| October
2005
Our Christian jihadists
|
|
||||
Four letters on the same theme appeared in the Straits Times Forum pages
in the last two months. You can read them on the right.
The first, by a teenaged student, complained about overzealous proselytisation within his school. The Christian fanatics go about this by rubbishing other religions, telling young people that their parents are going to hell because they "pray to idols", which is how the Taoist altar objects are termed. Perhaps they do not use the violent expletives that the three bloggers who were recently charged did against Islam, but the aggressive, contemptuous, and psychologically coercive way in which the Christian proselytisers go about their aims suggest the same desire: to slash and burn other faith communities. As the young writer pointed out, this violates an essential tenet of life in Singapore: respect for other faiths. He also noted that penetration by this kind of Christians into the halls of power is deleterious in other ways, bringing about a closing of minds. He cited the way the fundamentalists in the United States have axed evolution, a fundamental concept in biology, from schools. [1] I don't remember seeing any response from the Ministry of Education to this letter, perhaps I missed it. If anyone has a copy of the response, please let me have it. The first letter didn't say who the proselytisers were. I assumed they were other students from the school's Christian fellowship, as quite a few university students have recounted to me their annoyance with undergraduates from the universities' Christian fellowships. The second letter suggested that my assumption might be wrong. The pushy Christian in that case was none other than a school teacher. In his letter, Thio Sin Loo said the teacher told the 11 or 12-year-old girl that she should ignore her parents' objections! The third letter underscores this. The Boys' Brigade is as common in our schools as the Scouts. It's quite a popular co-curricular activity as there is opportunity for outdoor adventure and bonding. Now teachers seem to have made conversion to Christianity a condition for acceptance into these clubs. Parents may not be aware that both the Boys' Brigade and the Scouts had Christian roots, founded as they were at a time when moral values (which were their foundational aims) were closely intertwined with White Anglo-Saxon Protestantism. But why should Singapore parents have to be so aware? If the Boys' Brigade wants to operate in Singapore, they have to abide by the social and political reality here, especially if they are located in state schools or state-assisted schools. If they don't, they should not be allowed in our school system. Singaporeans expect our schools to have policies consistent with that of a secular state. Lest you think that the problem of Christian jihad [2] is confined to the education sector, the 4th letter will disabuse you of that. Like the teachers in the 2nd and 3rd letters, the medical professional in the 4th letter clearly overstepped his professional boundaries. He should be called to answer charges from the Singapore Medical Association for violation of professional ethics. * * * * * Why do people think nothing of overstepping their professional boundaries, or even their civic and social boundaries for that matter, considering the way we are accosted at train stations and street corners by church members? In my view, it's because, subconsciously, spreading their religion is considered more important than anything else they do. It is so important it overrides professional ethics and social courtesy. It overrides even the universal norm that minors cannot be snatched from their parents and guardians (except through due process). It overrides any sense of responsibility to civil peace... which is a small step away from saying the exigency to christianise everybody and everything overrides civil peace. They may not yet be building bombs like the demented al-Qaeda or the Jemaah Islamiyah, but the thinking is along parallel paths [3]. Just like how al-Qaeda first grew in a political environment of Muslim states that were indulgent of religious zeal, believing that it could only bolster morality and social values, is the quasi-Christian extremism we see in Singapore growing here because our political establishment is indulgent towards it? I certainly hope not, and I do not believe Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong will ever allow it. But I will say this: I have no faith that some other ministers in the cabinet see things likewise. Again and again, I have heard, "oh, this minister is a born-again Christian" and "that minister is a very conservative Christian." Gan Kim Yong, who was sworn in on 1 October 2005 as Minister of State for Education and Manpower was an Elder of the Chen Li Presbyterian Church. He was one of the more vocal opponents of the casino proposal, which was no coincidence as opposition to the casino was largely a Christian-organised thing. The Prime Minister made it clear that as a junior minister in the government, Gan would have to follow the government line on matters that had been decided, but I think this assurance is not enough. After all, how would Singaporeans react if an ustaz (a religious scholar in Islam, a professor, someone who gives religious instruction in mosques) made it to minister? This failure to see the sensitivity of inducting into government yet another person whose politics are demonstrably bound to his religion suggests that Singapore may be slipping into the same blindsidedness that allowed religiously-motivated extremists like al-Qaeda to flourish. Despite assurances, not everything reaches the Prime Minister's desk. There will be plenty of issues not quite important enough to get there which may be handled at a junior minister's level, such as how much leeway for religious activity in schools. In this connection, you may have noticed that Gan is the new Minister of State for Education. We may hope for the best, but I remain skeptical. * * * * * I mentioned earlier that for a time, many Muslim states believed that a return to a purer, more literal and anti-modern form of Islam was good for society. In America, there is an equivalent belief that greater religiosity can only be for the good. "Godless" societies tend towards social breakdown. Sins thrive. In this connection, an interesting research paper [4] in the Journal of Religion and Society has recently been published. See the appendix article Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side', a story from The Times of the UK. Gregory Paul, who led the study, compared social data from various international bodies including the UN Development Program. For religiosity, he had the benefit of a large study involving 38 countries, including 17 developed countries - from these 17 countries alone, there were 23,000 respondents. He found that the US had the highest score when it came to religiosity compared to other developed countries in Europe. It also had high rates of homicide, juvenile mortality, sexually-transmitted diseases and abortion. In fact, he found a striking correlation. Paul said, "In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies." He showed that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Naturally, there was a storm of criticism, mainly on how he had not showed any causal linkage between the factors. How did not believing in God cause lower rates of homicide, for example? But that kind of criticism itself is flawed, for that wasn't the point of the study. As Paul made very clear, his study sprang from the oft-repeated claims that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society. Paul said, "Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world." His study set off to see if this belief has any substance. What he showed is that it does not. More than that, increasing religiosity seems to go with increasing social ills. He didn't set out to prove his theory; he set out to test religionists' theories. * * * * * Gregory Paul did not make any claims about causation. But me, I can't resist offering a theory. The trouble with religion is that at heart it is essentially irrational, and beyond the spiritual, it often goes on to prescribe behaviours. It privileges certain modes of thought and lifestyles and casts out, often with condemnation, other thoughts and habits. The socially "healthy" and harmonious society which it claims it can engender is ultimately predicated on conformity and inclusion/exclusion. There is a tendency to wish away social ills or censor away unacceptable ideas, a tendency to insist rather than negotiate, and to blame the individual for not being able to "live up" to the religion's prescription rather than examine the prescription with a critical eye. The more strident the adherents are, the more prescriptive and exclusionary the demands. Such a society creates outcasts or otherwise very conflicted individuals. And as we all know, social ills are often associated with the marginalised, not least to do with their disadvantaged exclusion from the mainstream of society. In fact, the very definition of "social ill" in some ways (such as premarital sex) is almost exclusively dependent on the way a religion has prescribed social health, such that the rate of that "social ill" is a proxy measure of how many in that society contest that religion's authority. A society that does not place religion at its centre has to find other ways to order itself. Very often, in democracies, the social contract is to rely on "public reason", which is a mode of analysis, persuasion and decision-making based on secular, rational considerations for the largest and/or widest possible public good. As a system, it tends towards mutual respect, moderation, inclusiveness and pragmatism. By engaging in a non-ideological way with the largest possible number of citizens, it keeps the numbers of the marginalised low and may even be able to respond in accommodating ways to them. Why then are we surprised that these may be more peaceful, less dysfunctional societies? This doesn't mean that religion is bad
all round. It simply means it should stay in the private sphere and be
kept out of the common space that we all share. © Yawning Bread
|
|
||||
|
Footnotes
Addenda None
|
|
