1. Introduction

1.1 Theme and aim

1.2 Terminology

1.3 Missionary activities in relation to human rights and ethics

1.4 The approach of the Oslo Coalition

1.5 How this project compares with other initiatives

2. Developing a code of conduct for missionary activities

2.1 What we aim to achieve

2.2 The role of governments

2.3 The right to chose another religion

2.4 The extent to which missionary activities are protected as human rights

2.5 Mission crossing borders

2.6 The question of inequality

2.7 The question of representation

3. Presenting a code of conduct concerning missionary activities

3.1 To whom is it addressed?

3.2 Those who engage in missionary activities

3.3 Those to whom missionary activities are directed

3.4 The role of governments in relation to missionary activities

1. Introduction

1.1 Theme and aim

This document is prepared by the project group of Missionary Activities and Human Rights, a project of The Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief. It is concerned with missionary activities in relation to human rights and the ethics of inter-religious relations. Our main purpose is to present a code of conduct for consideration for representatives of religious communities as well as representatives of followers of other worldviews. As an introduction to the present draft version of the proposed codes of conduct we describe the outlines of the approach of the Oslo Coalition in dealing with this issue, including a discussion of some key elements concerning the issue.

The activities of people promoting various religions and worldviews have frequently given rise to conflicting views: on the one hand, whether such activities in some cases are unduly hindered by state measures – thereby violating the human rights of those who conduct such activities, or, on the other hand, whether such activities in some cases violate the human rights of the target group or contravene the ethical standards governing the relations between followers of different religions or worldviews. Conflicts connected to missionary activities constitute a very sensitive aspect of inter-religious relations that in some situations have led to various forms of violence.

This is also an important intra-religious issue as missionary endeavours directed at co-religionists (for instance those belonging to different branches of the same religion) are also creating tensions in many parts of the world. The objections raised in cases involving co-religionists are usually very similar to those raised in cases involving other religions.

With a view of encouraging peaceful and mutually acceptable solutions, it is our conviction that we must address this issue through a thorough discussion of how the human rights conventions should be understood and applied in relation to such conflicts. Also mutually acceptable ethical principles regarding religious coexistence, as they relate to this area, need to be explored with the intention of achieving consensus between different religious groups.

The approach of the Oslo Coalition in suggesting a code of conduct includes the following considerations:
To facilitate a discussion on how human rights conventions relate to missionary activities. This aim can be reached through the working out of guidelines on how conflicts connected to missionary activities may be resolved through the application of the relevant human rights conventions. This need not exclude a normative discussion on how human rights should be applied in relation to missionary activities although a descriptive approach stating the established legal situation should be clearly maintained.

• To explore how ethical considerations may lead to commonly agreed norms for missionary activities. This aim can be reached through working on what may eventually become a broadly accepted code of conduct for missionary activities.
• To encourage the application of the human rights conventions and a code of conduct in resolving actual conflicts relating to missionary activities.

1.2 Terminology

The range of activities that we refer to as “missionary activities” have been designated by a variety of terms in various languages, many of them specific to particular religions. In English usage several terms have been employed, each carrying various more or less positive or negative connotations as perceived by different individuals. A term which is often employed in relation to missionary activities, and which has also been used earlier in this project, is “proselytism” . However, in the context of this project it is important that the terminology used is understood as neutral, in the sense of not implying approval or disapproval of the phenomenon referred to. In this perspective a term such as “proselytism” may be problematic, as many have expressed that this word carry strong negative connotations suggesting aggressiveness in seeking converts. We thus believe that the term “missionary activities” is a better choice, as our intention not to give the activity as such a value judgement, may thus be more clearly understood.

“Communicating a religion or worldview through verbal communication or through various related activities as an invitation to others to accept it”, may be a definition that suffices to describe the phenomenon as we deal with it in the context of this project. To some such an activity may be found morally objectionable, to others it may be perfectly justifiable, and to others it may have the character of an ethical imperative. Notwithstanding such differences it is an activity clearly protected by the conventions of human rights as an accepted human activity (although the scope of this protection may be subject to differences of opinion). With these reflections in mind we will therefore use the term “missionary activity” to describe this activity.

1.3 Missionary activities in relation to human rights and ethics

In our view, resolving conflicts related to missionary activities is not possible without relating these to human rights conventions as well as ethical principles. Generally it can be said that the implementation of human rights is primarily the responsibility of states while adhering to ethics is primarily the concern of individuals or groups of individuals, although not exclusively so.

In the first case, the approach is to address states as initiators and executors of legislation regulating missionary activities in order to contribute to a better harmonisation of national legislation with human rights conventions. This also includes engaging legal experts and others who influence state legislation in deliberations on how to implement the human rights conventions in relation to regulating missionary activities in their respective countries.

In the second case, the approach is to point out the potential of a broadly accepted codes of conduct in resolving conflicts related to missionary activities, as well as to encourage dialogue between religious or other groups on how to resolve such conflicts in specific cases by applying commonly accepted ethical standards (as stated in a codes of conduct). Although the cause of a conflict may be violations of human rights or ethically irresponsible behaviour by one or both of the parties involved, looking at both categories of causes will generally be necessary.

1.4 The approach of the Oslo Coalition

In our project on missionary activities and human rights we have initiated a discussion on how the international human rights conventions apply to missionary activities. The paper “The right to try to convince the other: Proselytism and human rights”, published on the homepage of the Oslo Coalition , is a small step in this direction. Another project of the Oslo Coalition: “Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief: A Deskbook” (Leiden 2004, eds. Tore Lindholm, W. Cole Durham, Jr. and Bahia G. Tahzib-Lie) also contains a paper on this topic . Considering the lack of implementation in many countries of freedom of religion concerning the issues under consideration, there is clearly a need to improve the understanding of what the international conventions on human rights actually state in regard to the right to engage in missionary activities. The Oslo Coalition is already engaged in dialogue with actors in some countries on freedom of religion. The issue of missionary activities is included in these dialogues. However, developing ways of engaging with governments in this area is clearly a necessity.

We have from the very beginning emphasised a multi-faith approach and have involved representatives from various religions and worldviews in our project. In order to make significant progress regarding this issue we consider a sense of ownership of the process by the various groups affected by the issue a necessity. This involves two challenges: the first of encouraging adherence by governments to the conventions of human rights on freedom of religion or belief, and the second the task of forging an alliance between followers of various religions and worldviews on how to act ethically when engaging in missionary activities.

As part of this project the Oslo Coalition has established an interfaith reference group and has so far also organised two workshops with interfaith participation to explore how a code of conduct may be worked out by representatives of various religions and worldviews. In this connection we have also sought to understand how missionary activities are conceptualised and justified within various faith traditions. In order to understand better the context in which conflicts arise from missionary activities, we have also sent delegations to Sri Lanka and Azerbaijan where we listened to viewpoints of religious leaders on these issues.

1.5 How this project compares with other initiatives

As stated above this project employs two perspectives on the issue of missionary activities: as an issue of human rights and as an issue of the ethics of inter-religious relations.

Dealing with this as an issue of human rights, it is primarily the freedom of religion that is at stake. We note that when a religious group seeks to expand its following, rather than just maintaining status quo, some of the general issues of freedom of religion are brought more sharply into focus. Situations where religions are expanding do in many cases lead to “countermeasures” by representatives of religious groups that consider themselves targeted. A common response is to try to restrict the expanding groups through legislative or other measures to the extent the targeted groups have access to political power. State authorities may also have their own agendas that make them initiate measures restricting missionary groups. It can hardly be denied that situations such as these constitute an important challenge in terms of implementation of freedom of religion. Focusing on this issue seems therefore necessary. This is already being done by a number of organisations. Many Christian churches, for instance, have a very strong missionary orientation leading to a broad range of such activities. In many countries these activities are severely restricted, something which Christian organisations monitoring the situation, document as violations of human rights and bring to the attention of governments and international human rights bodies. However, in comparison with such organisations the project of the Oslo Coalition has a somewhat different character as the following points suggest:

• Firstly the Oslo Coalition does not monitor the situation in individual countries, but seeks rather to bring up cases seen as a violation of freedom of religion or belief as cases for reflection on what constitutes such violations, i.e. its focus is on dialogue on freedom of religion or belief, in this case related to missionary activities. Although the Oslo Coalition would not refrain from taking a stand on issues relating to the interpretation of human rights in the field of missionary activities, our approach is to promote a valid understanding of human rights through dialogue with the parties involved rather than activism.
• Secondly the Oslo Coalition deals with the issue of missionary activities as a human rights issue on world wide basis looking at the situation of all religions or worldviews, both from the missionary and the targeted communities’
• Thirdly the Oslo Coalition seeks a broad alliance between leaders of various religions and other worldviews as well as legal experts, leaders of civil society and political leaders on the issue of solving amicably conflicts related to missionary activities.
We do not suggest that these points are unique characteristics of the Oslo Coalition and its project of mission and human rights. It is rather the emphasis on combining all three of them that we think distinguish the Oslo Coalition. We think this approach will enable it to make a particular contribution to the implementation of human rights and ethical responsibility in relation to missionary activities.

2. Developing a code of conduct for missionary activities

2.1 What we aim to achieve

A large number of churches and missionary organisations have already codes of conducts that regulate the ethical standards of organisations and individuals involved in such organisations. As a general observation it seems that such codes of conducts cover a broad range of areas of activities where ethical guidelines are important. The approach of the Oslo Coalition differs from these in focusing on a much more specific area which we feel is of particular significance in our perspective, which is that relating to inter-religious interaction. In the codes of conducts and guidelines we have studied the treatment of issues relating to inter-religious interaction seems to be rather cursory, offering valid, but in our view, insufficient guidelines for dealing with some of the controversies connected with the ethics of missionary activities.

In the case of some other important initiatives, such as the ongoing project of the Vatican and the World Council of Churches on this issue, the documents published so far seem to focus on statements of consensus between representatives of a number of religions rather than points of disagreements (although the existence of disagreements are admitted) . This is a valuable approach that should be pursued further. However, the great challenges connected to achieving an ethical consensus on these volatile issues do in our view call for the broadest possible engagement in this area. It is here important, not only to find general points of agreements, but also to analyse issues where opinions differ and to see how we can deal with them in ways that do not aggravate already serious controversies. In an area such as this, it is also important to see how we can apply the principles involved to actual arenas of conflicts. In fact, to make significant progress in solving or reducing conflicts related to missionary activities, dialogues on how to apply human rights and ethical principles are essential. Such dialogues are needed to follow up the work on a code of conduct. What we need are processes on different levels (from local to global) of inter-religious dialogues on how to develop a convergent understanding of the ethics of mission in an inter-religious context. Establishing a code of conduct for missionary activities should be seen as a starting point rather than an end point, difficult though it may be to achieve. The possibility of duplication of codes of conducts by various parties need therefore not be seen as a problem. The challenge is rather to connect inter-religious initiatives in this area (that are still very few) so as to establish a broad network of concerned groups that may effect real changes in the thinking and practice of those who are involved in or affected by missionary activities. We also see the need for all major religions and organisations representing other worldviews to issue statements on how to engage in missionary activities or how to respond to those of others. A contribution on our part will also be to include descriptions of how various religions or worldviews theorise about the dissemination of their teachings and traditions. We would therefore characterise our specific approach in developing a code of conduct for missionary activities as follows:

• A code of conduct to be agreed upon by faith communities and missionary organisations and others through the facilitation of the project of the Oslo Coalition should be broad enough to cover every major issue that is regarded as problematic by a party involved in or affected by missionary activities.
• It should refer to a common understanding of the human rights conventions and their implications for a proper engagement in missionary activities as well as a proper response to such by others.
• Points of agreements should be clearly stated. Significant differences of opinions should also be described and ways of dealing with them should be suggested.
• Organisations representing various religions or other worldviews should be encouraged to integrate a consensual ethic on missionary activities in their interpretation of their own teachings.
• A code of conduct on missionary activities should be regarded as a tool to effect peaceful solutions to conflicts related to missionary activities.

2.2 The role of governments

The paper mentioned above “The right to try to convince the other: Proselytism and human rights” refers to various parties involved in or affected by missionary activities: a single person, a group of persons, a missionary society, a congregation, affiliated social groups, and governmental authorities. This suggests that missionary activities should not be seen in isolation. We therefore need to consider the role of the various parties involved in missionary activities. A fact to be recognised is the role of governments of not only being arbiters of missionary activities (in their role as legislators and providers of resources and rights to various missionary groups), but also of being actors themselves, generally by proxy, through the funding of missionary activities by religious groups. Controversial examples of such support are the cases of financial support being given to social and development programs, carried out by missionary organisations that have an additional agenda of establishing a presence among populations with no indigenous following of the religion in question. Another sensitive issue arises when a government favours those who accept the religion it supports in its missionary endeavours. Discrimination of religions is not per se an issue of mission and human rights but situations where religious groups are targeted by government supported missionary efforts, are definitely relevant to our discussion. The role of governments in missionary activities therefore needs to be understood and guidelines for their proper engagement (or disengagement) in this field need to be developed.

Generally the role of governments should be that of an arbiter between individuals and groups of individuals, who may have conflicting interests in a situation where missionary activities take place. In relation to governments, the issue of human rights should be the central one, including all major issues that come into the picture in a situation of missionary activity.

2.3 The right to chose another religion

The most fundamental of all human rights connected with freedom of religion is “the right to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice” (CCPR , art. 18) or “freedom to change his religion or belief” (UDHR , art. 18) which may not be subjected to any limitations such as those that apply to the right to manifest one’s religion or belief. Realism regarding assessing the actual state of affairs on this point seems a neccessity in order to make a project on mission and human rights relevant . Without genuine consensus regarding this point any further discussion on the topic of missionary activities will be flawed from the very beginning.

2.4 The extent to which missionary activities are protected as human rights

Another major point is to what extent missionary activities are protected by by the right “to manifest his religion or belief” (CCPR, art. 18). Considering the wide range of activities that may be included under this heading, this is no simple matter to deal with. The fact that “missionary activities” or any corresponding term are not explicitly mentioned in the CCPR (the nearest term is “teaching”), also add a certain amount of ambiguity regarding the status of missionary activities in the human rights conventions. Article 18 of the CCPR make no distinction between the right “to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching” as a right for the individual for himself, compared to a right to approach others in various ways without invitation to promote his religion among them. The core issue of the right to engage in faith persuation thus appears to be better grounded in article 19 of the CCPR regarding freedom of expression. How far this right extends, in terms of the means used to carry the message across to the target group, is a contested issue as well as an area where national legislations differ considerably.

In some cases educational services provided by missionary groups may be a way of carrying the message across to groups of people who chose to avail themselves of these services, but not necessarily of the faith of the provider of these services. And we may ask: At what point does the promotion of the religion or belief of the provider of educational services to the individuals, using these services, constitute a violation of the rights of those individuals? If a government restricts providers of educational services in promoting their religion through such services, will that constitute a violation their human rights? Although human rights conventions may not offer ready made answers to such questions they need to be adressed rather than being left to individual governments to be decided without a broad discussion of the principles involved.

Hopefully, a greater consensus on these issues may emerge among governments, in line with international law as well as a consensus among religious leaders on what practices connected with missionary activities that are ethically justified and should be protected by law and what practises are not. Another issued connected with missionary activities that illustrate the differences between a legal and moral approach as well as their interconnectedness is the issue of “freedom of expression” (art. 19, CCPR). To what extent is it a human right to criticise another religion as false when engaging in propagating one’s own? To what extent may laws banning blasphemy silence the voices of those propagating other religions without violating human rights conventions relating to freedom of expression?

2.5 Mission crossing borders

Another issue often encountered concerns the international character of many missionary activities. A religious group may be much stronger in one country than another (in terms of following as well as access to resources). In a situation of increasing globalisation this makes for a pattern where religious groups in one country are increasingly active in establishing a following in another country.

The responses of governments to this situation vary enormously. In some countries the establishment of missionaries from other countries are facilitated through legislation, in other countries such initiatives are effectively banned through the same means. And we may ask: Is it a human right to establish institutions to propagate one’s religion in other countries than one’s own? Are countries which do not allow this to take place violating human rights? The tradition of western colonialism has made the presence of foreign missionary activities in former colonies, or countries dominated by colonial powers, an issue which is still sensitive to many. The opening up of borders through a globalised market economy has on the other hand led to greater mobility of missionary activities across national borders. Is this an improvement in term of human rights, or does it raise new concerns? A discussion of the moral issues regarding a situation where a global “free market” also regulates the interactions of religious groups can hardly leave aside the questions about what rights and whose rights are at stake.

2.6 The question of inequality

Another issue to be mentioned here is the question of inequality. In most countries and within most religious groups there are social divisions leaving certain sections of the population in disadvantaged circumstances. Is approaching such sections of the populations as perceived “soft targets” for missionary activities unethical? There is a general view that taking advantage of a person, who is in a position of inferiority compared to oneself, is morally untenable. Does this apply to the area of missionary activity in the sense that a resourceful missionary organisation, providing social or educational services, should restrain itself from propagating its religion until those it has approached are in a more equal position to themselves, or should missionary work and humanitarian work go hand in hand as two equally valid ways of helping others? What about those who claim that it is particularly those who suffer from oppression and poverty that more than others need the liberating power of the religion of the missionary? Although most religious groups would agree that for instance combining religious preaching to others with humanitarian help in disaster situations is unethical, such consensus probably covers over a great deal of disagreement on the wider issues touched upon above.

2.7 The question of representation

In cases of missionary activities the question of who speaks on whose behalf is often very pertinent. Human rights are fundamentally the rights of individual human beings. In many cases effectively respecting the rights of individuals means respecting the institutions and communities they belong to. But does this mean that a religious community as such has rights in relation to which the rights of individuals should be balanced? Is for instance a leader of a religious community, claiming that their religion has been denigrated or insulted or attacked, thereby speaking on behalf of each individual member of that community? Although the answer may be partly yes, this would not settle the question of whether there are rights of collectivities that are relevant in this context. Bringing differences in ways of thinking on such issues to the surface, is in our view, essential to ensure that expressions of consensus on matters relating to missionary activities do indeed express genuine agreements that may be expected to lead to real improvements in this area.

The suggested code of conduct will therefore aim at embodying such concerns.

3. Presenting a code of conduct concerning missionary activities

This proposed code of conduct is a draft version based on consultations over a period of three years with leaders and representatives of various religions and worldviews. It is still in a formative stage inviting comments on controversial issues as well as on possible omissions and ambiguities. The main purpose for proposing a code of conduct is to focus sharply on the real issues that give rise to tensions and conflicts between religions and worldviews as well as within them. It is our hope that amicable solutions may be found to conflicts related to missionary activities through open and frank discussions.

3.1 To whom is it addressed?

“Missionary activity” is the term used in this document for the activity of communicating a religion or worldview through verbal communication or through various related activities as an invitation to others to accept it.

A code of conduct concerning missionary activities should be addressed to

1. those who engage in missionary activities,
2. those to whom such activities are directed,
3. governments providing the legal and political framework within which such activities take place.

Regarding a) and b) the focus of a code of conduct concerning missionary activities should be on organisations, representing religions or other worldviews, missionary organisations and others engaged in missionary activities, as well as those who do not seek converts to their religion or worldview. In regard to c) a particular issue arises in cases where governments themselves engage in missionary activities or where they play the role of being the representative of religious communities to whom missionary activities are directed. Primarily, the concern with governments should be in connection with providing a framework for missionary activities that harmonises with the human rights conventions.

3.2 Those who engage in missionary activities

It has to be emphasised that the term “those who engage in missionary activities” applies to those who engage directly as well as those who engage indirectly through various forms of support. It also include those who engage in mission as a primary activity as well as those who promote a religion or worldview as a secondary activity, such as some NGOs engaged in development or humanitarian activities.

3.2.1 Communicating belief ethically

• While propagating your religion, focus should be on your own religion. Do not talk derogatively about other religions or incite feelings of ill will towards them for the purpose of turning people against other religions. Take care not to misrepresent other religions. Describe other religions in a truthful and fair way so that the other recognises his / her religion in your description.
• Criticising a religion may be appropriate in certain situations, but generally not in the context of propagating your own religion or worldview. Making truth claims are inherent in missionary activities, but should be done with consideration of the feelings of others.
• When propagating a religion by potentially controversial means such as door to door canvassing, ensure that such a way of propagating a religion is acceptable according to local social norms.
• Accept people’s right not to be imposed upon by strangers.

  3.2.2 Communicating belief in cross cultural situations

  • The appropriateness of an act may vary from culture to culture. It is important for anyone to consider this, especially for outsiders. Avoid actions that are considered disrespectful and objectionable in that society, including those defined as such for religious reasons.
  • Coming from the outside to another society one should be sensitive to cultural differences within that society and adjust accordingly.
  • Copying religious customs and traditions from another religion may be looked upon as trying to achieve respectability by false pretences. You should therefore consider carefully the perceptions of followers of other religions before adopting their religious customs in your own religious activities.
  • People who have converted may in some cases be aggressive towards the religion they have left. Try to help those who have converted to your faith to heal the wounds of parting and come to terms with their religious past.
  • Be aware of the feelings of others and avoid a confrontational language of conquests in relation to countries dominated by other religions.
  • Coercion and manipulation should never have a role in missionary activities.
  • Be honest in what you promise as a result of joining your religion.
  • Undercover missionary activities should as a matter of principle not be undertaken.

  3.2.3 Employing means of mission ethically

  Missionary activities denote not only the activities of communicating a religion or worldview through verbal communication. As stated above, they also included a wide range of related activities employed to promote the religion or worldview as an option for others to accept. Such means may be missionary or not according to the context, for instance: a kindergarten in a monoreligious environment with everyone sharing the belief of the institution is not a means of mission. However, in an environment where a religious group is seeking to expand its following among adherents of other religions, a kindergarten may be an important means of mission with associated moral issues which need to be addressed.

  3.2.3.1 Educational services as a means of mission

  • When providing education to others you should be transparent about the character of your institution in terms of its religion or worldview.
  • Schools should respect the religious affiliation of the pupils and should not involve them in religious activities or let them be exposed to religious propagation without explicit and voluntary consent of its parents or legal guardians.
  • Schools which provide denominational religious instructions should also provide alternative religious instruction to pupils with different religious affiliation, where such instruction is customary.
  • Schools should have the opportunity to give each child an upbringing in accordance with its beliefs. However, using the offer of education as merely a tool to get a foothold within another religious group should not take place.
  • In a religious preschool or kindergarten, that is not primarily set up for the use of children with the same religious background as that of the institution, be careful not to propagate your religion to children with other religious backgrounds without the genuine consent of their parents. Do not prevent or discourage such children to practise the religion of their family when staying in the institution.

  3.2.3.2 Mission and charity

  • Charity should be a means in itself, not merely a means to convert people.
  • Charity should not be combined with preaching in ways that impairs the freedom of the recipients to listen or not according to his own choice.
  • Charity should be given without any explicit or implicit obligations upon the recipient, e.g. demands of participation in the religious activities in the donor community or of expressing acceptance of its religion.
  • One should be aware of the weakness felt by many destitute in asserting their religious identity and assure oneself that expressions of acceptance and participation in religious activities are genuine.
  • Helping people in vulnerable situations, such as refugees, you should take care to give them time to consider carefully any new religious choice.
  • People in other disadvantaged situation should first be helped to improve their situation in life before being exposed to attempt to convert them.
  • One should be transparent with regard to the religious affiliation of the organisation doing charity.

  3.2.4 Mission and minors

  • The age of maturity of minors may vary between different cultures and religions. It is therefore essential that such differences are understood so that conflicts due to these are avoided.
  • Respect the rights of the parents to give their children an upbringing in accordance with their beliefs in all relevant circumstances .
  • Missionary activities should not be directed at minors.
  • Sunday schools and similar forms of religious tuition should be directed at children with similar religious background. In the case of other children with other backgrounds, be particularly careful with obtaining genuine consent to participation from their parents or legal guardians.
  • In case of a minor wanting to convert to your religion, you should establish a dialogue with its parents with the aim of maintaining good relationship between the parents and their child.

  3.3 Those to whom missionary activities are directed

  As mentioned in point 3.1 the focus of a code of conduct should be on organisations. However, groups of people that are targeted by missionary activities vary greatly as to their level of formal religious organisation. Many groups have no formal organisation connecting them to a religious leadship beyond the local community. Many groups, especially those belonging to indigenous peoples, do not distinguish between secular and religious leadership. Being aware of this one also needs to have a focus on individuals as well as various local social groups, as partners in a dialogue on how to conduct and respond to missionary activities.

  3.3.1 Responding responsibly to missionary activities

  • Recognise that the most fundamental of all human rights connected with freedom of religion of the individual is “the right to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice” (CCPR, art. 18) or “freedom to change his religion or belief” (DHR, art. 18).
  • If you think that another religion is propagated by unethical means in your community, try to solve the issue by direct contact with those involved in the propagation.
  • If the problem persists, bring them to the attention of your religious leaders.
  • Inter-religious councils should be established to deal with problems connected with missionary activities through mediation or dialogue.
  • Legal measures should be used when necessary to deal with violations of the rights of others in connection with missionary activities.

  3.4 The role of governments in relation to missionary activities

  Governments implement in national legislation human rights as stated in international conventions. The most crucial issues concerning mission and human rights are therefore matters of government policies. The role of governments in engaging directly or indirectly in missionary activities, especially in countries which formally or effectively have state religions, is a controversial one which also needs to be properly addressed.

  3.4.1 Regulating missionary activities according to human rights

  • Religious organisations should be allowed to propagate their belief to the extent covered by the human rights conventions on freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
  • Governments should ensure that an individual is not subject to coercion or manipulation impairing his right to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
  • Religious organisations have a general right to engage in charitable and educational work as long as they respect the rights of the individual to whom these services are offered.
  • Religious organisations should be allowed access across borders according to international law on a non-discriminatory basis but should be effectively monitored as to their compliance to national legislation and ethical standards.

  3.4.2 Regarding the legitimate role for governments in missionary activities

  • Governments may support religions according to the principle of proportionality. This may include funding of missionary activities. This should, however, not lead to discriminatory practises in the support given to different religions within the country.
  • Governments should not support social activities of religious organisations that are mainly tools for establishing a presence among populations where they have no previous following.
  • Governments should ensure that support given to religious, humanitarian and educational organisations is followed up by control of their ethical standards in relation to missionary activities.

  3.4.3 Governments as protectors of followers of religions or worldview against the missionary activities of others

  • Governments should treat religions equally in their legislation, giving them the same access to various rights, including public space proportional to their following in the community.
  • Governments should ensure that the human rights of every individual, including his integrity in terms of religion or belief, are not abused by followers of other religions or worldviews.
  • Governments should ensure that individuals are not subjected to coercive or manipulative methods of conversion by organisations offering educational, humanitarian or other services.
  • Governments need not allow the social activities of religious organisations that are mainly tools for establishing a religious presence among populations where they have no previous following.
  • Governments need not allow denominational schools or other institutions by missionary agencies in areas were the prospective pupils or users do not have the same religion or worldview.
  • Governments should ensure that legal and other measures for peaceful solving of conflicts connected to missionary activities are available.