My same sentiments too as I think after 2 decades of Racial Hamony we are still not very much different than before.

Frankly, I think that it is a myth – that we may never get to accept a person of another faith just because he is from another race ior faith.

It is a touchy issue though and I appreciate the state’s involement in trying to harmonise a very delicate issue.

The recent promotion of a Malay to be a BG shows that even the country also has issue with race.

Alot of the policies are merely lip service and not much action.

Heyy there,

I hope this serves to clear some doubts that you have about Buddhism. Basically, sentient beings survive in Samsara, also known as the six realms of existence. Therefore, in Buddhism, it is safe to assert that a God or Gods is not akin to a Buddha. The various paths of Buddhism serve to lead people out of Samsara which is plagued with sufferings. Nirvana is the gaining of enlightenment and parinirvana is the final passing beyond Samsara when an enlightened being dies.

Nowhere in the Pali Canon, are Buddhas ascribed powers of creation, salvation and judgement. In fact, Buddhism is indifferent to all theories on the origin of the universe[7] and holds the belief in creation as a fetter binding one to samsara. It is important to understand that the Buddha did not expressly say that creation did not occur or that there is no creator. Instead, Buddhist focus is on the effect the belief in theories of creation and a creator have on the human mind. The Buddhist attitude towards every belief is one of critical examination from the perspective of what effect the belief has on the mind and whether the belief binds one to samsara or not.

The Buddha declared that “it is not possible to know or determine the first beginning of the cycle of existence of beings who wander therein deluded by ignorance and obsessed by craving.” Speculation about the origin and extent of the universe is generally discouraged in early Buddhism.

Buddhism is likened to a boat which people board in order to leave the sea of sufferings and to dock at the shore which is a metaphor for nirvana.

Hope it helps. Love.

Better dont Discuss about GOD!

Just Accept the existence of the Great Religions and don’t be critical abt others!

Live and let live! We will go to a better place than now!

///I’m not trying to sound like I’m speaking from some official government channel, but ….///

Why the need to sound so apologitic and to qualify that you are not speaking from some govt channel. So waht is wrong if you do sound that way. Politically incorrect to sound this way in TOC?

One atheist academic, Daniel Dennett suggested that religions (all major organised ones) be included into school curriculum. Basically, so that everyone learns what you have learnt.

quote letter:”..,how do they answer the question of origin?”

my questions to that question… why must there be an answer NOW? If we do not know, so what?

4) lobo7

Religous Knowledge was introduced in schools some years back and then scrapped. I do not know why.

Problem with such dialogues is that atheists are missing. Atheism, not political correctness, should be the key ingredient to dilute the overtly religious influence of each religion represented. There is a Secular Humanist Society active in Singapore and their leaders should be present to represent atheists.

Hi Lobo76 #4,

Religious Knowledge was scrapped off from MOE Curriculum because instead it only made students more aware of their religious differences, thus leading to increased religious segregation in school. Religious Knowledge failed to bridge the differences across people of different religious background.

smallvice (#7),

This is an inter-faith dialogue, not an anti-faith dialogue.

Lobo (#4),

Dennett’s proposal does not work if everything in every religion is included in the syllabus, because some aspects in each will clearly contradict – or at least, appear to do so on the surface – each other.

Of course, we can reduce it to a third-person perspective that covers only the descriptive aspects, but then that is already in social studies syllabuses.

Plus, Theology is as abstract as philosophy. Studying one religion’s theology is hard enough; any student who can even master a second religion’s theology fully has to be more genius than Einstein.

Smallvice,

actually, there were quite a few free thinkers and secular humanists at the event, though I’ve never gotten a chance to speak to them. But they were not represented on stage I guess. But does the society you’re talking about have a website?

Terence,

5) The word “Ecumenism” is a great word, but it is also very hollow. It is hollow because its openness isn’t really open at all. A great analogy for Ecumenism would be the parable of the Levite and the Tax-Collector, where the Tax-Collector sobs on the ground in repentance while the Levite says a thanksgiving prayer for everything in which he is better than the Tax-Collector.

That’s exactly how religious leaders approach inter-faith dialogue, like a Levite coming into a room of Tax-Collectors. The Levite prays because he is supposed to display piety and love; in the same way, the religious leaders are politically-correct to exude an aura of love.

But they are here for monologue to each other, not dialogue with each other.

6) Harmony is “boring” because nobody talks about real harmony. Real Harmony is simply beyond what anyone would love to consider, even religious leaders. The most they will talk about is Tolerance, which is actually one level lower.

Inter-faith dialogues are basically people trying to discover avenues to assimilate others into their faiths. So naturally, they are ineffective.

7) Talk about differences would be usually avoided, because it would lead to criticism and mutual conflict. The purpose of inter-faith dialogue is to reduce conflict between the members of each religion.

8) Actually, they don’t contradict with each other on the Deepest Level. But the Deepest Level is … well Deep and inconvenient for most religious groups to go to. And our State itself is unwilling to go there. So then…

Suffices to say, all are Faces of the Truth. The Full Truth is far more complex.

9) Apologetic Debates, anyone?

13) As WD (#2) stated, Original (Theravada) Buddhism does not believe in the existence of a god. Buddha is just a sage who has attained Nirvana, not a god. Some variants of Mahayana (Syncretic) Buddhism do treat Buddha as a god alongside Krishna or Guan Yin however.

The Dalai Lama explained that the Buddhist perception of the Universe and Time is as an endless (at both ends) series of Thought-Flashes. One Thought Flashes into another continuously. Some elements follow, some elements don’t.

14) Actually, Hindus believe that everything in nature is a manifestation of God, or the Brahman, as they call God. However, the highest-level Manifestations are the Trimurthi: Brahma (Creation), Shiva (Destroyer) and Vishnu (Preserver).

And Computers are not part of nature.

15) Yes, that happens.

16-17) That happens too. In fact, if you did that in the past if you are a Catholic, you could be excommunicated by your local bishop. Protestants, especially the Evangelicals, react much in the same way. They are happy for people to convert to their religion, but not people who convert from their religion.

aside) If you look at MUIS’ and the Archdiocesan Websites, each has their own page on the Catholic-Muslim Dialogue.

The Catholic Page mentions that the law permits Muslims to convert to Catholics
(Christians), and advises would-be converts to consult with their parish priests on the procedures. However, the same page excludes mention that a Catholic is permitted to convert to a Muslim.

Similarly, on MUIS’s Page, it mentions that the law permits Christians (including Catholics) to convert to Muslims, and advises people to consult with one of the member Mosques in MUIS. However, MUIS Page does not mention that Muslims are permitted to convert to Christians/Catholics.

aside) Incidentally, the article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on religious freedom was so hotly contested that the UN actually arranged a special commission on that article alone.

Hi Arix #10,

Mastering a second religion’s theology fully is an act of obstinacy, not genius.

Secular humanism is not an anti-religion religion. It is not a religion too.

Where does your misinformed religious motivation end? Perhaps it knows no boundaries. Haha…

smallvice (#13),

1) It is genius in terms of intellectual capacity. Whether you consider theologies as worth studying is another issue altogether.

2) It is at least another philosophy.

3) Where does your misinformed atheist motivation end? perhaps it knows no boundaries. Haha…

Haha.. theology requires intellectual capacity? That’s the best joke I heard today.

smallvice (#15),

Alright, brain capacity then, to memorize all the Holy Scriptures plus the thick theological discourses. Do you for instance know how thick the Summa Theologica is?

Brain capacity is definitely the more appropriate word. “Religious” and “Intellectual” are two contradicting adjectives after all.

smallvice (#17),

You know I disagree with you on that point. But yes, brain capacity was the more appropriate term.

10) Arix on July 6th, 2009 1.51 am
“Of course, we can reduce it to a third-person perspective that covers only the descriptive aspects, but then that is already in social studies syllabuses.”

The curriculum suggested is in the third person perspective I think. It doesn’t cover why people believe what they believe, only what they believe. It’s like that article, he finds out that Buddhism doesn’t not have a God, Hindus think everything is God…. that kind of knowledge.

p.s What exactly is in the social studies syllabuses?

Thanks for this article. Addresses much needed points. Some thoughts on your “questions”?

1. Why is a deity of any sort required in order to answer questions of origin? Plenty of thought systems and philosophies get by without the notion of conscious cosmic design.

2. I suspect the more prominent deities represent important cosmic principles (eg Shiva = creative destruction), that are perhaps missing in the specific context of the devout. I.e. you look for what you’re missing. Clearly you don’t lack for a keyboard.

The idea of the immanent was once part of Christianity too

3. Coercion is everywhere :)

lobo76 (#20),

Social Studies syllabuses discuss religious dress, religious ceremonies, and religious prayers. And also what they believe in.

The government treats religion (and race) as a subrational part of ourselves which needs to be delicately managed, rather than as as a source for self-understanding and -fulfillment. (‘Religion’ here should include secular humanism.) The emphasis on ‘harmony’ is symptomatic of this negative treatment of religion. Hence, institutional set-ups like the inter-faith dialogues are seen as performing a pragmatic role of a ‘crisis response framework’ only. This approach undermines our claim to being a truly multireligious, multicultural society.

puzzled (#21),

1) Nothing says that a deity has to be ‘conscious’.

2) Yes.

3) Christianity still has the “immanent”; that is what distinguishes Christianity from Islam.

22) Arix on July 6th, 2009 12.55 pm
Social Studies syllabuses discuss religious dress, religious ceremonies, and religious prayers. And also what they believe in.

Is there any source you can quote? I tried to google the syllabus.. but nothing on which you mentioned came up.

The closest I can find is in the Primary 2 syllabus, under Our Neighbourhood. It describes some holidays… maybe what people where during those holidays.. but that’s about it.

The secondary syllabus seems to be propaganda. Only Theme 4 has any mention of religion, and it seems to come from the Pledge, rather than any part of the syllabus being taught.

Source: http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/syllabuses/humanities/

lobo76 (#25),

1) Primary 4B, Topic 5:

“Customs and Practices, dress, food and games of the different ethnic groups in Singapore”

This definitely will include a description of the religions under “customs and practices”.

And where did you obtain the Secondary Syllabus from? It is not on the site you mentioned.

26) Arix on July 6th, 2009 1.54 pm

Ethnic is rather different from religion…
e.g wearing a cheongsam, or a kebaya is not indicative of religion.

It’s more ‘racial’ topic, not a religious one. It MIGHT cover a little on religion as to what religion most of a particular ethnic group subscribes to.. but that is likely to be it.

It would be best if someone had children, and consequently a social science textbook…. or if someone who is a teacher of social science to give some comments. As it is, we are guessing here.

However, to further reinforcement my view there is no such content in our social science syllabus, here is an article that gave me such an impression.
http://kentridgecommon.com/?p=3103
p.s if you can refrain from bring up the AWARE part in the article, that would be great.

———————–

[And where did you obtain the Secondary Syllabus from? It is not on the site you mentioned.]

It’s the link right below the Primary syllabus?
# 2005 Social Studies (Lower Secondary Normal (Technical)) Syllabus (156kb .pdf)

Terence,

IMHO, I find your connotation that Malay= Muslim a very simplistic one. There are Indian, Arab and even Chinese Muslims. A good friend of mine was a Chinese Muslim and till today most people in Singapore ask him you are muslim but not Malay, you are Chinese but do not eat Bak Kwa and you are Muslim but cannot speak Malay and instead speak Chinese! Poor guy was told to do guard duty on Chinese New Year coz he has a Malay sounding name. When will people understand that Malay is a race and not a religion?

terence, your article itself explains why such inter faith dialogues will not work. What is needed for it to work is open mindedness, which was clearly not the mindset you approached it with. By open mindedness, I mean “to be without prejudice.”

While pretending to query, you take potshots at other religion, implicitly suggesting that Christianity has all the answers that the others dont. This is regrettable. What is needed is greater mutual respect for other faiths.

Likewise I also have many questions eg I don’t understand who created God. How come there was a serpent in the garden of eden and who created it? Also, if God is all knowing, wouldnt he have already known that the serpent would be there to tempt eve or Adam would eat the apple regardless of instructions? If there is a second coming, why cant there be a second tempting and second falling and everything starts all over again?

Please do not view other religion only from the context of yours. There can never be understanding this way.

My understanding of buddhism is, it is not against creationism, and what it talks about in dependent origins gels with the big bang theory. However, the main aim is, to put it simply, seek eternal peace through transcending the material world, which is similar to christianity. You do it through Jesus, the buddhists do it through the middle path.

As for Hinduism, I believe it is rather scientific just like everything in the world is made up of atoms and no energy is destroyed but transferred. Just because they do not worship everything as opposed to people who thank god when they hail a taxi or find an empty toilet cubicle does not make them any less worthy of respect and is a matter of perspective.

The point is, no religion is free from questions and no religion have all the answers. As long as they make one a better person in this world, it is good. All rivers flow to the sea, made of the same H2O. The transcendental does not discriminate or differentiate, it is the human mind that imposes “yours is false” or “mine is the real one.”

Most importantly, religion should not, in its instructions, create animosity, conflict and disrespect, bearing in mind certain religious commands were made in context to a pre-globalised environment centuries ago which may not necessarily be relevant now, for example the equality of women. That is the danger of literal truths and blind faith without wisdom.

religion itself does not create animosity,

its those in positionof influence within the given religion who uses it to his or her personal gain/advantage.

some (the more prominent 1s) religion these days in local context is becoming more like a thinly guised form of idol worship, with the main man (i dunno got women anot…) as the idol, not the religion.

besides, can those of us here still remember who said that the (insert the place of worship) is the best place to find a husband/wife? :)

lobo76 (#27),

“Ethnic” does include “religion” within its rank, although only religion in the “organized” sense. And the textbooks have to describe the religion followed anyway.

It would be significantly better if we could flip through the actual textbooks. I base my interpretation on the Social Studies textbook that I studied with in Primary Four.

Perhaps, I admit, that might be somewhat outdated.

Okay, I shall not mention the AWARE issue.

miceisnice (#30),

That is a very insightful comment.

thots #29,

in no way have i suggested that Christianity is superior to all other religions. Please elaborate if you think I am making that assertion.

On the contrary, I personally have more questions about Christianity than all the other religions, because it was the faith I grew up with.

#28 anakin,

the reality is that islam and the malay community is closely intertwined and almost inseparable. To leave islam is almost like leaving the malay community. That is the point I was trying to make.

#29 thots///While pretending to query, you take potshots at other religions implicitly suggesting that Christianity has all the answers that the others don’t///;;;;;;;#33 Terence///On the contrary, I personally have more questions about Christianity than all other religions///;;;;Terence i think thots have a valid grievance because in your article there are questions under Bhuddism, Hinduism, and Islam but nothing under Christianity (why not?). And now that you are caught with your pants down you do have some strange excuses, which don’t go down too well where the non-Christians are concerned.

Terence, with due respect to you,i feel thots conclusions are genuine, because after re-reading your article, i can see therein not only a superiority complex but also a lot of hints of sarcasm; pardon me if i am wrong.

33) Terence on July 6th, 2009 8.09 pm
thots #29,
in no way have i suggested that Christianity is superior to all other religions. Please elaborate if you think I am making that assertion.
————————–
it is this part, where you ’suggested’ that your religion is superior by virtue of having ‘answers’ to some questions. … just look at the ‘chain’ of questions…

FYI, the religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster have a God (the FSM itself). I think they got ‘answers’ to origin as well. Does it mean those are ‘real answers’?

oopss.. somehow the quote text disappeared. Here it is again.

“If they don’t believe in a God, then how do they answer the question of origin? How did things come to be, and who created the law of karma? These things can’t always have existed, can they?”

It is not uncommon for a person of certain religious affliation in Singapore to become totally oblivious of his/her bias towards other belief systems when he/she is so totally immersed in it and have always surounded himself with like thinking people with similar beilief system, so much so when when he make potshots, it is a subconcious involuntary and automatic reaction whenever he percieves that his belief system seems to be questioned, and thus challenged.

As for the religions always seeking to find common ground to agree in this inter-faith group, it is a worthwhile effort, as there is no need to seek for more uncommon ground. There are far too many already.

By being cautious, and treading carefully , gingerly and respectfully, and agreeing to disagree on unreconcilable areas, then there is hope for religious harmony.

lobo, KopitiamApek,

it is not uncommon to start questioning from a certain vantage point, in this case from the perspective of Christianity. This is because it is familiar as a launching pad for me. This does not mean that I view a certain perspective as superior to another, because I have not come to that decision yet.

Besides, even if I do think that Christianity is superior to other religions (which I DO NOT), this is a case for one to make, and one shouldn’t be discouraged from thinking so, but he must be able to argue his case. I do think that TOC is not the place for theological debate however, so I will refrain from doing so.

It will be foolhardy for me to say I am not biased. Who isn’t? But nonetheless it is possible that in spite the inherent bias one has, it is still possible to be as objective as one can be, and that is what I strive to do.

Am I making potshots? Far from it. I respect every perspective and every religion and what they have to offer. But this does not mean all are equal. And as to which is more superior to another, that’s for one to reason.

There are two types of religious harmony we can choose from. The first one assumes that all views are equal, thus there is no room or need for debate. The second respects the fact that some views may be closer to the Truth than the others, and while we may disagree, we respect each other. I am of the latter school.

ask me what i think of christianity, the first few nouns that flash my mind are “takeovers”, “evangelism” and “the little bride”.

I beilef a person choose a certain religious faith because it is in harmony with his thoughts, his self, and his spirit.
And it is true one shouldn’t be discouraged from thinking that is religion is best suited for him. But this is different from thinking that it is the BEST religion.
When one is at peace with himself, he see no need to convince everyone else. So the need able to argue his case would seem rather redundant.
Debating about religious beliefs is like, for the lack of a better example, whether char kway teow or french fries is better .
There will be perpectual debate.

May your days be free from wandering thoughts.

Terence #40,

“…even if I do think that Christianity is superior to other religions (which I DO NOT)…. I respect every perspective and every religion and what they have to offer. But this does not mean all are equal. And as to which is more superior to another, that’s for one to reason.”

So which religion do you think is superior? If it isn’t already yours, would you consider changing? It’s quite the rage you know?

40) Terence on July 6th, 2009 11.23 pm
“It will be foolhardy for me to say I am not biased. Who isn’t?”

ermm…. that is why we had to point it out to you. I understood, as KopitiamApek did, what you did was somewhat at a unconscious level. You just ‘appeared’ (to non Christians) to be acting superior (though not purposely), and you didn’t realised it.

Certainly, if you were being ‘purposeful’, you would probably not have gone for the dialogue in the first place.

Everyone is biased. No one doubts that. The issue then is if you can take criticism and wished to come across as being objective.

40) Terence,

“There are two types of religious harmony we can choose from. The first one assumes that all views are equal, thus there is no room or need for debate. The second respects the fact that some views may be closer to the Truth than the others, and while we may disagree, we respect each other. I am of the latter school.”

I’m not exactly sure what’s the difference between those two types you talk about actually.

What I don’t get is, why should there only be two choices – either all faiths are equal, or some is more ’superior’ than others.

Are we that arrogant to presume that we know more about what is the ‘Truth’ than those who achieved some sort of spiritual transcendence regardless of faith?

I think the latter choice you talked about is not true respect and harmony at all. In fact it’s mildly condescending.

True respect means an acknowledgment that you do not know enough about the other faiths to comment on which is better, because all these faiths must’ve made some sense to attract so many followers throughout the centuries, and the faith that you chose/have is the one that makes the most sense to you. True respect is SEEING the value and beauty of the other faiths, and not just simply ‘agree to disagree’ but privately feeling smugly superior about one’s beliefs. True respect is seeing that the Truth that you hold is not the whole picture, but that every other faiths hold chunks of the larger Truth even though you may not know how they all actually fit together.

Anything less than that is mere tolerance.

hi Inix,

thanks for the compliment.

i think the deeply religious should sometimes step back once in awhile to reflect on their religious devotion. done correctly & periodically, it will act as a safeguard to prevent any form of abuse by persuasive & enigmatic “leaders” who may abuse the position of influence.

until then, most deeply religious persons will be too attached to the place of worship, religious leaders & even bonds with individuals that have formed over time. an attack, real or perceived will instinctively be responded with highly emotionally charged retort or outright condemnation.

i am getting a hint of superiority complex here somewhere.

come on, reasoning alone does not make 1 superior over another. that would be soo shallow.

if the Truth can be put in words, read 1 time like a book can liao. there would not be a need for places of worship where people gather. the money saved is no small change.

Zefly,

“Are we that arrogant to presume that we know more about what is the ‘Truth’ than those who achieved some sort of spiritual transcendence regardless of faith? I think the latter choice you talked about is not true respect and harmony at all. In fact it’s mildly condescending.”

I think it’s not about who’s arrogant or not, but how we think we can derive at Truth. For me, I am a strong believer in rationalism, where we can get closer truth by reasoning. Therefore, we can get closer to Truth by reasoning alone.

On the other hand, I also believe that reasoning alone cannot bring us to the destination. This means that while we can get CLOSER to the truth, we may never attain a complete idea of it. If there is no value in reason, why the human obsession with science and philosophy?

I am not trying to feel smug about other religions. Rather, I aim to derive answers by reason, and to see where are the limits of reason. That is all I’m doing. I take NO pleasure in feeling superior over another religion.

Actually, I’m sensing a dangerous backslide into relativism. We must be careful to distinguish respect for others’ beliefs from the relativist viewpoint that there is no absolute truth or that we’re incapable of knowing it. No one can consistently be a relativist: even the person who argues for tolerance and respect holds them out as ‘objectively true’ principles.

Respect for others’ beliefs does not mean we cannot be convinced that there is indeed one version which is objectively true (although no currently existing religion may offer that one ‘right answer’), or that other versions are clearly false (Pastafarianism, for example).

Respect for others’ beliefs does mean listening to views we disagree with: “They’ve thought deeply about the matter, and arrived at a different conclusion from me, so perhaps they may have a point here.” So we should be prepared to accept that we are fallible, and may be mistaken.

But in our daily lives, we cannot and do not act from uncertainty; we try to act based on what we believe, in good faith and on the best evidence available at the time, to be true or right. And in that sense, we’re holding out those beliefs as ‘objectively true’, even if they are provisional and open to future revision.

Terence (#40),

To add on to Zef’s comments in #45:-

1) Perhaps you should make that vantage point clearer. You didn’t really state it; in fact, you went as far as to claim that you were like speaking from an “official government channel”.

2) Probably we should, since we have people like smallvice anyway who will try to convince everybody that all theology is nonsense.

3) Well, you must aim to transcend that bias in order to be objective.

4) Perhaps, you didn’t mean to, but some of your statements did sound like potshots. “If they don’t … then how …” is a rhetorical potshot, so is “why worship …”.

5) Actually there is a third school, that can be so dubbed the “Indian Blind Men” School after the famous Hindic (Hindu/Indian) fable. Basically, that each religion holds a partial truth, and some aspects of that truth are more more true than their counterparts in other religions, while other aspects are less true. This is not because of intentional lying or fabrications by corrupt religious leaders, but because each religion (“blind man”) senses the Divine (“elephant”) differently.

For instance, this school will argue that Hindus see the “exterior” aspect of God, while Christians see the “interior” aspects of God. So each takes a photo from its individual vantage point.

Thus, all religions can actually be integrated – if people are willing to try – into one Great Religion that describes fully all the aspects of the Divine. This even applies to Buddhism, although Buddhists love circumlocution to prove that they don’t believe in God. Actually they do, just in a far more abstract and less anthropomorphic form than the other religions. Buddhists do not believe in a god, but they do believe in God. Actually, Buddhism comprehends the “God is” in Exodus far better than the Jews themselves.

The Muslims make a valid criticism that the Christian focus on “God as Man” (i.e. in Christ) and the vagueness of the Trinitarian Doctrine dilutes the “God is” identity of God. But, they don’t express it in the proper language. The real ambiguity in the Trinitarian Doctrine is whether the “Son” is Jesus or the Christ. If the idea is that the “Son” is Jesus, then the Muslim critique is spot-on, but that is supposedly the Arian Heresy; if the “Son” is the Christ, then the question is: how much of Jesus is left in the Christ? If Jesus no longer exists in the Christ, then we are straying toward the Gnostic Heresy, which declared that there was no real Jesus in the first place.

Unsurprisingly, I belong to this school.

mice is nice (#46),

I am Arix, not Inix.

But you are still Welcome.

Although the religious must be aware that there are leaders who “abuse” power, that cannot be the default assumption, or else religion will slide into relativism. That is shown in the experience of the Protestant Churches. Protestant Churches are subject to the “if i don’t agree with my pastor, I will form my own church” concept. This creates endless sectarianism in protestant circles and several small protestant churches.

mice is nice (#47),

Another profound comment here. Terence, you might want to open the first page of the Tao De Ching. You might find it interesting.

Actually, no religion is superior than politics and all theology is inferior to science. That’s why there is no need for any religious debate. Otherwise, we will all be giving religion any legitimacy that it doesn’t deserve in the first place.

Terence,

“For me, I am a strong believer in rationalism, where we can get closer truth by reasoning. ”

To add to that, reasoning has to be balanced with an understanding of how people from different faith relate to theirs. A person from a monoetheist background once asked a Hindu friend of mine how could he worship all these ’statues’. From his limited perspective, it is illogical that anyone would pay so much attention to inanimate constructs a la the Golden Calf of the Exodus stories. But as my highly educated Hindu friend explained, it isn’t the object that is the focus of the worship, rather, the object itself helps focus the attention towards the Divine- each deity represent a different aspect of the Divine and the forces of Creation/Destruction, similar to (and this is my own interpretation) the Yin/Yang dichotomy of Taoism and the Holy Trinity.

No doubt there are offshoots and secterian variations of the ‘established’ faiths that border on the ludicrous and based on very shallow understanding of the root faith, but by and large, the established faiths that we see do have very ‘reasonable’ basis as ‘true’ connection to the Divine – IF followers bother to go deep into them.

This isn’t about relativism – it’s a choice about how we can live out our relationship with people who have different faiths.

At the end of the day, no one can claim to know the Whole Truth – we only can have faith that what we know IS the Truth.

The choice isn’t about what is ‘real’ and what is ‘false’.

The choice is between being inclusive or exclusive.

The choice is between seeing what unites us, or seeing what divides us.

The choice isn’t for religions to make, but for humans to make.

hi Arix,

sorry for the mix up….

//// That is shown in the experience of the Protestant Churches. Protestant Churches are subject to the “if i don’t agree with my pastor, I will form my own church” concept. This creates endless sectarianism in protestant circles and several small protestant churches.////
wow, liddat only make inter-religious dialogues more daunting…

Hinduism doesn’t believe that everything is God.
We believe that God exists in everything.
For us, ‘God’ is a symbol of energy or matter. Everything is made up of it.
The idols are merely a manifestation; meant for people to concentrate their worship on.
Hope that clarified your doubts.

Ayatollah (#56),

Really? I thought the view was that God manifested Himself/Itself in everything.

mice (#55),

yep, it makes dialogues more daunting, and makes unity within a single religion hard to achieve as well. Honestly, before we talk about inter-religious harmony, we should first talk about intra-religious harmony.

An observation about Eastern (Chinese) religious practices of our forefathers who migrated from China. The many illiterate economic migrants or war refugees continued to practice their religious practices based on the knowledge (or lack of it) they retained from back home and this was in turn passed on to the subsequent generations. In the process, some of the original practices were misunderstood, or followed without real understanding.

With subsequent better educated generations, slowly but sure things are being put back on the right course.

Arix,

Pls enlighten on the difference between the two?

57) Arix on July 8th, 2009 12.46 am
I thought the view was that God manifested Himself/Itself in everything.

56) Ayatollah Khomeini on July 7th, 2009 8.03 pm
We believe that God exists in everything.

58) Arix on

///before we talk about inter-religious harmony, we should first talk about intra-religious harmony.///

Your perspective reminded me of the thought that over the centuries of different views, different interpretation and different leaders, a single belief system would have experienced countless deviations that eventually become the religions we know today.

Much like the phenomenom of continental shift, where we were once one big continent, now seperated, and with time and distant, the inhabitants too become increasingly different that we belief we are different races.

With globalisation, the racial different is actually reversing itself, albeit over a long time frame.

It will be interesting to see if the same will happen to the different religions.

The many interpretations of Hinduism presented here are somewhat distorted.

Firstly, there is no such thing as unified HIndu belief although some concepts such as karma, belief in the Vedas , belief in the divinity of gods such as Brahma, Siva and Vishnu are common, just as in the Judeo Christian Religions faith in Moses, Noah and David is common.

There are different sampradayas or schools of thought ,each rich with their own philosophy . Sadly they had been lumped together as “Hindu” by the Persian and European colonisers.

Without going into detail, they can be broadly divided into two categories 1) impersonalists 2) personalists. Impersonalists believe in the existence of a supreme impersonal energy or brahman which manifests itself in various forms, including the living entities. Much of the opinions here have been aligned to the impersonal version. 2) the more popular brand of Hinduism is personalism or “Vaishnavism” where Vishnu is the Supreme God and all others including Brahma and Siva are his devotees and servitors. A verse in the Brahma Samhita, a prayer sung by Brahma about Krishna says

“He is an undifferentiated entity as there is no distinction between potency and the possessor thereof. In his work of creation of millions of worlds, His potency remains inseparable. All the universes exist in Him and He is present in His fullness in every one of the atoms that are scattered throughout the universe, at one and the same time. Such is the primeval Lord whom I adore”

whats this means is the Vishnu or Krishna is God and a person who is able to extend his energies and himself throughout the universe. Thus Brahman is just the energy of the Parabrahman. For those are unable to perceive god (i.e. conditioned souls in the material universe) He presents Himself as a deity so that they can serve the deity and develop devotion to Him. Thus the deity is not an idol or a symbol but God Himself . There are several instances of the deity reciprocating with the worshipper.

I hope this presents a more balanced view of Hinduism

62) Hindu on July 8th, 2009 11.30 am

quite a factual presentation, and yet still simple enough to understand. I feel this is the type of religious knowledge that should be taught in School. Not as a side dish to holidays or ethnicity… but as the main topic, and presented factually and simply.

59) KopitiamApek

“An observation about Eastern (Chinese) religious practices of our forefathers who migrated from China. The many illiterate economic migrants or war refugees continued to practice their religious practices based on the knowledge (or lack of it) they retained from back home and this was in turn passed on to the subsequent generations. In the process, some of the original practices were misunderstood, or followed without real understanding.”

Agreed. A few years ago, when I was in Hong Kong, I visited the Museum there. In the section about the customs of the Hong Kong people, the description used for the practices of ancestor and deity worship is “folk religion”.

What is commonly known as ‘Taoism’ here is actually the folk religion of the Southern Chinese and is very much different from the very deep and profound thoughts based on the ‘teachings’ of Lao Zi.

The side effect really is that it makes it all the more easier for religious chauvinists to declare other faiths as idol worship and superstitions based on the ‘diluted’ folk religions they have witnessed.

64) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang)

The profound thoughts based on the ‘teachings’ of Lao Zi and the correct understanding of Buddhism are sought after by a significant amount of Singaporean, young and old. I was once invited to attend a talk by a learned religious speaker from India in a local Indian Temple (I being the only non Indian in an Indian Temple).and I was mesmerised by the wisdom of the speaker,

This is a natural progression as the populace is now better educated and will find “folk religion” intellectually less acceptable.

And increasingly, people have found such Eastern thought very compatible to our Eastern culture and values.

Again, for the lack of a better example (this is getting to be my favourite phrase : ) ),
the entry of upmarket and comfortable koptiams like ToastBox, Killiney and Ya Kun have given all of us who love kopi-O brewed the traditional way in an alternative to enjoy them in a nice atmosphere previously avaliable only at the Western coffee joints loke Starbucks et al. And some may be inclined to believe that only Western franchise are able to give us this.

Another one is TCM. I recalled being openly reprimanded by a doctor years ago when I confessed going to Chinese Sinseh. Now we have TCM clinics in most if not all public hospitals.

These are good examples that what is Eastern need not be old fashioned and inferior to what was wholesale imported from the West.

KopitiamApek (#59),

China has a very long history. It is likely that by the time the migrants brought Chinese Religion from the mainland to Singapore, the religion had already lost most of its original meaning.

Perhaps one should read the Classic of Rites and the Classic of History to examine original Confucian thought on religion.

lobo76 (#60),

Certainly.

#57 means that God demonstrates His presence through His creative works. The works themselves are not God, but the effect of His power. Something like saying that wood manifests itself in a table, but the table is not wood.

#58 means that God equals the sum of the entire Universe.

lobo76 (#63),

I agree with you here.

More religious filth here. Abandon your God or Gods.

Atheism is the sole way to the Truth.

Hindu (#62),

Christians and Jews do not treat Moses, Noah or David has having any form of divinity. They are people with great holiness, but are not gods.

by the way, I would also like to ask you if the Trimurthi Concept comes from the impersonalist or the personalist school. And to be a little blunt, is it accurate to perceive the personalist school as perhaps a corruption of the impersonalist school?

KA (#61),

this is an intriguing thought. I also wonder if there was actually a First Religion followed by the African Ancestors of humanity. In the same way that we evolved skin colours (yes Zef, smallvice and lobo76, I do believe in evolution), and “evolved” our cultures, so religions evolved as well.

Perhaps this First Religion was impersonalist, but because impersonalism was too complex for humans at that experiential level of development to understand, impersonalism melted into personalism i.e. idolatry.

Nowadays, globalization brings in a whole wealth of knowledge from different historical experiences, and although religious leaders are loath to admit it, they are influenced by this new knowledge. At the same time, the current onslaught by Atheism has forced religions to stare back through the telescope of time and re-discover the impersonalist aspects of their Religion. What would result – hopefully – is a more integrated and holistic picture of religion, an upgraded version of First Religion.

hi Arix,

post #58 on July 8th, 2009 1.03 am

////yep, it makes dialogues more daunting, and makes unity within a single religion hard to achieve as well. Honestly, before we talk about inter-religious harmony, we should first talk about intra-religious harmony.////

actually, i prefer to take the route that does not hint of any talk. just look at events in this year alone in S’pore. the more talk there is the worse things get, talking (dialogue, debate, argue, discuss or just chat) can lead to very disasterous outcomes. like creating a forest fire, where there is spark (religious differences), fuel (person who feel deeply about their religion) & oxygen (any platform that allows “engagement” of different faiths with little oversight), there is fire. because the possibility is high.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

there should be more focus (not necessarily talk) on similiarities between religions. but ultimately, it is the person to person interaction on a daily basis that matters, 1 has to walk the talk to gain any form of respect.

hi Smallvice585,

post #69 on July 8th, 2009 11.40 pm

////More religious filth here. Abandon your God or Gods.

Atheism is the sole way to the Truth.////

potshots are uncalled for. this borders on intolerance on your part.

@Arix (#71), that’s where so-called ‘integralism’ goes wrong… (this is almost restarting a debate we left off in a previous thread…)

In the first place, it’s ruthlessly reductive. The main religions are interpreted in a highly distorting way just so that they fit into some presupposed universal framework. Doctrinal and cultural particularities are ignored, and disagreements between religions glossed over. The reality, of course, is that there is literally a cornucopia of disparate religious ideals and practices all over the world, which cannot be ‘integrated’ except through a highly selective form of revisionism. Post #62 is a good description of unliquitable diversity even within one religion itself, and this is a view that’s also emphasized in many sociological accounts of religion: see e.g., in the local context, Lai Ah Eng’s volume entitled Religious Diversity in Singapore.

Secondly, integralism starts with the a priori premise that there is a kernel of truth in every religion, if you look hard enough. But in doing so, it disables itself from playing any substantive role in our everyday life and moral discourse, which are full of distinctions and oppositions. We do firmly believe that certain things are false or wrong, e.g., one may deny that it can ever be right or good to engage in homosexual sex. Insofar as integralism tries to be as ecumenical as possible, it lacks the conceptual resources to inform and guide our practical reasoning and our actions.

This is also related to the third objection, that integralism is necessarily minimalist, expressing some woolly idea of ‘the Divine’ without any more specific norms and prescriptions. Its minimalism also deprives it of precisely the stuff which makes religion valuable to many people: i.e. it is bound up in particular cultures, folkways, traditions, and experiences, and thus forms a rich, essential part of their self-identity. By stripping religion down to its barest abstraction, you are also hewing away what for many is a core part of the human personality.

Arix (#70)

Thank you for your comments. I understand your point about Noah, Moses and David. I was trying to say that just as all three Abrahmanic religions accept these personalities as prophets but are at the same time different religions, the impersonalistic and personalistic schools should be considered as different religions although they have some things in common.

Regarding your question about Trimurthi concept ,it exists in both schools. Just that the impersonalist school considers all three to be equal and that an impersonal formless energy or sakthi empowered them to carry out their functions of creation, preservation and destruction. The personalist school is of the view that Krishna expands himself into purusa avatars as Brahma, Siva and Visnu. Visnu is His plenary expansion therefore He is considered non-different from Visnu, whereas the others are partial expansions.

It is incorrect to say that the personal concept is a corruption of the impersonal. Both schools have existed for long and frequently engage in debates with each other in India. Most often the personalist school comes out victorious because of the ability to prove on the basis of the scriptural evidence that the impersonal energy brahman is just the bodily rays of the Supreme person, Krishna.

For example in the Bhagavad Gita, 12.5-12.7, Krishna says:

For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.

But those who worship Me, giving up all their activities unto Me and being devoted to Me without deviation, engaged in devotional service and always meditating upon Me, having fixed their minds upon Me, O son of Pṛthā — for them I am the swift deliverer from the ocean of birth and death.

The point is that the Vedic scriptures provide a path of purification for all grades of humans. From those who are attached to fruitive activities and want wealth etc, to those who wish to merge in impersonal brahman and to those want to enter into the spiritual world of eternality, bliss and knowledge (Vaikuntha) and have a loving relationship with God.

Just clarifying something that was brought up in the original post. The blogger wrote about Muslims leaving Islam in Singapore:

“I do wonder if there is any coercion involved in practice still. After all, MUIS is an Islamic body, and the counselors are surely Muslim who have a vested interest in ensuring a person remains Muslim.”

I went down to MUIS when I left Islam, my experience was that there was absolutely no coercion going on. In fact, they even said outright that they would not try and coerce anybody into staying in Islam if they didn’t want to.

“The counseling session is meant to ascertain if the religious conversion is genuine”

I think this is only one of the reasons behind the counselling session. When I went down to MUIS, my experience was that the imam enquired about any questions or dissatisfactions I had with Islam, and offered to explain things and dispel any myths or misunderstandings for me. It was a peaceful invitation to ask any questions, not an invitation to a debate or anything.

“If this is so, MUIS will then inform the family of their child’s decision, and advice the parents to respect it.”

When I went there, I was told that MUIS maintains the privacy of anybody who has
left Islam, by not disclosing this information to anybody. Even if your parents visit MUIS and kick up a big fuss demanding to know whether you have left Islam, MUIS will not disclose that information. However, this only applies to those over 21 years of age. For those below 21, I guess the above would apply.

On the whole, I think MUIS is very reasonable about this issue, so kudos to them! I wish Muslim countries would handle things as well as MUIS.

But anyway, one does not even need to visit MUIS in order to leave Islam officially. To change your religion, any religion, you have to make a Statutory Declaration at the Commissioner of Oaths – it’s in the Supreme Court building. Basically it’s just a piece of paper where you write out your declaration that you are leaving religion X, and then you read it out in front of the Commisioner, who will then sign and stamp it. With this official document, you can update any organisations about your change in religion, e.g. MUIS, ICA. For Muslims, once you have made the Statutory Declaration, you have officially changed your religion. MUIS actually does not have the power to retain or change your religious status; if you choose to head straight to MUIS, then after the counselling session, they will still refer you to the Commissioner of Oaths to make the Statutory Declaration.

Hi ex-muslim,

thank you for the clarification. It is certainly most welcome.

Hi Mice is Nice #73,

Karl Marx once said, “Religion is Opium to the Masses” I am not preaching intolerance. I am promoting enlightenment to save religious individuals such as Arix from their God Delusion. Religion is dragging Mankind into the Medieval Age and I am here to prevent it.

hi Smallvice585,

you may have good intentions, but i disagree with your methods of achieving it. personally, it seems to push people like Arix into a corner only to defend more rigorously.

////I am promoting enlightenment to save religious individuals such as Arix from their God Delusion.////

sounds familiar, like FM Thio. lol… 8)

there really is no point winning a dedate only to fail to win peoples’ hearts over. empty victory? be careful the very 1s you intended on “saving” take you to the medieval age with them, you are heading that direction if you didn’t realise….

-.-”

maybe smallvice585 is trying to let ‘the other side’ have a taste of their own medicine?

hi Lobo76,

you may be right!! i see smallvice585 holding a mirror for the “other side” to reflect on themselves.

8)

Hi mice is nice #79,

I don’t intend to disrupt inter-religious debate in this thread because I have no qualms with inter-religious debate, unless the thread involves asserting any ethical or moral tendencies on non-believers. I have kept my participation on this thread minimal.

I will not engage Arix or any religiously motivated individuals for the above-mentioned reason too. But I must congratulate Arix on his persistence. He has accumulated 72 out of 288 posts in http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/07/india-decriminalises-gay-sex-singapore-shown-to-be-a-fool/ so far.

Terence, mice, lobo76, ex muslim, la nausee, Hundu,

I am glad that I have a chance to debate ideas with you people. We may disagree, but then there would no debate if we all agreed on a common stance.

I believe in fair debate and discussion, and do not discriminate against others for their viewpoints.

Conversely, smallvice is busy sabotaging every single thread that I am participating in, because he is attempting to silence me. (And he actually wonders why I call him a “militant atheist”.)

mice, as you rightly pointed out, smallvice is taking potshots, and in doing so, he is sounding just as bad (or maybe even worse) as FM Thio whom he hates so much. He loves moralising himself, but he doesn’t like it when others do so.

Let us not get caught up in smallvice’s Atheist schemes.

Regards,
Arix

mice is nice (#72),

What is needed is not to avoid conversation, but to find a base from which constructive conversation can come from. The “disastrous results” occur because there is huge misunderstanding between the various groups, fanned by two teams of extremists. One team is the group of religious fundamentalists, who are the archetypal false prophets, promising the way to salvation through the thinnest path possible. The other team is the group of militant atheists, like smallvice, who are trying to do everything they can to destroy religion per se.

We need a new platform insulated from these two extremist groups, then we can make real progress.

hi Smallvice585,

if you notice, i do not post too many replies in such articles myself.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

hi Arix,

yeah, we cannot avoid such sensitive topics totally, but without any form of oversight or moderation, issues like this can spiral out of control in a very short time. any form of dialogue should not focus too much on religious interpretation in my opinion.

la nausee (#74),

Before we continue, let us agree to ignore whatever smallvice says on this thread. Since you were on the other threads, I am certain that you are clear of his style and stance and modus operandi. Deal?

1) haha, we never really began that debate, because it was irrelevant to the other thread.

2) Have you seen the source code for the linux operating system? It is purportedly billions of lines long, and consists of many interlocking parts, but in one standard framework.

The type of integration of various software components in linux is the type of integration that I am talking about when talking about Integrated Religion. The idea of integration is to fit several independent parts into one whole.

Imagine a huge jigsaw puzzle, with its pieces all mixed up. Each piece contains a unique feature, not replicated by other pieces. But all the pieces together still form one puzzle. The challenge is to see where the puzzle pieces fit.

Clearly, in this case, force-fitting pieces that obviously don’t combine will lead to unnecessary conflict. But likewise, so will dumping all the pieces into the dustbin (which is what the atheists wish to do).

This doesn’t contradict any observations of diversity whatsoever, because the complex puzzle can still have many patterns and many different colours and implements, even shapes of puzzle pieces. So the resultant puzzle is still a fascinating kaleidoscope of experiences.

3) Integralism is neither assimilation or pluralism. It accepts that there are distinctions and oppositions, but treats these as either misconceptions created by force-fitting pieces that don’t fit, or as apparent contradictions that make sense in a larger framework of associations.

4) The “woolly idea” that you take issue with is merely the skeleton or the router network, if you prefer a more modern metaphor (like I do). The point of integralism is finding the place where each religion’s context fits in in the entire network, and what are the paths between different contexts, and different levels of spiritual understanding.

The point of mastering integralism would be the ability to translate oneself in between different contexts easily.

Hindu (#75),

Thanks for your civil discussion. I am learning quite a bit about Hinduism from you.

1) Moses is considered a prophet. David is considered a king. Noah is considered a patriarch.

2) I am interested in your description of the Personalist School. I have been reading up on Hinduism, and all of the books I have picked up so far say that Hindus believe in the existence of the Brahman, divided into three beings: Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu. And also that Krishna is the most important human incarnation of Vishnu.

This doesn’t seem to match with your description of Krishna as the supreme god. Could you clarify? Also, the idea of “god existing in everything” doesn’t seem to square with your definition of the Personalist hierarchy?

3) I apologize. I think I misunderstood what you meant by the personalist school. I am interested though, which school came first?

5) Could you clarify what “grades of humans” is?

mice (#85),

We should work out a way in which religious interpretation can be discussed and debated in a peaceful manner, and which we can persuade the religious hierarchies to give up their monopolies on theological knowledge.

hi Arix,

we also need to screen people who do not intend to discuss such topics in a peaceful manner… 8)

Hi mice is nice #85,

How on earth can I chase Arix away without implementing an IP ban on him? I am merely making sure that religious motivation has no role in setting the moral tone beyond the realm of believers. Given the distinction between believers and non-believers is so arbitrary, managing and containing the voice of religion is always work-in-progress.

Anyway, you can see Arix’s own internal contradiction. He wrote in #83: I … do not discriminate against others for their viewpoints. He later wrote in #84: We need a new platform insulated from these two extremist groups, then we can make real progress. There is no polemics in this thread, hardly any pressure on him.

mice (#89),

Indeed. And no prizes for guessing who from this thread I would subject to such screening.

smallvice (#90),

1) So is containing the voice of militant atheists.

2) I do not discriminate against various viewpoints. But I do discriminate against various modes of action and styles of voice.

Express your opinion all you want, and as passionately as you want to, but refrain from arguing that other viewpoints should be shut out of the debate or that the people presenting those viewpoints should be targeted by law or incendiary action.

hi Arix & Smallvice585,

you 2 need to agree to a “ceasefire” leh. the more you both “fire at will” the deeper you both dig into your own positions…

you both go take 5, have a Kit-Kat okie? ;)

mice is nice (#93),

If smallvice stops his “fire at will”, then I will stop defending my position against him.

I really prefer talking with people like Hindu. La nausee is fine too, when smallvice doesn’t interfere.

hi mice is nice #93,

I am merely making sure that religious motivation has no role in setting the moral tone beyond the realm of believers. On the other hand, believers and parties interested in theology are free to discuss theology among themselves.

There is no hard and fast rules on differentiating believers and non-believers. Examining all my posts, you will find that I have consistently refrained from intervening theological discussion while occasionally posting views on atheism.

hi Arix,

i think you need to dig deep, dig a tunnel (evade) so you will not be in Smallvice585’s target range.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

hi Smallvice585,

that is a problem in itself. there are few posters here who are as persistant as you & who think its “up to me now” to take on the other side. its not a very healthy way to see the situation. sometimes you need to take a break from it all. to balance the perspective, more importantly if you really want to do this the long haul, yo will need to periodically take a break, seriously.

don’t get too hung up on this “war” you volunteerily engage.

when you say
////I am merely making sure that religious motivation has no role in setting the moral tone beyond the realm of believers.////
its creepy….

-.-”

Hi mice is nice #96,

I am perfectly aware that my statement “I am merely making sure that religious motivation has no role in setting the moral tone beyond the realm of believers” is creepy from the perspective from a religious person. However, this is an irreversible position – religion is not an open license to poke into non-believers’ affairs.

@Arix (#87)

I admit that (inter-)religious studies is not one of my areas of interest/expertise, so I may be a fish out of water here. However, I’m still a little skeptical whether integralism can both have its cake and eat it, i.e. whether it can find a unifying theme across religions without being overly reductive, or at least without losing the essence of what each religion stands for. As I see it, each religion is so bound up in its cultural and historical specificity that there’s no real way to translate across contexts.

How can a Muslim, for instance, dissociate her belief and worship from the five pillars of Islam (with each ritual steeped in its unique symbolism), and still retain what for her is a recognizably spiritual/religious connection with Allah? How can a Catholic conceive of his religion if it’s divorced from the rites of the Mass, the offerings of bread and wine, the concept of transubstantiation, the hymns and prayers which are each freighted with a particular significance? You would distinguish between the ‘belief’ and its ‘manifestation’, but is there any way to grasp a belief except through particular manifestations and practices?

I’m also still curious how the Deep Religion you profess is linked to any other dimension of our lives. If Deep Religion exists at all, it seems a free-standing component of the human experience, separate from the physical, psychological and moral spheres. It’s separate from the physical, because it doesn’t claim to supplant science. It’s separate from the psychological, because it claims to be more than just about emotional well-being or what people feel at any given time. And it’s separate from the moral, because the only way to integrate different religions with their contradictory moral injunctions, is to leave out morality. And if Deep Religion is so detached, one may query whether it’s in fact necessary at all for understanding, enlightenment or eudaimonia.

Integralism also seems to make a bigger fuss of forging order out of chaos than is needed. Religions have all developed in a spontaneous, organic, messy way, often interacting with and responding to specific cultural experiences (for example, Protestant Christianity thrived among the early settlers of the vast, largely-uncivilized New World). There is thus no reason to think that each embodies a piece of some larger ‘jigsaw’, some grand intellectual edifice. History does not unfold in a logical or ‘dialectical’ fashion (a la Hegel); it can be made to seem that way only through heavily-revisionist scholarship.

Lastly, I wonder what the real point of integralism is: to get at the truth, or to reach some kind of psychic harmony by eliminating all sources of inner conflict and doubt, or perhaps to achieve a functional kind of religious ‘multi-lingualism’ (without getting any closer to evaluating the truth of each religion). The last two aims are evidently implied by your statements:

“The idea of integration is to fit several independent parts into one whole.”
The point of mastering integralism would be the ability to translate oneself in between different contexts easily.

Nothing wrong with psychic well-being or inter-religious understanding, of course, but they would seem to be very different goals from the pursuit of objective truth.

hi Smallvice585,

post #97

////religion is not an open license to poke into non-believers’ affairs.////

true, not that i know how best to go about it. just remember to take a break from it all once in a while, beware of being sucked into the abyss yeah? ;)

Hi mice is nice #99,

Arix wrote in this thread: The role of any religion is to offer a moral tone for all of society, unless it be a cult like Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is poking into non-believers’ affairs. This is unsolicited meddling. Arix has no sense of propriety.

hi Smallvice585,

////Arix wrote in this thread: The role of any religion is to offer a moral tone for all of society, unless it be a cult like Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is poking into non-believers’ affairs. This is unsolicited meddling. Arix has no sense of propriety.////

the keys words are “The role of any religion is to OFFER a moral tone….” not dictate. hahaa… like people offer advise but its up to individuals to heed it. to a certain extent, we can only offer an alternative view, not force it onto others.

“experience is a great teacher”, on occasions the hands-off approach to let others learn from mistakes should be considered. those who benefit from such experience are those who have the ability to learn from mistakes. focus your energies on those who follow blindly & tend to fall into the “idolise the idol” freefall they cannot climb out of. ;)

it’s Ms Thio Li-Ann who is goning to NYU, not Arix. will Arix be there to defend her views there?

1 quick question, “so Arix is Darren Boon?”.

hi mice is nice,

How would I know if Arix is Darren Boon? He could be anyone, but definitely not one of the editors since he actually demonstrated ignorance on how TOC presents its position.

However, my disagreement with Arix’s views on religion and its public outreach does not spill over to violating Arix’s choice to remain anonymous. I don’t intend to find out or publicise his identity. I don’t intend to set such a precedence on internet freedom in Singapore. Despite your curiosity, I don’t think you genuinely want to participate in such a precedence.

Unsolicited advisory is meddling, ie. unless religious advisory is explicitly asked for, offering religious advisory is still considered as meddling. According to Minister Wong Kan Seng, religious groups set the moral tone in society. Given the realm of believers is part of society, there is no denying of religious groups to set the moral tone in society. It just so happens that it is not all of society.

mice (#101),

5) No, I am not Darren Boon.

smallvice (#102),

1) I am not one of editors; but I am one of the contributors, albeit a sporadic one. I am sure you have read my articles before. My last one was the satire to the Botanic Gardens.

2) Wow, that is rich, coming from you. I am certain you are aware of at least my name; or hasn’t Terence told you yet? Just as I am aware of yours?

Really, why pretend on this one?

3) Put it this way, in a wet market, different stallowners put out different fruits and vegetables at the same time. Certainly, you would not be buying all of them at the same time. So thus, those that you didn’t buy would be “unsolicited”.

So then, you would ask the Wet Market to fit its fruits and vegetables directly to suit your taste, or else the stallholders will be “meddling” in your affairs?

I read that article you linked to. I believe that WKS means society in general. So they set a standard by which the rest of society judges itself by. That is, (moderate) religious groups set the ‘average’ moral atmosphere for society. Of course, there are some minorities (the Fundamentalists) who are more moralistic and some minorities (like You and the Atheists) who have absolutely no morals at all.

So your wonderful last statement is wonderfully redundant and deserves the comment:-

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/facepalm.jpg

Hi mice is nice,

Despite my magnanimity, Arix accuses me of pretence. Is this really an act of a religious moderate, a religious heretic or a religious right? Unlike less benign religious groups, I don’t engage in projecting false goodwill to establish religious hegemony.

Since Arix decided to put religion on a comparable level with fruits and vegetables instead of regarding it as something sacred, why should I rebuke him for his lack of oversight? The crops bearing fruits and vegetables require manure derived from faeces.

I hope you will inform him in my place that entering the wet market requires an exercise of choice by the individual / buyer. That’s why the unsold fruits and vegetables do not constitute as unsolicited offer.

hi Arix,

thanks for clearing the air.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

hi Smallvice585,

i am rather confused why you (quote)
////Arix wrote in this thread: The role of any religion is to offer a moral tone for all of society, unless it be a cult like Jehovah’s Witnesses.////

-.-”

hi Smallvice585,

beware of the danger of hanging onto every word Arix mention, the “wet market” is an example of the level of choice. this is where you should take things beyond face value. that when it comes to food or food for thought, the certain extent the choice is only as wide as what is available for consumption.

////I don’t engage in projecting false goodwill to establish religious hegemony.////

how do you convince your critics & cynics that you are not projecting falsegoodwill? how you view your own actions & deeds may differ from how others see you. remember?
////I am merely making sure that religious motivation has no role in setting the moral tone beyond the realm of believers.////
that itself raises ask much questions about you as you have questioned others.

To develop the ‘Wet Market’ analogy further: the Owner of the Wet Market (i.e. the State) cannot show favouritism to any stall or group of stalls. So she cannot tell customers, “Please buy from Stalls X, Y and Z only”, or say “The durians from Stall A are low-grade compared to those from Stall D”.

The Owner can only set ground rules of fairness for the Wet Market, which must apply non-discriminatorily to all: how many display shelves there can be, what space each stall can occupy, what advertisements each can display, and so on.

Stallholders are free to promote their products to various customers, as long as they do not physically accost them. If they do, the State can intervene to restore order. In turn, customers can reject what’s being offered, upon which the stallholder cannot continue to harass them.

A curious feature of the Wet Market, however, is that each customer also owns a stall, i.e. all customers are basically off-duty stallholders. This implies three things. First, a customer often rejects what’s being offered simply because he decides that that product is inferior to whatever products he currently has in his own stall. Second, everyone in the Wet Market is ’selling’ something at some point — although some do so more tenaciously than others. Third, the freedom to reject offers goes hand-in-hand with the freedom to sell one’s own products, and vice versa. In other words, freedom of conscience implies both the freedom to practise/proselytize one’s own beliefs and the freedom to reject other beliefs.

hi la nausée #108,

I shall use your framework of the “Wet Market” Analogy to re-interpret Arix’s words. The original issue I had with Arix that invoked the analogy was whether unsolicited religious advisory is indeed meddling.

Arix said: Put it this way, in a wet market, different stallowners put out different fruits and vegetables at the same time. Certainly, you would not be buying all of them at the same time. So thus, those that you didn’t buy would be “unsolicited”. So then, you would ask the Wet Market to fit its fruits and vegetables directly to suit your taste, or else the stallholders will be “meddling” in your affairs?

You didn’t specify your position on what constitutes meddling.

Arix thinks my version of meddling materialises as “unsold fruits”. I beg to differ.

Meddling arises when a stall holder:
1) comes to my stall to sell his ware
2) circles my stall with his allies’ stalls, thus concealing my stall.

Meddling arises when a customer:
1) is dragged into a stall
2) is approached by the stall holder beyond the perimeter of his stall

that is the problem with anologies, it often does not reflect the entirety of said situation.

good point Smallvice585, you raised the issue of touts. ;) but you missed the chance to raise the example of unruly stall holders who wield the chopper too freely or the ill-tempered durian stall owner!!

:)

@smallvice585 (#109),

The statement which I disagree with is:
“Meddling arises when a customer… is approached by the stall holder beyond the perimeter of his stall.”

In the first place, there’s the problem of translating an essentially spatial analogy into the social landscape… what’s the ‘perimeter’ of each religion in society? Would an official statement issued by a church saying, “We oppose the government’s lift on the ban on casino gambling.” cross the perimeter? The wearing of religious dress/symbols in public places? The advertisement of religious celebrations and worship sessions?

Secondly, as I said, the stallholder is also a customer, and vice versa. The roles aren’t clearly defined. So you may have a situation like this:

Customer: So… what you selling?
Stallholder: Pomelo… very sweet and juicy, confirm plus guarantee chop.
Customer: Huh, pomelo?? Like lubber one, nice meh? Durian more shiok lah, dun believe, come to my stall and try.

So the roles of customer and stallholder, of selling (‘advocating’/'proselytizing’) and buying are not quite distinct. Our decisions to accept or reject any religion are made based on our own convictions, and our accepting/rejecting any religion implicitly affirms our own religious (or non-religious) convictions. In that sense, both sides of every transaction involve some degree of advocacy.