Courts apply religious restrictions unequally to Christians versus Buddhists and Muslims.

Evidence

Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court has long been a conservative entity that has rarely ruled against the state’s preferences. Not surprisingly—its ruling on the Prohibitions of Forcible Conversions to Religions Bill notwithstanding—the Court also has ruled that the right to practice one’s religion does not include the right to propagate that religion. It has, consequently, denied Christian service organizations the right to incorporate, claiming that doing so would undermine the foremost place guaranteed to Buddhism under the country’s constitution. In short, the Court has ruled that no Christian organization may be incorporated if part of its mission includes proselytizing and that it is illegal for a church to combine religious instruction and charity. Yet, the incorporation of 178 Buddhist and Muslim organizations that combine religious instruction and charity has been approved (Jansz 2004). — Neil DeVotta, Sinhalese Buddhist Nationalist Ideology, 256

Categorization

• SEED: A measurable discrepancy (178 Buddhist/Muslim orgs approved; Christian proselytizing orgs denied) shows professed constitutional neutralism diverging from actual discrimination - a crisp data point for an article on how ‘protection of Buddhism’ institutionalizes asymmetric religious freedom.
• XREF: connects to: Sri Lankan courts apply anti-proselytizing rules only to Christian groups; Courts exempt religious minorities whose values echo mainstream culture — Lawrence M. Friedman and Grant M. Hayden, American Law: An Introduction, 1423; Christians and Muslims from the same region received opposite citizenship outcomes

Broader Connections

• Sri Lankan courts apply anti-proselytizing rules only to Christian groups #exemplifies (0.95)
• Christians and Muslims from the same region received opposite citizenship outcomes #exemplifies (0.92)
• Courts exempt religious minorities whose values echo mainstream culture #qualifies (0.72) — Lawrence M. Friedman and Grant M. Hayden, American Law, 1423