Preachers, pests and usurpers

"They asked my friend about his religion and continued preaching even after my friend said he is a freethinker," wrote Vinoth Kumar R, a third-year Mass Communication student at Ngee Ann Polytechnic. He was so upset by the incident, he wrote to the NP Tribune, the college's student newspaper.

No proselytising on campus please

I was doing my project work with a friend at the Convention Centre study area when two people approached us.

One of them was in his late twenties while the other was a teenager.

They asked my friend about his religion and continued preaching even after my friend said he is a freethinker.

They left only after handing him a brochure about bible studies on campus on Saturdays.

I visited the polytechnic's website, and was shocked to find out that these co-curricular activities state evangelism as the main goal on their web pages.

I wonder about the need for such organisations in our polytechnic. We live in a secular nation and we are constantly reminded about religious tolerance. Religious conversion is a sensitive and controversial issue.

Take the case of the Maria Hertogh riots in the 1950s which started because of religious differences.

Let's not jeopardise the religious harmony we have. Whether we worship in temples, mosques or churches, one of the things we ask for most is peace.

Vinod Kumar R.

The editor appended a note to the published letter, saying "We emailed this letter to various religious groups on campus for comment. Only the Catholic Youth Apostolate replied to the Forums by press time."

In her reply, the Chair of the Catholic Youth Apostolate, Petrina Anita Anthony, wrote:

The Roman Catholic Church officially believes in evangelism: "Spreading knowledge". That is in contrast to the popular misconception that evangelism means conversion and proselytisation.

There is a difference between spreading knowledge and trying to convert....

Of course there is a difference between spreading knowledge and trying to convert, because religious belief is not knowledge. Please don't try to pretend that bible studies or similar gatherings is "spreading knowledge" or deny that the whole aim of all these "going arounds" is ultimately to get others to abandon their religion for yours. You only make yourselves look dishonest.

* * * * *

There is an interesting paper by Mathew Mathews about the role that conservative churches see for themselves in Singapore. In Christianity in Singapore: The voice of moral conscience to the State [1], the visiting fellow with the National University of Singapore analyses how

Christian groups have become intricately involved in the production and policing of morality in Singapore and the state patronage which this attempt enjoys.

Christianity here, he has found from his research, is substantially shaped by American Christianity and is thus to a great extent conservative and evangelical.

A recent representative survey of Christian clergy on the island highlighted the overwhelming beliefs in biblical inerrancy, the acceptance of a literal hermeneutic, and rejection of modernist stances to scripture.

As part of the rhetoric within conservative Christianity, Mathews observed that there is an eagerness to engage the state and voice disapproval of its policies. These Christians feel that

the church must live up to its calling as the voice of conscience in society.

While in recent years, the most notable issues they fought over have been the relaxation of state policy towards gay citizens and the introduction of casinos, the attempt to capture state morality extends across a broad spectrum of issues.

Besides the issues of homosexuality and gambling, the Christian population is increasingly challenged to take an interest in the socio-political arena, advocating the values and morality of the Kingdom of God.

They enjoy an advantage, Mathews argues.

The prominence, acceptance, and support that Christian based initiatives have received in Singapore are partly due to the close moral fit between these agencies and the values promoted by the state. The Singaporean state has always seen traditional family values and conservative expressions of sexuality as compatible with nation building. This is based on a functionalist and pragmatic logic which -- when applied to the domain of the family -– stresses pro-natalist (advocating child bearing) policies and policies which define the traditional family as the fundamental socialising and nurturing block of society.

[snip]

In such a context, the appeal of Christian organisations to the masses regarding the importance of traditional values of the family and sexuality is congruent with the state’s agenda and is thus greatly welcomed, especially since the secular state does not have an adequate ideological apparatus to address issues of morality.

I would argue that the reason why the secular state has no adequate ideological apparatus is because it over-concentrated on economic goods as its raison d'être. By neglecting moral leadership, it conceded the space to conservative Christianity (quite often, it even invited into the space), without even realising how that undermines the ideal of a secular state.

* * * * *

 
Likewise in Hong Kong, conservative churches are muscling their way into issues of morality, in a similar attempt to capture the role of moral policeman from the secular state.

Recent lightning rods have been the proposed updating of the Domestic Violence Ordinance and the Control of Obscene and Indecent Article Ordinance.

On domestic violence, Conservative Christians have been mobilising to keep same-sex couples outside the scope of the law. Currently, the law affords protection for married couples or cohabiting heterosexual couples only.

On the law concerning obscene and indecent articles, the Christian Right has suggested tightening it in many ways, including such material that "depicts acts against nature" (Christian code for homosexuality) and such material that "instigates abortion or miscarriage". The effect of the latter would ban speech that does not condemn abortion.

To achieve its goals, the Christian Right is raising hysteria that failure to tighten the law on obscenity would leave children open to sexual exploitation.

In a 29 January 2009 story, Oiwan Lam of Global Voices Online translates a blogpost by "martinoei" that says,

Groups annoyed by such tactics and opposed to the conservative Christian agenda organised through Facebook a march on 15 February 2009. See the report by Oiwan Lam.

Some 600 - 700 people (at its peak) marched, its route taking it past some of the infamous churches or Christian groups, such as the Society of Truth and Light.

Here is a YouTube video of the start of the march.

Prior to the protest march, a "Michael Luk" wrote on facebook:

I promise I'll be in my best behavior on Sunday, but it's really hard to keep cool: These evangelical frenetics [sic] have been around abusing our mind and suppressing our civil rights through terror and censorship for too long. These "Christians" disseminate hate and suffocate free thoughts in the society

But among the marchers were Christians too, reading the bible as they walked, according to reports. "HK Akaraon" wrote on facebook:

I am a christian myself but I don't really like those who are on the far end of the line - (the conservative Christian). I rather stay somewhere between heaven and earth and anywhere else except hell rather than meeting them in person or even talk to them. I know some people like that but trust me they won't believe in any other people's concept except their own... 

© Yawning Bread 

Footnotes

1. Mathew Mathews, Christianity in Singapore: The voice of moral conscience to the State. Journal of Contemporary Religion, Vol 24 No. 1, January 2009, pp53-65.
   Return to where you left off

Addenda

None