>I find that of all groups, the most intolerant are the secularists and/or atheists when it comes to topics related to religion. To some degree, that extends to feminists as well. In this article, I will argue my case why some secularists are just as intolerant as the very religionists they so scorn.
Yes, there is such a thing as Secular Extremism. The term refers when secularists go to extremes with their intolerance for any beliefs they feel that is a threat to them, regardless that threat exists or not.
In parts of Europe, it is becoming more and more often that we witness the existence of xenophobia and Islamophobia to the point that a piece of cloth over a woman’s head is a feared symbol. Minarets are seen as threats. Closer to home, when a mega Church buys up prime property, some secularists call for government intervention. Christian-bashing also becomes the norm, whenever gay issues are brought up.
Are these fears not unfounded, such that some secularists are now behaving like the very religionists they so scorn? Let’s take a look at the article below. It is from Alex Au’s Yawning Bread. Note the confrontational tone against religion – the very behaviour these secularists accuse religionists of!
Where religious freedom ends
To begin with, we need better clarity about the issue. It isn’t faith, it isn’t spirituality. Indeed, one can choose to have as much of those as one wants. The problems begin with public religiosity, which manifests in a number of ways:
1. Demonstrate publicly one’s adherence to the faith — to signal one’s presence to other like-minded believers, to urine-mark the religion’s presence in the community, and to assert one’s right to piety.
2. Proclaim the superiority of one’s beliefs and find ways to obtain recognition of that superiority, for which there are no better proofs than conversion of others and the adoption of the religion by the state as the officially-sanctioned religion.
3. Ensure that nominal members of the same religion are kept in line — this is done either through disciplinary rules and actions, or through internal indoctrination (e.g. religious classes for children) and socialisation (e.g. all sorts of group activities for older members).
4. Modify the environment around the believer so that his living space, not just his private self, conforms to his beliefs; in other words, to shape the laws and axioms of state and society to be consistent with the tenets of the faith.
Is there a term for religionophobia? I guess if there isn’t, it’s time to get one now.
“Urine-mark”? What kind of term is that? A disdainful, non-respectful, and definitely confrontational approach. Isn’t this the hallmark of an extremist?
As for #2, I don’t see religionists going round to others claiming at their top of their voices they are superior to others. Yes, they may claim such within themselves, but so what? Why is there a fear for such people if they said it to themselves?
If at all, the ones who do go round claiming that they have a right to stamp their ground and “urine-mark”, it is the gay community. As for secular extremists, we have seen how they go round trying to hinder a mega Church from expanding when it bought some prime property.
#3 is interesting. It had to come from a gay activist. Hey, didn’t gays go beyond their line when they tried to teach young schoolgirls about homosexuality? That aside, what’s wrong with religious classes? Trying to disband it? Isn’t that calling for the eradication of religious education, which will lead to stifling of religious communities? Isn’t this call an extreme call?
The irony is that while the above point portrays religious classes for children as a threat, it was the gay community who taught schoolchildren about homosexuality in schools!
As for #4, this truly has to be religionophobia on the part of Alex. The only religious group that has shaped the laws of Singapore to suit itself is Islam. But even that, the laws affect Muslims only. Is Alex trying to say that should be removed? What’s his purpose? It is not that the Sharia Law in Singapore affects non-Muslims. So why this call? Isn’t Alex overstepping his boundary, expecting another group (in this case Muslims) to follow his whims and fancy? Talking about how gays complain when others tell them what to do!
The above are Alex’s concerns. Below are his recommendations. If you thought the above reflects badly on Secularism because of its near extremist tone, wait till you see what he has in store for you below.
As you can see, these impulses range from the relatively harmless to the conflict-certain. They are driven more by a quest for power over others than for spirituality within the self. Inevitably, any quest for power must run up against others, and against a state that defines itself as secular, Wong should have drawn three red lines in the sand.
1. No religion may contest the secular foundations of the state, and “secular foundations” should have a broad meaning. All actions of the state shall be based on secular public reasoning. Wherever, for example, the state has to adjudicate between good and bad, right and wrong, prohibition and permission, such judgements shall be free from any religiously-motivated inputs. This is a necessary clarification of the “no religion in politics” rule.
Firstly, “secular foundations” is actually a misnomer. We inherited our law system from the British. The British Law, for most of the part, takes its guidelines from Christian thought.
Secondly, the fact that Alex even wants “secular foundations” to have a broad meaning indicates that he wants an all-encompassing situation, where there is flexibility for secularists to change rules and goalposts at their fancy. In other words, a blank cheque that ensures the perpetuity of the chaining of all religions till the end of time. Isn’t that secular extremism? Again, interestingly, isn’t that exactly what religious extremists do too?
2. No religion may carve out more and more public space for itself, where “public space” again has a broad meaning. This means that taking over other civic groups, buying over commercial property, muscling in on education services or dominating airwaves will be considered beyond the pale.
Ah, the very draconian rule many “free speech advocators” try to get the Singapore govt to stop practising! So why is OK when it comes to religion? Isn’t this pure hypocrisy?
3. Any religion or member of such who goes out to propagate hate, discrimination and ill-will against any other group of people, will be considered to be challenging the secular principle of equality and non-discrimination, and the human rights of the target group, and will be dealt with with the full force of the law.
Two points I would like to make.
1. Why must it be that it be considered challenging the secular principle of equality? See the subtle brainwashing on the part of Alex to link secularism = equality? What is so equal when you limit religion and stunt its growth with all the recommendations? Don’t religionists have a right to their own domain?
2. Again, an irony here. Have not gays been Christian bashing as their default action, whenever it comes to gay topics? Isn’t that discrimination and spreading ill-will against a target group?
And for good measure, Wong should not only have mentioned that the constitution protects the right to propagate one’s faith (Article 15 clause 1), but that clause 4 circumscribes this right and more generally, the freedom to practice one’s faith. Clause 4 says: “This Article does not authorise any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality”.
Clearly, religious freedom is not an unlimited freedom. In fact, I would argue that it should be seen as limited only to a freedom of conscience and a freedom to worship. Public religiously has to be conditional and subject to the imperatives of public order and civil peace in the context of a society with diverse beliefs, including atheism.
Again, another hallmark of extremism. Create animosity and fear when there is none. Where has any religious group in Singapore overstepped its boundary? Yes, we do have individuals who may have done that – and the govt has taken them to task. But exactly where has any religious group gone overboard?
Has not Alex been trying to create a sense of fear for religion, when there is none to fear in the first place? Has not Alex been engaging in extremism, in this case secular extremism?
Wong (Kan Seng) should have said so without mincing his words.
Wong KS did make his point without mincing his words. It is Alex who is engaging in fear mongering and secular extremism.
As I have said in the beginning. I do find secularists and/or atheists the most intolerant of all groups whenever the topic of religion arises. Personally, I find that religious groups are much more tolerant towards secularists and atheists than the other way.
