Distortion of Religious Teachings and the Freedom of Expression

One who has even a slight knowledge of the essence of Buddhism would have been perplexed with the reports of seven individuals with close connections having committed suicide with the advent of the New Year, allegedly to seek eternal peace after a discourse among them based on Buddhism. 
Ruwan Prasanna Gunaratne, an individual who has delivered religious sermons claiming to be Buddhist teachings had first taken his life on December 28 last year, by swallowing poison according to reports. Two days later, his wife and three children had also died, allegedly of the same poison. Two more individuals, a man and the girl who had closely connected to the family had also died in the same way later. 

How can one believe that these individuals, especially Gunaratne who is said to be the motivator of all these deaths has taken his life and persuaded the others to do so in the name of a religion, when not a single follower of that religion has taken such a cruel path during the more than 2,500 years of the history of that religion? Those who have the basic understanding of Buddhism know that the essence of the teachings of the Buddha is Chathurarya Sathyaya (the Four Noble Truths) and the Arya Ashtangika Marga (the Noble Eightfold Paths) which have nothing to do with harming the self or others, but are paths for the deliverance from the sufferings humanity faces.  
Within days, another person who is said to have introduced himself as the Avalokitheshvara Bodhisathva has irked the Buddhist community in the country through his sermons. It is said that he also had preached to his followers, justifying self-immolation in the name of Buddhism. 
Subsequent to these incidents, the Mahanayaka Theras from all three Buddhist Chapters in Sri Lanka have issued a joint letter to President Ranil Wickremesinghe, calling for the implementation of laws against such groups. 
Our sister paper Lankadeepa also reported on January 7 that the government is considering the possibilities of introducing new laws to bring to book those who influence people to indulge in harmful and anti-social activities through their teachings. 
Religious cults that bring in disasters have existed throughout history. In a casual Google search we can find some of the horrendous incidents involving such groups in the recent past. 
In one of the most dramatic mass murder-suicides of modern history, 914 adults and children from a US cult died in the jungle of the small South American country of Guyana in 1978. The bodies of 48 members of the doomsday Solar Temple sect, including its leaders, were discovered in the Swiss villages of Cheiry and Granges-sur-Salvan in 1994. Doomsday cult Aum Shinrikyo was behind a notorious attack in Japan in 1995, in which members released toxic Sarin Gas into Tokyo’s subway network, killing 13 people and making thousands of others unwell. In California, 39 members of the Heaven’s Gate cult in San Diego committed mass suicide by poisoning, to coincide with the arrival of the Hale-Bopp comet, in 1997. Another of the world’s worst cult-related massacres took place in south western Uganda’s Kanungu district in 2000, where some 700 members from the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, burned to death. 
Despite allegations of political conspiracy, the Easter Sunday terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka in 2019 are also a serious deviation from Islam, which was either carried out voluntarily or as a result of the perpetrators’ religious zeal being exploited by those with vested interests.

Nevertheless, whether the law can prevent distortions of or deviations from religions is a tricky question, in light of the Freedom of Expression being a constitutional right in Sri Lanka, unless the religious groups in question are involved in breaches of the law. Courts do not take decisions based on any religion. In case of religious controversies, courts would not take sides. However, they can only intervene when peace among or within communities is disturbed. 
Hence, in a practical sense, the onus for the prevention of distortions of religious teachings is on the respective religious communities. Laws can just ease the tensions emanating from deviations by newly emerging groups. Only a healthy and intellectual discourse within respective communities would help prevent the emergence of dangerous trends within those communities.