Police Headquarters to monitor the activity, but >other than documenting the various incidents very little positive action was taken to >discourage this trend, or make a proper evaluation of the situation.

The recent attacks have been on evangelist churches that have been set up in predominantly Buddhist and Hindu areas. Mr Wijeysuriya myst appreciate that these evangelist or free-standing churches, as they are often referred to, have been set up with with the single purpose of converting non-Christians to Christianity. They do not appear to have been contructed to serve as places of worship for any Christian community living in the area, because many churches have been constructed in virtually 100% Buddhist or Hindu villages. The activities of these evangelists, no doubt, are the reason behind the attacks. Prior to 1988, several non-Christian commissions had suggested that Christian missionary activity would lead to future troubles in this country.

It is also important to realise that these evangelists are very much involved in converting Sri Lankan Catholics, whom they regard as "straying from the faith," to their particular denomination of Christianity.

>One can hardly blame the local Police Station for treating such incidents as routine >offences, as most do not see the larger picture emerging or understand the ramifications >of such activity. It is important that serious note be taken of this trend before it >snowballs.

Certainly, if the situation is not studied and controlled, it may snowball into something much larger. Evangelists must ask themselves whether their activity is worth the violence it creates in Sri Lankan society. If one were a responsible person, one would not continue to do something that creates disharmony and ill will in the community.

>It is incumbent on the authorities to safeguard and ensure the rights of a citizen as >enshrined in the Constitution. All citizens enjoy the freedom of worship and the choice >of their religion, and these rights should not be interfered with.

Yes this is correct; the rights of a citizen must be protected. However, the constitution also gives a special place to Buddhism. It is incumbent upon the government to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana. Thus, if the government fails to do anything in the face of ideological assaults perpetrated by missionaries on the Buddhist community, then it is not abiding by the consitution. At the same time, the government should rightfully also bring those who have committed violence to justice.

Would Mr Wijeysuriya agree that people have a right not to be bothered by people selling religion, or for that matter any sort of wares? Touts are considered to be a bane in any society.

>What is required is to investigate and analyze these incidents to understand why they >occur. In most instances those who oppose the Christians, do so because they feel their >status or influence is threatened, or criminal elements find that their nefarious >activities are affected by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is preached.

A reason behind these incidents is perhaps the fact that local people to not like their way of life and culture to be interfered with. They do not wish to see statues of the Buddha or Hindu deities (which they hold sacred) smashed on the ground by new converts at the behest of evangelists. Some might wonder why evangelist churches have set up shop in villages that are virtually 100% Buddhist or Hindu. Others might not agree with the coercive means used by evangelists to convert non-Christians to Christianity. Yet others may disagree with the "my-religion-is-better-than-yours" attitude of evangelists.

>The Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is based on the love of God and the love of one >another and I can't see how anyone can find such a teaching objectionable. Some >conveniently try to justify anti-Christian activity, leveling accusations that unethical >conversions take place.

That Mr Wijesuriya cannot see how anyone can find Christianity objectionable is of course his own personal opinion. Buddhist and Hindus may object to the belief that good people who do not believe in Jesus Christ will end up in hell for eternity. They may also disagree with the "righteous wrath" of the Christian God and the alleged "duty" and "right" of all Christians to evangelise "pagans."

That missionaries resort to unethical means to convert non-Christians to Christianity is not an unproven accusation. The history of missionary activity throughout the world is replete with the unethical means Christian evangelists used to spread their religion. In South America and Sri Lanka, people were forced into Christianity at the threat of the death. Then came the method of denying Buddhist and Hindu children access to school and high positions in society unless they converted to Christianity. Today, we have evangelists doling out money, clothes and jobs to the less fortunate in order to convert them. The tactics are much the same.

>There is no denying that history records that persons, for selfish personal gain did >resort to the use of force and coercion to have people embrace Christianity. This is a >thing of the past and I would consider it an insult to the intelligence of our people to >claim that they are incapable of making an independent decision when it comes to their >religious beliefs and the choice of their religion.

It is indeed welcome that Mr Wijesuriya accepts that Christian missionary activity has had a sordid past. However, it is not a thing of the past. The missionary zeal has certainly not ended as can be seen around the world. The missionary still thinks his religion is the only one true one, and that everyone must convert to Christianity. Certainly, as we are much more well informed today, evangelists know that they do not have the free hand as they once did. The recognition of human rights the world over has prohibited them from converting 'pagans' to Christianity at the threat of death. Thus new means had to be divised to "harvest souls." At a time when the west seems to be moving away from religion, one must wonder why missionaries come to lands where there is a healthy practice of religion. Today, these missionaries target the poor, the destitute and the ignorant because these are the socioeconomic groups most vulnerable to their machinations.

>No religion interferes with the way of life of a people. It is the responsibility of >political and religious leaders, teachers and parents to ensure that unscrupulous >elements are not permitted to exploit situations and create unrest that would be >detrimental to the country.

No particular religion may interfere with the way of life of people, but evangelism certainly does. For example, new converts are forbidden by missionaries to take part in cultural activities they have taken part in since they were children. This results in their alienation from other villagers who are either Buddhist or Hindu. As more people convert and subscribe to the rigid attitude of the missionaries, the village is divided and the harmony that was once prevalent is breached. New converts are encouraged to develop a sense of aversion towards their ancestral faith.

This situation is not something any right-thinking Sri Lankan would want wholescale in this country. We take part in each others religious celebrations and learn from each others religions - it is part of our Sri Lankanness and a tribute to how well we have kept religious harmony in this country intact for over two millenia. Missionaries must do some soul-searching and really question whether their activities are leading to disharmony. Surely God treasures our religious harmony much more than the ill-will and disharmony that arises out of evangelist activity?

Mr Gamage's comment must be seconded -

"I would as such invite Mr. Wijesuriya to join hands to see the back of the fundamentalists resorting to unethical conversions and thereby ensure that the circumstances that may lead to religious strife will not arise."