http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070510/ts_csm/cbelief_1
By default, despite what Hollywood and American TV series shows, churches still thrive in America and more dominant than most other beliefs, except atheism.
So in an effort to understand each other better, members from different churches and atheists got together for dialogues instead of confrontation. Pastors attend atheist gatherings to listen to them, and vice-versa.
Atheists visited churches and gave their candid feedback.
Atheist Hemant Metha who offered himself on eBay to visit a church of the highest bidder learned more about the churches. He's not converted, but his visits has humanised the christians. What he's says will convince him besides more rationalism and equality in churches would be undeniable proof of miracle.
Another atheist, Matt Casper, gave 2 very good takes.
First, on prominent megachurches and stylistically innovative churches, he asked "Is this what Jesus told you guys to do?"
Second, on a Pentecostal healing service, he asked, "If that man can heal, why is he ... hanging out in this building?... Get out there, then! There are people who need your help."
In Singapore, religious harmony has been mostly about people at grassroot levels respecting each other's boundaries and adhering to secular approach to avoid preference to any particular religion.
In America it seems, at least among the people involved in the dialogue, they do it differently. Instead of refraining from commenting on each other's beliefs, they invite frank opinions and feedbacks.
And that is something that is worth thinking about, for Singapore.
As of now, in Singapore, it is feared that negative comments can be made out of immaturity or lead to immature response, the society is still described as fragile. America, is not so fragile. It can suffer from devastations of various forms worse than Singapore and has the room, resources and more to rebuild itself.
And if history is anything to go by, that might be true enough. America as a nation as torn itself apart not once, but several times. Some of the more prominent milestones in its history - American Civil War, Segregation, Civil Liberties riots, 9-11 ... are beyond the scale of what Singapore has experienced or could afford.
But unless Singapore matures and developes its own resilience, it will not be able to keep what it has today.
I think that for now, our social fabric is too delicate to withstand even a slight nick. The strict framework will have to stay in place for a while yet. With greater freedoms come greater responsibilities, and I am not so sure some religious leaders are worthy of such greater responsibilities.
ReplyDeleteI could say it is a carry-over from the way Americans criticise their government ...
ReplyDeletethe mentality is already there ...
American politicians and religious leaders are not necessarily more open-minded nor wiser nor tolerant ... but they don't really have a choice where "freedom of expression" is concerned.
True, they are vocal and not afraid to say what they think. The concept of "face" is foreign and I would say, non-existent.
ReplyDeleteAt our grassroots level they have fostered inter-religious sessions. Muslims have been invited to Chinese temples to explain what goes on etc, and other such similar activities to foster greater understanding and acceptance. Of course reports of these are from PAP so one might be tempted to think a nicer spin has been put to them. Still.
ReplyDeleteThis is where I fundamentally disagree with Yun's stance that religions not your own should be a matter of tolerance, rather I say they should be treated with understanding and mutual respect, and understand that as long as we are talking about matters taken on faith they are the equal of your own. Islam teaches their adherents to see Christians and Jews as their brothers, Buddhism and Taoism in China have long co-existed without having to 'tolerate' each other (sporadic fighting notwithstanding and it is more likely to be between different sects of the same religion). In fact their practices become mingled as far as the common people is concerned, who has no qualms visiting a Buddhist temple one day and a Taoist the next.
Christianity is not a proponent of syncretism, hence Yun's stance on tolerance.
ReplyDeleteI think face exist most anywhere and differ in degrees and what actually constitutes loss of face. Taiwan is a very Chinese society and yet they have no problems criticising their politicians, often vehemently.
ReplyDeleteNeither is Islam and I am not talking about syncretism either. I am talking about genuine mutual respect and understanding, much as we would treat our friends. We don't tolerate them, we accept them for who they are and love and respect them for it.
ReplyDeletehmm, interesting that despite what you claim Christianity seem to have incorporated many pagan festivals.
I can't speak for Yun, but I can say I certainly respect and understand my friends' religions - I have Muslims, Catholics, Buddhists, Taoists and Christians of all professions amongst my friends. :)
ReplyDeleteBTW Snowy I basically agree with your short article above in case it wasn't clear. At the grass roots level there has been some initiatives but we can certainly afford to do much more.
ReplyDeleteCatholics *are' Christians, no need to put them in their own category. ;-)
ReplyDeleteHehe...no, there's a distinction. ;)
ReplyDeleteThere isn't because Catholics see themselves as Christians too. It is only the Protestant movement that tried to imply the Catholics are not.
ReplyDeleteJust to avoid a matter of semantics here ...
ReplyDeleteI recall in 2006, someone described it as intolerant when a devotee of a particular religion offered sweets to neighbouring kids, to experience one kid's parents rejecting it as the sweets was part of a religious ceremony that the kid's family do not subscribe to.
I don't think it is intolerant to refuse the sweets, it would have been if the refusal was done rudely and denounced as sacrilegious etc.
Between certain religions, members have no issue of participating in each other's ceremonies or rites.
Is it really a matter of tolerance? Or is it because their religion has no particular teaching against it?
On the other hand, if we set ourselves up to be the final arbitrator of what teachings to follow and what teachings to reject in the religion we subsribe to, I think it calls into doubt whether we're following the religion or making the religion follow us?
To make things more challenging here, I also believe we should question every teaching that is taught rather than obeying it unquestioningly.
In short, there're different perspective to the same issue. If we want to come to mutual understanding, we need to understand where each other is coming from.
Just for the record, I am not Protestant...
ReplyDeleteIntolerant? Or compromising?
ReplyDeleteThe same way you would never dream of offering a Muslim pork nor ask a Sikh to let you play with his turban is the same way you should not ask someone with less visible or less known religious beliefs to do something their religion does not condone.
On whether Catholic/Christian issue, I won't say that Catholics don't have a right to term themselves as Christians, since the term Christian predated the term Catholic.
ReplyDeleteIn other contexts (outside here), some do use the term Christian to distinguish Protestants from Catholics. It is worth nothing that Protestant Christians could no more prevent Catholics from calling themselves Christians than they could to prevent Catholics from calling their Holy Books the Bible.
But if the point is whether the differences in Protestants and Catholics beliefs are significant, it all depends on the viewer.
To say Protestants and Catholics are the same is like saying all monotheists are the same. An atheist or a polytheist may not appreciate the difference but the difference is there.
Personally, I'd avoid arguing whether Protestants have a right to monopolise the term Christian or whether the Catholics should just be called Catholics to avoid confusion.
I know you are a Baptist (not a foot-washing Baptist I presume) but that doesn't change my point. :-D See Snowy's reply above.
ReplyDeleteI was born into a Baptist church (no idea what foot-washing Baptist is) but I now consider myself non-denominational, non-sectarian, evangelical free.
ReplyDeleteIf that makes sense.
BTW, there is no church in Singapore with "Protestant" in its name ... nor any church around the world, for that matter.
ReplyDeleteCatholics consider themselves "true" Christians the same way Protestants consider themselves to be the same.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that matters to me is each Christian's standing with God.
Ah, but no one is saying that here, unless I am mistaken.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting you chose not to write
ReplyDelete"I would say Catholics have a right to term themselves Christians, since the term Christian predated the term Catholic"
:-)
Why the need then to use " "? ;-)
ReplyDeleteI get the feeling that when I use the term mutual respect and understanding it means something a little different when used by others. But this is neither here nor there and it has strayed somewhat from Snowy's original point. Al'right back to the work for me!
Just for the record, I'm not impressed with religious harmony in the US. They still talk about "tolerance" when instead they need to be thinking of "acceptance" so I would caution against bringing in American style "dialogue" or what have you. I think our system is working better than theirs. If anything I'd suggest the other way around.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, it's a farce. They can go on and on about freedom of worship being enshrined in their Constitution but when it comes to walking the talk...
ReplyDeleteIt is deliberate.
ReplyDeleteThere are key doctrinal differences between what I believe as a Christian and what the official Catholic Church upholds.
To put things into perspective, there are also key doctrinal differences between what I believe as a Christian and what some other non-Catholic churches advocate too, so my own views about has nothing to do with Protestant-Catholic division.
When I use the term Christian, Bible, God etc., in application to myself, I am using them differently than the understanding of Christian/Bible as used by the Catholics, and the term God I use personally is definitely different from what Catholic/Muslims/Jews mean when they use the term God.
Hence, the deliberate phrasing I chose is to underline I am not for monopolising the use of the term Christian, but I do not share the same understanding as Catholics about the term itself.
Oh yeah and the same goes for "Racial Harmony" too... although I wouldn't go so far as to call it a farce...
ReplyDeleteHehehehe...
ReplyDelete*sigh* just finished watching "Fiddler on the roof" last Saturday ...
ReplyDeleteHmmm...
ReplyDelete... and found a Modesty Blaise comic book from the National Library today ...
ReplyDeletethis is set when the world was still in the Cold War.
The first story was about a millionaire attempting to create a world wide hoax of aliens from outer space visiting the Earth. He believes such a thing is the only thing that could persuade the people of this world to put aside their differences and prevent humanity from self-destruction ... a la Independence Day.
If everyone cared and nobody cried
ReplyDeleteIf everyone loved and nobody lied
If everyone shared and swallowed their pride
Then we'd see the day when nobody died
I know the lyrics are utopian, but that's what I'd like the world to be...
To be fair, i think Snowy wasn't suggesting religious harmony is better in the US, he was pointing out that dialogues between different religions are healthy and to be encouraged. I agreed and pointed out that is happening in Singapore, organised by grassroots leaders but without the somewhat critical aspect of the US example. The examples I quoted were between Muslims and Buddhist/Taoist although I am sure it could extend to Christians as well, and probably already happening. It was a good article I doubt I still have it but a trip to a local CC might prove fruitful, it was published in Voices for the Ang Mo Kio GRC some time back easily more than a year.
ReplyDeleteI am however curious about Snowy's source where he claims Atheism is dominant in the US. Everything I have read suggests otherwise. There are vocal Atheists, but they hardly constitute a dominant belief or to be exact a non-belief. Even those who describe themselves as non-religious, often are better seen as free-thinkers or agnostics.
The first 2 hits I got on Google when searched on belief in God in America:
ReplyDeletehttp://washingtontimes.com/national/20061112-125119-7426r.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
I think Atheism cannot be considered a dominant belief in the US, at best you can say there are some very vocal Atheists but that's about it. If anything I think America in general is becoming more religious. You can see this on America media, not to mention politics.
Incidentally Richard Dawkins new book is out, but I am waiting for the paperback.
My exposure to the US is limited, of course. But while strict atheists do not have the majority in numbers, their impact is very much more evident. In fact, while many people might list themselves as Christian or Jewish, the decisions they make or support is more reflective of that of an atheist/agnostic, - i.e., excluding God from playing any significant role in their personal lives or decisions.
ReplyDeleteWhen I refer to Religious Harmony (The American Way), I don't see as an official movement (and it's not). It is not exactly new, open dialogues between theists and non-theists have been around between friends for a long time. But what is new is that it is now initiated between people who are practically strangers to each other. And there is absolutely no governmental involvement here, it's just two people having a frank talk without trying to be partisan or explicitly converting each other.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, we do not need to justify our own beliefs to other people or worry about how other people look at us when we subscribe to our own beliefs.
On the other hand, we also learn sometimes startling things about ourselves when we open ourselves to honest candid feedback from other people.
I like the part where atheist Matt Casper wondered about the healer who only heals during church services.
As a Christian, I have my own views about healing. And frankly, I also cringed when I hear how some church people used 'healing' as an advertisement rather than a personal testimony.
From this angle I would advise against the use of 'atheism'. Someone can be a Christian (a believer) and still subscribe to secularism in most aspects of their life, which is generally what most people in the First World who consider themselves to have a faith in fact do, be it Christianity or others. Perhaps it is just your experience here in Singapore and mayhap other parts of Asia, where one's religion is such a big deal and a defining (and somewhat segregating) identity. As for atheism having a more evident impact in the US, I am afraid I do not concur. It might only seem to be so, if one considers things from the perspective of one's faith. But I might be wrong, and you might have good evidence to say otherwise.
ReplyDeleteBut back to your not-quite-original point, if we insist on viewing the world and other religions through our own faith then I am afraid genuine respect, understanding and acceptance will not be easy to for some of the world's most popular faiths.
Ur, I don't think "being secular" and "being religious" are exclusive.
ReplyDeleteWhen a person claims to be a follower of a particular religion, we can still exercise some discernment as to whether it appears to be a matter of conviction or convenience.
I'll use an extreme analogy here: there were many (communist) governments around the world claim to be "people's democracy", "socialist", etc. But are they really democratic?
Going by statistics, I am wrong to attribute atheism as being more dominant than Christianity in America.
Going by what we observe in real life though, many who profess religious beliefs just do not reflect that belief in their personal life. I admit their numbers might not be as many as I initially thought.
If someone calls himself a vegan, we'd expect him to refrain from not just consuming meat, but also avoid using animal products in his attire nor engage in any trade which exploits the use of animals. I don't accept he's a vegan just because he's a long-time customer of a vegan restaurant.
If we can apply such level of discernment to political or social lifestyle/choice labels, to a certain extent, it is also applicable to religious labels.
Admittedly, we are not the final authority of whether a person is a genuine Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or whatever religious affiliation professed. But we're also not totally ignorant either.
Hi Snowy,
ReplyDeletethere is a key difference here, we can explicit define what a Vegan is or does, and what he is not or does not. Can we say the same about someone's status as a Christian? You can say he is not a very good Christian by the lights of the tenets/doctrines of your faith (which is interpreted by your Church)
It really boils down to definition, I think. If you were to come up with a definition for a Christian beyond simply being baptized and a belief in the Christian God, then you would probably be right in that many who claim to be Christians are in fact not.
That is also one of my points, many people of various faiths don't really accept other faiths, they tolerate them. For true acceptance one must from a philosophical point of view accept that in the matters of faith there is a possibilty that others may be right while one is wrong That being the case we cannot hold our beliefs to be superior or better, just what you choose to believe in based on your own experiences and conclusions. That is my understanding of Faith. Of course such a viewpoint might not be compatible with the beliefs of Christianity or the other big monotheist religions which rely mainly on dogmas.
Note: I specifically referring to Faith and religions here.
Off-Topic: Either Snowy or Mok posted about Nury Vittachi, I can't find the post anymore. Just wanted to say as much as possible start from book 1.
ReplyDeleteLet's consider the case of 9-11 and how various media and governmental bodies refer to the suspects. In many reports, the term "Muslim" is not used in conjunction with the suspected perpetrators, aka the terrorists.
ReplyDeleteDo you think it's done because
(1) To avoid offending the Muslims, or
(2) Acceptance, or at least tentative acceptance, of the explanation from Muslims that the religion Islam does not condone the crime perpetrated.
By learning to exercise certain discretions, we're actually trying to get a better understanding of other people of differing beliefs, contary to what you earlier mention that it impedes mutual understanding.
What is the definition of a Christian beyond being baptised and a belief in the Christian God?
Well, to begin with, the requirement of baptism is only applicable to certain churches.
And second, one can profess a belief in anything but if there is no other distinction between him and a non-believer, then what is the point of having the belief?
For the purpose of this discussion, there is no need for me to come up with a definition of what is a Christian.
All we have to do is simply measure up the believer against what he himself defines to be fundamental to his being a Christian.
Case One: his definition of being a Christian is simply attend his church service faithfully every Sunday, Easter and Christmas. Well, if that's all, other than attending church, there could really be no difference between him and a non-Christian. Both could well be upstanding members of their community, earn an honest living and all that jazz. I'm not into hurling thunderbolts at him, but just point out the obvious that even if he stops his church attendance, it'd probably make no difference to his life, since a non-Christian is able to do whatever else he does without having to go to church.
Case Two: he knows being a Christian is a personal commitment and a personal relationship with God, but he kept straying off and could never seem to keep his end. Basically, he knows he falls short of being one. I am not one for being hard at him, after all, human weakness is the very reason for God to activate the Jesus-die-on-the-cross plan.
Case Three: he knows being a Christian is supposed to be 'a personal commitment' and all that jazz, but frankly, he couldn't really be bothered. He's just doing what most of his mates are doing, and there's just too many other more important things in life right now. To him, being a Christian is just part of the routine in his life. Measuring up to what he knows is supposed to be the aim of a Christian is just not a priority.
There're many other different cases, but basically, what I'd do (not just for Christians) is observe whether the profession of the mouth is in synch with the conduct of the person.
Indonesia has been labelled the largest Muslim country in the world. But if we actually look closer, many are just nominal Muslims, in the same way I'd say many Americans are nominal Christians. Some of these are the same people who get upset and throw rocks at foreign embassies to support their fellow Muslims overseas, but at other times, they were drinking alcohol, gambling money and engaging in other stuff prohibited by their religion.
When I use the term 'tolerance' in terms of beliefs, it is not about holding myself superior and believers of other ways as inferior.
It is about agreeing that we do not agree in our beliefs, but each of us has the right to choose our own beliefs and follow it, giving each other the space needed without intruding onto each other.
When I hear the term 'acceptance' in terms of beliefs, it means to me that the other belief is just as valid as mine. I observe this in syncretic religious interaction, like the syncretic Daoist-Buddhist development in ancient China.
When it come to people, acceptance has a slightly different application.
I do accept people who are not
I would not want to put words into Yun's mouth, the post was on CHF quite a while back.
ReplyDeleteHmm, where is this again?
ReplyDeleteDiscretion, consideration are essential to foster greater understanding, I quite agree with this.
i suspect we are using different definition for certain words.
This is another point I was trying to make, whether they are Christians are not thus depends on their own criteria. We can no more say they are not Christians than they can label us in a likewise faction. 'Acceptance' in my case extends here as well where I am quite willing to accept them as Christians on their own basis. it neither changes my own beliefs nor how I see Christianity.
ReplyDeleteAnd if they do not meet their own criteria?
ReplyDeleteOr if their criteria makes the identity meaningless?
If they do not meet their own criteria then of course. They would not then label themselves Christians. The fact that many still do indicate their criteria is not that strict, many would indeed if asked say they aren't very observant or good Christians, but they would not go so far as to say that makes them not Christians.
ReplyDeleteAs for making the identity meaningless this again is subjective. There are many who are secure in the knowledge that having been baptized they can consider themselves Christians and what really matters is they are saved and destined for Heaven. God may not be in their daily thoughts but on deathbed He surely will be.
LOL
ReplyDeleteCome to think of it ... from what I understand, He might be in the minds of some atheists on their deathbeds too ...
ReplyDelete"There are no atheists in foxholes"? :-D Some atheists, agnostics and otherwise freethinkers sure and probably just as many who would not.
ReplyDeleteOh, I wasn't thinking of anything so melodramatic ... that phrase itself is kind of a cheap shot, but this is not the occassion for addressing it.
ReplyDeleteJust that some atheists have been so adamant about their atheistic beliefs that it might just dawn upon them on their deathbeds that even if God did not exist before in their life, they created Him through their relentless fight to disprove His Existence.
See, the thing is, the way many atheists project their identity to others is that their self-identity is a reaction to some religions. In other words, without these religions around, they would have no identity as an atheist to speak of.
ReplyDeleteThere is a fine line of distinction between not believing in God and against believing in God.
I think Richard Dawkins fall into the latter, as I perceive from his statement "There is no alternative medicine. There is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn't work."
First, alternative medicine is an umbrella term for many different things.
Second, different human bodies respond differently to different treatments even for the same supposed diagnosis.
In a multi-racial and multi-religious context like Singapore, it's inevitable that we see rituals and practices from different religions that may inconvenience those who don't practise them. I believe as a good citizen of Singapore, we should learn to exercise tolerance and accommodation, and accept them as part and parcel of our life in a multi-religious setting. I think so far, in my personal opinion, Singapore is doing quite well in terms of religious harmony. There may be differences in opinions, yes, but it is not so serious that we see riots and terrorist out of religious issues in Singapore. I dont know about other neighbourhood, but in my neighbourhood, it is indeed heartwarming to see people from all walks of life, different races and hence difference religion sit together in the same coffeeshop seeping coffee or drinking beer, chit chat about 天与地.
ReplyDeleteThe thing about Singapore is that there was no domination of a particular religion in its history, unlike the USA.
ReplyDeleteDespite many of the pioneers of the USA being deists, religion has been institutionalised into the system and entrenched for more than 200 years. It is only to be expected that there are adverse reactions to the institutionalisation of religion, and spilling over to the religion itself. Both would also lead to counter-reactions from the religious groups.
So I do note that it is fortunate for Singapore that it is multi-racial and multi-religious. Though ethnic Chinese remain a clear majority and leads to some marginalisation of the non-Chinese when it comes to job-availability and ubiquitous presence of Chinese language, thankfully it's not the same for religion.