Archives

The Presbyterium of the Diocese of Chilaw, presided over by Bishop of Chilaw, Rt.Rev Frank Marcus Fernando, expresses its serious concern over the Bill entitled "Prohibition of Forcible Religious Conversion Bill" presented by the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) as a private members' bill, and a draft Act presented to the Cabinet by Minister, Rathnasiri Wickramanayake in June 2004 entitled 'Act for Protection of Religious Freedom' as a Government Bill.

At the very outset we wish to state clearly that these two bills infringe on our fundamental rights. Article 10 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka guarantees every person the right to "Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, including the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice." Article 14 (1) (e) of the Constitution grants every citizen the freedom of worship, observance, practice and teaching of his religion or belief; in private or in public; either by himself or in association with others.

The stipulations of the new bills also violates the rights granted to all persons under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International, Convention on Civil and Political Rights. Sri Lanka a signatory to that Declaration.

The danger of this type of legislation which seeks to regulate something as personal as an individual's religion, is that it is invariably prone to abuse.

Examples of similar laws in other countries demonstrate that such legislation becomes a weapon for settling personal disputes and against persons of minority religious groups. It is a form of Both Bills in question give in arbitrary discretion for the Courts to determine the forms of religious devotions that can be practised.

The criminalizing of religious devotions can lead to imprisonment of Priests, Pastors, Religious and any one engaged in Christian ministry. Giving such extensive powers to magistrate's court and to the police to deal with these cases can lead to much abuse, intimidation and miscarriage of justice.

The bills permit for wide abuse by providing that "Any person interested in the welfare of the Public". (not only the aggrieved party) may initiate proceedings against another for committing an offence under the bill.

According to the stipulations of the new Bill, even some elementary rights that civilised society had taken for granted all along are now being criminalised. We like to illustrate this briefly. (a) The bill speaks of "Allurement". From the definition given in the bills, the following could result. Any religious body -Priests, Religious, Christian laymen - engaging in social action, by providing food, shelter, medical care, education, running of orphanages, schools, homes for the aged, vocational training programmes etc. may be accused of attempting to convert a person through "allurement".

The arrangements agreed for the running of Christian schools after the forcible take over of schools in 1960 could be abrogated as Christian Schools could be considered an allurement.

(b) The bills also speak of force. It includes 'threat of religious displeasure or condemnation of any religion or religious faiths. 'This could lead to unexpected situations. For example: the Bible states that God is displeased with sinful habits, practices and lifestyles.

It speaks of hell. It also speaks of forgiveness and deliverance from sin. Any Christian sharing the basic tenets of his faith may be accused of invoking "religious displeasure" in an attempt to convert another to Christianity.

The bill speaks of 'fraudulent means'. Fraudulent includes misinterpretation or any other fraudlent act. Whether the claims of a doctrine a religious belief amounts to 'misinterpretation' or fraud is purely objective. How can a court determine all this? For example, can a court of law determine that a Christian who claims the Biblical truth that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is in fact committing fraud through misinterpretation?

(1) Section 2 of the Government Draft Bill makes conversion under any circumstance or an attempt to convert illegal. Section 8 defines conversion as "direct or indirect action or behaviour designed to cause a person to embrace a religion or religious practice...."

For example, the behaviour of a Christian living an exemplary life, witnessing to the teachings of Jesus Christ, may be considered "behaviour designed to cause a person to embrace a religion" and can be punished.

The public manifestation of religious events such as church feasts and celebrations may similarly be identified as forms of behaviour designed to cause a person to embrace a religion. Teaching one's religion or practice of one's religious beliefs in a multi-religious environment (i.e. schools) may be considered illegal, since it can cause another person to become interested in our religion, leading to a conversion.

There are many other clauses which are in direct contravention to Article 10 of the Constitution and violates the rights granted to all persons under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Convention on Civil and Political Rights.

(e) Regarding the punishments to be meted out, for example, imprisonment up to seven years and a fine up to Rs. 500,000 the less, said the better.

Either of these two bills, if enacted into law would result in the persecution of religious minorities under statutory sanction. It also effectively violates the fundamental rights of minority religions to practise and propagate their faith and the enjoyment of religious freedom, previously enjoyed by all people of our land for generations.

The image we project before the international community will be very negative - and that at a time when we need all the goodwill and assistance of that community.

The Presbyterium of the Diocese of Chilaw wishes to make it clear that it does not accept the assurance given by some Ministers in the Government and members of the JHU that the Catholic Church and other mainline churches have nothing to fear from the new bills and that the bills are against certain activities of fundamentalist churches.

On the contrary we take the view that Catholics and other mainline churches are targeted more than anybody else. The bills do not make any distinction between mainline churches and fundamentalist churches. Moreover, the bills target schools, orphanages, homes for elders and other charitable institutes. These are run by Catholic and other mainline churches more than by fundamentalist churches.

Considering the sustained attacks on Christianity during the past few years - ably assisted by a certain sections of the media - we have come to realise that all this including the bills is the gradual unfolding of a hidden agenda to destroy any vestige of Christianity in our land.

The highlighting of fundamentalist churches is merely tactical. We are not fooled. The very naming of the Government Bill "Act for the Protection of Religious Freedom" is pure farce. The bill does not protect any religious freedom. It destroys religious freedom, a press release said.

We agree that any kind of 'forced conversion' (if any such exists) would be reprehensible.

But here we are dealing with something altogether different. Proclaiming our faith is part and parcel of the practice of Christianity. It is a command given by the Lord Jesus. (Mt. 28, 18-20). Moreover in the tradition of the church following the teaching of Jesus Christ, much importance is given to works of charity. (Mt. 25, 34-46). It is part of our faith.

We call upon all religious minded persons and all men of good will to resist all attempts to introduce and pass these bills which are immoral, unjust and striking at the very roots of human rights, the release said.

www.ceylincoproperties.com

www.Pathmaconstruction.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