Universal Declaration to ban religion conversions
Sign Now
This petition from citizens of the world asks the United Nations to amend Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) to clarify beyond any doubt that to manifest ones religion, no one and no organization should engage in any type of proselytization and religious conversion activities.
It should be further declared that such proselytization and religious conversion activities constitute 1) violence against human dignity, reason and conscience and 2) violation of the fundamental declaration in Article 1 of UDHR that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
Article 1 All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 18 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948 declares:
Everyone 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.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
The UDHR should be suitably amended to clarify that a right to manifest, observe and practice ones religion does NOT include the right of anyone or any organization to propagate religion. As a corollary, all religious conversions practiced by such organizations as the one headed by the Bishop of Rome (Catholic Church), by the Baptists and by islamic organizations should be declared to be a violation of Artiel 18 of UDHR.
A few excerpts from an article by Alex Alexander (May 22, 2003) are appended, together with an Open Letter to Pope John Paul II written on October 29, 1999 by Swami Dayananda Saraswati:
The theological beliefs of the original Indian orthodox churches along with their Egyptian, Armenian, Syrian and Ethiopian counterparts as well as the Greek and Russian orthodox churches (known as the Eastern Orthodox) seem to have survived in tact over a span of over 1600 years. They did not develop the same degree of fixation about proselytization as their Western ounterparts did.
Unlike the western churches, the oriental orthodox churches did not raise armies or promote crusades as the Bishop of Rome (Pope's title in early Christianity) did in order to spread Christianity. The oriental orthodox churches seek God realization through the mental disciplines of contemplation and prayer in lieu of dependence on Christian eschatology. From the earliest of times, they exercised moderation in the practice of Jesus' commandment to spread the good news or evangelion. They fulfill their obligation to propagate their faiths through natural processes such as births, marriages and the inclusion of those who seek conversion brought about by real changes in their religious convictions. That has remained so for nearly two millennia.
Even in today's post-Communist Russia with its newly established religious freedom, the Russian Orthodox Church does not look upon kindly at proselytization undertaken by any religious sect. In Greece, its Constitution also prohibits proselytization. Whenever it is flouted by a religious sect, the Greek Orthodox Church seeks governmental intervention to suppress it[3]. I am not holding up either Greece or Russia as a model of democracy. Greece is a theocratic state since Greek Orthodox Christianity is its state religion. It restricts the office of its Presidency to citizens of that faith. But, I am merely citing Greece and Russia as examples of two western nations that do not tolerate proselytization even when they are undertaken by Christian denominations.
The fundamentalist Christians both in India and abroad have been too quick to condemn as draconian the recent anti-conversion legislations enacted by a few Indian states. Proselytization was not a distinctive hallmark of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches of early Christianity. Jesus himself appears to have condemned proselytization when he said, woe unto you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more than the child of hell than yourselves"[4].
Christianity, as practiced by the West, has become insensitive to the emotional violence inflicted on the poorest of the poor when inducements such as free food, medical care, money, and employment are used as baits to engineer religious conversions. It is even worse when intimidations are used to facilitate conversions, as some Islamic nations do. While Christianity and Islam, as practiced by a large majority of their followers, do subscribe to peace, tolerance and non-violence, the daily occurrence of death and destruction based on religious differences in our present-day world highlight the distortions that are perpetrated by militant adherents of these religions. In Saudi Arabia, non-Islamic visitors and guest workers cannot even bring their books of worship or congregate in public places to conduct community worship services. Like their Christian counterparts, Islamic fundamentalists also want to actualize the prophecies in the Koran. Such obsessions to make religious texts serve as passports to heaven are mercifully absent in the non-Abrahamic faiths.
It has become clear to me that religious conversions using material enticements are coercive and therefore ought to be forbidden by law. For years, I used to think that the complaints of many Hindus about the use of economic inducements as a means of conversion to Christianity may be exaggerations until I personally came across incidents such as a Catholic school's offer to defray the marriage expenses of Hindu girls if they agree to wed Christian boys. Anti-conversion laws may be the only civil means available for Indian states to deter such nefarious conversion activities.
Only recently I became aware of the fact that since 1974, the International Congress on World Evangelization (ICWE) has been quietly developing a grand design to evangelize the rest of the non-Christian world which is known among Christian fundamentalist circles as the "10/40 window" or the Joshua Project. It targets for conversion all those living in countries within the 10th and 40th parallels, truncated longitudinally in the west by the western borders of Africa and in the east along the eastern fringes of Japan. I would like to urge interested readers of this article to visit that organization's website to fully comprehend the potential impact of such a worldwide conversion campaign[13].
Regardless of their religious affiliations, all religious leaders of goodwill can find myriads of theological convergences if they are open to sincere and deep inter-faith explorations. While it is less threatening for the practitioners of non-Abrahamic faiths to undertake such faith-based voyages of discovery, the religious fundamentalists of the monotheistic faiths shun all such excursions.
[4] The Holy Bible: King James Version, Collins, NY, 1952. St.
Matthew, 23:15
[13] Website, www.Ad2000.org
http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305819
Friday, October 29, 1999
An open letter to Pope John Paul II
Conversion is violence
Swami Dayananda Saraswati
Your Holiness,
On behalf of many Hindus whom I know personally, I welcome your visit to Bharat. This is a country with an ancient civilisation and unique religious culture which accommodates many religious traditions that have come to this country throughout the centuries.
Being the head of the Vatican State and also the Catholic Church with a great following all over the world, you enjoy a highly venerable position and can play a significant role in defusing religious conflicts and preserving the world's rich cultures. You have in your Apostolic Letter tertio millennio adveniente, 38 (November 10, 1994) voiced your intention to convoke a Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for Asia. After seeing the report of the Pre-Council of the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops Special Assembly for Asia appointed by you, I want to bring to your kind notice the concerns of many Hindus in this country about religious conversion. In the Second Vatican Council, the status accorded to the world religions was that of a means of preparing them for Christ. We all understand that the Catholic religion does not accommodate other religions, except in this context. But I am appealing to you here to accept that every person has the freedom to pursue his or her own religion.
In the recent past, you mentioned that reason should be respected. On the basis of reason, no non-verifiable belief is going to fare any better than any other non-verifiable belief. Therefore, according to reason, there is no basis for conversion in matters of faith.
Apart from reason, there is another important issue which I request you to consider. Among the world's religious traditions, there are those that convert and those that do not. The non-converting religious traditions, like the Hindu, Jewish and Zoroastrian, give others the freedom to practise their religion whether they agree with the others' tenets or not. They do not wish to convert. I would characterise them as non-aggressive. Religions that are committed by their theologies to convert, on the other hand, are necessarily aggressive, since conversion implies a conscious intrusion into the religious life of a person, in fact, into the religious person.
This is a very deep intrusion, as the religious person is the deepest, the most basic in any individual. When that person is disturbed, a hurt is sustained which is very deep. The religious person is violated. The depth of this hurt is attested by the fact that when a religious sentiment is violated, it can produce a martyr. People connected to a converted person are deeply hurt. Even the converted person will suffer some hurt underneath.
He must necessarily wonder if he has done the right thing and, further, he has to face an inner alienation from his community, a community to which he has belonged for generations, and thus an alienation from his ancestors. I don't think that can ever be fully healed. Religious conversion destroys centuries-old communities and incites communal violence. It is violence and it breeds violence. Thus, for any humane person, every religious sentiment has to be respected, whether it is a Muslim sentiment or a Christian sentiment or a Hindu sentiment.
Further, in many religious traditions, including the Hindu tradition, religion is woven into the fabric of culture. So, destruction of a religion amounts to the destruction of a religious culture. Today, for instance, there is no living Greek culture; there are only empty monuments. The Mayan, Roman and many other rich cultures are all lost forever and humanity is impoverished for it. Let us at least allow humanity to enjoy the riches of its remaining mosaic of cultures. Each one has some beauty, something to contribute to the enrichment of humanity.
In any tradition, it is wrong to strike someone who is unarmed. In the Hindu tradition, this is considered a heinous act, for which the punishment is severe. A Buddhist, a Hindu, a Jew, are all unarmed, in that they do not convert. You cannot ask them to change the genius of their traditions and begin to convert in order to combat conversion. Because it is the tradition of these religions and cultures not to convert, attempts to convert them is one-sided aggression. It is striking the unarmed. I respect the freedom of a Christian or a Muslim to practise his or her faith. I do not accept many of their beliefs, but I want them to have the freedom to follow their religion.
You cannot ask me to respond to conversion by converting others to my religion because it is not part of my tradition. We don't believe in conversion, even though certain Hindu organisations have taken back some converted people. Thus, conversion is not merely violence against people; it is violence against people who are committed to non-violence.
I am hurt by religious conversion and many others like me are hurt. Millions are hurt. There are many issues to be discussed regarding conversion, but I want to draw your attention to only the central issue here which is this one-sided violence. Religious conversion is violence and it breeds violence. In converting, you are also converting the non-violent to violence.
Any protest against religious conversion is always branded as persecution, because it is maintained that people are not allowed to practise their religion, that their religious freedom is curbed. The truth is entirely different. The other person also has the freedom to practise his or her religion without interference. That is his/her birthright. Religious freedom does not extend to having a planned programme of conversion. Such a programme is to be construed as aggression against the religious freedom of others.
During the years of your papal office, you have brought about certain changes in the attitude and outlook of the church. On behalf of the non-aggressive religions of the world, the Hindu, the Parsi, the Jewish and other native religions in different countries, I request you to put a freeze on conversion and create a condition in which all religious cultures can live and let live.
The writer is the head ofArsha Vidya Gurukulam
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2104/conversion_violence.html
It should be further declared that such proselytization and religious conversion activities constitute 1) violence against human dignity, reason and conscience and 2) violation of the fundamental declaration in Article 1 of UDHR that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
Article 1 All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 18 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948 declares:
Everyone 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.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
The UDHR should be suitably amended to clarify that a right to manifest, observe and practice ones religion does NOT include the right of anyone or any organization to propagate religion. As a corollary, all religious conversions practiced by such organizations as the one headed by the Bishop of Rome (Catholic Church), by the Baptists and by islamic organizations should be declared to be a violation of Artiel 18 of UDHR.
A few excerpts from an article by Alex Alexander (May 22, 2003) are appended, together with an Open Letter to Pope John Paul II written on October 29, 1999 by Swami Dayananda Saraswati:
The theological beliefs of the original Indian orthodox churches along with their Egyptian, Armenian, Syrian and Ethiopian counterparts as well as the Greek and Russian orthodox churches (known as the Eastern Orthodox) seem to have survived in tact over a span of over 1600 years. They did not develop the same degree of fixation about proselytization as their Western ounterparts did.
Unlike the western churches, the oriental orthodox churches did not raise armies or promote crusades as the Bishop of Rome (Pope's title in early Christianity) did in order to spread Christianity. The oriental orthodox churches seek God realization through the mental disciplines of contemplation and prayer in lieu of dependence on Christian eschatology. From the earliest of times, they exercised moderation in the practice of Jesus' commandment to spread the good news or evangelion. They fulfill their obligation to propagate their faiths through natural processes such as births, marriages and the inclusion of those who seek conversion brought about by real changes in their religious convictions. That has remained so for nearly two millennia.
Even in today's post-Communist Russia with its newly established religious freedom, the Russian Orthodox Church does not look upon kindly at proselytization undertaken by any religious sect. In Greece, its Constitution also prohibits proselytization. Whenever it is flouted by a religious sect, the Greek Orthodox Church seeks governmental intervention to suppress it[3]. I am not holding up either Greece or Russia as a model of democracy. Greece is a theocratic state since Greek Orthodox Christianity is its state religion. It restricts the office of its Presidency to citizens of that faith. But, I am merely citing Greece and Russia as examples of two western nations that do not tolerate proselytization even when they are undertaken by Christian denominations.
The fundamentalist Christians both in India and abroad have been too quick to condemn as draconian the recent anti-conversion legislations enacted by a few Indian states. Proselytization was not a distinctive hallmark of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches of early Christianity. Jesus himself appears to have condemned proselytization when he said, woe unto you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more than the child of hell than yourselves"[4].
Christianity, as practiced by the West, has become insensitive to the emotional violence inflicted on the poorest of the poor when inducements such as free food, medical care, money, and employment are used as baits to engineer religious conversions. It is even worse when intimidations are used to facilitate conversions, as some Islamic nations do. While Christianity and Islam, as practiced by a large majority of their followers, do subscribe to peace, tolerance and non-violence, the daily occurrence of death and destruction based on religious differences in our present-day world highlight the distortions that are perpetrated by militant adherents of these religions. In Saudi Arabia, non-Islamic visitors and guest workers cannot even bring their books of worship or congregate in public places to conduct community worship services. Like their Christian counterparts, Islamic fundamentalists also want to actualize the prophecies in the Koran. Such obsessions to make religious texts serve as passports to heaven are mercifully absent in the non-Abrahamic faiths.
It has become clear to me that religious conversions using material enticements are coercive and therefore ought to be forbidden by law. For years, I used to think that the complaints of many Hindus about the use of economic inducements as a means of conversion to Christianity may be exaggerations until I personally came across incidents such as a Catholic school's offer to defray the marriage expenses of Hindu girls if they agree to wed Christian boys. Anti-conversion laws may be the only civil means available for Indian states to deter such nefarious conversion activities.
Only recently I became aware of the fact that since 1974, the International Congress on World Evangelization (ICWE) has been quietly developing a grand design to evangelize the rest of the non-Christian world which is known among Christian fundamentalist circles as the "10/40 window" or the Joshua Project. It targets for conversion all those living in countries within the 10th and 40th parallels, truncated longitudinally in the west by the western borders of Africa and in the east along the eastern fringes of Japan. I would like to urge interested readers of this article to visit that organization's website to fully comprehend the potential impact of such a worldwide conversion campaign[13].
Regardless of their religious affiliations, all religious leaders of goodwill can find myriads of theological convergences if they are open to sincere and deep inter-faith explorations. While it is less threatening for the practitioners of non-Abrahamic faiths to undertake such faith-based voyages of discovery, the religious fundamentalists of the monotheistic faiths shun all such excursions.
[4] The Holy Bible: King James Version, Collins, NY, 1952. St.
Matthew, 23:15
[13] Website, www.Ad2000.org
http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305819
Friday, October 29, 1999
An open letter to Pope John Paul II
Conversion is violence
Swami Dayananda Saraswati
Your Holiness,
On behalf of many Hindus whom I know personally, I welcome your visit to Bharat. This is a country with an ancient civilisation and unique religious culture which accommodates many religious traditions that have come to this country throughout the centuries.
Being the head of the Vatican State and also the Catholic Church with a great following all over the world, you enjoy a highly venerable position and can play a significant role in defusing religious conflicts and preserving the world's rich cultures. You have in your Apostolic Letter tertio millennio adveniente, 38 (November 10, 1994) voiced your intention to convoke a Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for Asia. After seeing the report of the Pre-Council of the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops Special Assembly for Asia appointed by you, I want to bring to your kind notice the concerns of many Hindus in this country about religious conversion. In the Second Vatican Council, the status accorded to the world religions was that of a means of preparing them for Christ. We all understand that the Catholic religion does not accommodate other religions, except in this context. But I am appealing to you here to accept that every person has the freedom to pursue his or her own religion.
In the recent past, you mentioned that reason should be respected. On the basis of reason, no non-verifiable belief is going to fare any better than any other non-verifiable belief. Therefore, according to reason, there is no basis for conversion in matters of faith.
Apart from reason, there is another important issue which I request you to consider. Among the world's religious traditions, there are those that convert and those that do not. The non-converting religious traditions, like the Hindu, Jewish and Zoroastrian, give others the freedom to practise their religion whether they agree with the others' tenets or not. They do not wish to convert. I would characterise them as non-aggressive. Religions that are committed by their theologies to convert, on the other hand, are necessarily aggressive, since conversion implies a conscious intrusion into the religious life of a person, in fact, into the religious person.
This is a very deep intrusion, as the religious person is the deepest, the most basic in any individual. When that person is disturbed, a hurt is sustained which is very deep. The religious person is violated. The depth of this hurt is attested by the fact that when a religious sentiment is violated, it can produce a martyr. People connected to a converted person are deeply hurt. Even the converted person will suffer some hurt underneath.
He must necessarily wonder if he has done the right thing and, further, he has to face an inner alienation from his community, a community to which he has belonged for generations, and thus an alienation from his ancestors. I don't think that can ever be fully healed. Religious conversion destroys centuries-old communities and incites communal violence. It is violence and it breeds violence. Thus, for any humane person, every religious sentiment has to be respected, whether it is a Muslim sentiment or a Christian sentiment or a Hindu sentiment.
Further, in many religious traditions, including the Hindu tradition, religion is woven into the fabric of culture. So, destruction of a religion amounts to the destruction of a religious culture. Today, for instance, there is no living Greek culture; there are only empty monuments. The Mayan, Roman and many other rich cultures are all lost forever and humanity is impoverished for it. Let us at least allow humanity to enjoy the riches of its remaining mosaic of cultures. Each one has some beauty, something to contribute to the enrichment of humanity.
In any tradition, it is wrong to strike someone who is unarmed. In the Hindu tradition, this is considered a heinous act, for which the punishment is severe. A Buddhist, a Hindu, a Jew, are all unarmed, in that they do not convert. You cannot ask them to change the genius of their traditions and begin to convert in order to combat conversion. Because it is the tradition of these religions and cultures not to convert, attempts to convert them is one-sided aggression. It is striking the unarmed. I respect the freedom of a Christian or a Muslim to practise his or her faith. I do not accept many of their beliefs, but I want them to have the freedom to follow their religion.
You cannot ask me to respond to conversion by converting others to my religion because it is not part of my tradition. We don't believe in conversion, even though certain Hindu organisations have taken back some converted people. Thus, conversion is not merely violence against people; it is violence against people who are committed to non-violence.
I am hurt by religious conversion and many others like me are hurt. Millions are hurt. There are many issues to be discussed regarding conversion, but I want to draw your attention to only the central issue here which is this one-sided violence. Religious conversion is violence and it breeds violence. In converting, you are also converting the non-violent to violence.
Any protest against religious conversion is always branded as persecution, because it is maintained that people are not allowed to practise their religion, that their religious freedom is curbed. The truth is entirely different. The other person also has the freedom to practise his or her religion without interference. That is his/her birthright. Religious freedom does not extend to having a planned programme of conversion. Such a programme is to be construed as aggression against the religious freedom of others.
During the years of your papal office, you have brought about certain changes in the attitude and outlook of the church. On behalf of the non-aggressive religions of the world, the Hindu, the Parsi, the Jewish and other native religions in different countries, I request you to put a freeze on conversion and create a condition in which all religious cultures can live and let live.
The writer is the head ofArsha Vidya Gurukulam
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2104/conversion_violence.html
Sign The Petition
Continue with Google
OR
If you already have an account please sign in, otherwise register an account for free then sign the petition filling the fields below.
Email and password will be your account data, you will be able to sign other petitions after logging in.
Shoutbox
Goal
400 signatures
Goal: 100
Tags
No tags
Embed Codes
direct link
link for html
link for forum without title
link for forum with title
