Spiritual coercion can never be justified. Conversion can come from the heart or from the head being informed, voluntarily and without guilt, writes Antonia Filmer
Two events this week have made me come out of the cupboard. The first was a Christian Christmas lecture in london and the second is the conversion in India.
I have no issue with an individual choosing another faith; in a free will, free speech democratic society, this can happen every day. It is when I hear, “The point of religion is to hold the State accountable”, that my head starts to spin. Isn't that what justice is forIJ If a basic tenet of democracy is justice in its broadest sense, then no denomination can have that exclusive prerogative. But what is the point of religionIJ My understanding in a nutshell is that, no matter whether you interpret scriptures as history or allegory, they serve as an ethical guide to a better life and after-life. The single divine force of god can bring self-confidence and personal strength, it gives us a conscience and hope.
The thrust of my opinion is that pure compassion does not expect any reward. It is not fair to offer a ‘better religion’ to those whose very existence is insecure, from poverty/ depression/ sickness/ fear/ guilt or any other of the human miseries, the desperate will accept the unacceptable to save themselves or their children. If mortal existence is threatened, would an individual make a silent bargain with his god and play out a charade to anotherIJ
Compassion is not the exclusive dominion of any one religion; compassion is a charitable act beyond religion but stemming from faith. Spiritual coercion can never be justified. Conversion can come from the heart or from the head being informed, 100 per cent voluntarily and without guilt.
No denomination has a theological supremacy over another. There are denominational majorities and convictions but none can claim ethical or moral values as exclusively its own, and if people do, suspicions are aroused. Religion turns into dogma and is used as an instrument to promote another agenda (territorial, political, commercial), the pressure for dominance becomes apparent and the vulnerable become the targets. This begs the question: Who is paying the billIJ
The hypocrisy and immorality of benefitting from those without a choice is a road to damnation, sooner or later. An anti-conversion law might be a knee jerk reaction that could be misinterpreted as being didactic to say the least. Would a law change anything or just drive sponsored conversion undergroundIJ Would it somehow lead to State records being kept about the electorate's faithIJ In the UK, the Electoral Commission does not record religion, but the 2011 Census asked for it to be declared. The often discredited erstwhile labour Prime Minister Tony Blair said, “Faith should never be the monopoly of any one political party”.
Surely it is possible to be an English or Indian nationalist and devout in one's own spiritual identity without a conversion agenda. Proselytising a more effective god is tantamount to bullying and only steps away from extremism. Besides, it shrinks the very meaning of religion.
Is universalisation of education the answer, to show that our collective humanity does not lean left or rightIJ A genuine compassionate society could use all that energy to provide the vulnerable with an unbiased education or some support with no strings attached, that could lead to economic opportunity, social development and a peaceful co-existence between faiths.