Of welfare, sacred places, and "rice Christians": freedom of religion and multiple religious belonging

When governments are structurally unable to provide social services, or when disaster strikes, relief organisations tend to step in. This is also the case in South and East Asia. Such organisations may be faith-based, leading to the emergence of what Asians colloquially call “rice Christians”: persons who (allegedly) convert to a religion in order to access services, or out of loyalty to the aid-supplying organisation. Such converts may continue to practice their traditional religions and beliefs. This raises the question whether rights to religion or belief are still available to “rice Christians” when governments, e.g., seek to redevelop a sacred site that formed part of their original belief system. The present article addresses that question, drawing upon the concept of multiple religious belonging ('MRB') and a 2017 decision of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights in which the court accepted that individuals may adhere to multiple religions, especially where conversion happened within a missionary context and the now-claimed belief is Indigenous or traditional. It argues in favour of recognition of MRB within the context of freedom of religion, which would mean that also “rice Christians” can continue to rely on original belief systems to protect their practices and places.