IF YOU’VE never been to an inter-religious dialogue, my advice to you is this: go for one.
Having attended one myself yesterday, I must say it has been a real learning experience where I’ve picked up a new fact or two about other religious faiths. The experience has also made me realise that Singapore is truly a unique place where different faiths can co-exist together in harmony.
(Photo: Religious conflict is a tragedy Singaporeans have managed to avoid after independence. Courtesy of Jordi Martorell / Creative Commons)
I’m not trying to sound like I’m speaking from some official government channel, but this is my insight fashioned from my interactions with the crowd who attended the dialogue.
My impressions
The monthly inter-faith dialogue was organised by South East Community Development Council, a quasi-governmental body that ensures the smooth running of the various estates in Singapore. While I feel generally positive about the whole dialogue, there were several things that I feel can be improved.
For example, for much of the dialogue, I felt that the various speakers and participants were too politically correct. A lot of niceties were exchanged, but they did not say anything substantially meaningful. Instead, such “harmony” talk dragged down the whole event, almost reducing it to a useless homily not unlike a boring Sunday sermon.
Face it, as much as we love harmony, talking about harmony is boring. I suppose the reason why people come for such dialogues is to learn about other faiths and to clear up certainmisconceptions and contentious issues about religion. Fortunately, during the Q&A session, things got a little bit more interesting when several interesting questions were asked.
Being slightly peeved by all this talk about harmony and how religions should always seek to agree, I spoke up during the session and talked about “constructive disharmony”, and the need for constructive conflict rather than destructive conflict. While we should seek to find commonality among different faiths, there is also a need to sort out what the differences are, and what Truth is.
The fact remains that the Hindu Truth differs from the Christian Truth and the Buddhist Truth. My sense was that the various religious leaders were trying to assert their version of the Truth up on stage, but without overtly doing so. Already you see a contestation of beliefs, so why pretend it doesn’t exist?
Thankfully, some of the religious leaders on stage did talk about the need to have robust debate as well, which gave me a sense of relief.
What happened at the dialogue
The whole event started with participants breaking up into groups and doing various activities together.
Firstly, we had to split into pairs and “exchange hats”, meaning we try to tell one another what we know about each person’s religious faiths. My partner was a Buddhist, so I had to tell him what I knew about Buddhism.
After that, we had to play a game where the group was split into two, and each subgroup had an architect. The job of the architect was to form a symbol using his group members to represent inter-faith relations. I was volunteered by the rest to be the architect, so I had my comeuppance by making them get down onto the floor and form a heart shape.
The whole session concluded with a discussion of interfaith issues.
After the breakout session, we gathered into the main hall where we listened as various leaders from the different religious faiths spoke out about religious harmony from their point of view. This was then concluded with a Q&A session.
What I’ve learnt
Nonetheless, despite some slight misgivings, I came out of the event learning more about other religious faiths, and getting a better sense of the overall religious landscape in Singapore:
1) Buddhists don’t believe in a God.
Actually I was quite surprised to learn about this, because my impression was that they teach that anyone can become god — or Buddha — by attaining nirvana. But I left the dialogue with even more questions. 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?
2) Hindus believe that everything is God.
An analogy was given of a spider’s web. The spider can be likened to God, and the web the universe. However, since the web comes from within the spider and is a part of it, then the web can be described as God as well. However, if that’s the case, then I’m still puzzled by the Hindu worship of various gods like Shiva and Vishnu. Why worship these specific gods when everything in life should be worshiped, say the computer in which I type this article on?
3) Conversions out of Islam
One area of concern I have about Islam is the topic of religious conversion. This is because I’ve heard of stories where a Muslim who wants to convert out of Islam is ostracised by the Malay community. In Singapore, the Malay community and Islamic faith are intimately intertwined. So if you are born in a Malay family, it would automatically mean that you are a Muslim.
However, a chat with the Muslim Imam (I forgot his name) made me understand that such emotional reactions from the family and community is not just exclusive to Islam, but to other faiths like Christianity as well. Instantly I was able to relate the Christian experience, where a believer who wants to opt out of the church is often faced with concerned enquiry from his churchmates.
As a result, a “backslider” often leaves quietly, choosing to make himself uncontactable to the rest. The backslider’s situation is also not helped if his or her family is Christian.
The Imam told me that in the case of Islam, families will usually reconcile with their children after the initial emotional trauma, despite there being some religious bigots around. There is also the issue of the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) — the Islamic religious council in Singapore — counselling the ex-Muslim about his or her conversion, after the backslider informs MUIS of the decision.
But I was told that they have nothing to fear, as the counseling session is meant to ascertain if the religious conversion is genuine. If this is so, MUIS will then inform the family of their child’s decision, and advice the parents to respect it.
However, while this process may seem innocuous, 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.
Final thoughts
One major area of concern I have with this dialogue however is that it is ultimately still government-driven. I wonder if citizens are taking their own initiative to organise their own dialogues, instead of leaving everything to the state.
Also, it seems that very few people I know have actually attended such sessions. Perhaps if Singaporeans are encouraged to organise their own dialogues, greater awareness and understanding between different faiths will result.
As a start, various religious clubs in the varsities can organise religious debates in the universities and schools. The objective is not to incite disharmony, but to create better understanding among groups. Even individuals can do their bit by blogging about inter-religious issues and discussing contentious issues that has to do with religion.
While we may be deterred by the Seditions Act and Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, we will be safe as long as we are constructive in what we write about.
But the most important thing we must remember is that we need to get out of stale soliloquy about the merits of harmony, instead discussing constructively about what we both agree and disagree with. Ironically, one of the ways to foster harmony is to focus on conflict, because it remains the most effective way to generate interest.
In that sense, government officials can take a page from journalists, who are maestros of contention. After all, the journalism student is often taught that conflict often makes the best stories.
This article is also published in Irreligious, the author’s blog on Christianity and religion.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
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.