In a very curious ruling, the Fiji Human Rights Commission has found that the proposed campaign by the Methodist Church Conference to convert non-Christians in Fiji would violate the freedom of religion under the country’s constitution and international law. It is difficult to see how prostylizing for voluntary conversions would violate the freedom of religion under any definition.
In a press release the group warned that efforts to target the native population would be a grave mistake.
Commission chairperson, Dr Shaista Shameem said her office was responding to statements by the General Secretary of the Methodist Church, Reverend Tuikilakila Waqairatu, announcing the initiative.
In a public statement, the group stated:
Dr Shameem said that any such targeting of a minority group for particular attention for evangelizing or conversion by the Methodist Church would violate the fundamental human rights principle of freedom of religion enshrined in the 1997 Constitution of Fiji. It would also breach essential principles of the rule of law and international human rights. Most significantly, it would run contrary to the Methodist Church’s own avowed commitment, given publicly at its annual conference, to promote human rights, the 1997 Constitution and the rule of law.
In the United States, the effort to bar such a campaign would be viewed as a violation of the freedom of religion. It is unfortunate that a human rights commission would take such an untenable position. To the extent that its interpretation is correct, the Constitution should be changed. However, given its assertions regarding international law, it would seem doubtful that any provision guaranteeing freedom of religion would bar the freedom to prostylize. It is akin to supporting the freedom of speech so long as you do not utter a sound.
For the full story, click here.
Jill,
One lives to be of service.
Spreading the gospel in Fiji’s context is much, much deeper and complex situation than meets the eye.
It would be analogous to the Republicans having their convention with the good reverends from bible thumping Church A. Details points(1-5).
Point 1-Church A members dominate the Hierarchy of the Republican party, that no other Church domination are ever going to control the reigns, even if they are both Southern Baptists.
Point 2-Church A members, are also President and Vice-President, the entire cabinet, Senate, Congress.
Point 3-If you want to get into political life, convert to Church A.
Point 4-All state Government (all 50 states), is now controlled or influenced by Church A members.
Point 5-Election financing is partly sourced from church donations.
Point 6-Fiji Human Rights Commission objections are based on the premise that, one should not have to be a member of the Methodist Church to get ahead.
Spreading the gospel in Fiji’s context as a deeper and complex meaning that meets the eye.
It would be analogous to the Republicans having their convention with the good reverends from bible thumping Church A. Details points(1-5).
Point 1-Church A members dominate the Hierarchy of the Republican party, that no other Church domination are ever going to control the reigns, even if they are both Southern Baptists.
Point 2-Church A members, are also President and Vice-President, the entire cabinet, Senate, Congress.
Point 3-If you want to get into political life, convert to Church A.
Point 4-All state Government (all 50 states), is now controlled or influenced by Church A members.
Point 5-Election financing is partly sourced from church donations.
Point 6-Fiji Human Rights Commission objections are based on the premise that, one should not have to be a member of the Methodist Church to get ahead.
Sama (様, Sama?) is the formal version of san. This honorific is used primarily in addressing persons much higher in rank than oneself and in commercial and business settings to address and refer to customers. It also appears in words used to address or speak of persons or objects for which the speaker wishes to show respect or deference, such as okyaku-sama (customer) or…(Wikipedia)
Thank you O.S., I learned a lot from what you said.
And Jill?
I’ll foster any view I like. Thanks for caring.
Jill
-sama is an honorific in Japanese. And it rhymes.
Jill,
A limited engagement type of Rapture!
I have to agree with you rafflaw and CroMM. As much as I hate being “proseled”, (and I really hate it) as long as a person is free to leave the “prosel” at any point, then it is protected free speech and must be allowed. When prosselling comes at the end of gun, with the blessing of a govt. or a threat to withdrawl needed aid for failure to convert, it is no longer free speech and should not protected.
rafflaw, I am waiting for the religious right to be raptured and leave the rest of us in peace.
O.S. I am wondering if your name, Obama-sama, was chosen to try to make a connection between Obama and Osama? I do not support or like Obama but if you are making this connection, that would not be an accruate connection to foster. I don’t know if that’s your intent. I am just wondering why you put the two together.
The so-called Fiji “Human Rights Commission” provides for Freedom of religion, as long as it is “our” freedom of religion. That is taking a book out of the Taliban’s script to deny people the right to choose any religion that they want. But that is ok, because the religious right in this country wants the same kind of religious freedom. They want religious freeedom, but it must be a Christian religion. Maybe our religious right should move to Fiji.
It is an erudite and intellectually honest individual, than can write articles both condemning religious fanaticism and religious intolerance. Like the ACLU, who will accept a case of a racist as soon as it would accept the case of the victim of racism, if it felt their rights had been violated.
Being able to remove onesself from the equation, and focus on the rights of the individual as should be defined by their government is the benchmark of a good leader.
Prostylizing should be an exception to free speech much like inciting riot is an exception to free speech. History shows that the worst offenses committed in all the names of God were done by some dipstick trying to make someone believe as he does instead of accepting the reality that you can’t and won’t change another person’s mind on the nature of the divine unless they change their minds of their own volition and in their own way. Force, direct or indirect (such as speech), is ultimately counterproductive. It’s like listening to a team of blind men describe an elephant but insisting that only his individual interpretation is right. “It’s leather mat!” “It’s a suitcase!” “It’s a bristle brush!” “It’s a snake!”. You want to avoid excessive religious conflict? Start by not allowing people to just come get in your face about their beliefs for two reasons. One, it’s offensive and intrusive. Two, all evidence points to the analogy to elephants and blind men being correct. A God by definition is incomprehensible to a mere mortal. Oh, you may see pieces you can understand, just like the blind men and the elephant. But the moral you should take away from this telling is it’s irresponsible to force your limited views on others when if you used dialog instead of prostyling, you all might together figure out the shape of that elephant you all have your blind hands on.