Technorati Profile
On Religion and Society
The problem with most religions, is that they are non-exclusive with other religions. You cannot have faith in one religion, and claim that another is just as right or acceptable. The tenets of faith where applied to religions is non-negotiable in that sense. It is in this that religions like Christianity get lombarded with accusations of arrogance, because its self-definition is to the exclusion of all others. Believers of "tolerant" religions like Buddhism sometimes too, regard believers of other faiths with derision, nevermind that it could be against their faith to do so.
This context makes intelligent and informed discourse of theology and religion difficult to accomplish in a multiracial society. Some will feel that religious views should not be allowed in a public debate, because they hold no weight to non-believers. Others will feel that they have a right to express the concerns of their faith in light of new public debates like the construction of a casino, because the society must afterall solicit all views of citizens in order to be democratic or fair. Yet others feel that it is the mark of a "mature society" to be able to openly hold discussions on religious and race (Hullo, Jamie!), while others vehemently state that "Maturity does not depend on being able to say whatever one wants. It is measured by knowing how to say it, when to say it and who to say it to."
These issues, to me, have no hope of resolve. Like the very context of religion, each view is non-exclusive to another, and possess no grounds of negotiations. Does this mean that we are forever doomed to be an immature nation? I don't really think so. I believe that being able to debate on whether to allow discussions on human constructs like race and religion is the mark of a mature nation. Surely a less mature society will be more concerned with fiscal, economic orimmediate issues? Indonesians are rioting over fuel hikes. Iraqis are struggling to survive. Singaporeans are wondering whether they should talk about religion and race. If this is not the mark of a mature nation, it certainly is the mark of one that is taking the first step to being mature, regardless of the outcome of the debate.
This context makes intelligent and informed discourse of theology and religion difficult to accomplish in a multiracial society. Some will feel that religious views should not be allowed in a public debate, because they hold no weight to non-believers. Others will feel that they have a right to express the concerns of their faith in light of new public debates like the construction of a casino, because the society must afterall solicit all views of citizens in order to be democratic or fair. Yet others feel that it is the mark of a "mature society" to be able to openly hold discussions on religious and race (Hullo, Jamie!), while others vehemently state that "Maturity does not depend on being able to say whatever one wants. It is measured by knowing how to say it, when to say it and who to say it to."
These issues, to me, have no hope of resolve. Like the very context of religion, each view is non-exclusive to another, and possess no grounds of negotiations. Does this mean that we are forever doomed to be an immature nation? I don't really think so. I believe that being able to debate on whether to allow discussions on human constructs like race and religion is the mark of a mature nation. Surely a less mature society will be more concerned with fiscal, economic orimmediate issues? Indonesians are rioting over fuel hikes. Iraqis are struggling to survive. Singaporeans are wondering whether they should talk about religion and race. If this is not the mark of a mature nation, it certainly is the mark of one that is taking the first step to being mature, regardless of the outcome of the debate.
2 Comments
One might argue that the majority of the world's population believe in some god or higher being regardless of whether they belong to any major religious group and hence religious aspect of social issues are important. But isn't democracy supposed to be the champion of the minority, and hence to be democratic, the views of the non-religious should be respected and religion should not be a major aspect of social issues.
The 'who' of that viewpoint on maturity is perhaps the most important of all the 'how' 'when' and 'who'. If the person you are speaking to is matured, then the 'how' and 'when' are not much of an issue. If the person isn't open to the topic then 'how' and 'when' have to be very carefully handled.
Not sure about the democracy part. But I know for sure is that in a democracy, citizens vote for a ruling party to govern over the nation. The government may not need to champion minority issues (I seem to remember certain US administrations getting criticized for ignoring the Hispanics). Their main point probably is that minority groups should be allowed to express their views, even though they're at odds with another group.
Perhaps respect is another "R" word that a mature society and all religions needs to get acquainted with, before we can broach discourse of race and religion in a society.
Post a Comment
<< Home