My attention has been drawn to the many news items and readers' letters that have appeared in your newspaper and in other periodicals on this subject. Perhaps, my thoughts will shed some light on this important subject.

Every person is free to follow the religion of his choice is a fundamental human right and is accepted by all nations and all civil societies, being enshrined in the United Nations charter. Denying this basic human right to others necessarily implies that others have the right to deny that freedom to you.

People of all religions - Buddhist, Hindu, Moslem, Catholic and Christian - and of all philosophies, agree that this freedom must be an essential feature of any society that claims to be just. In fact the doctrines of all these religions affirm this right of worship. Therefore if people of one religion deny this freedom to other religions, they violate their own religious precepts of tolerance in addition to violating fundamental human rights.

Could this be happening in Sri Lanka? Every reasoning person will hope not.

Just as important is the right every religion has of proclamation its teachings. Every religion is evangelistic in the sense of wanting to proclaim its beliefs and offer people of other religions the choice to accept its doctrines. This is called proselytising. It is also called evangelism and is a legitimate activity.

It is this evangelistic zeal that prompted King Ashoka of India to send Venerable Mihindu Maha Thera to Lanka in the reign of King Devanampiyatissa. That this missionary journey was successful is proven by the conversion of almost the whole of Lanka at the time to Buddhism. Similarly, the Catholic Church formed special teams, amongst them the Jesuits, to evangelise the Asian nations.

The Catholic religion's presence in Sri Lanka can be directly attributed to these efforts. Is it the same missionary zeal that has sent teams from Sri Lanka to western nations in Europe and the Americas to convert people, mainly Christian, in those countries to Buddhism? It is in the same spirit that the Western Christian churches have sent missionaries to the East and to Sri Lanka in particular. Islam has not been wanting in this respect also.

If anyone denies this right to others, he denies his own religion the right to proclaim and evangelise. The Buddhist and the Moslem will have to withdraw his missionaries from Europe and Western countries. The Catholics and the Protestants too will have to withdraw from their respective mission fields in Asia. Is this what those who oppose conversion want and are willing to do to stop their own evangelism?

The answer is quite obviously NO. Thus let us all show an attitude of tolerance to other religions and not interfere with their religious activities.

BANDULA JAYAMANNE

'Apropos letter dated Oct 20, on the above subject, there is no dispute that every person is free to follow the religion of his choice or for that matter not follow any religion.

The difference arises when this freedom is deprived when it comes to proselytization which in fact means going beyond free choice making one to accept a doctrine by inducing someone to convert to one's faith. Furthermore, the real meaning of Evangelism is the proclaiming of the doctrine - Christians.

The confusion arises with the use of the terms to mean converting. Using the term proselytize in the case of Arahant Mahinda instead of convert Devanamiyatissa is to give the impression that the former had a sword in one hand and the Tripitaka in the other, similar to what the Portuguese who came to Ceylon 500 years ago for trade, in due course, did to proselytize the people with gun in one hand and the Bible in the other as neither party knew the other's language to communicate to convert; thus following the pattern of the infamous inquisitions.

Anyway, there is now neo-colonialism with globlization, with the most powerful nation with her allies beginning to grab and steal the resources both natural and biological of the poor nations.

In the wake follows the deceitful champions of Christianity backed by big money registering their institutions under the Companies Ordinance come to exploit the poverty of our people by proselytizing them by financial and other inducements, worse still brain washing their innocent children by the same crafty means to the extent some of them made to dash the images of the Buddha.

No religion advocates unethical conduct, even proselytization, and that is why many established churches frown on this. And, if Buddhists are expected to look on this without protest, their patience befits the great saints of history. Besides, this is not what is enshrined in the United Nations Charter.

TISSA AMARASEKERA, Kandy

I wish to comment on the letter under the above caption (DN Oct. 20). When Columbus led the Spanish Expeditions, he tacitly justified all the atrocities committed by the conquistadors by declaring the aim of his mission as "Gold for my Sovereign and Souls for The Church".

The Portuguese did likewise in Sri Lanka, mind you during the presence of the Jesuits and the Franciscan Friars and the like. That is colonialism.

The followers of Judaism believing that they are "God's Chosen People" discriminated against all those who were not within the cover of their ethno-religious mind set.

When Dravidian invaders pillaged Buddhist Temples they did not attempt to evangelise by any sort of coercion. There is no evidence to prove that Buddhist Missionaries used force to win over converts and were hand in glove with any invading force.

Thus to justify the efforts of contemporary missionaries who believe in what they consider as "revealed faiths" by reference to Emperor Asoka's Missions to Sri Lanka is reprehensible.

Buddhism is not a way of life, nor a mere philosophy nor a religion but a teaching expounded to achieve one's deliverance from all unsatisfactoriness from an understanding with deep penetrative insight all conditioned phenomena and any missionary zeal expended with that end needs no coercion or inducement.

ALBERT P. WICKRAMASINGHA - Kalutara North

>My attention has been drawn to the many news items and readers' letters that have >appeared in your newspaper and in other periodicals on this subject. Perhaps, my thoughts >will shed some light on this important subject.

>Every person is free to follow the religion of his choice is a fundamental human right >and is accepted by all nations and all civil societies, being enshrined in the United >Nations charter. Denying this basic human right to others necessarily implies that others >have the right to deny that freedom to you.

>People of all religions - Buddhist, Hindu, Moslem, Catholic and Christian - and of all >philosophies, agree that this freedom must be an essential feature of any society that >claims to be just. In fact the doctrines of all these religions affirm this right of >worship. Therefore if people of one religion deny this freedom to other religions, they >violate their own religious precepts of tolerance in addition to violating fundamental >human rights.

People are certainly free to follow the religion of their choice. However, do evangelists have an inherent right to convert other people to their faith through any means possible? If freedom must be an essential feature of any society that claims to be just, then one must question why the God of the Bible commanded that only he be worshipped and nobody else. Surely this impinges on the freedom of a just society?

Several questions must be addressed to Mr Jayamanne. Some of these are:

- How must followers of other religions react when they are called "pagans", "idol-worshippers," "devil-worshippers," "tree-worshippers" and "heathens" by Christian evangelists?

- Are these appellations also considered to be signs of Christian tolerance according to Mr Jayamanne?

- Do Christian evangelists have an inherent right to slander other religions and their followers in their attempts to convert non-Christians?

- If missionaries have the right to spread their religion by any means, then do non-Christians have the right to work against the spread of Christianity by any means?

>Could this be happening in Sri Lanka? Every reasoning person will hope not.

>Just as important is the right every religion has of proclamation its teachings. Every >religion is evangelistic in the sense of wanting to proclaim its beliefs and offer people >of other religions the choice to accept its doctrines. This is called proselytising. It >is also called evangelism and is a legitimate activity.

>It is this evangelistic zeal that prompted King Ashoka of India to send Venerable Mihindu >Maha Thera to Lanka in the reign of King Devanampiyatissa. That this missionary journey >was successful is proven by the conversion of almost the whole of Lanka at the time to >Buddhism. Similarly, the Catholic Church formed special teams, amongst them the Jesuits, >to evangelise the Asian nations.

Preaching of one's religion is fine. But what must be objected to is the method by which evangelists, particularly Christian evangelists, spread their religion. The conversion of Sri Lanka to Buddhism did not occur through the spillage of blood, through military conquest, as happened when Catholicism was imposed in South America. The establishment of Buddhism in this country did not occur through the eradication of local culture, or the indigenous inhabitants and their customs as happened with the imposition of Christianity in Africa and the Americas. Buddhism was never imposed on Sri Lanka. It was accepted through free choice, without coercion. That is why today we find elements of indiginous worship in popular Sri Lankan Buddhism, and a healthy symbiosis between Buddhism and Hinduism.

>The Catholic religion's presence in Sri Lanka can be directly attributed to these >efforts. Is it the same missionary zeal that has sent teams from Sri Lanka to western >nations in Europe and the Americas to convert people, mainly Christian, in those >countries to Buddhism? It is in the same spirit that the Western Christian churches have >sent missionaries to the East and to Sri Lanka in particular. Islam has not been wanting >in this respect also.

Christianity was to a large extent imposed on the peoples of this country. That is now history, but the history of Christian missionaries in Sri Lanka leaves a lot to be desired. The destruction of numerous Buddhist and Hindu temples, monasteries and libraries all over the country by the Colonials and their missionaries will always remain a rather severe blot in the history of this country. That the missionaries gave preferential treatment to converts and denied education and jobs to Buddhists and Hindus who refused to convert is common knowlege today.

Unlike what Mr Jayamanne suggests, Buddhists from Sri Lanka have not sent "teams" with the expressed purpose of converting Americans and Europeans to Buddhism. If Mr Jayammane had taken the time to find out what these individual Buddhist monks do, then he surely would not have even mentioned this point at all. These monks are there to serve various Sri Lankan Buddhist communities in the west. They do not go out with evangelistic teams to convert all non-Buddhists to Buddhism. They do not go around handing pamphlets and books on Buddhism and ask people if they have found the Buddha. They do not go around knocking on people's doors to invite them to Buddhism. They do not go around 'planting temples' and creating 'worship houses' and 'gospel centres.' They do not prevent blood transfusions to dying children or decry Harry Potter books because they deal with witchcraft. Instead, they spend their time at Sri Lankan temples and tend to the spiritual needs of Sri Lankans who come to the temple by running meditation programmes, poojas and preaching bana. They do not go and actively try to convert others at all, but do preach Buddhism to western seekers who come to the temple of their own accord.

Christian evangelists, however, come to Sri Lanka in teams. Their sole purpose is to convert Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and Catholics to their particular sect. Money is pumped into these teams through donors in the USA and/or Europe, who are members of these evangelistic sects. They are here to "harvest souls" for their God, that is all. They go around handing pamphlets and books on Christianity and ask people if they have found Christ. They go around planting churches and creating worship house and gospel centres. Some of them prevent blood transfusions to dying children and most of them decry Harry Potter books because they deal with witchcraft. The Christian religion, to them, is superior to all other religions and all 'heathens' or 'unreached people' must be brought to the light of Jesus Christ at any cost.

The Christian evangelist in Sri Lanka has a single agenda of conversion and mobilizes massive resources to that end, targeting unsuspecting, poor or disorganised groups.

>If anyone denies this right to others, he denies his own religion the right to proclaim >and evangelise. The Buddhist and the Moslem will have to withdraw his missionaries from >Europe and Western countries. The Catholics and the Protestants too will have to withdraw >from their respective mission fields in Asia. Is this what those who oppose conversion >want and are willing to do to stop their own evangelism?

>The answer is quite obviously NO. Thus let us all show an attitude of tolerance to other >religions and not interfere with their religious activities.

Buddhists and Hindus in the west are not involved in the type of evangelistic activities that Christian evangelists are running in Sri Lanka. As mentioned above, Sri Lankan Buddhist monks in foreign countries are only involved in ministering to Sri Lankan Buddhists. It is the same with Hindu priests.

So-called "Buddhist missionaries" are not involved in providing material inducements to non-Buddhists, in order to get them to convert. Prominent Buddhist personalities and monks have time and time again explained that it is not necessary to become a Buddhist in order to derive benefit from the Buddha's teachings. Hindu gurus have time and time again explained that all religious paths lead to the same God. His Holiness the Dalai Lama recently told French Christians to remain in their religion and practice their religion without converting to Buddhism. This attitude is certainly the polar opposite of the rigid attitude of Christian evangelists who want all people on this planet to become Christian.

If certain so-called "religious activity" leads to religious tension and disharmony in society, then what should be done? Surely it is in the best interest of that society to take steps to curtail any activity that leads to a situation not conducive to the welfare of the country and its people. That way, harmony and brotherhood rains supreme.