• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

The call of reason

T

Truth

Guest
About a month back, I posted a link to an article on TheOnlineCitizen.com, where the author made the point that religion is given too much leeway and protection in our society. This is largely due to laws that can be used to clamp down on individuals who have been deemed to have done or said things that are 'offensive' to certain religions. The definition of 'offensive' is so wide that almost every intelligent citizen would choose to toe the line instead of 'risk' crossing it. But is there really a need for such babysitting? Does this law have the potential to be exploited for nefarious deeds?

Before I go on, allow me to state my stand clearly. At no point in time am I trying to advocate 'bashing' or 'insulting' of religions. Even though I am a freethinker, and agree with many views held by atheists and secular humanists, I would not condone a free-for-all m&d-slinging session. My personal opinion is that without a doubt, everyone should be allowed their own personal space to practice their own religion, and others should respect this personal space, so long as it does not infringe on the personal space of others. This seems like a pretty straightforward, easily-fulfilled clause isn't it? Sure, nobody's trying to force religion down your throat! But is religious influence merely restricted to personal interactions and beliefs? It would be naive of one to think so.

Case in point: Genetic modification and chimeras.

Sometime last year, the Singapore's top bioethics committee opened an online forum for citizens to post their views on whether the creation of chimeras for laboratory experimentation should be allowed or banned in our country. To my great dismay, there were responses that were based entirely on religious foundations, along the (all too familiar) lines of "God created life the way it is, so we should not tamper with it" or "Who are we to play God?" I posted a reply asking why the government's decision should be influenced by a religious opinion, and someone actually wrote back angrily, saying that I was being very offensive. Well then. Hmm let's see ... Islam is against the consumption of pork. Therefore the AVA should ban all pork products? Come on!

Sure, it was merely an opinion, but I'd be pleasantly surprised if such close-minded individuals are few and far between in our society today. What has science got to do with religion? Should scientists even bother to consult religious leaders before the next step? What if the religious leader comes back and says, no sorry, that (e.g.) technology is against my religion, so I oppose it (look at the Pope on genetic modification). Then what? Are you going to back down? Obviously not right? So why even bother to ask in the first place? This has got nothing to do with ethics! Arguments from ethics involve things such as potential abuse of such technology, where to draw the boundaries, etc. On the other hand, all it takes is a slip of the tongue and someone gets rapped (hard), and more individuals will choose the safe route and keep their opinions to themselves in the future. Is that what we want as a society?

Before engaging in any such discussions, people should go and read Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion. Hopefully Singaporean society is liberal enough to permit debate and interaction based on the contents of such books. Of course, he does religion no favours, but he highlights a worrisome phenomenon that is on the rise elsewhere. According to the book, the religious power blocs in America have horrifyingly high levels of influence on issues that should remain in the secular domain (is anyone truly surprised by this 'news'?). Issues such as the teaching of evolution vs creationist nonsense in SCIENCE class (no less). Issues such as the Israeli (Judaism) vs Palestinian (Muslim) deadlock. Issues such as whether stem cell researchers should be given expanded funding and leeway to alleviate the suffering of countless patients everywhere. Where does such power come from?

Religion has the power to overwhelm any secular force, simply because of faith. Faith means that one should believe and trust in someone/something else without question. Even if contrary evidence is right before one's eyes. And it is upheld as a praise-worthy virtue. Why is this potentially dangerous? It is because all we need is one religious leader (presumably, a charismatic one) to lead his followers astray, and they might just listen and agree and support him without a moment's pause for thought. You may argue that oh, we are not robots, we can think for ourselves. But since when has religion espoused individual thought and questioning of leaders' interpretations of what is right and wrong? This is the crux of the secularists' arguments.

While politicians (and leaders in almost any other organisation) are (generally) elected through democratic processes, and have to earn the right to office by demonstrating ability (usually) and intelligence (hopefully), are religious leaders decided based on their critical thinking skills and ability to analyse issues of national concern? Of course, that is not to say that religious leaders are incapable of objective reasoning. But it's definitely a point worth ruminating on. Why is that when a religious leader gives his (I am not using the male pronoun here merely out of convenience) views on some non-religious topic, everybody nods their heads and strokes their chins in silent agreement? Are we too afraid to speak up? Then again, how can you argue against a religious point of view? After all, it is based on dogma, right? How can one possibly argue against dogma (and not get thrown into jail for sedition)?

Why are you of this opinion? Because my religion says so.
Why does your religious say thus? Because!

Real-life example:

Jehovah's Witness: My religion does not allow me to bear arms. Full stop.
Conscientious Objector (Freethinker): After much reflection and thought, I have come to the conclusion that war is ethically wrong, and thus I refuse to bear arms.

No prizes for guessing whose appeal will prevail.

America is a classic example. Religious fundamentalists bomb abortion clinics, because their pastors tell them that abortion is wrong and against Christianity. How many truly thought for themselves and came to their own conclusions? In 1994, Paul Hill, a pastor, used his shotgun and killed a doctor who ran an abortion clinic. His last, unrepentant words before being executed for murder in 2003?
"I'm certainly, to be quite honest, I'm expecting a great reward in heaven for my obedience." If this is not shocking to you, I don't know what is. And there are religious groups that hold him up as a MARTYR.

What is the difference between this situation, and that of suicide bombers in various Middle Eastern nations, who sacrifice themselves on demand just because their imams told them to? The answer is, there is no difference. This is the potential danger if we are not vigilant.

This is not a call to arms, or anything of that sort. This is an attempt to raise the public's awareness to an issue that has always been lying just below the surface of public debate; always on everybody's mind, yet too volatile to be spoken / written about. Is religion truly above objective criticism? By 'objective', I mean stuff like "Apostates should not be persecuted because this is a secular country, and besides, it's not like they had a choice anyway, since they were indoctrinated from young by their parents and community." NOT unconstructive, stupid stuff like "I think your religion is evil because all ______s are terrorists." I have refrained from using the word 'inflammatory' here, because it is just as vague as the word 'offensive'. Anything short of pure adulation can be deemed 'offensive' or 'inflammatory', depending on the one's level of belief and personal interpretation.

Fortunately I have yet to encounter Singaporeans who are as single-minded and beyond reason as some influential individuals in America, who are striving to turn the country into a theocracy. For a list of examples, do visit the following website: http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html. Some of the individuals quoted there are in REALLY powerful positions in the government (e.g. GWB himself, no less), while many others are religious leaders who hold the sway of huge congregations. Do not be fooled into a false sense of security, just because this is in a 'far away' country. Such influence can easily spread over seas, overnight. Also, if the fundamentalists do win (they had better not, for the sake of the world), are you naive enough to believe that our tiny island state will not suffer from a tidal wave of religious overtures and pressure?

I sincerely hope that every thinking citizen in Singapore will do their best to be aware of the potential threat, and work together to keep our country a welcome place for everyone, regardless of their faith. Do not let things degenerate to the state of other countries we see today, who are secular only in name.
 

kakowi

Alfrescian
Loyal
One point to note: Every individual, regardless of religion, has the right and freedom to positions of influence in business, politics and non-profits. Unlike other countries, Singapore is secular. And growth is not by religion.

...

But your post seems to indicate that there is a conspiracy to this.

And what you are saying is to question the religious values of the people in power and influence.

Why?

It is not as though they got some help from the Government to get there.

...

Therefore the correct starting point, in my opinion, is to ask: what is it about these people's religion that make them care enough about their society to correct the ills and make right the wrongs.

...

Take one example: that of abortion. You are talking about killing a life who cannot plea for itself. Therefore those who are against abortion becomes advocates for those without voices to self-defence. Is that wrong?

Then you voice out an extremist case. But there are extremists on both sides. The only time your example is of value is to say that all those who oppose abortion carry guns and kill people who disagree with them.

...

Take another example: that of biogenetics. Biotechnology is big business. It is all about scientific inquiry backed by the promise of huge profits. Today your french fries may contain donkey genes. How will this affect your health. The USA FDA no longer makes it mandatory to separate beef from cloned animals versus natural animals.

What about the health effects? We only have one Earth. Actions done are irreversible. It is very hard or impossible to reverse a man-made construct like raising salaries. How much more difficult or impossible is it to reverse changes to Nature. Can we go to the Moon to escape from the man-initiated problems on Earth?

...

Thus there is indeed another point of view.

And I submit this alternative point of view is less contentious, more embracive.
 
Top