Now, one of the more important things I had to attend to was meeting up with Wei Chong before he left for Australia. (I've learnt my lesson from Xiaoying.......) Sarah, Wei Chong, Patsy and I met up on Wednesday evening to catch up. Wei Chong is going to leave in a week's time and start his course in Dentistry. One small step for Wei Chong, one BIG step for Dennis' free dental services in the future.
Also, Arthur and I met up for a movie on Wednesday afternoon. He still had his 2 free movie tickets from GV, which were going to expire soon, and (no surprises) he couldn't find any dates to accompany him. Thus, in my all-compassionate usual self, I extended my gracious hand to him and we spent them on 'Slumdog Millionaire'.
At Vivocity, we saw an anime shop selling Gundam 00 models at an outrageous half-price + 20% discount! We decided to grab Kyrios, piloted by Hallelujah/Alleluia, because we're effectively paying for 2 Gundams, and 2 pilots for the price of 1. Haha.
This is Kyrios in the form of a jet.
It can transform into this cool looking thing!
That's his secret weapon - the claw/shield + hidden sword.
Finally, I have also been busy with my school work. The essay for my religious studies set Arthur and I thinking about religious exclusivism. "Religion is inherently divisive, and leads to conflict. Do you agree?" was the essay question. If you're thinking that I believe that all roads lead to the same end because I've posted the festivities of other faiths, think again! You may read my essay to get a better idea of my take on this. Many thanks to Arthur for helping me & at times dragging me along the arguments.
During my research for this paper, I read the works of the famous pluralist John Hick. He is still alive today, and is acclaimed to be an asset to religious studies for his work on pluralism. It is curious to note that he reconciles all but one faith by arguing on theological terms, referring to Hindu Scripture and Buddhist folk tales. However, when he touched on Christianity, he dismisses Jesus' words by claiming that they are from an unreliable source!
Anyway, here's the essay I submitted today. Pray I get my A! :D
Religion, the source of strength, comfort, inspiration and meaning for humanity, has also been dubbed the cause of conflict and violence etched in history. (Pyszczynski, Solomon, & Greenberg, 2006, p. 147) In this essay, I will argue that religion is inherently divisive, but its divisions may not necessarily lead to conflict. I shall attempt to demonstrate this by examining the exclusive nature of religious beliefs and responding to its opponents, discussing John Hick’s theory of pluralism and considering its shortcomings, looking at how religious divisions can coexist in harmony in Singapore and finally, arguing against Richard Dawkins’ suggestion that religion is the cause of religious violence. We will be studying carefully the example of Singapore, a multi-religious nation, as our case study.
Defending Exclusivism
Religion is inherently divisive because all faiths hold to exclusive beliefs. Although there are many other forms of religious expressions, like ritual, community, and institution, beliefs constitute an important role in religion. (Schmidt, et al., 2005, p. 5) Examples exclusive beliefs include the Prophet Muhammad’s claim to be the last prophet of Allah, (Al-Qaradawi & As-Siba`i, 2005) and the Apostle John’s claim that Jesus said that he is the way, the truth, the life, and no one can come to God the Father except through him. (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, 1992) One cannot, at the same time, believe that Jesus is the only way to God and accept Prophet Muhammad’s teachings of relating to Allah. Going with Alvin Plantinga, I would argue that it is ‘simple logic’ that believers of such claims must deem anything incompatible with them as untrue because of the exclusive nature of these beliefs. (Pojman & Rea, 2008, p. 520) This position which holds that there is only one way that leads to God is termed exclusivism.
Opponents of the exclusivism suggest that it is unethical to hold an exclusive position because of the risk of intellectual arrogance. I shall now attempt to demonstrate that exclusivism is unavoidable to everyone, including its opponents. Opponents point out that the exclusivist is more prone to be ‘intellectually arrogant’, since he considers his perception of truth as superior to others’. (Pojman & Rea, 2008, p. 519) Intellectual arrogance is often associated with discontinuing dialogue, leading to division and conflict, and thereby casting a serious shadow doubt on the morality of the exclusivist’s position. As Joseph Runzo highlighted, “Ethically, Religious Exclusivism has the morally repugnant result of making those who have privileged knowledge, or who are intellectually astute, a religious elite...” (Pojman & Rea, 2008, p. 545) Opponents of exclusivism would argue for a more tolerant and inclusive world view, like pluralism, as a step toward world peace. I find it interesting, almost amusing, how this line of reasoning contradicts itself from within. By advocating pluralism and claiming that it is a superior model as compared to exclusivism, opponents of exclusivism become ‘exclusively pluralistic’. (Pojman & Rea, 2008, p. 520) Advocates of any world view, exclusive or pluralistic, are being inherently exclusive, and are equally prone to the dangers of intellectual arrogance.
Responding to Pluralism
Having established that religion is inevitably divisive because of exclusivism, I shall now move on to examine pluralistic views and demonstrate its inadequacies. John Hick, in his essay ‘Religious Pluralism and Ultimate Reality’, suggests that religion should be inclusive and integrated, since they are different manifestations of the same Ultimate Reality. (Pojman & Rea, 2008, p. 512) Hick claims that each faith is a facet of the Ultimate Reality and proposes that Lao-Tzu, Confucius, Gautama, Jesus and Muhammad are all part of the same Ultimate Reality. ‘Trivial’ differences arose between faiths because the Ultimate Reality revealed itself in various forms in different geographical locations at different times. He even quotes Hindu scripture the Rig-Vedas , the Bhagavad Gita and the Buddhist parable of the blind men and the elephant to support his claim. In response, I would disagree with Hick and argue that he failed to account for the exclusive teachings of the Abrahamic faiths that I have highlighted in my defense for exclusivism. Hick has also discounted the fact that the Tibetan Buddhist doctrine maintains the idea of nothingness and of having no Absolute or Ultimate Reality. (Quinn & Meeker, 2000, p. 9)
I would also point out that Hick is not resolving the obvious differences between the beliefs of world religions, but subsuming all faiths under the inclusive dogma of Hinduism and Buddhism. By doing so, he relegates the deities of other faiths under the umbrella of pluralism, putting Allah on par Lao-Tzu, and equating Jesus to Muhammad. (Kessler, 1999, p. 533) This may be considered as blasphemy by the pious of the various faiths, leading to their resentment and anger, as opposed to the all-encompassing and tolerant nature Hick is putting forward.
In his argument that world religions are noticeably like chalk and cheese today because the Ultimate Reality revealed itself in different forms to different places at different times, Hick claims that Ultimate Reality cannot reveal itself to the entire world all at once because of the technological backwardness of the past. (Pojman & Rea, 2008, p. 510) In response, I would argue that if it was the Ultimate Reality that manifested itself in history, there would not be discrepancies in the doctrines of world religions today. The inconsistency in the teachings of world religions over issues like homosexuality, abortion and apostasy, to name a few, is testament to different revelations from different ‘realities’. Also, an Ultimate Reality that cannot transcend geographical and technological limitations cannot be reconciled with the doctrine of omnipotence in the Abrahamic faiths. Raimundo Panikkar further argues that there is a fundamental illogical perception of the truth in pluralism because of the diverse and dissimilar claims of each faith and it is almost impossible to translate pluralism into a practicing religion for any individual, save perhaps for Hick himself. (Kessler, 1999, p. 533)
Division Not Necessarily Leads to Conflict
Having established that exclusivism is inevitable in religion, divisions between and within faiths is expected because of various irreconcilable beliefs. However, I would argue that division may not necessarily lead to conflict so long as divisions mutually value each other and do not seek to dominate the others. To demonstrate this, we would be looking closely at the example of Singapore, a multi-ethnic and multi-religious nation. First of all, I would like to clarify that although ethnicity and religion are different concepts, they are strongly associated with each other in Singapore. For instance, most Malays practice Islam and Hinduism is mostly confined to the Indian community.
With the association of ethnicity and religion in mind, we can now examine how Singapore treads on the tight rope of religious harmony. Singapore is a multi-ethnic nation with a Chinese majority. Of the 3.64 million Singaporeans, 2.72 million are Chinese, 0.49 million are Malays, 0.32 are Indians and another 0.10 are from the diverse ‘Others’ category. (Wong Wee Kim, 2008) Main religions in Singapore include Islam, Taoism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Judaism. (Singapore Tourism Board, 2009) With the diversity in religion, it is curious that Singaporeans who are devoted to exclusive faiths can live in harmony with others. We would now examine three factors which contribute to the peace in Singapore, namely, the protection of political rights of minority groups, the formation of movements targeted at religious harmony, and the execution of stringent regulations on criticisms based on religious grounds.
The Singapore government pass laws and implement policies that protect the rights of minority ethnic groups. An example would include the Group Representation Constituencies or GRC. This deviation from the Westminster parliamentary system inherited by Singapore was introduced in 1988. The state is divided into regions called GRC. During election, Singaporeans vote for political groups of four to six contesting in each zone. Groups competing for any GRC have to include at least one member from the minority ethnic groups; one candidate must be of either Malay, Indian or Eurasian lineage. This guarantees that there is adequate ethnic minority representation in parliament and that their voices would be heard and considered in the governance of the state. (Singh, 2007, p. 32) The Housing Development Board of Singapore also has policies that establish racial quotas of within a block of apartments to ensure that Singaporeans are exposed to other ethnic groups. According to Mr Mah Bao Tan, Minister of National Development, these policies are aimed at promoting social cohesion in Singapore. (Mah, 2007) These policies promote an all-sided dialogue from all faiths, especially on issues pertaining to the state. Dialogue arguably encourages deeper understanding of others’ faiths, and takes Singaporeans another step into religious harmony. These policies also hamper any attempt of tyranny from the Chinese majority and demonstrate that every ethnic group is valued.
Another factor that prevents religious exclusivism leading to conflict would be the formation of movements targeted at religious harmony in Singapore. The Inter-Religious Organisation of Singapore or IRO listed ‘to inculcate the spirit if friendship and cooperation among the leaders and followers of different religions’ as its first objective. (Inter-Religious Organisation, 2004) Another initiative would be the commemoration of Racial Harmony Day on 21st July yearly. This occasion seeks to take students back to the racial riots in 1964 and to remind them that race and religion are potential sources of conflict that could tear the very fabric of the Singaporean society apart. (Ministry of Education, 2007) Apart from providing another platform for inter-religious dialogue, these initiatives constantly remind and instruct Singaporeans about the importance of religious harmony. By representing all orthodox faiths in the IRO, the state once again demonstrates that every group is value and respected.
Finally, we examine the stringent regulations that the state imposes on making religious remarks. Under Chapter 290 of the Statues of Singapore, clause 3 (e) includes promoting ill-feelings between different ethnic groups as a seditious tendency. (Attorney-General's Chambers & Ministry of Finance, 2009) Thus far, at least three Singaporeans have been convicted under this act for passing racist remarks on the Internet. (Chong, 2005) Another blogger was called up for investigation for posting a picture depicting Jesus as a zombie. (Hussain, 2006) These harsh actions taken against those who profane any faiths imply that no one’s beliefs is above any other, demonstrating the equality in status between faith again. As demonstrated in the discourse above, religious exclusivism may not necessarily lead to conflict, so long as each exclusive faith respects the others.
Finally, I shall argue against Richard Dawkins’ claim that religion is the root of religious conflict by demonstrating that the conviction in the superiority of any ideology is really the cause. Four days after the 9/11 attack, Dawkins identified belief in the afterlife as the cause of religious violence. (Dawkins, 2001) He reasoned that the idea of a better in the next world inspired terrorists to sacrifice themselves for the cause of Islam. However, I would argue with Pyszcynski, Solomon and Greenberg that much genocide in history was carried out for the cause of an atheist ideology. (Pyszczynski, Solomon, & Greenberg, 2006, p. 148) Examples include the Holocaust by Hitler, the Great Purge by Stalin, and the Killing Fields in Cambodia. These cases demonstrate that religion or its exclusive beliefs may not necessarily be the cause of conflict. I would suggest that it is the conviction that one’s ideology is superior to others’, as showed in the case study of Singapore and rebuttal Dawkins’ claim.
In conclusion, religion is inherently divisive because of the inevitably exclusive nature of religious beliefs. However, it may not necessarily lead to conflict as long as no one faith seeks to dominate the others, as I have demonstrated in the case study of Singapore.
No comments:
Post a Comment