Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
The violence of conversion
Q: Is there a problem with proselytism overseas by U.S. religious groups? Isn't sharing one's faith part of religious freedom? When does it cross the line into manipulation and coercion?
It is impossible for me to reconcile myself to the idea of conversion after the style that goes on in India and elsewhere today. It is an error which is perhaps the greatest impediment to the world's progress toward peace. Why should a Christian want to convert a Hindu to Christianity? Why should he not be satisfied if the Hindu is a good or godly man? -- Mahatma Gandhi (Harijan: January 30, 1937)
If I had some good news--really good news that would help others--I would eagerly want to share that news. Spread the word, pass it on, share the joy. As Thomas Farr of the Berkely Center at Georgetown wrote, "For those who believe they have access to such a Truth, the desire to offer it to others is both natural and rational."
The problem, of course, is that we are dealing with matters of faith and the experiential, rather than the empirical and rational. And we are wrestling with not only the benign connotations of evangelism and charity, but also with the incendiary vocabulary of hegemony, religious imperialism, asymmetry and conversion.
The Georgetown meeting will only include Christians and Muslims--sadly, none of the millions of Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and indigenous traditions that are the targets of proselytism globally are included--but it is also apropos. For only Christians and Muslims have a history of displaying an often violent urge to share good news. Whether you want to hear it or not never much mattered!
The Crusades or the Conquests, the Inquisition or the sword, the results were the same: millions were forced to turn their backs on their own faith and embrace another. Only the name of the God changed.
Today, that same urge to persuade, convince and even coerce the good news upon others remains; the methodology insidiously different, but the result is the same.
Groups ranging from the overtly evangelical World Vision to quasi-government entities such as the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), and many others even within our government, firmly subscribe to the view that religious freedom protects--rather mandates--unhindered access globally to carry out the work of proselytism. Religious freedom is tantamount to freedom to proselytize and convert.
Article 18 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR), is often held up as the rationale--the green light for proselytization. That every individual "has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
But adherents of the pluralist religions--Dharma religions, paganism and native religious traditions--have long argued that there is a very basic asymmetry at play rendering the Declaration deeply flawed. Abrahamic religions--the non-pluralist traditions--claim exclusivity in their belief system's legitimacy as the only religious and spiritual path and demand absolute adherence. In contrast, pluralist religious traditions subscribe to a more expansive ethos--that one's religion may not be the exclusive source of Truth and which acknowledge the potential of multiple legitimate religious and spiritual paths. Most pluralist religious traditions allow for the assimilation of beliefs and traditions of another religion without demanding repudiation of one's own religion or conversion to the other.
This fundamental difference--that a pluralist accepts the injunction of the ancient Rig Veda that, "Truth is One, but sages call it by various names" while the non-pluralist demands that there is only One Truth and all others are false and dangerous--renders the pluralist vulnerable to the asymmetric force of the proselytizer. The pluralist would find seeking converts or evangelizing others anathema--the concept of conversion does not even exist--while the non-pluralist seeks converts as a God given mandate.
Compound this asymmetry with the reality that the most prolific proselytizers today comprise a multi-billion dollar megachurch industry, and the previously colonized developing world is open ground for this latest avatar of colonization. Witnesses from the hot spots for global proselytism abound with testimony of access to education, medical care, employment and other necessities being traded--often subtle, and often not--on the marketplace of religious affiliation. Most sinister, of course, is the overt bargaining of disaster supplies or better hospital beds after tsunamis and earthquakes for those willing to convert.
The pluralists protest, also, against the tactics of the proselytizers. Christian missionaries in India appropriate Hindu modes of worship, reconfigure traditional prayer rituals into Holy Sacraments and sing hymns that are Hindu bhajans (prayer songs) with words replaced sung to identical tunes.
The violence of conversion is very real. The religious conversion is too often a conversion to intolerance. A convert is asked to repudiate his sangha (community), reject the customs and traditions of his family passed down for generations, and refuse to attend religious ceremonies that are the very basis of daily life in much of the world. A person's conversion begins a cascade of upheaval that tears apart families, communities and societies creating a political and demographic tinderbox that too often explodes.
Spreading hate against native religions is perhaps the most vile tactic too often employed. And even the Catholic Church, with its centuries old presence in India, has blasted the tactics of the new proselytizers plying their trade today. In our own country, consumer protection laws ensure that advertisers and retailers abide by truth-in-marketing laws. There is no parallel protection in the rabid sales in religious identity that the proselytizer markets overseas, and the consumers are the victims.
And finally, there is the fact that the evangelical community can only "pick on" the pluralist societies. India, Nepal, Cambodia, Taiwan and much of Africa where indigenous traditions still hold sway, are among the targets today for the next "harvest." The "Muslim world" rewards conversion away from Islam with death, and in China, Russia Burma and others, autocracy, the Orthodox Church or military junta proscribe missionary work.
And so, the very democracy and openness of pluralistic societies becomes their vulnerability--a poison pill as they face the onslaught of the proselytizers. Today, the Native Americans of the U.S. and Canada, the indigenous progeny of Latin America and Mexico, the Aborigines in Australia are silent witness to lost religions and decimated traditions that fell historically to earlier iterations of these onslaughts.
It is in this spirit that many human rights activists and academics today argue for an overdue amending of the UNDHR. The Hindu American Foundation proposed in a letter to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, on the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that Article 18 be amended as follows (emphasis added):
§1 Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have, retain or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
§2 No one shall be subject to force, fraud and/or coercion, including but not limited to harassment, intimidation or exploitation, including but not limited to the conditioning of humanitarian aid or economic, educational, medical or social assistance upon conversion and/or overt denigration of other religions to intentionally promote religious hatred and bigotry (hate speech) and violence, which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
The right to have and retain one's path to salvation is and must be as important as the right to find or adopt a new way. It is time to change the vocabulary in our engagement with religious freedom. Religious freedom must mean a commitment to the true spirit of pluralism, and not a license to those "bearing witness" and forcing judgment.
Views expressed here are the personal views of Dr. Aseem Shukla, and do not necessarily represent those of the University of Minnesota or Hindu American Foundation.
By
Aseem Shukla
|
March 3, 2010; 12:59 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: The Young Muslim Americans Project |
Next: The 'problem' of proselytism
Posted by: rentianxiang | March 9, 2010 1:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Another great column. How can pluralist traditions live in harmony with non-pluralist traditions? We can all live together, but harmony requires mutual respect, acceptance, tolerance and understanding. Can followers of any path do that?
Posted by: mihirmeghani | March 7, 2010 1:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The supremacist attitudes that are the problem with proselytization and are the source of violence & conflict are best seen in the words of the defenders of the supremacist faiths:
"CIVILIZED countries..."
"their view is the only one that is true."
"how can you say that tolerance is better than intolerance?"
Really? You don't have the moral compass to work throught this? Are you just being sneaky, insincere, and manipulative like most missionaries & proselytizers? We all see right through it. Do you and "your superior god"?
battlechaps: "Christians in most civilized countries are not lording it over others who don't ascribe to their views, though they do believe their view is the only one that is true."
GabrielRockman: "how can you say that tolerance is better than intolerance?"
Posted by: clearthinking1 | March 5, 2010 4:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment
What Thomas Farr dubs as Good News is Bad News?
The news is "Your pluralist beliefs and ethos are wrong. You near and dear ones who departed earth are burning in hell. Reject your cherished way of life or else face eternal damnation."
Bad news should be delivered in most sensitive manner. It is insensitive to deliver bad news as good news. Unfortunately, This piece of bad news is sometimes advertised along with verbel violence and other vile tactics.
USCIRF needs structural reforms and process reengineering in order to ensure compliance with IRFA 1998 law and champion freedom of all faiths.
Visit: www.uscirf.blogspot.com for details.
Posted by: reformuscirf | March 4, 2010 8:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Kudos Dr. Shukla for your comments.
The fact that the few religious nutcases commenting above here object to even your very minor but sensible suggestions of modification to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights simply goes to prove your point. These are very narrow-minded individuals running a business in the third world of soul-harvesting. I only hope that Hinduism and Buddhism do not go the route of the native American cultures due to these rabid evangelists. The claim that they only convert those that are willing is such hogwash. All these people do in the third world is trade goods and services in return for false allegience to their version of God. Wish these evangelists were more like Jesus Christ and less like used car dealers.
Posted by: Buddhistmonk | March 4, 2010 4:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Clearthinking1 - how can you say that tolerance is better than intolerance?
If you are a moral relativist who believes it is wrong to claim one set of world views is superior to another set of world views, then you must include tolerance versus intolerance as examples of world views, and therefore it is wrong to place one above the other.
Posted by: GabrielRockman | March 4, 2010 4:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"A convert is asked to repudiate his sangha (community), reject the customs and traditions of his family passed down for generations, and refuse to attend religious ceremonies that are the very basis of daily life in much of the world"
I don't have any problem with that.
- Everyone should have the freedom to repudiate his community,
- Everyone should have the freedom to reject the traditions of his family, and
- Everyone should have the freedom to refuse to attend religious ceremonies.
Anyone who wants to turn their backs on the society that produced them should have the freedom to do so. We are not your prisoners. We are free men and have the right to turn our backs on out-moded traditions and poisoned Old World societies. That's what makes America great. We and our ancestors turned our backs on the Old World and built a new society here in America.
Talk to the hand, buddy.
Posted by: ZZim | March 4, 2010 1:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Clearthinking,
Sorry, but all do not see proselytization as an act of violance. Only when there is threat of violance to join said religion is it violant. The kind of proselytizing I and most civilized people are defending is the open exchange of ideas, which you seem to be oppossed too if you are defending this particular post.
As for your comments on intolerance and supremacism, I reject the construct of your argument, because it assumes a definition of my faith in particular that the majority of Christians do not hold. Christians in most civilized countries are not lording it over others who don't ascribe to their views, though they do believe their view is the only one that is true. There is a distinction there that you don't seem ready to make.
The truth is you believe that your view is the only truth, and if you support this particular posting you are in favor of making rules to see that everyone else sees it your way. Perhaps if you practiced a little more introspection you might see how this will infringe on your own rights to believe as you will eventually.
Posted by: battlechaps | March 4, 2010 1:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I find it humourous that Dr. Shukla can praise so-called "pluralist" religions for allowing "the assimilation of beliefs and traditions of another religion" in one breath, and in the next condemn Christians who "appropriate Hindu modes of worship, reconfigure traditional prayer rituals into Holy Sacraments and sing hymns that are Hindu bhajans (prayer songs) with words replaced sung to identical tunes."
A double standard? Of course.
Posted by: ktbnyc | March 4, 2010 10:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Battlechaps,
Remember: Tolerance is superior to intolerance. Pluralism is superior to supremacism. That is all Hindus & Dr. Shukla are saying.
It is a specious argument to say that criticizing intolerant and supremacist religions such as Christianity & Islam is intolerant. These attitudes lead to proselytization, which all would agree is an act of violence.
If you don't understand this connection with violence, please do a little more introspection. You sound sincere. Are you? Only you know the answer to that question.
Posted by: clearthinking1 | March 4, 2010 1:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Of course there is a problem with real Christianity, it requires tough, dogmatic choices and often makes non-believers uncomfortable. No wonder certain towns forbid Paul and others to preach the gospel in early Christian times. It is no different today, but hey if I see you running off a cliff, drinking poisonous koolaid, or pursuing a false God that only will bring eternal damnation, I better at least warn you? Religion-lite types with their universal salvations and let everyone be strategies are not going to save anyone.
Posted by: luvmtains | March 3, 2010 10:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
There is no doubt that violant forms of conversion as you describe fly in the face of what most of the world considers civilized, but it is also against what the majority of Christians believe as well. The crusades and the inquisition not withstanding, a favorite critique of the Christian faith, in 2008 it was Hindus doing some killing too. But that is really not the point of my comment.
The very religious pluralism you are requiring, and there is a distinction between that and what I believe is real pluralism, is blatantly intolerant of faiths who ascribe to a belief in one path to a relationship with God. You would make anyone who seeks to profess a "non-pluralistic" belief guilty of "hate speech" in your amendment.
You also claim superiority over the "non-pluralistic" faiths by saying that your beliefs are based on fact and empirical evidence, over and above the irrational faith of others, which you decry as bigotry later in your comments.
As a Christian, my belief in the revelation of God through the person of Jesus Christ in no way denigrates your belief in many. My professing that their is no other way to God but through Jesus Christ, in no way obligates you to believe the same.
What you are calling for in your comments is the very thing you accuse the "non-pluralistic" faiths of doing. You want freedom for only those beliefs that agree with yours.
Posted by: battlechaps | March 3, 2010 5:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
I have no problem with someone trying to proselytize, no matter what their faith. Of course, if they believe in something and have found that to be a fulfilling and true belief, why not go out and try to share those beliefs with others? If the proselytizers do it peacefully, walk away when people say "no thanks" and don't receive any public money for their efforts, that is fine. Part of living in a free society means that people should be free to express their opinions and beliefs and even engage their fellow citizens in dialogue. I will take that kind of "conversion" process over the coercive tactics used in other, mostly Muslim, countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, any day. I also think that those who proselytize should also accept that others will do the same so we must accept Muslims practicing dawa as well as Mormons going on their missions. The fact that a Muslim can practice and share his or her faith freely here makes our country objectively better, in this aspect, than Saudi Arabia where people are prosecuted for even practicing a belief other than the Sunni strain of the kingdom, much less sharing their faith with others.
As far as the assertion that conversion includes violence due to the rejection of the traditions of the family, is seems that the intolerance and "violence" stems from the entrenched customs, not from the convert or those who converted him or her. Perhaps the criticism then should not be of the "proselytizers" who share their faith, but rather the inflexible tribes or clans of the world who reject anyone who chooses to live differently than the majority. For myself, I have no faith in any religion and find them all distasteful for their intellectual dishonesty and abjectly transparent falsity, but I find the rejection of the right of someone to profess and share a belief an extremely dangerous, intolerant and totalitarian proposition.