Why We Lost in the CCC Saga

A recent furor was kicked up when a poster by National University of Singapore Campus Crusade for Christ (NUS CCC) went viral on the net. The poster claimed that “Thailand is a place of little true joy. Buddhism is so much of the Thai national identity and permeates into every level of society and culture that only one hundred Thais accept Christ each year”.

(I don’t own the image.)

The incident attracted the attention of NUS Office of Student Affairs (OSA) and the Provost, who advised the student group to remove the poster. The Singapore Police Force (SPF) was contacted and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is currently investigating the matter. Even Facebook was involved in removing photos of the poster that was circulating.

NUS CCC did as told and released an apology as follows:

“We humbly apologize for the distress we have caused you through the poster of ours that has gone viral online. We recognize that our choice of words used should have been more sensitive and tactful. We acknowledge that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and it is definitely not our intention to force anyone to believe in what we do. We have since removed our posters and websites, and will be watchful of future actions. Thank you for your understanding and our deepest apologies again for the distress that this incident has caused you.”

Some has defended NUS CCC by stating that the poster is meant for internal circulation, but this only add to the incredulity for it suggests that it is okay to make such remarks privately and not publicly. Indeed, a careful reading of the apology statement by NUS CCC shows that they have yet to apologize for their remarks – only for not being subtle enough and for being politically incorrect.

This is not the first time that Evangelicals launched unjust attacks against Buddhists in Singapore. Exactly one year ago, Pastor Rony Tan of Lighthouse Evangelism was called up by Internal Security Department (ISD) for “unacceptable and inappropriate” remarks on the Buddhist/Taoist communities – a matter in which he later apologized for publicly. An article was published in The Online Citizen (TOC) with a cryptic subtitle, “it has only just begun”. Indeed, it had only just begun.

Continuing reading the apology, the students from NUS CCC “acknowledge that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and it is definitely not our intention to force anyone to believe in what we do”. It looks to me that NUS CCC is asserting their freedom of speech or freedom of religion (to blaspheme other religions). The difference between free speech and hate speech can often blur but in this one occasion, are they right to claim their right? I have no lost love for entities such as evangelism, but it seems that they are correct.

Just a few months back, there was an attempt at invoking the Sedition Act against Mr Donaldson Tan for a repost of “an extremely offensive picture to Muslims”. Disgusted, I commented that using political power to crush people who disagree would never win anyone any respect; respect must be earned when both parties are on equal grounds.

Likewise now, when so many authorities that were or are involved (OSA, Provost, SPF, MHA), I really have to ask this: Exactly what kind of society are we moving towards? Instead of intelligent civic engagement, the temptation to have an authority to settle disputes seems quite high (of which I am guilty of sometimes too). And we know how authorities would settle disagreements: Censorship. Suppressing autonomy, censorship of this manner would only build up undercurrents and both parties on either side would only go on believing in whatever they had already believed in, leading to even deeper and wider gulfs that would eventually become unbridgeable. Racial and religious tolerances of these kinds are superficial and can scarcely be called true harmony/tolerance. We won the battle and lost the war.

Many have disagreed, stating that conversations with the religious often end up as a waste of time. I share the same sentiments. From my experience over the years, no evangelicals speak with an open mind and I am the only one who is allowing my views to be changed. Such people reinforce the idea that it is impossible to form a proper society with them, since many issues must be dialogical and reflective in nature. These people dress up their words in honey-sweeten rhetoric and refuse to seek compromises, and indeed, why should they if their deity is the one true one?

Nonetheless, I hope I am correct to say that not all Christians in Singapore have evangelical leanings. On the one end, the existence of “de-converts” should signal some hope, and somewhere in between, I believe there are some who are reasonable and capable of engaging in fruitful conversations. Further, as members of a shared society, such dialogues are probably not consensual, but obligatory. And I contend that one of such obligation is, as the late Christopher Hitchens puts it, “the taming and domestication of religious faith (as) one of the unceasing chores of civilization”. But to do so, there must be contact and active engagement. I am not a pacifist; I am just being pragmatic. We cannot ignore them and we cannot bank on the government to always “do the right thing”; they are part of society and it is dangerous for all of us if we abandon them to believe in whatever they wish to. We can’t control what others believe, but we can moderate them. And we pay a heavy price if we choose not to. We can call it the failure of human psyche: Without alternative views, people have the tendency to fall for everything that one side have to say, often being overconfident in their abilities to objectively access the situation, thus resulting in an illusion that they have impartially arrived at their conclusions.

Also, specific to the incident, beyond the discussions about free/hate speech and importance of pluralism, there should also be another discussion which has been noticeably missing in both the mainstream and alternative media. And the discussion is about the meaning of “true joy”. Some Christians seem to think that there is really no “true joy” outside their religion. This is demonstrably false. Just climb out of the well and ask individuals from other religions. Reinterpretation of the phrase may be done, as is often done with the holy books, but this does not whitewash the fact that these people still regard others as somehow deficient.

Lastly, I am excited to say that upon CCC’s attacks on the Thai/Buddhist community, disparate freethinkers have gathered to stand in solidarity against unjust remarks and for pluralism that is our treasured society. I am not certain what will become of it, but we shall see.

Re: “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus”

Okay, so this video has been making rounds and I will make a quick comment on it. (Damn… just when I was starting to have a better impression of Christianity and I had to see this video.)

“Jesus” is more than a man and more than a “god” (however vaguely defined). “Jesus” is a symbol – a symbol of power. “Jesus” is the moral licence that sanctions terrible religious behaviours. No doubt religions can be a force for good, but the moment you subscribe to this moral absolutism called “Jesus” and have somebody who claims to know for certainty the mind of this being or thing, any behaviour is permitted and can be justified as “the ultimate good” easily through the structures of religion. Religion is only a bureacracy, a means of organizing people. It does not kill. What kills? Ideas. Ideas can kill. And if an idea is coupled with moral absolutism, we have a very big problem. Come on, it is no coincidence that religions without god(s) tend to be more peaceful. So be careful with the idea of “Jesus” and what the word represents.

Read more.

A christian replies too:

A Letter to the Christian God

Dear christian god

Or so I heard, of conscious, free, will, you created a forbidden tree of good and evil in the middle of where Adam and Eve resided and warned that the consumption of its fruits would cause death. To say nothing of who or what the “first cause” of the serpent in the garden is, you poured the blame onto Eve, who was as gullible as she was created, when she consumed from the forbidden tree. Who would have expected that you, the all-benevolent god, would create and allow deceit in paradise? And who would have expected Eve to understand the concept of “deceit” or “obedience” without the knowledge of morality, precisely because she was disallowed to consume from the tree of good and evil?

This absurd scenario is like what Christopher Hitchens described: A father putting cigarettes in his children’s hands and then telling them not to smoke. I would add on. This father had actually previously prohibited his children from learning about morality, repudiated his parenting responsibilities when his children were deceived by another by blaming his children – the victims! – for not understanding right and wrong, then finally cursing and casting them out of home but was kind enough to clothe them before their final departure.

This must be black comedy! Tell me it is untrue.

I will skip the mass genocides, massacres, rapes, slavery etc. that has been said that you had masterminded and which your believers touted as morals befitting of the times, and wonder about your appearance during Bronze Age before semi-literate people, who spoke ancient languages most people do not understand today and who did not have proper documenting technology, under the cover name “Jesus” and as a Jew. Given such circumstances, I can’t say if you had expected to convince a lot of people about what you had to say.

I also can’t say that I understand the need for you to rile up the Roman (and Jewish too?) authorities, especially when Roman-Jewish relations were pretty volatile and tense during that period, through teachings that were suspiciously similar to a particular militant Jewish sect then, of which the Romans eventually destroyed. I trust that it was according to your divine plan that you allowed yourself to be betrayed, captured, tortured, and subjected to the horrible sentence of cruxification? One might almost entertain the possibility that you were repenting for your sins of unjustly throwing our first ancestors out of your home, until we realize you were just here to sign a new lopsided contract with us: we are guaranteed eternal hell unless we blindly follow your orders and commands with the warranty ending during the Second Coming, which you had promised to be, according to some ancient texts, during the lifetime of your or your apostles’.

Today, your followers preach that we are supposed to feel guilty, as well as your unending love for us simultaneously, about your dramatic display of being the ultimate bloody human sacrifice on a cross despite it being part of your plan all along. Your followers preach that every baby is born worthless and corrupt, and the only way to save ourselves is to throw our sins, or wrongdoings, onto you, thereby dissolving ourselves of them. I had thought that every moral choice or ethical deliberation is based on the concept of personal responsibility! Perhaps it is time to stop devising creative ways of punishing your creation – the world you created clearly has quite a number of needless suffering – and start learning at least a thing or two from us, particularly, in this case, from the parents who teach their children about responsibility, about readily and courageously admitting to and correcting wrongs, and not playing the finger-pointing game and pushing blame on others.

By the way, I thought that your promotion of human/god cannibalism is uncanny.

I also can’t say I know why you considered humans to be your better creations since we have vestiges like the appendix and wisdom teeth, both of which can cause infections and diseases, and possibly death, if not taken care of properly. I sometimes wonder if the brain is a vestige as well, because if what your followers say are true about you wanting us to believe you on faith, then the brain is not only useless, but an obstacle too because of its powers of reasoning. The brain is a wonderful organ, so I trust that you wanted us to use ours, to be free to inquire and to be free to think critically, regardless of the outcome. Thomas Jefferson famously said, “Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear”. Oh, but the fear-mongering and intimidation your followers are waging on non-believers today! You can see it for yourself so I do not need to gossip to you about them.

There is a curious thing about your followers which I fail to understand. Being followers of a great being such as you, I would expect them to be the best humans around. Yet, strangely, it is not the case.

(The following are based on studies, a few can be found on this blog, others in the video link later; I am not just shooting my mouth off.)

Why do the non-religious tend to be more intelligent on average? Why are most of the Nobel Prize winners atheists? Why are most university professors atheists? Why are most scientists atheists?

Why do the non-religious know more about religions in general?

Why do the non-religious tend to be less violent and commit fewer crimes? Why, in the United States for example, proportion of atheists in prison is inexplicably much less than the proportion of atheists in the general population?

Why are poverty rates and illiteracy rates less among atheistic societies?

Why do atheistic societies have higher average income?

Why are divorce rates, abortion rates, teen pregnancy rates and STD infection rates lower among atheistic societies?

Why is religiosity linked to racial prejudice?

While we are at it, you might also want to check out what this other person has to say to you. I couldn’t match the eloquence in what has been said.

Might I arrive at the conclusion that you are an atheist (you must be actually), judging on how you seem to favour atheists and atheistic societies? Whatever the case, your followers are so confident and so convinced that you want us to be christians, or more precisely, be part of their own brand of Christianity. I must admit, it is difficult to choose from the 30,000-40,000 distinct christian denominations. I find it amusing that each profess to have a direct line of communication to you, and some, the only true line of communication.

I don’t know. Sometimes I think that Christianity does not need you. You know, people are happy going to church; they are not happy because of the belief in you. Almost paradoxical, isn’t it? The reason people go to church is because of you and they are happy not because of you, but because of the sense of community, which can be replicated anywhere else. Sometimes I also think that Christianity would be better off without you. You have become a moral license for some of the most abhorent behaviours. In such cases, I wished you had at least spoken up against them. But, you didn’t do anything at all.

I think I am getting long-winded. You are a psychic and can read my mind after all so I don’t need to say much. I shall end off with a question.

Did I mention “psychic” just now? (I don’t own the image.)

Do you seriously want these stated persons to suffer eternally?

If so, then you are not worthy of being called god, much less deserving of the eternal praise you reward yourself with when the world ends. To think that one – anyone – deserves punishment forever is unjust. Some of the listed persons didn’t do anything wrong in the first place. Some don’t even exist!

I am going to share this letter to all those who care to read it. If you think that this letter is blasphemous, then you will find some way to stop me. I will give you one night to do it. But, if you think that this letter will brighten people and their minds up, I will go ahead and share it.

Yours truly

P.S. I will write to you again if I have time, no doubt with more complains about your followers. Here is an update about your followers:

Is MOE Encouraging the Spread of STD?

(Update 28 Dec 2011: see also)

The story:

The Ministry of Education (MOE) has drafted a revised Sexuality Education Programme (SEP) to boost emphasis on abstinence over contraception, reported The New Paper (TNP).

The new programme, Breaking Down Bridges (BDB), will be taught to Secondary 3, first-year junior college and centralised institute students, said the paper.

TNP also reported that the old programme faced some criticism from some Catholics due to the emphasis on using contraception, and the lack of awareness given to abstaining from sex. While it understands from MOE that the new programme will be ready in 2012, no details have yet been confirmed.

An MOE spokesperson told TNP that the revamp is part of its “periodic review” of the SEP curriculum to “ensure that it is updated and relevant” to students.

Parents of students in Catholic schools in Singapore welcomed the change to the programme.

Yahoo! Singapore spoke to Marilyn Koh, 47, a Catholic whose son attends a Catholic school, “I’m really looking forward to MOE changing their focus on the SEP. I was not very comfortable with the previous curriculum as it was not catered to Catholic teachings.”

Francis Chan, who also has a son in a Catholic school, agreed with the change, “It’s a lot more appropriate for Catholic schools to be teaching the children to abstain from sex, instead of promoting contraception. I’m perfectly fine with the current programme running in a secular school, but Catholic schools should be imparting Catholic values, right?”

If removing Penal Code Section 377A* is the encouragement of homosexuality, then censoring out information about contraceptives as the better alternative in combating STDs must be the encouragement of the spread of STDs. This logic, of course, is plain ridiculous, but I accept no double standards from these self-appointed religious experts of human sexuality.

*It criminalizes male (if female, it’s okay?) homosexual acts. It has since become a non-enforceable “signpost” to indicate Singapore society’s rejection of homosexuality – but I have not seen any survey done to support this claim.

Because of the way Singapore politics are, I make no apologies in saying that the ruling party has yet again shown itself to be out of touch of reality because I do not see how emphasizing abstinence instead is being “updated and relevant”. It must be one of those template statements yet again. Interestingly, more than a year ago, the state-run newspapers managed to publish the article “Abstinence-only program do not work” and I have commented on it before. I summarize the main points:

1. Teaching abstinence has no effect on the frequency of having sex.

2. Teaching abstinence increases the likelihood of having unprotected sex.

3. As a result, there are higher rates of teenage pregnancies and STDs.

The author notes that Singapore functions like the “Christian strong states in the United States” and it is precisely there we find the higher rates. Christians make up only 18.3% of Singapore’s population so why are we functioning like them? I know they are loud, hence they may be a perceived majority, but even a majority does not grant a free-pass for intrusion into public policies. Whatever happened to secularism? Perhaps, the ruling party is banking on some fictitious “Asian values” upheld by the conservative (or apathetic?) Singapore society in order to justify its denial and retreat from effective STD prevention methods. In MOE’s website, it almost seems as if it just stopped short of blaming “liberal values” for STDs (last paragraph).

Continuing the main points from the article:

4. While US have the highest teenage pregnancies in the developed world, Netherlands have the lowest.

5. Sexuality education in the Netherlands is non-judgmental and there is space for open discussion – such an environment actually delayed intercourse instead.

6. Knowledge of contraceptives did not encourage its use, but it does allow for a safe option.

7. Evangelical Protestants teenagers are more likely to believe in abstinence, but more sexually active than other religious groups. (Anyway, I think most Christians in Singapore are evangelicals.)

8. The president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America said the study shows “the national policy of promoting abstinence-only programs is a $1.5 billion failure”.

Last I heard, it was the “conservative values” that were so quick to hide behind sexual morality in order to impose their misguided sense of what’s virtuous, creating an air of apprehension and deterrence against earnest questions and quest for knowledge.

Particularly, the Vatican has decreed that that the use of contraception is not only wrong, but “intrinsically evil”. This is despite a clear and unambiguous statement from the UN stating the effectiveness of the condom in the global effort. Stephen Fry gave a passionate defence against Catholic dogma (starts at 4:15):

So, really, is MOE’s SEP striving to be “updated and relevant” or to be outdated and irrelevant? In the October 2007 debate on Section 377A, the Prime Minister suggested that we continue to observe how the Western countries are coping with the gradual acceptance of homosexuality (sorry, no citations – I think the parliamentary records are being re-archived currently). So, if our sovereign state is to also take cues from foreigners with regards to sexuality education, then I think the verdict is already out. Abstinence is not superior to contraceptives in the prevention of the STDs.

I am not familiar with how Catholics in Singapore operate but if other fundamentalist political Christian denominations provide any clues, emphasizing abstinence is only a springboard to the ultimate goal of pushing for abstinence-only programmes.

When Catholic opposition against state sexuality education first came out earlier this year in the news, I wrote in to the state newspapers to voice my concerns but it was not published.

I do not deny the right of parents – Catholic or otherwise – to decide what is best for their children. I have no doubt that most parents have the best of intentions. But, do parents know what is best for their children? If we are to admit the imperfections of the human being, then we must necessarily admit that sometimes parents do not know what the best is.

The evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding. (Albert Camus)

And prejudice can often prevent people from dealing with reality, causing them to deem incompatible views as unquestionably wrong.

Furthermore, what about the rights of children/youths – the right to a proper education? If we are to deny children’s rights and bow down to the unsubstantiated belief that abstinence is the best, which is demonstrably false as shown by numerous studies, how then are the state and we, as a society, supposed to answer should any misfortune befall on our younger generations?

As far as the current relationship between state and religion is, religions have the green light to continue teaching and spreading whatever its beliefs are – for the most part. But, imposing a particular religion’s brand of morality in state education and in the public sphere is something that we should not tolerate. This is no place for public morality; only public reason. Why should we, the responsible citizens of society, be fooled into buying and accepting second-rate STD prevention programmes? To downplay the importance of contraceptives is to disarm ourselves in the battle against STD and to losing half the battle even before it begun! And it is preposterous if this is because we have to pay false respect to religious dogma.

The way to do it is not to pressure the government into censorship. The way to do it, if one is truly upright, is allow for a comprehensive state sexuality education, but also to educate about Catholic teachings if the parents so wish. I take the fear that Catholic sexual morality may be eroded as a lack of faith in the foundations of its doctrines.

I take what little comfort is left in that MOE has not confirmed any details. Maybe the new programme will apply only to Catholic schools (even though there may be non-Catholics in these schools who would thus be shortchanged) and the rest of us can have the more comprehensive one. This position, however, would also be unsatisfying because I imagine higher teenage pregnancies and higher STD rates among the communities that favored abstinence as a primary guide. If so, then society as a whole has to bear the burden of the erroneous actions of the unlistening few who had been advised otherwise. However, I hope my imagination has run wild. After all, above the issue of contraceptives-or-abstinence, what I believe to be the most important is still the quality of interpersonal relationships in a positive, supportive social environment that encourages openness and honesty.

Religion as Opium: Meta-Analysis of 137 Countries

We know that the proliferation of religion owes to arbitrary factors such as geographical location so our probability of achieving eternal happiness or being condemned to eternal pain and torture is partly determined by the accident of where we are born:

However, what sustains a religion? The continuation of a religion depends not so much on how good its teachings are, but on the prevalence of existential vulnerabilities. In the 2011 study “A cross-national test of the uncertainty hypothesis of religious belief”, the author found that religion declines where there is greater economic equality, income distribution and health security. To put it bluntly, religion is the bacteria which strive in the rot that is the failure of society and governance, catalyzed by factors such as human cognitive and emotional biases. It is the vulture that circles above, waiting for that one chance when human minds are weak and unguarded to swoop down and feast on our fears and anxieties. Of course, not all religions are like that, but Abrahamic religions tend to be so. Religion succeeds only where others have failed. It cannot stand on its own.

The author summed up as follows:

Why is religion in decline in fast-paced countries where ordinary people enjoy a good standard of living? It seems that with better science, with government safety nets, better health, and longer life expectancy, there is less fear and uncertainty in people’s daily lives. As a result there is less of a need for religion to help people cope with the feeling that they have little control over their lives.

In the past, when natural disasters hit and upheaved people’s lives, when people died of viral infections whose cause they did not know etc., science did not exist yet and so there was a failure to acquire the necessary knowledge on how they happened. Religion comes in and offers non-answers to enable the people to deal with them. Now, with science, we have a much better understanding of how natural processes works and through knowledge, we gained the strength past generations never had and empowered ourselves. As we battle ignorance to the edges, religion finds itself with less of it to exploit. It cannot survive without ignorance.

In the past, when wars were more common and injustices more likely etc, there was a failure to maintain stability and peace. Religion soothes people and tells them that it is okay if life is harsh or if you die, because there is another better life waiting for you after that. Now, consider that with the spread of democracy, for a long time, no democratic country has gone to war with another democratic country. And the rule of law is better upheld in today’s world and practical solutions such as the social security system actually tries to deal with the problem, not just comfort people that life’s like that. With these progresses, religion finds itself with less authority than before in claims of offering a better way out.

As life becomes “less painful”, religion is no longer needed as an aspirin (or rather, a placebo). I believe it was Karl Marx who suggested that religion is the expression of the inequalities in society. Data appears to support him. If so, the prevalence of religion should be used as a litmus test of how equal and how just a society is. It can be a measure of how successful a government has done its job.

Our country, Singapore, is one of the more economically developed countries and yet maintained a high percentage of people who proclaim to belong to a religion. This would not be surprising if we realize that our country is one of the most, if not the most, economically unequal societies among comparable democracies. Richard Wikinson talked about the social effects of income inequality. Relationship has been found with children’s well-being, trust in society, mental illness, homicide rates, proportion of population in prison, children dropping out of high school and social mobility. In short, income inequality is positively correlated with health and social problems.

TED: Correlations of Inequality

Of course, I am not claiming that religion leads to these problems, though it can contribute to it, but I am saying that there is correlation among inequality, health and societal problems, and religiosity. As a cluster, they must be brought down in order to promote well-being and progress.

Opium makes you feel good, but it is cheap pleasure. Choose a healthier diet.