Conversion is Violence

I have been thinking on this topic for a long time. It is clear to me, and perhaps to many of you, that there are two distinct religious traditions in the world.

One tradition does not believe in conversion. A Jewish person is born of a Jewish mother. A Zoroastrian is born of Zoroastrian parents. A Hindu is born of Hindu parents. And so too are the followers of Shintoism, Taoism and many other indigenous religious groups all over the world. They are born to be the followers of their religions. In other words, they are not given to religious conversion.

When the Parsis came to Mumbai as refugees, being driven from Iran, they were welcomed and allowed to settle down. They were very faithful to their religion and they lived their religion. They did not cause any problem to others. The Hindus accommodated them, just as they accommodated the Christians, the Muslims and the Jews. Our vision of God allows that. We accept various forms of worship, and many forms of prayers; one more really does not matter to us. In fact, some of our Hindu friends in their pooja rooms have a picture of Jesus and they do not see anything wrong about it; nor do I feel anything wrong about it.

Religious aggression is the worst aggression

I would call the traditions of the Jewish, Zoroastrian and Hindu as non-aggressive traditions. Aggression is not merely physical. It need not be the Kargil type. There are varieties of aggression. One can emotionally be aggressive. In the United States, it is a crime to be aggressive towards the children. A simple scolding is looked upon as aggression. Verbally one can be aggressive. Physically one can be aggressive. Economically one can be very aggressive. And the worst aggression, which I consider more than physical aggression, is cultural aggression, religious aggression.

Hurt is born of many causes. I am hurt if somebody encroaches upon my piece of land that is vacant; it is a blatant aggression and I get hurt. While this encroachment itself is a source of hurt, it makes me more hurt if the law protects the one who has encroached. That hurt cannot be easily healed, because it leaves me helpless and helplessness is a cause for hurt. If somebody physically hurts the other, it is obvious that it is a hurt. It is morally and legally wrong, and, therefore, attracts punishment.

If you are emotionally abused, then, that also is a great hurt. For instance, people in authority can abuse you. The employer can abuse you emotionally. The husband can abuse; wife also can abuse the husband. The in-laws can abuse. For all these hurts, at least, you can seek some redress somewhere. But the worst hurt, I would say, is the hurt of a religious person. Whether what the person believes has a basis, it is not my domain of enquiry to say whether it has a basis or not. Each one is free to follow his or her religion, either due to faith or knowledge. The faithful believes in the whole theology and follows the myths therein, even though certain theocratic countries suppress this freedom.

The religious person is the basic person

Basically, what is it that one is connected to as a religious person ? If one is connected to one’s parents as their son or daughter then one is also connected to other people. One can also be father, husband, uncle, cousin, neighbour, employer, employee and so on. One has a number of hats to wear every day. The basic person ‘I’ plays different roles, day after day. A son is related to a person outside. A brother is related to a person outside. A citizen is related to the State. However, as a religious person, whom am I related to ?

The hurt of this basic person is going to be deep, and true. There is no power that can heal that hurt. That is the reason why any religious sentiment if it is violated, in anyway, will produce a martyr out of a peace-loving person. There is a martyr ready to be born in that basic person. And thus, the religious sentiment seems to be the most sensitive. It is a very deep sentiment that has got to be respected by one and all, whether it is a Muslim sentiment or a Christian sentiment or a Hindu sentiment or a Jewish sentiment. If that respect is not shown, then the State has to protect that sentiment; it has got the responsibility to protect the religious sentiment of all the people. That is secularism.

A religious sentiment has to be respected by everybody, whether he or she believes in my religion. Just because I do not believe in or subscribe to your ideas, you cannot stand on my toes ! If my ideas and my belief systems are not acceptable to you, I give you the freedom not to accept them. But you do not have any business to stand on my toes to hurt me in any manner.

Giving the religious freedom to the other is the attitude of the non-aggressive traditions. On the other hand, the second category of religions, by their theologies, are committed to conversion.

Conversion is not only sanctioned by their theologies but it is also practiced by their followers. It is their theology. They have a right to their own belief systems. But they do not have a right to thrust them on you. They are free to believe that unless one is a Christian, one will not go to heaven. They have a system, a set of non-verifiable beliefs, nitya-paroksha, on which they base their theology.

Someone says, “I have been sent by God to save you.” I can also say the same thing. I will have ten people with me, because I can talk. I can say, “God sent me down to save all of you !” Someone else can say, “This is God speaking. I did not send him down.”

This is a non-verifiable belief as you can see. If there is something you have got to say to make a difference in my life, I am ready to listen to you. If there are some who are ready to listen to a life in a believed heaven, let them have the freedom to do so.

That there is a heaven is a non-verifiable belief. That, following this person, I will go to heaven, is another non-verifiable belief. That I will survive death is a non-verifiable belief.

There is nothing wrong in believing. But we have to understand that it is a non-verifiable belief. And having gone to heaven I will enjoy heaven is yet another non-verifiable belief. The intriguing thing is that there is another person who says : “I am the latest. Do not follow that person; follow me.” That really confuses me. That person has really no argument to prove that he is the last; the claim is non-verifiable. And what is promised is again not verifiable.

I say, let those non-verifiable beliefs be there. I want them to have the freedom to have those beliefs, even though I will not advocate any of them. But what is the basis for that person to come and convert me ? If one is convinced of something, one can try to convince me, but not convert me. Did you ever notice a physics professor knocking at your door, asking for your time so that he can talk to you about the particles ? Never ! If you want to learn physics, you have to go to him.

However here, every day, I am bothered. At the airport I am bothered, in the street corners I am bothered, at home I am bothered. They want to save my soul !

This is not merely an intrusion; it is an aggression. There are varieties of intrusions. If the sound is too much outside, with loud speakers blaring, well, it is an intrusion into my privacy; I can complain; yes, we do have laws, but they do not seem to exist, because there are ‘in-laws’ at right places, you know !

Nobody has any business to intrude into my privacy. Someone comes and tells me that my soul has to be saved, that I am condemned. But I do not look upon myself as condemned for someone to come and save me. We do not have a word in Sanskrit for salvation because, salvation implies that you have been condemned. Unless you are condemned, you need not be saved.

The aggressive religion comes and tells me that I am damned. I have to believe that first. Then he appoints himself to save me. This is very interesting. This is how some of the trade union leaders work. They create a problem and then appoint themselves as leaders to solve it. Thereafter, they become inevitable.

When I look into these theologies, what I see is very interesting. I need not say anything to prove that they are illogical. I have to merely state what they say. You must have heard of ‘Godfather’; the Mafia don is called the Godfather. He makes an offer that you cannot refuse.

He comes and tells you : “I am buying your house.”

You may say, “I am not selling.”

He says, “You are selling. I am buying your house !”

You reply, “This is my house, I am not selling.”

He says, “You are selling it and you are selling it at this price.”

He even decides the price and then tells you, “I know exactly where your children study and when they come home.” He threatens you and buys the house. So a Godfather is one who makes an offer that you cannot refuse.

Now, what about God, the Father ? He is even worse. This is the aggressive religious tradition that says either you follow this person or you will be condemned eternally to hell. This is worse than the offer of a Mafia don !

In the other case at least, I can do something. But here God, the father is not even visible. I cannot do anything to him. This is the non-verifiable belief on which a religion is based. Yet, one has the right to follow that religion. All I say is that the person who follows that religion does not have anything much to offer to me. If he thinks he has something to offer to me, let him have the freedom to think so. But he has no freedom to intrude into my privacy.

Conversion is done by any means, by marriage, by enticement or by some preaching that creates a fear, “If you go to heaven, you will enjoy this and that. You will have beatitude and be saved; otherwise, you will go to hell.”

So, more out of fear of hell, one may choose to go to heaven. The aggressive religious tradition says and does all this to convert others to their religion. I say this is wrong because if a Hindu or a Jew or a Parsi is converted, the entire family and community of that person are hurt. Even the converted one must be hurt deeply. He could be debating whether he was right in getting converted. He is also hurt.

Please tell me, what is violence if what hurts, is not ? What hurts is violence. It is not ordinary violence. It is violence to the deepest person, the core person in the human being. The religious person is the deepest. And if that person is hurt, I say, it is violence. It is pure violence. And what does it do ? It wipes out cultures.

We need all cultures. Let the humanity enjoy the riches of the different cultures. Let it be a mosaic of cultures. Each one has got some beauty. With the destruction of a given religion comes the destruction of the culture that always goes with a religion. When a new religion replaces the old, a culture is destroyed.

After converting, they may try to preserve the art forms like Bharatanatyam with the themes of the new religion. But without Lord Nataraja where is Bharatanatyam ? Without devotion, where is natyam ?

Please understand, the culture of people cannot be retained if their religion is destroyed. While this is true with reference to all cultures, definitely it is true with reference to our culture because you cannot separate it from our religion.

Conversion is violence

Conversion is violence. It breeds violence. Do not convert because you will be converting the non-violent to be violent. You are doing something wrong, drastically wrong. This error has to be realized. The sooner it is corrected, the better it is for all of us, even for Christians and Muslims.

(Courtesy : Abridged from an Article by Swami Dayananda Saraswati posted on ahambrahmasmi4.wordpress.com; 29.12.2015.)

(For more such Articles : Sanatan.org)

The aggressive religion comes and tells me that I am damned. I have to believe that first. Then he appoints himself to save me !