To Convert or Not to Convert?
This issue of unethical conversions came up in indi’s blog comments but I couldn’t find the argument clearly and completely articulated so i thought i’ll give it a go. (After reading this through I realised that it is neither articulate nor complete:) ) The issue has interested me and held me in a dilemma for sometime. So the question is, should unethical conversions be banned? We need to define what an unethical conversion is before starting off. A conversion is a voluntary change in religion, there’s nothing bad about it, a free choice is exercised. An unethical conversion is, I think, one where the freedom of the choice is compromised. Say for instance someone holds a gun to your head and says “oi, if you don’t let me baptise/circumsize/tie a pirith noola on you, I will shoot you.” Now that is clearly not a free choice, it is a constrained choice and is a form of coercion, this makes it unethical.
The argument for banning them would run along the following lines. The conversion is not voluntary and individual freedom to choose one’s religion is compromised. Now, if we consider the case where a person is holding a gun to a man’s head, the argument seems sound enough, the man is forced to abandon his religion since losing one’s life is hardly a choice at all (usually). But happily enough we don’t have such extreme cases. The usual ones we hear of are cases where ppl in extreme poverty are told that they will be given material benefits that will help them out of their current situation if they are willing to change their religion, their kids will be given an education if they are willing to change religion and cases in hospitals where grieving relatives are told that the dying patient will achieve salvation if the whole family converts. In each of these cases, the compromised situation of the convertees is taken advantage of, abused even. Now this is clearly not very nice of the converter.
But, is the freedom of the convertee being diminished? I would say no. We make constrained choices every single day. If your boss tells you to do something that you don’t enjoy, x, you can either do x or tell him to sod off. You’d do x bc you want to keep you job, but that doesn’t make your freedom any less, it’s not like you can’t find another job. But you choose to do x bc it’s a lot easier than going on a job hunt. In the constrained choice of education or religion, certain ppl will choose religion and others will choose education depending on their individual preferences. My grandmother was in such a situation and just told the Father to fly a kite and she quit school. She ended up being a housewife and had a life immersed in religion and ended up being very happy. Another person who doesn’t care much about religion and greatly values education will make the alternate choice. Creating a legal bar will actually diminish freedom of choice since it takes out one set of options from the picture. Similarly, if a man is in extreme poverty and would gladly trade religions for some quick bucks, what right does the government have to say that his choice is incorrect?
What can’t be denied is that the converter is being naughty. He is trying to take advantage of the compromised condition of the convertee. And that is arguably immoral. But then again, that happens all the time. Poor ppl with few skills are given jobs with low pay that can barely sustain their life. The employer is taking advantage of the fact that the man has few skills and is unlikely to find a better paying job and thus he can afford to pay him very little. Now arguably the employer is being immoral, but wouldn’t the poor man be happy to at least have a job, be it a low paying one? This is the argument put forward against minimum wages, it squeezes out so many jobs leaving ppl unemployed and unable to find subsistance wages. It won’t make sense to ban employers from giving low pay jobs to poor ppl just bc they are taking advantage of the poor man’s situation. If the govt. were to ban conversions they would have to ban a lot of other things on this same basis. Taking advantage of an individual’s circumstances maybe immoral but to bring it under the legal framework will create a lot of problems.
What we can conclude is that a conversion taking advantage of a person’s circumstances does not inhibit freedom of choice, but it is not very nice of the converter and it becomes very difficult to punish the converter in such cases. Furthermore, trying to bring such issues under the legal hammer are very difficult, it raises very subjective questions such as what exactly is a voluntary choice? Some may even argue that the man with a gun to his head could have chosen to die if he loved his religion enough. Do we really want the govt. deciding for us what is meant by a voluntary choice? The case for bringing religious conversions into the legal framework is quite weak, it would involve messing with individual choices and dealing with very subjective issues. Decisions about religion are best left to the discretion of the individual and the state has no role to play in this matter. What nags me is that men/women of religion are blatantly taking advantage of ppl’s circumstances and getting away with it. Men/women of religion are not mudalali’s and such behaviour is hypocritical, so I’d encourage anyone approached with such offers to produce your best kaney para and make it smart!
if that is ‘neither articulate nor complete’ i don’t know what is.
Comment by sittingnut — November 15, 2005 @ 9:53 pm
Well said whoever wrote this.
Unfotunately, it is certain sects from the Christian community which are engaged in targeted campaigns of conversions. Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims in Sri Lanka aren’t interested in a quest to “convert the world” or convert other Sri Lankans to their religion by whatever means necessary. I’m afraid that in a multi-religious country like Sri Lanka the evangelist’s activities can only lead to religious tension and even violence. Also I think that they really aren’t practicing Christianity…some of the stuff on the pamphlets I have been given by evangelists on the street reek with hatred and and anger towards religious figures/ideals that other Sri Lankans hold dear. We could do without that.
Comment by Chatura — November 16, 2005 @ 12:53 am
What sittingnut said.
Given your blog confession as a kopi-kadai-center-leftie I expected a closing along the lines of the state having an interest in preserving local religious harmony by limiting the interference of foreign actors in the context of Lanka’s recent history.
Comment by ivap — November 16, 2005 @ 12:29 pm
Conversion has always been a topic that arouses, if not inflames, our human emotions. After all, the missionary is trying to persuade a person to change his religious belief, which concerns the ultimate issues of life and death, the very meaning of our existence. And the missionary is usually denigrating the person’s current belief, which may represent a strong personal commitment or a long family or cultural tradition, calling it inferior, wrong, sinful, or even perverse.
Such statements are hardly polite or courteous and are often insulting and derogatory. The missionary is not coming with an open mind for sincere discussion and give and take dialogue, but already has his mind made up and is seeking to impose his opinion on others, often even before he knows what they actually believe or do. It is difficult to imagine a more stressful human encounter short of actual physical violence. Missionary activity always holds an implicit psychological violence, however discreetely it is conducted. It is aimed at turning the minds and hearts of people away from their native religion to one that is generally unsympathetic and hostile to it.
Organized conversion efforts are quite another matter than the common dialogue and interchange between members of different religious communities in daily life, or even than organized discussions in forums or academic settings. Organized conversion activity is like a trained army invading a country from the outside. This missionary army often goes into communities where there is little organized resistance to it, or which may not even be aware of its power or its motives. It will even take advantage of communities that are tolerant and open minded about religion and use that to promote a missionary agenda that destroys this tolerance.
Organized conversion and evangelical efforts are not interested in dialogue or in learning from other religious groups. Such organizations have their mind made up that they are the true faith and they are unwilling to grant equality to any other belief. Real dialogue is only possible when there is equality and open mindedness. This cannot occur between a missionary faith and the faith that it is targeting, any more than it can happen between a hunter and his prey. If missionaries initiate dialogue it is either to promote conversion or to protect their converts. The missionary is not about to change his mind, believe that he might be wrong on something or accept any other point of view that might compromise his conversion agenda.
In fact missionary activity is like an ideological war. It is quite systematic, motivated and directed. It can even resemble a blitzkrieg using media, money, people and public shows to appeal to the masses in an emotional way. Therefore, with missionary activity we are not talking about unplanned, spontaneous or isolated events. We are talking about a religious effort towards world conquest that is quite happy to put an end to other religious-traditions that looks to establish one particular religion for all human beings, in which the diversity of human religions is discredited and forgotten.
Missionary activity and conversion, therefore, is not about freedom of religion. It is about the attempt of one religion to exterminate all others. Such an exclusive attitude cannot promote tolerance or understanding or resolve communal tensions. The missionary wants to put an end to pluralism, choice and freedom of religion. He wants one religion, his own, for everyone and will sacrifice his life to that cause.
True freedom of religion should involve freedom from conversion. The missionary is like a salesman targeting people in their homes or like an invader seeking to conquer. Such disruptive activity is not a right and it cannot promote social harmony. In fact people should have the right not to be bothered by missionaries unless they seek them out.
Religious freedom should not be a license for one country or one community to wage religious war against another. Even if this conversion battle is softened by charities it is still hostile in its intent and destructive in its action.
Comment by RedTail — November 17, 2005 @ 2:45 am
Sittingnut/Ivap - Thanks, but what RedTail said is why i felt that my piece was incomplete, it didn’t have enough of an argument from the “otherside”.
RedTail- Thanks for the input. I take your point but believe that freedom of choice trumps the need to prevent the waging of religious war.
Chathura - I tried to keep it objective without pointing to any particular religion. I live in the (naive) hope that any converters do so bc of a genuine belief in what they are saying. I mean, if you honestly believed that you had a drug to cure AIDS you would try to convince patients to take it even if they don’t have enough information to understand what you know. But, as i said that is a naive hope, there are underlying power issues that are not very pleasant.
Comment by ddm — November 17, 2005 @ 10:12 am
Corrupt politicians and extremist buddhists in SL have created this conversion issue because if we look carefully we’d find that many of the so-called “agents” engaged in acts related to conversions are actually helping the poor and needy. Where are the rich buddhists and rich priests of local temples?
This is exactly like the right wing christian extremists in USA shouting slogans/campaigning against abortion but not giving a penny to help poor children born to unwed mothers. If the principles of buddhism are adhered to by all these extremists in SL there would be no fear of conversion.
In any case, has the average intelligence of Sri Lankans declined in recent times for anyone to consider proposing a law to prevent people changing their beliefs? I thought our people were smarter than that! Or has this humorous quote from a tamil friend “Jingalaya Modaya” really come true?
Comment by cj — November 26, 2005 @ 10:07 pm