Religion has for a long time remained an inseparable part of the people’s lives, both within Sri Lanka and globally, and has been a cause and solution of issues countless times.
The national discourse on religion and religious freedom in Sri Lanka has been renewed in the past few weeks, with new developments concerning various aspects such as the place and value we assign to religion. The Government revealed that plans are being devised to enact a law focusing on the distortion of religious beliefs to counter attacks to religions, while speech with regard to religion is likely to face challenges with the enactment of other laws such as those relating to online activities.
Concerns surrounding the necessity of laws and policies to combat threats against religions, religious beliefs and practices have been intensified by several recent developments which some – especially the Government – interpret as threats or organised attacks against religions, especially Buddhism. A person who called himself “Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva” was arrested for allegedly engaging in acts that are said to be against the teachings of Buddhism, while another person was arrested for allegedly impersonating a Buddhist monk while engaging in acts that are not appropriate for a monk. Above all, Sri Lanka recently saw a spate of suicides which are said to be related to a religious cult, which have intensified concerns about religion related threats.
Religious choices and intellectual diversity
The Government remains determined to entertain the demands of religious activists that seek stricter actions against those that insult and distort religions, religious leaders, religious teachings, and religious practices. While religion has always been a topic which successive governments were interested in discussing due to election-related concerns, demands for laws to protect religions are concerning for many reasons.
Religious and ideological beliefs are inherently subjective and diverse, and are a reflection of people’s intellectual diversity. However, religious diversity in many contexts is limited to cultures, countries, politics, and societies, thereby underestimating the human experience aspect of it. It seems that in discussions about religion, we easily overlook followers’ needs and wants, aspirations, the environment, hardships, and the intellectual capacity. In this context, we also tend to forget the fact that each person's interpretation of religious faith or ideology is deeply personal, and is influenced by a plethora of external factors.
This subjectivity and diversity of religious and ideological beliefs emphasise the importance of open-mindedness and mutual respect, or at least tolerance. Individuals possess a right to embrace any ideology or belief system that resonates with them, and this foundational principle underscores the importance of personal autonomy and the freedom of thought. People should be free to explore, adopt, and practise their beliefs, whether they be religious, political, or philosophical, without fear of persecution or discrimination.
In this context, we should understand that combating harmful and misleading religious practices is a delicate task due to the intangible nature of beliefs. Striking a balance between safeguarding individuals and respecting the right to religious freedom requires careful and effective approaches. One could even say that attempting to regulate such personal aspects of the human experience contradicts the essence of a democratic society. Governments, institutions, or authorities overstepping into this area of a citizen’s rights is a direct influence on personal freedoms and also intellectual diversity.
The recognition of the right to choose and practise a religion or similar ideology reflects a commitment to diversity and pluralism, and it allows individuals to seek meaning and purpose in their own way.
Limited and limitless thought and conscience
However, when ideologies lead to actions that cause adverse impacts on individuals or the society, society has a legitimate interest in addressing those consequences.
While respecting every person’s right to believe in and promote any religious belief so long as that does not violate the country’s laws, we have to come to terms with the fact that there will always be people who do not understand that although one’s beliefs may be immune from legal action, actions based on those beliefs are not. That is why there should be some sort of a mechanism to avert harmful, deceitful, or illegal acts based on people’s religious beliefs. However, that is an intricate and sensitive topic, for in order to institute legal action against such acts, the connection between those beliefs and actual acts (based on those beliefs) should be established.
Time has come for Sri Lanka to take this serious concern into account, because the Government is contemplating enacting laws against the distortion of religion. In this regard, the Ministry of Buddhasasana, Religious, and Cultural Affairs had stated that this law aims to prevent religious teachings and practices from being intentionally distorted as it could cause disharmony between communities. In fact, reports claim that certain groups had urged the Government to expedite the enactment of the relevant laws. The defamation of religions, religious leaders and religious teachers are primary concerns in this discussion.
It is important to understand that the regulation of religious beliefs, or similar ideologies, poses a massive challenge owing to the inherent nature of the freedom of thought and conscience, which provides a basis for all religions. This freedom has been protected by Sri Lanka’s Constitution,which says that “every person is entitled to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, including the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his/her choice.” Notably, this freedom, unlike a number of other freedoms mentioned in the Constitution’s Fundamental Rights Chapter, is not subject to limitations or restrictions. This fundamental right, deeply embedded in international human rights principles, notes the autonomy of individuals to have their own beliefs, including those relating to religions or similar ideologies. This freedom is inviolable, because it encompasses the private realm of a person’s mind.
At the same time, the intricacies of religious beliefs make it difficult to establish common standards for regulation, as religions vary widely in their teachings, practices, and interpretations. What may be deemed acceptable in one religious belief system may be frowned on in another. In addition, although the Constitution gives priority to Buddhism among other religious beliefs, enacting laws for different religious beliefs is not an option. In this context, it is evident that there is a serious flaw in the demand for laws against religious defamation, and the Government, religious leaders, activists and even some members of the general public that push for such regulation should rethink their approach. They should understand that this is not a matter of whether religious beliefs are legally protected, but rather a matter of how to effectively identify what is a threat to a religion and what is not and how to face intellectual fights.
What is more, it goes without a saying that in a context where Sri Lanka’s minority religious, ethnic and cultural groups have been widely discriminated by successive Governments in their attempts to protect religions, cultures and so-called Sri Lankan values, attempts to create a regulatory framework, which is essentially targeting how people think, risks imposing a particular set of values and has the potential to marginalise or discriminate against such groups.
Combatting opinions with opinions
While societies may have legitimate concerns about the potential misuse or distortion of religious beliefs, addressing such issues should be approached with caution and with an effective plan. It should also be sensitive to diversity, and be objective as much as possible.
The authorities arrested and remanded the person who called himself “Avalokiteshwara”. But, whatever the ideology that he preached is still out there, in the minds of his followers. Therefore, putting behind bars mere leaders or followers is not only the most rudimentary response, but also the least effective response.
What should we do then? The answer is simple – ideas should be confronted with ideas. What laws can do when it comes to fighting thoughts is very limited. It is awareness raising, critical thinking, and most importantly, open and unrestricted discourses that can help people question and analyse their religion-related decisions, and to not fall prey to those who intentionally deceive the people for personal gains or with other motives. However, we can most certainly take actions if religion-related actions violate the country’s laws, and can oppose harmful outcomes of religious beliefs although they may not be offences as per the law. Rather than attempting to regulate beliefs directly, focusing on actions that harm others or disrupt public order ensures a balance between individual freedom and societal wellbeing.