>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."
|