Religious freedom and its discontents
Tuesday, 24 June 2008, 4:51 pm |
Gerald Giam responds to “Religion and the right not to respect it“.
Freedom of religion is one of the fundamental human rights that most of the world has agreed on — at least in principle. In practice, however, people in many countries continue to face restrictions to varying degrees in the practice of their own faith. In this article, we examine the situation in Singapore.
A universal right
Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
The UDHR was adopted by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 1948. The UDHR forms the basis for the International Bill of Human Rights which has taken the force of international law since 1976. This means that all 192 member states of the UN are legally obliged to abide by this declaration.
Freedom of religion in Singapore
In Singapore, freedom of religion is also enshrined in our Constitution. Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore states that:
(1) Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it.
Many Singaporeans may not be aware of this, but freedom of religion in Singapore is accorded to every person, in contrast with freedom of speech and expression (Article 14) which is a privilege technically enjoyed by only Singaporeans.
People of faith in Singapore are fortunate to enjoy the freedom to practice their religion, both within the confines of their religious institutions and, to a more limited extent, outside. Singaporeans enjoy a level of freedom of worship of the same — or possibly even greater — degree than in advanced democracies.
That Singapore has managed to uphold religious freedom despite our history of racially and religiously-motivated violence is something that the government and the people must be commended for.
‘Religious touting’
Despite the general satisfaction with the state of religious freedom in Singapore, some rumblings of discontent can be heard on the Internet and in the mainstream media.
In his June 15 piece on TOC, Religion and the right not to respect it, Joel Tan lamented that society accorded a lopsided deference to religion, sometimes at the expense of other fundamental human rights.
On April 12 this year, the Straits Times published a forum letter by Wee Feng Yi, who in addition to complaining about the “noticeable trend by Singaporeans to proselytise in public”, proposed enacting a law to ban “religious touting”.
Back in 2005, the Straits Times ran an Insight feature on proselytising in the public sphere. It highlighted public concerns about proselytising in schools and hospitals. The Ministry of Education made clear its stance on the issue.
A common thread in all these articles is the unhappiness in some quarters with unwelcome proselytisation by Christians.
There is usually no shortage of secular viewpoints on this matter. Many secularists clearly relish the opportunity to pummel religion — and Christianity in particular — for bringing their beliefs into the public sphere.
It is fashionable for intellectuals to brand organised religion as being backward, intolerant and not given to reason, unlike their more “enlightened” secular world-views. It is not unusual to see religion being held responsible for everything that is wrong with the world. US President George Bush’s much derided neo-conservative agenda is inevitably tied to his “fundamentalist” Christian faith.
It is interesting that — at least in Singapore — the same people who are so open about their criticisms of Christians hide behind the cloak of “religious harmony” to avoid criticising other religions in the same manner.
Fair criticism
Of course not all the criticisms are without merit. As a Christian, I have seen and known a few Christians whose “evangelistic” actions seem motivated more by proving themselves right and others wrong, than by genuine love and concern for those who do not share their faith.
One of the authors of the New Testament anticipated that this would be a problem. In his A.D. 56 letter to the ancient church in Corinth, Paul the apostle warned his flock that: “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.”
Right things must be done in the right way or they will be perceived as wrong things. Christian teachings clearly instruct followers that love must be the main motivation of everything we do. Evangelising with any other motivation will likely produce a negative reaction — and deservedly so.
In response to the 2005 Straits Times article on proselytising in hospitals, the Christian Medical and Dental Fellowship told the paper that “Under no circumstances should doctors abuse the professional relationship with the patient and compel a patient to embrace a certain faith.”
Methodist bishop, Dr Robert Solomon, who is also a medical doctor, said: “When you’re treating patients, their religious views are important and need to be taken into consideration. That dimension will be cut off from the process of healing if we get to the stage where talking about religion is complete anathema… But if the doctor brings upthe issue, and the patient is uncomfortable, then I think a line has been crossed.”
Not an excuse to curb religious freedom
I agree with this moderate stance on this issue of religion and the public sphere. The vast majority of Christians that I know are extremely sensitive — often even to the point of being fearful — when talking to their friends about their faith. Insensitive Christian evangelists make up a very small minority of the faithful.
Having said that, it is also unfair to label any Christian who makes the effort to tell others about their faith a religious tout.
Religious faith is something that is intensely personal. It is impossible to compel someone to embrace a certain faith. No one can be forced to genuinely believe in something against one’s will.
Many secularists have argued that there should be a thick wall of separation from religion in the public sphere. The Straits Times forum writer mentioned above had even argued for proselytisation to be banned, despite the right to “propagate” one’s religion being codified in our Constitution.
This is sadly misguided.
Secularists have often charged that Christians hold an exclusive world-view and expect others to conform to their views. In doing so, they have failed to recognise that they too are expecting people of faith to unquestioningly accept their concept of keeping the public sphere free of religion.
The way forward
I believe freedom of religion, freedom of speech and religious harmony can all co-exist. We can have all three without impinging on each others’ rights.
Evangelists of all religions need to always respect others’ deeply-held beliefs, learn when to draw the line and always let their actions be motivated by love and concern for their fellow man, rather than self-seeking pride.
Liberal secularists on the other hand, would do well to apply their same standards of freedom of political and artistic expression to the realm of religious expression.
—————————
Email this to a Friend
Bookmark this
And I suppose if I start telling my Christian friends that the world is not made in seven days and humans evolved from the stone age, not from Garden of Eden; it would label me as a ’scientific touter’ ?
How could he question my faith?
vs
How could he be so ignorant?
this article to distract the previous article on WKS ? Too much heat ??
this article, and the one preceding it, highlight an interesting conundrum; where do we draw the line with regards to the issue of freedom of religion and freedom from religion. In Turkey, as can be seen from the constitutional challenge to the ruling party, the line has been drawn in favour of the secularists. In Singapore the line is not that skewed though arguably the retention of the laws (s.298???) suggest that religion is in a way protected from criticism.
I will take the risk and reply to this post, but frankly I dare not go full tilt.
I do not debate your views on the right to proselytyse, because that isn’t really an aspect of religions’ presence in the public sphere I am concerned with -people should be allowed to proselytyse, but people should also be allowed to criticise.
The field is indeed lop-sided, because currently one can “bash” secularism with little fear of legal consequences, but
“Whoever, with deliberate intention of wounding the religious or racial feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any gesture in the sight of that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, or causes any matter however represented to be seen or heard by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.”
Think about that for a minute.
It doesn’t matter if what you say is justified, or whether it is true. All it takes for you to be jailed for up to 3 years is for you to say something that “wounds the religious feelings” of someone who has chosen to believe in something which he does not have to provide reason or evidence for.
Racial identity is something that one cannot change and so we can justify having a law to protect that (or maybe not, but let’s leave that aside, shall we?).
But “religious feeling”?
Now anyone who wishes to question any basic tenent of religion will of course risk “wounding the religious feelings” of followers of that religion, which renders any meaningful debate dangerous to the “secularist”.
On the other hand, one can ‘bash’ secularism or any other form of ideology or system of belief that is not religiously or racially based without such fear.
What we have here is a law that forbids the questioning of or rational discussion over a system of beliefs. Now if it was a simple case of beliefs in elves and unicorns no “secularist” will be bothered. But religious faith, while deeply personal, is often expressed in a public fashion that affects those who do not share that faith.
angrydoc,
I agree with you…simply because “secularism” is not a “religion” in that sense, unlike other religions which are “protected”.
Not that I want secularism to be a religion (of course not!) but this is the discriminating factor.
So it seems everyone is ‘fearful’.
Secularists as mentioned by angrydoc, fearful of a whiny religious tout who might invoke the law when someone criticizes; and the Religious fearing of an overreacting agnostic/atheist crackpot.
This is religious harmony? It seems more like a pot that is slowing simmering, until one fine day, it explodes.
I am agnostic, so I may be biased when I say I agree with angrydoc that if you want the right to proselytyse (which you can already do) without some backlash from the secularists, then allow us to criticize as freely.
Then again, we need to do so in a manner not as blatant as the Danish cartoons maybe. (frankly, I have never seen them)
Criticize, yes. Make fun of, I would say No.
Who says discussing religion is taboo and offensive? Just do it nicely like Ridzwan.com
I find his articles very interesting.
patriot.
“Just do it nicely…”
That’s the whole issue, isn’t it?
We must be “nice”. The moment the discussion is deemed to “wound religious feelings”, we must stop, regardless of whether what we are saying is relevant or right.
Who decides what’s “nice” and what’s not?
Who decides when someone’s religious feelings have been “wounded”?
Why should the feelings of someone who has chosen to adopt a belief in a divine entity be protected by law (the Penal Code, no less), while the feelings of someone who does not or has chosen not to have such beliefs not?
The law may have its utility, but it is unequal, and its wording ambiguous.
Yes, I am ‘fearful’. I believe I have reasons to be fearful.
Gerald Giam wrote, “Secularists have often charged that Christians hold an exclusive world-view and expect others to conform to their views. In doing so, they have failed to recognise that they too are expecting people of faith to unquestioningly accept their concept of keeping the public sphere free of religion.”
The difference is that secularists do not try to persuade the religious to discard their own world-view in favour of the secular world-view. I will venture to write that most secularists often allow others their choice of faith and practice without encroaching upon their beliefs (or lack of). Can we say the same for proselytising evangelists? Not having a religion is not equivalent to being fair game for conversion.
Be rational. The key is not to get emotional when discussing any controversial subjects and you’ll find these rules of containment are no border really.
Even if you have been victim to misleading teachings that had ruin or destroy your life - and or society, you are still expected to contain your emotions and not let out tirades of obscenities or insults.
Remember, all humans are born saint and therefore should not go round scolding others, especially in public,even if you had been rip off big time.
Insults are worse than deception.
Bankruptcy as a result of court action is far more just than hurling disparaging remarks at your opponents or critics.
You must not…you ought not to.
This is-ought problem is something one cannot hope to clarify. There probably isn’t an objective IS, but there are a lot of OUGHTs, and people think that what they do ought to apply to others as well.
If i reach my idea of God through logical reasoning and not through a miracle, some Christians feel that that God must be the Christian God. Well and good for them, but i don’t believe them.
Is this hurting? Even if i can explain why? Challenging faith can get you into a lot of hot water, and not even in the other world. The law is skewed to the religious, because most people are religious in one way or another, and secularism-bashing is allowed any day. But religion-bashing isn’t.
The wording of the law includes everything, as long as it can be interpreted to fit the mould. So we don’t have reason to be fearful?
TwoHeads,
You misrepresent the position of “secularists” in your post.
You depict “secularists” as people who feel themselves “victimised” by religious teachings, and who “get emotional” when discussing religion. They just want to lash back at religion, don’t they?
No one - or at least I am not, and I don’t think Joel was in his post either - is asking for the right to “let out tirades of obscenities or insults” against religion, or to “go round scolding others, especially in public”.
It would be rude to do those things, but note that one does not need to do any of them to be charged under the law.
In fact, the law states quite clearly that “whoever… utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of” a person whose religious feelings are wounded may be charged.
Read that again carefully.
Utters any word.
Makes any sound in the hearing of.
It can be a quiet whisper.
It can be in a calm, moderate tone.
It can be factual.
It can be something you have good reason or evidence to believe in.
But it won’t matter if it “wounds religious feelings”. You are already in the wrong.
When evaluating a rule or law to see if it is fair, it is sometimes helpful to imagine the tables being turned.
Substitute the word “religious” with the word “secular” in that law, and see if your perception of such a law changes. Ironically, this reworded law is perhaps exactly what Gerald fears will be passed.
I hope I have not wounded your religious feelings with my comment.
[...] Religion - TOC: Religious freedom and its discontents [...]
angry doc,
Generally, people don’t usually get careless with words for no reasons. We need to examine the root cause and resolve discontent at its roots before resorting to rigid laws.
And yes, I am wounded by your misinterpretation of my vaguely worded comment. Wait for my lawyer’s letter. ; )
but why do we always assume that people are offending in the first place when they are careless with words? What angry doc was trying to say, if i understand him correctly, is that anything can be reinterpreted or misinterpreted into something potentially offensive.
Thanks, guojun.
Yes, TwoHeads, you continue to misrepresent the “secularists”.
It doesn’t have to be careless words. A considered, factually-based statement can also be said to wound religious feelings.
Say we have a debate on a public policy that will affect all of us, religious or not. Say a religious organisation has a position on it based on their religious beliefs. Suppose I think that their position is wrong. Suppose that I have scientific evidence, or a valid moral argument against thier position. How do I argue against them if by making a statement, I will call into question the foundation of their beliefs and risk wounding their religious feelings?
Like I said, try turning the law around. Imagine if religious people were not only not allowed to bring their religious beliefs into public debate, but will in fact risk being sent to jail for up to three years for wounding “secular setiments” if they did so.
Why should religion be gagged like that?
Why should secularism be gagged like that?
When a man has no God and takes up a faith, he recieves enlightenment
When a man with a God does not believe in Him any longer, he is blasphemous
Censorship affects everyone. Not only those without religion. You cannot preach religion in public – unlike in some countries where there is “freedom of speech”.
Christians are hence prevented from preaching to non-Christians (especially Muslims). To non-Christians, that is good. To Christians, that is restricting their “freedom of speech”.
Muslims, who have been used to informal religious classes taught in homes for generations, are now not allowed to do so (fallout of this “war on terror”). All religious classes must be conducted by religious teachers who will have a certification by MUIS (a government body).
To non-Muslims, that is good because it prevents “deviant teachings” from being spread. To Muslims, it is an interference of their practice, which has been part of their culture for generations.
There is also a clampdown on the Falungong movement. Isn’t this a violation freedom of speech?
Everyone likes to voice his own grievances. No one seems to realize his problem is not unique.
Secularists should not worry too much about the “special privileges” religions have been accorded. The religion supporters have had their freedom suppressed too.
[...] - TOC: Religious freedom and its discontents [...]