Sri Lanka, a multi-religious society, is blessed to have on its soil and in the hearts and minds of its multitudes four major religions of the world - Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Islam. Despite the hue and cry over conversions and as to whether it is ethical or unethical, the fact is that whether one should convert to another religion or not is not a dilemma to most of us. We are either blissfully agnostic or atheist, or blissfully grounded in the faith and beliefs of the respective religions that we were born into and dutifully follow.

It does, however, become a dilemma to those who were "born" Buddhists, Hindus, Christians or Muslims and having grown up under the influence of these religions in their homes, begin to realise that the religion that they were "born" into does not provide them answers to fundamental "spiritual" questions pertaining to their existence in the "now" and in the "hereafter."

Hence, the beginning of a spiritual discovery and a journey, which make them either dwell deeper into the religion that they were born into or seek other religions and in the process "convert." Such conversions are purely and entirely personal and do not breed discord, suspicion or antagonism leading to violence. In this sense, there may well have been significant conversions into Buddhism and Hinduism both in Sri Lanka and in the West which may have passed-by unnoticed.

In this context, the dilemma of conversion ceases to be a dilemma. Religious conversions, on the other hand, are more of a dilemma to those who firmly believe in and practice the religion that they were "born" into, but find that "conversion" provides them with immediate access to basic amenities, education and economic mobility. Hence, the need for a trade-off, which could be quite painful.

This was quite common under conditions of colonialism in Sri Lanka when conversions were effected by threats and intimidations, as under the Portuguese, or through enticements and allurements under British rule and by American missionaries. But to the present generation this may not be a dilemma at all. To present Christians, for instance, Christianity is as real and as divine as it was to those who imposed it by force or with allurements on their parents or ancestors. Hence, past conversions during colonial times are also irrelevant and do not sow seeds of discord, suspicion or antagonism in contemporary Sri Lanka.

But, it would be playing the ostrich if one were to pretend that the "unethical" conversions are not taking place at present and the reactions and resistance to it are not social issues.

In fact "unethical" conversions are a real issue that could lead to an explosive situation if not addressed and contained. But, how does one define "unethical" conversions? In order to answer this, one needs to look a bit more closely into the concept of Christian "charity." The doling out of material benefits and charity certainly is a laudable act. But, the motive and intentions is equally important. An act in itself is neither good nor bad. It is the intention behind that act that determines the quality of that act in relation to the doer. If the motive behind the propagation of a religion or faith is to get people to convert, then in a multi-religious society like Sri Lanka, it goes contrary to the basic principle of religious co-existence and mutual respect. The quality of mercy is indeed twice blessed: it blesseth him that gives and him that takes. That quality embodied in the act of charity and mercy, however, is totally negated if the motive behind that act is to recruit people into their "flock". That act of charity also becomes an issue if in the process it does violence to the self-respect and self-esteem of those who receive them.

In this context, instances where converts are asked by their "shepherd" to demonstrate their renunciation by burning the scriptures and the symbols of the religion that they hitherto believed in, are clearly acts of violence. It violates all semblance of decency and heaps scorn on those who practice those religions.

This cannot be condoned and needs to be checked, through the force of law if need be. The perpetrators of this practice are said to be some "fundamentalist" Christian sects. These sects should be hauled before the courts and punished. The head-hunting by the new fundamentalist Christian sects is an insult to the religion that they propagate, leave alone that it insults the very souls that they seek to save.

Likewise, any acts of violence against places of worship, in particular against churches which have been targeted in recent times, cannot be condoned. The law and order machinery has to respond to this dangerous trend speedily and effectively and the culprits and their mentors should be punished.

Be that as it may, a more serious concern that this writer has is that in a multi-religious society like Sri Lanka, where religion is more a collective identity than a personal faith, conversions based on allurement and incentives and the denigration of other religions, would be prone to violence. This is not to justify or explain the recent attacks on churches and Christian places of worship. I see such attacks as manifestations of a brewing religious conflict, which this country can ill-afford given that we already have a full-blown ethnic conflict and related violence.

By the same token, the insistence that Buddhism should be given pride of place and special patronage by the State in a multi-religious society is also prone to violence, as the recent past has demonstrated.

Likewise, the tendency of Hindu extremists and fundamentalists who use the caste system to determine as to who is a true "Hindu" and practise Hinduism as a religion based on rites and rituals involving animal sacrifice, the pouring of gallons of milk and ghee over deities in temples which stand in the midst of abject poverty and destitution, is an affront to both that religion and humanism.

Needless to say, there are many Muslims who would not be happy about the manner in which that religion is being propagated and practised as a means of legitimizing gender inequality and the glorification of martyrdom in the name of Allah. In all these religions, the practice is a far cry from the philosophy.

So, is the passage of a bill to prevent "unethical" conversion the answer? Clearly, an anti-conversion bill comes nowhere close to addressing the wide range of issues raised above. If one were to think that conversions could be stopped in an environment steeped in deprivation and destitution through legislation, well, it is a thought that should be set aside immediately.

It simply will not work. If one were to think that conversions to one religion could be legislated against by giving pride of place and state patronage to another, it is once again a case of fanning the flames of religious hegemony that can only lead to alienation and further divisiveness. It also goes against the values of religious co-existence and secularism.

What is required, instead, is a strong civil society vigilance and intervention at the community level, reinforced by inter-religious interactions based on religious coexistence and mutual respect to bring an end to the head-hunters cloaked in the garb of the Servant of God and the bigots who use violence to counter it.

The majority of Christians, as reflected in the sentiments expressed by the established Churches, are clearly disturbed and embarrassed about the methods that are being adopted by Christian fundamentalists to convert persons of other faiths.

Likewise the vast majority of Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims do not espouse violence as a means of defending their religions. Yet, all that it requires for the scourge of religious intolerance and violence to spread are a mere handful of bigots claiming to be the saviours of their respective religions and in the process do violence to their own religions. They may well end up by making one wonder whether the presence of the four major religions of the world on Sri Lanka's soil is a blessing or a curse. We cannot let this happen and become a nation of sceptics.