Latest ads
-
Gampaha Thenya Mishel
- menuka2000
- Updated:
-
Handmade Character Soft Toy Bluey Bingo- anil1961
- Updated:
-
Colombo Dahua POE Switch 8 Ports (DH-PFS3010-8ET-65)- hashaz2012
- Updated:
-
Singapore V2Ray VPN for Tunneling
- hu KANNA
- Updated:
-
Dating Website & Online Chat Room- hotvideo
- Updated:
මේ සිංහල බෞද්ධ රටක් නුවර ඔය සෙල්ලම් බෑ - ඔයාලා දෙයියෝ ගැන කියනවා - මම බුදුන් ගැන කියනවා
- Thread starter toiya
- Start date
Who gives you that right to harass a minority religious group from spreading its gospel..?
ඕක ව්යවස්තාවෙ ප්රශ්නයක් නෙමේ, මිනිස්සුන්ගෙ ප්රශ්නයක්, යාපනේ, කාත්තන්කුඩියෙ පන්සල් හදන්ඩ විරුද්ද වෙනව වගේ
Freedom of faith isn't a free pass for aggressive preaching. Article 10 protects your right to practice your religion, but Article 9 guarantees the protection of Buddhism and local heritage. The Supreme Court made it clear, targeted proselytization is not protected under the Constitution. Practicing your faith is fine, but pushing it on others crosses the line.
How did they do "aggressive preaching"..?
Show me the full context of the Supreme Court ruling..?
Are you saying Buddhists cannot convert to any other religion by associating and learning from the members of such group..?
Re your statement "pushing it on others crosses the line.." is it correct to pass down the faith to children..?
Aggressive preaching isn't just physical violence. It includes door-to-door solicitation in non-Christian neighborhoods, targeting vulnerable/impoverished communities, and uninvited proselytizing in areas with deep-rooted cultural heritages.
Look up SC Special Determination No. 19/2003 (and Special Determination Nos. 2-22/2004). The Supreme Court explicitly held that while Article 10 guarantees freedom to hold and adopt a belief, the Constitution does not recognize a fundamental right to propagate/spread a religion to convert others especially when combining religious preaching with social/material allurements, as it impairs Article 9 (the State’s duty to protect Buddhism) and infringes on others' Article 10 rights.
Nobody said an individual can't voluntarily seek knowledge, learn, or change their faith. Article 10 fully protects personal choice. The legal and moral line is drawn at organized, external groups actively seeking out and targeting people to convert them. Voluntary search vs. targeted proselytization are two completely different things.
Passing your family’s faith to your own children within your household is parental upbringing it's standard practice everywhere. Trying to equates raising your own children with going into outside communities to preach and convert adults is a complete false equivalence.
Check arttical 9 and 10 here - https://www.parliament.lk/files/pdf/constitution.pdf
Were they aggressive?.... Going by your definition then even Buddhist monks visiting houses and asking to contribute for vesak from minorities can be considered illegal.
Monks aren't standing on your doorstep telling you your God is false, handing out propaganda pamphlets, or offering money to turn your kids into Buddhists. If you say no, they walk away.
Can you give solid evidence of such where Buddhist monks forced non Buddhist to contribute for a Buddhist religious event?
For all de fucks who r utter nonsense should remember SL majority is Sinhalese Buddhist whether U folks like it or not, As Sinhalese Buddhist we will do our best to sustain n protect de Sinhalese Buddhist ideology for de nxt generation and guys democracy is liking of majority so in this country majority likes Sinhalese Buddhist ideology n culture so thts democracy
,if u guys thinks otherwise u guys could leave to a country where u guys feel comfortable with------ Post added on Aug 10, 2026 at 9:12 PM
Posting a random YouTube video of a brawl doesn't change the law mate. Under Articles 9 and 10 of the Constitution, organized proselytization isn't a protected right.. When groups try to turn their faith into a street-level sales (like plastics on the roads
) pitch in places with massive cultural weight like Kandy, of course locals are going to push back. Stick to actual constitutional rulings instead of hiding behind cherry-picked clips
