Anti-conversion Bills Like In India

[kwiz117]

It is a very open secret the way some missionaries and charities carrying out Converting people who follow other religions by offering Financial and Non-Financial benefits.

Some states in India have already implemented anti-Conversion bills to protect uneducated poor people getting converted to another religion due to financial and non-financial benefits. Some countries have banned these NGO's, Charities.

Is the person who gets converted does it with real faith towards that religion or are they doing it simply to come out from where they are?

If the person converted really have done that in faith, then these countries will violate the human rights of those people.

Where I stand?

I am for anti-conversion bills as I think majority is doing it for sake of money.

Now where do you stand in this?

(Please note that this is not a threat only for Buddhism. Statistics have shown most number of people who are getting converted is Christians.)

kwiz

[snowleopard]

Where I stand?

I am for anti-conversion bills as I think majority is doing it for sake of money.

Now where do you stand in this?

I think there should be both freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion!

People are individuals and not government property.

Everybody is born an Atheist and becomes a believer only as a result of conditioning with religion early in life and then with pressure from family and community to conform to their standards!

Historically,in order to get cohesion in hunter-gatherer tribes and when societies first evolved ,religion did serve a purpose;but let's hope humanity's future belongs to enlightenment instead of mumbo-jumbo superstition and gobble-dy-gook rituals!!

Cheers.

Snowleopard

[ghengis]

On a tour of North Thailand last December we went to various Hill Tribe villages. In one there was a Christian Missionary Hall and these missionaries were trying to provide water, education and other benefits to these people.

At the other end of the village there was a carved man and woman at the entrance with the man having an oversized penis. Clearly these people are not all Buddhists, and worship of earth spirits is a large part of their culture.

Hill Tribe people are not Thai - technically they are asylum seekers with limited rights in Thailand. Despite that they are exploited to bring tourism to the region. If the Thai government took care of these people better then missionaries would not be needed.

[camerata]

Buddhism seems to have a pretty good record in resisting monotheistic missionaries. Worse than paid conversions though are the international schools in Thailand that offer an otherwise excellent (and expensive) education so that they can socialize young kids into extreme forms of Christianity - particularly Creationism. It's basically a missionary agenda in the guise of education. Thai parents don't realize that their kids can easily become conflicted about their beliefs in such an environment.

A friend of mine's 9-year-old came home after 6 months at one of these schools and said: "Mom, I want to be a Christian. I'm old enough to make up my own mind!"

[Richard W]

Buddhism seems to have a pretty good record in resisting monotheistic missionaries.

What about Malaya? Didn't that use to be Buddhist?

[stroll]

My knowledge of world history is not very detailed, but I don't think Malaysia was converted by missionaries building schools.

[camerata]

Buddhism seems to have a pretty good record in resisting monotheistic missionaries.

What about Malaya? Didn't that use to be Buddhist?

Buddhist and Hindu, but Islam was slowly assimilated from visiting traders from the south of India, as far as I understand it.

[kwiz117]

The way Muslims spread the religion is mainly not by conversions. You get some cases. But mostly it’s by having large big families and treating each other brothers and sisters. I am not referring to that type of situations. What I am referring is, anyone who offers financial and non-financial benefits to get converted. Do we need laws to protect such situations? Or if we think it is human rights (logically I think so), are you ready to close your eyes and wait until people in your religion changing to other religions.

I think majority of Buddhist are against conversions. I just thought that anyone here who is a Christian or anyone who has already changed his religion, to express his opinion.

[eyespan]

I remember a thai friend of mine who sort of disowned his son cause the young fellow decided to convert.

I am not against the freedom of religion, but I feel that missionary work does create its fair share of social problems. Especially christianity, which believes in an exclusive god as well as spreading the gospel.

Best is allow everybody to believe in what they want and spread their brand of good news through the excellent example of their lives.

[stroll]

Some religions are more 'aggressive' regarding conversions. Some methods are more devious, some more manipulative than others. Offering an education or money for members of a particular religion only is perhaps not the most impartial way of encouraging choices, but it is legitimate if done as a private initiative, but it is equally legitimate for a community or a government to decline the 'help' and tell them to go somewhere else (polite choice of words).

Sometimes it is not about religion, but about politics. For example, in the Philippines, my tribal friends in the mountains will not be issued a passport, unless they are registered as a catholic in the nearest district office. This is official government policy, and in this instance it becomes a human rights issue.

[eyespan]

For example, in the Philippines, my tribal friends in the mountains will not be issued a passport, unless they are registered as a catholic in the nearest district office. This is official government policy, and in this instance it becomes a human rights issue.

Well then I am sure that your friends will hold a grudge against the gov for doing that..... but their next generations will breed proud christians and maybe even a padre or 2. Something that I feel strongly against cause the kids will forget how they came to be "good" catholics in the first place.

[ghengis]

The Perils of Conversion - a Lesson From History

The Khmer Empire was originally Hindu.

The Ankor Kings were worshipped as a deva-raja, or "god-king". The king was revered as an incarnation of the Hindu god Shiva. Most of the Temples in Ankor are not Buddhist, but are to Hindu gods Shiva and Vishnu. The supreme status of the king allowed him to mobilise huge numbers of people to serve the army, maintain the extensive irrigation system and build massive temples.

Theravada Buddhism was introduced to the Khmer from Sri Lanka in the 13th Century AD. As it became established in Cambodia, the power of the King diminished. He was no longer considered a God. This weakened the king’s authority which led to the ultimate collapse of downfall of the Khmer empire in the 15th Century - and indirectly to the rise of independent Thai states.

It appears that it is these Sri Lankan Theravada Buddhists who have been causing all the trouble with religious conversion in South East Asia.

[stroll]

Conversions are known to be used as political instruments, just as religions have been used to further political agendas which have little to do with the core beliefs, Buddhism is no exception in this.

[kwiz117]

It appears that it is these Sri Lankan Theravada Buddhists who have been causing all the trouble with religious conversion in South East Asia.

May be you are correct.

Don't you think that you have missed out colonization factor in your point?

Anyway, you were referring to before that period? What abut 100 Yrs back?

BTW, where did you pick that Theravada Buddhist do religious conversions?

Good thoughts though !

But again, I can not completely disagree with what you have said above after reading some posts in this forum section.

Take this forum section and the foreigners who are gathering here everyday to learn about Buddhism, clear doubts about questions related to Buddhism.

The chances are over 90% of foreign nationals who spend time here are not Buddhist. But for some reason, they have this interest of learning Buddhism. May be, some of them even might decide to get converted to Buddhism. Some have already declared themselves as practicing Buddhists.

Another example. Some meditation classes, yoga etc dressed with colors of Buddhism have become a business for some jobless people (in Thailand and even in western countries). Now these also indirect influence non-Buddhist to get converted to Buddhism.

I have met such people. Actually I have not met anyone whom I am convinced with as a real buddhist person. All foreigners who claim that they practice Buddhism here are either do it as a style or to eshtablish themselve in this Thai predominently buddhist society.

In my opinion, that is why I agree with bringing anti-conversion bills. Whether it's sri lankan Theravada or Christian church or any other missionary does not matter.

[kwiz117]

Ok. For story lovers..

This is a classic story (do not generalize this) of a foreign national becoming a victim of Buddhism in Thailand simply by living in a predominantly Buddhist Country.

I knew an American where I considered him as one of my very good friends for over 1.5 Years in Thailand. Actually he was the BF of one of my very good Thai friends. The guy was in his mid 50's.

He had so much of books related to Buddhism. Having books does not make anyone a Buddhist or a Scientist . For me, it is like driving a BMW purchased from a Credit Card, just to show off others. Infact he bought a Toyota. 555

He was even giving breakfast to one monk every day and even arranged a thambon at his house. He really worshiped Buddha.

(Those days, everyone excluding myself had any doubts over his attraction to Buddhism. Frankly, I doubted. But that never effected to our friendship. Only thing what I did was, just avoid the discussions about this subject with him. )

Suddenly this relationship he had with his Thai GF ended. She found him cheating her for years by having another relationship with another woman.

Later we found that he has lived with my friend coz she owned a house for him to rent and her position in the society. (People are not what we think)

Also she has found out that he was having financial problems etc.

During this time of breakup he himself admitted the way he was acting and the way he was using email to make himself like that. All came up from his mouth coz he could not control himself at that time.

I do not know where he is now. But this is just a one real example. He was a Christian.

He did not do it for money. He was trying hard to somehow grab some big business by promoting himself as a specialist in Technology Transfers. (BTW, he was trying hi-tech to low-tech all sort of stuff). He used Buddhism as the fuel for his car to drive to meet prominent Thai businessman.

I think if you are a foreigner and a Christian who has fallen for Buddhism in Thailand, you should seriously take your time before you betray your own religion.

Otherwise, it will be bad for Buddhist people in Thailand.

I am sure you may be having many other stories like this.

(Excuse for my grammar and spelling. )

[stroll]

What is your point, kwiz? Conversion is diluting the essence of a religion? Only those raised at an early age as Buddhist can claim to be true Buddhists?

Such as yourself, who says:

"Sorry. I said I know little and also not practicing."

[bina]

how exactly does one convert to buddhism? is there a ceremony like with some christian groups; or like the jews, you have to study with a rabbi then you are tested and then go to mikva (ritual cleansing etc)? baptism? moslems i think do like the jews more or less.... must go thru learning with rel. leader accepted by the community or state to do conversions.... so what do buddhists do; if a person lives by the precepts, is he/she not living the buddhist way regardless ? sorry, i live in a country that obssesses about these things

[sabaijai]

I have met such people. Actually I have not met anyone whom I am convinced with as a real buddhist person. All foreigners who claim that they practice Buddhism here are either do it as a style or to eshtablish themselve in this Thai predominently buddhist society

One could say the same thing for most Thais, Burmese, Lao, Cambodian and Sri Lankans born into Buddhist circumstances. The majority, I would say, call themselves Buddhist only to establish their social identities.

Very few consciously choose Buddhism, it was simply given to them by birth.

Is it important or useful to question or try to define other people's religious status? Or might it be more useful to look at our own connection to whatever faith we have chosen and decide whether it's real or not?

[sabaijai]

how exactly does one convert to buddhism?

Depends on the school. Some, like Vajrayana (often called Tibetan, although it's not exclusively Tibetan) Buddhism, promote inititation ceremonies where students are accepted by their masters. Shingon Buddhism, the Japanese form of Vajrayana, has similar practices.

In Theravada Buddhism there is no 'conversion' in the usual sense, although one customarily takes 'refuge' in the Three Gems (Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha) verbally each time one visits a wat or sits down to chant or practice meditation.

Buddham saranam gacchami -- I go to the Buddha for refuge.

Dhammam saranam gacchami -- I go to the Dhamma for refuge.

Sangham saranam gacchami -- I go to the Sangha for refuge.

[kwiz117]

No, I do not think I put my point clearly.

Please read the below two points and see whether you agree.

1. Take your original religion. (ie: the religion you followed before).

Let's assume that you were a Christian.

When we think from your original religion's point, is it true if I suggest that you have converted (from your mind or what ever way) to Buddhism from Christianity?

(I do not believe a person need any formal ceremony to get converted to any religion. Countries may do these ceremonies for formal record purposes or to follow some tradition etc..)

If a person believes in Christianity first and then start following Buddhism, then I consider it as a Conversion.

Do you agree?

2. Let's say that you are now following Buddhism.

Is this mean, that Buddhism gives you anything extra than what you got from your previous religion? If so, what made you so much interested in Buddhism?

kwiz

[bina]

"(I do not believe a person need any formal ceremony to get converted to any religion. Countries may do these ceremonies for formal record purposes or to follow some tradition etc..)"

1. Well kwiz u dont know a lot about some religions i guess because as i stated before -- just feeling 'jewish' isnt acceptable by most jewish sects as there is a lot of arguement of 'who is a jew' etc; yes tradition requires formal conversion as being part of that religion (which also considers itself a nationality etc);

2. i went to a Quaker high school ; among the quakers, you must decide and agree to the precepts of quakerism at the age of 18 or later; even if you are born into a quaker practicing family, u must 'decide and accept' the "Friends Way"...

My personal beliefs are a wierd mixture of my original jewish ETHICAL background, quaker influences, and buddhism... i am NOT a new ager.... i have been the same since i was about 12 years old and am now 42...

kwiz, its a dangerous habit to fight about religion; you sound almost missionary yourself about whaterver issues you have; millions of poeple have died and many more will die in the name of 'religious righteousness' and 'real belief' and i dont think that is the buddhist way...

sabaijai said: " Is it important or useful to question or try to define other people's religious status? Or might it be more useful to look at our own connection to whatever faith we have chosen and decide whether it's real or not?"

I thnk the thread should stick with this last sentence and leave it at that and just get back to answering questions that are informative.

[andyinkat]

You also startted a thread which you entitled 'What do you mean by the words Buddhist, Christian' and to me that question shares some questionable assumptions with this one.

One Tibetan text talks of '84,000 doors of the Dharma' - i.e. there are 84,000 different legitimate Dharma paths. The number is not literal; the meaning is that there are as many legitimate Buddhist paths as there are Buddhists.

The same is true for Chriatianity - oh you can easily find ignorant big-mouthed bigotted anti-Christians on this website as anywhere else who'll caricature Christianity but I've spent my professional life with a great variety of intelligent thoughtful Chritians. Same goes for Hindus and to a lesser extent Muslims - that religion does have greater uniformity in belief and practice but there is still great diversity.

The great problem with bringing legislation to control religion is that you are forced to define legalistically what a religion is and no religion can fit such an artificial straight-jacket. I have taught generations of Christians who have integrated Buddhist meditation into their practice. In Nepal most of the people I lived with are Hindu-Buddhist. I myself worship in Hindu mandirs and shrines; I went to many services in Mother Teresa's Catholic churches in Bengal and mosques too.

Let me challenge your last two points:

Please read the below two points and see whether you agree.

1. Take your original religion. (ie: the religion you followed before).

Let's assume that you were a Christian.

So, I have to ask you, what does this mean? What/who is a Christian?

I don't mean to sound flippant; there is no single creed that all people who consider themselves Christian would agree with. Do you include The Lord's Resistance Army, that Ugandan terrorist group of child soldiers who rape and kidnap children and force them to fight and kill? They claim to be fundamentalist Christian. Would it be wrong to try to persuade them to alter their religious allegiance?

If a person believes in Christianity first and then start following Buddhism, then I consider it as a Conversion.

Do you agree?

2. Let's say that you are now following Buddhism.

In the vihara where I regularly practiced with disciples of Ajahn Sumedho they would be frequently visited by brothers from the local Benedictine monastery - i.e. Catholic monks, who would stay for weeks or months sharing the spiritual life. These monks from different religions had far more in common than the Christian monks do with the LRA I mentioned or even the pastor from the local evangelical church.

So to sum up, my argument is that the closer you inspect the terms 'Christian', 'Buddhist', 'convert' the more you see that they are merely labels, imprecise conveniences for loosely discussing complex and ever-changing phenomena - i.e. real people with real constantly changing minds. Trying to fix people into a rigid identity is IMO a deeply ironic desire that flows in the opposite direction to the Dhamma.

[andyinkat]

Let's say that you are now following Buddhism.

Is this mean, that Buddhism gives you anything extra than what you got from your previous religion? If so, what made you so much interested in Buddhism?

Okay, here's a deeply personal question. let me see....

I had been Christian in my youth up until post-university days. I never ever had a problem with Christianity; my disillusionment was with the great majority of the Christians I encountered. I'm sure I don't need to expand on that!

As a fresh college teacher my students asked me to teach Buddhism. I read, I studied, I taught. I hooked up with the bhikkhus at the vihara I mentioned above, I went on Zen retreats, I spent time with different Buddhist groups to learn about the practice. There was no one moment when I said to myself, 'Aha! Now I'm a Buddhist!'; it was a gradual process over about three years. I've spent time majorly practising within a Theravadan sangha and later Tibetan. Now I'm back with Theravada for geographical reasons.

What did I 'find' in Buddhism? Having battled my way out of a moronic world of big-mouth no-brain Christianity I'd wandered around in a post-Christian humanist existential thought-world but found it devoid of something. Buddhism initially appeared to me as a kind of spiritual rationalism. That's what I needed at the time. I kept my distance from those Theravadan weirdos who told me that literally believed in multiple heavens, hells, demons, gods, spirits etc. and stuck to the rational stuff.

Over the years, bit by bit I came to understand the role of the trans-rational aspects and how they enriched and deepened my understanding and experience of the Dharma, which is why I wandered off into Tibetan forms of Buddhism.

Wherever I live or travel I always seek out the religious - the people, the places, the religious and spiritual where ever I can. And of course I find the good and the bad everywhere. To vastly generalise I'd say that the most sincere and most special people that I meet tend to be the Muslims.

With hindsight I can say that I was lucky in that when I sought out Buddhists my initial contact was with an exceptional sangha and most of the Buddhists I met in the early days were intelligent and exemplary figures. Since then I have met a great many Buddhists who are quite frankly prats and hypocrits.

Earlier this year I spent a few weeks in Kalimpong, a town in the Indian Himalayas with a mainly ethnically Nepali population. The Catholic church there, run by a group of Mother Teresa's mission was the most wonderful place of worship I have attended in years. Architectually the church is built as a Tibetan temple and the murals covering the inside and outside depict scenes from the life of Jesus with him and his disciples dressed as Theravadan monks, with all the cultural references being Asian. For instance Mother Mary sits cross-legged on a lotus dressed as an Indian goddess, floating above the world. I sat and meditated on those images for many hours and enjoyed the packed Sunday service conducted in Nepali.

I could be Christain - if I was living in a community like that, but I wouldn't cease being Buddhist. Genuine spirituality is present in all religions, which is another reason I cannot support the premise behind the original question. I have come across many very non-spiritual reasons for conversion, especially of tribal peoples which I deeply oppose and these need to be addressed, but not by blanket legislation. Such legislation would prevent people such as myself growing spiritually by flowing bwtween different denominations within a religion and different religions. It would also hinder people who do not have access to a positive religious forum - for instance if the wat in your community is staffed by lazy insincere monks and there is a very inspiring Christian community in the village why prevent people from converting? If low-caste Hindus are exploited and neglected by higher-caste Hindus but are welcomed as brothers and sisters into the local mosque or church what right do you have to deny them?

By the way, are you aware of the work of the followers of Dr. Ambedkar in India? He was a contemporary of Gahdhi and became a senior minister in Nehru's government. As an outcaste and champion of the rights of outcastes he converted to Buddhism and his movement has been responsible for the conversion of hundreds of thousands on lowcaste Hindus to Buddhism in India. This has also resulted in the reintroduction of Buddhism into the country of its birth. Do you really condemn this movement Kasun?

[sabaijai]

And any anti-conversion legislation in Thailand or any other country would seem antithetical to Buddhism's central spirit. In my opinion such a law would have the opposite effect in Thailand, that is it would weaken Buddhism by making other religions appear to be 'forbidden fruit'. If Buddhism isn't compelling enough without legislation to prop it up, then it hasn't much hope of surviving anyway.

One of the striking aspects of Buddhism is that it welcomes people of all faiths without trying to coerce them into identifying themselves as Buddhist, Christian, Muslim and so on. Years ago when I was studying weekly with Phra Khantipalo and the Sangharaja (Supreme Patriarch) at Wat Bowonniwet, my fellow students included Jesuit priests and Catholic nuns.

I was baptised an Anglican/Episcopal, joined the Society of Friends (Quakers) at college and initially became interested in Buddhism when I took a course on Buddhist thought taught by an American Quaker who had a PhD in Indian philosophy from Osmania University in Hyderabad!

In the end, as Alan Watts wrote in The Supreme Identity, those who have the political or social freedom to choose their religion usually do so for aesthetic reasons. It's not necessarily that one religion is inherently 'better' than another.

[singa-traz]

It is a very open secret the way some missionaries and charities carrying out Converting people who follow other religions by offering Financial and Non-Financial benefits.

Some states in India have already implemented anti-Conversion bills to protect uneducated poor people getting converted to another religion due to financial and non-financial benefits. Some countries have banned these NGO's, Charities.

Is the person who gets converted does it with real faith towards that religion or are they doing it simply to come out from where they are?

If the person converted really have done that in faith, then these countries will violate the human rights of those people.

Where I stand?

I am for anti-conversion bills as I think majority is doing it for sake of money.

Now where do you stand in this?

(Please note that this is not a threat only for Buddhism. Statistics have shown most number of people who are getting converted is Christians.)

kwiz

I think "your Cause is Right" ... but your solution is Wrong !

Give Education and Financial benefits to those poor people, to protect them from being converted ! Compete with some missionaries !

So ... what have you done today ?

[camerata]

When we think from your original religion's point, is it true if I suggest that you have converted (from your mind or what ever way) to Buddhism from Christianity?

The dictionary definition of conversion is "a definite and decisive adoption of religion." To me, this means you either adopt a set of religious beliefs where previously you had none, or you replace your old set of beliefs with a new set. Except in rare cases, I think this would be a process that takes place over a period of time. Any kind of conversion ceremony is mainly aimed at demonstrating exactly what you are to society.

If someone pays you to convert, or you are forced to convert in order to marry, I don't see that as a genuine conversion unless/until your beliefs change.

2. Let's say that you are now following Buddhism.

Is this mean, that Buddhism gives you anything extra than what you got from your previous religion? If so, what made you so much interested in Buddhism?

Most people convert because they weren't getting what they needed from their previous religion. Obviously they won't convert unless their new religion gives them what they've been lacking. This will be different for each individual.

Cosmologist Carl Sagan has said that humans need a "sense of wonder" in their lives (a component of spirituality). For Christians, this has typically been a sense of wonder at a Creation which seemed impossible without a Creator. But as physics shows that more and more of the cosmos can be explained by natural laws, people find the concept of a deity (especially one that gets involved in human affairs) less convincing. My guess is that Buddhism is interesting to some westerners because it doesn't involve an all-powerful deity and because there's a sense of wonder inherent in the idea of the buddhahood inside us.

[ghengis]

There seems to be a few people here with a Quaker background.

I must be one of the few people who have married a Thai lady in a traditional Quaker wedding ceremony - which is where the ceremony is in performed in silence (like a meditation) except when the two of you stand up (as the time of your choosing) and exchange vows. This is followed by more silence and a few people who fell inspired to say a few words of their choosing.

Of all the types of marriage available in the UK I think we were lucky to have something which my Buddhist Thai wife could feel totally comfortable with.

[kwiz117]

Give Education and Financial benefits to those poor people, to protect them from being converted ! Compete with some missionaries !

So ... what have you done today ? 

That's a positive way to look at it.

I am not sure to what extent the governments or Buddhist temples and people can help towards this.

This is among one reasons why I said Buddhism is not practical enough in today's environment. Can we expect people to follow the middle path when they do not have access to basic needs? I have not seen much temples actively participating in social activities. Mostly they are campaigning to raise funds to maintain the temples itself. I also have seen very rich temples in Thailand including the temple located closer to the place I live. Recently they had a huge carnival sort of a thing to raise funds to complete some buildings and I was wondering why they need to invest so much on building such a huge palace. Lord Buddha attained 'enlightenment' in a jungle and also sacrificed his royal life. If all these monks can focus on helping people in the areas they live, that will stop all these conversions in those areas.

No government would like to touch this area due to it's sensitive nature.

Therefore, in my opinion, this is the easiest short term solution. Have "anti Conversion Laws" only to prevent people getting converted for Financial and Non-Financial benefits.

But I am not saying that this is the perfect, best or the most suited solution.

--------------------------------------------------------------

"What I have done today?"

Nothing. I am just killing my time here. I am sure most of the Thai's are also like this. So we need a law to protect Buddhism. We all like to Talk the advance features of Buddhism and not the basic 5 simple guidelines. Reason is, we all know that we do not have the self discipline to control ourselves.

No need to follow all 5. At least 1 or 2 is enough.

Sometimes this forum itself prevents me from doing it.

[sabaijai]

I was wondering why they need to invest so much on building such a huge palace

Yes I agree, Kwiz. The Thais like to call fancy temples like that wat kammakon, meaning 'worker temples' (a reference to all the construction workers milling around constantly) rather than the more traditionally respected wat kammathaan or 'meditation/practice temples'

Fortunately they're not all like that. Luang Ta Maha Bua Sampanno, one of the most famous monks in Thailand, raised millions in donations to help bail out the government after the crash in 1997. His own temple in Udon Thani province is an exemplar of simplicity.

photo of Wat Pa Ban That