Religion hates freedom of speech

Who would have thought that enjoying a simple dish comprising pork rib stewed with herbs and copious amounts of spices (a South East Asian delicacy known as Ba Kut Teh) would literally land one in hot soup. 

Just ask the luckless Malaysian, one Ms Vivian Lee May Ling, who was sentenced to six months in prison, for allegedly mocking her Muslim countrymen by posting an online greeting during Ramadan depicting the offending dish. Admittedly, unlike the savory dish, the post might have been in bad taste given that Muslims possess an intense dislike of anything porcine. And I mean anything. However, a six month custodial sentence seems unduly harsh given that she is not a Muslim and should not be expected to adhere to dietary restrictions prescribed under Islamic law. Yet, the prosecution is appealing the sentence for being too lenient. The severity of the punishment is not commensurate with her deed and the intended message is abundantly clear: In Malaysia, Islam brooks neither criticism nor satire.
 
Closer to home in Singapore, poor Amos Yee has been hauled up yet again for allegedly offending the sensitivities of the religious.  The reader may recall that the teen was arrested and sent to prison last year because peace-loving and born-again Christians were outraged by his online antics. This time round, he had apparently made disparaging comments about Islam on an online platform (facebook?). The offending remarks were not reported in media. But suffice to say, these unrepeatable remarks must have agitated a fair number of people who found it worth their time to lodge police reports under Section 298A of the Singapore Penal Code. Again, the religion of peace manifests its tolerant and graceful teachings in rather odd fashion.

I have said it before, I will say it again, the fact that this statute is actively relied upon and enforced is highly problematic, not least because of the arbitrary manner it is being applied. Who determines what is legitimately offensive and to whom? Furthermore, are we saying that all uncomfortable viewpoints should not be aired, no matter how valid, to avoid injuring the fragile constitutions of some? 

This ill-conceived piece of legislation effectively silences (through self-censorship or, as in the case of Amos Yee, police intervention) discourse about the merits (or lack thereof) of any Government policy or social issue which religious groups may have a stake in, e.g., Science education, history, human rights, homosexuality, etc.  

We should recognize by now that discussion of this sort is essential for the progress of society. Regrettably, monotheistic religions tend to have a comprehensive worldview and their adherents are rarely afraid to exert their considerable political clout to bend Governments to their will. One needs to look no further than the recent UMNO support for the implementation of hudud law in PAS-controlled states to appreciate the political muscle a single religion can wield.  What better way to wrest religious votes from the Opposition than to present your party as the True Champion of Islam? 

The Chinese have a saying "骑虎难下" - literally translated as "It is hard to dismount when riding a tiger". I sure hope UMNO knows what it is getting itself into when pandering to far right elements.

How long would it be before Malaysia treads the footsteps of India's BJP party and goes for a pork ban? Your guess is as good as mine. However, if secular society is unable and unwilling to stand up for its right to expression and debate, then we all better have our fill of Ba Kut Teh, while we still can. 

 

Freedom of Religion versus Freedom from religion

TODAY reports that Malaysia Airlines had sneakily stopped serving alcoholic beverages to all customers for short haul flights since 1 Jan 2016, a move that was apparently not widely publicized, much to the surprise (and chagrin) of unsuspecting passengers. 

When discussing the utility of religion, it is not uncommon for religious people to argue that their practice of religion is deeply personal from which they derive solace, comfort and, believe it or not, moral guidance. And that it should not offend secularists like myself that there are people who would like to have the freedom of religion. 

Certainly, I am completely for freedom of religion. However, one must understand that there is a competing and equally valid right, that is, the right to have freedom from religion. If my posts have shown you anything, it is that, unlike secularists, religious people are often not quite content with the freedom to privately practice their religion. 

In the case of Malaysia Airlines, the reason given is that muslims cannot imbibe alcohol. At first glance, this reason appears absurd since Malaysia Airlines is not a muslim-only carrier. The corollary immediately becomes apparent: Muslims are not going to be satisfied with just private abstention. No, no, uh huh, the entire plane is not to have alcohol lest their rights to practice their religion be grievously infringed. 

Closer to home in Singapore, at least one muslim felt deeply aggrieved by a public mainstream newspaper which ran an article on (gasp!) ham on a day of contrived religious significance.

Likewise, a secular, private event (costume party featuring nuns with bad habits) had to be cancelled after the Catholic Church felt that it did not align with its values of shielding sex offenders.

Perhaps I am terribly mistaken but it does appear that religious people understand freedom of religion to actually mean: if I cannot do/eat/say something, I make sure everyone else suffers the same restrictions. 

If I cannot have abortions, I want laws that make it unavailable to everyone else. If I cannot draw my prophet, I want to make it illegal for everyone else to do so. If I do not approve of homosexuals, it should bloody well be criminal to be one. 


When organized religions lobby to deny rights to other people or society in general, it is not about defending their right to freedom of religion. That is a non-sequitur because they already have that. There are no secular groups picketing churches and mosques. There is no legislation criminalizing their more questionable practices. Quite to the contrary, society has bent over backwards to accommodate these practices in the name of freedom of religion (e.g., polygamy, genital mutilation of children, etc.)  

It is painfully obvious that "freedom of religion" is used as a misleading and ill-founded excuse for oppression. It is and has always been about negating and removing the right of other persons to have freedom from religion. 

The Sad Affairs of the State

TODAY Voices reader Francis Cheng Choon Fei wrote an impassioned plea to Singaporeans to eliminate Islamophobia. I reproduce the piece herewith in parts:

I agree with the Home Affairs and Law Minister that the fear of Islamophobia creeping into our community is real. Fortunately, Singapore is ready to rein in such unwarranted beliefs and behaviours (“Shanmugam cautions against Islamophobia again”; March 31).

For a letter that cautions against Islamophobia, the most important question is regrettably left unanswered. Exactly what constitutes Islamophobia? 

Is one expected to be tolerant of intolerant beliefs or otherwise risk being labelled a racist or Islamophobic? It is no secret that Islam preaches the use of capital punishment on apostates. It is further no secret that Islam considers the testimony of a woman to be worth markedly less than that of a man. I find these teachings to be self-evidently intolerant and grotesquely offensive. Is religion to be immune to criticism simply because society has somehow elected to place religion behind bullet-proof glass? I find such a position, if left unquestioned, to pose an infinitely larger threat to society. 

Most of us are tolerant and respect one another’s race, language and religion. If we are otherwise not careful, society may become polarised. Singaporeans cannot take for granted that our country is safe from Islamophobia.

The Orwellian sub-text of this paragraph is apparent. Any criticism of religion should be curtailed and censored for the greater good of society. This is a false dichotomy. Society is already polarised. In any case, not discussing these differences is certainly not the same as saying these differences do not exist. Case in point, when FCBC (a charismatic church led by the talent-less, stuttering Lawrence Khong) publicly calls for the criminal prosecution of (male) homosexuals or blatantly denounces well-accepted scientific theories, are we supposed to keep mum out of tolerance and respect? When theists are unequivocal that they intend to impose their religious views on secular society, are we supposed to acquiesce in silence to "avoid polarizing society"? To adopt this perverse view is to completely disregard the actual source of polarity, i.e., the intolerant fundamentalism that is poisoning the monotheistic religions.

As a Chinese-majority country, Singapore cannot afford to let Islamophobia go unnoticed and must nip it in the bud before it develops into an uncontrolled phenomenon.

This is arguably the worst paragraph in the entire letter. In one sentence, the author manages to conflate the religion with an entire ethnic group. There are Chinese who embrace Islam as a religion, just as there are Malays who are not Muslim. Drawing ethnic lines across religious affiliations unnecessarily obfuscates the issue at hand. More importantly, this (intentional?) confusion then allows misguided apologists like the author to invoke the bogeyman defence of "racism" whenever criticism of religion is applied.


If society fails to develop the necessary maturity to critique morally questionable religious beliefs, then it would truly be a sad state of affairs.

Atheism - Just another belief

"Atheism is just another belief system you know."

Ah, yet another favorite response used by apologists and theists alike. As though the statement somehow exonerated their extraordinary naivete (theists) and misplaced political correctness (apologist).  

Well I am sorry but it doesn't.  In the words of a man far more eloquent than myself, Ricky Gervais, "atheism is as much a belief as abstinence is a sex position". But, perhaps not surprisingly, the intended audience usually fails to appreciate the hilarious but uncannily apt analogy to their purported "argument".

They will attempt to dismiss the comeback as a mere quip, again as though such dismissal constituted an actual substantive response to the very valid analogy provided.  To avoid this, I prefer to unleash the following questions upon the person who invokes the "just another belief" argument to expose the bizarre intellectual vacuity of such a statement. 

What belief system does one have to subscribe to in order to believe that the Tooth Fairy does not exist? Should it be written off as "just another belief"?

If I claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (pasta & tabasco be upon Him) does not in fact exist, is it "just another belief"? 

If said person is not yet cowering in embarrassment from his/her apparent bankruptcy of thought, you should feel sorry for them. Evidently, God did not intend to make all of us equal.

It is indisputable that some beliefs bear more merit than others. Someone claiming a belief that Jesus resurrected himself is not claiming a belief of equal respectability as another who claims that light is composed of discrete packets of energy called photons. 

Moreover, it is impossible to prove a negative. Bertrand Russell gave us a famous teapot for elucidating that thought experiment rather eloquently.  It is by no means axiomatic that simply because you cannot prove that something does not exist; a belief that it does, and its counterpart belief that it does not, should be taken to be equally plausible. 

That is offensive

Today, an exclamation that something has offended you is somehow treated, sadly, as substantive discourse on the merits of the statement made that was allegedly offensive. 


Funnily enough, the same people taking offence at criticism of religion also tend to fall in the group of people (well mostly) who despise liberal US gun laws. In any "debate", it would not be before long before one or more of the following comes up:

Defence 1:
Not all members of a particular religion are terrorists. Most are peaceful.

Riposte: Just like not all gun owners are homocidal nutcases. Most just want to show off their twin-barrelled semi-automatic shotgun to friends to ostensibly compensate for small penis sizes.

Defence 2:
The religion is not evil. People are.

 Riposte:  Likewise, guns are not murderers. People are.

So why are we so eager to defend another's right to vile, potentially harmful (legal disclaimer: not harmful per se, only certain interpretations harmful) supernatural beliefs but are in the same breath immediately dismissive of second amendment rights in the US?   Why the apparent cognitive dissonance? 

To clarify, I am not for gun ownership. I believe it takes no more than a modicum of common sense to see that liberal gun laws are the problem in light of what happened to Australia after Port Arthur.  Only Teabaggers and those willfully blind would choose to ignore the clear evidence available. Don't take it from me, take it from John Howard.

In the same vein, I believe it is high time that society came together to properly examine the role religion has played, plays and will play in terrorist attacks. There is a need to tackle this problem at its root. To bury our heads in the sand and say that religion has no part to play is to display unimaginable callousness and nonchalance to those who have suffered from these attacks. Indeed, imagine putting yourself in the shoes of family or friends of those who had needlessly lost their lives, do you not think it is way more offensive for apologists to provide a blanket immunity to religion and dismissing all criticism of faith as "offensive" or "racist"? It would be appalling, scandalous, downright offensive and also, to state the bleeding obvious, stupid. 

When religion becomes absurd

If the reader is still looking for evidence that religion is wholly-man made for painfully obvious and inescapably mundane reasons, just read the newspaper.

It has been reported in Todayonline that Communist Party of China has declared, without any tinge of cheekiness expected of one making such a pronunciation, that the Dalai Lama of Tibet would be (MUST BE) reincarnated as a child upon death; and even more absurdly, that the blessed child could only be one that has been "approved" by the Party.

Because obviously, the despots in Beijing, are the leading authority on Buddhism and indeed the intricate mechanisms and workings of Reincarnation.

The political (spiritual) spat between Beijing and the Dalai has devolved into a comedy of epic proportions and must certainly embarrass Beijing given its avowed secularism.  One must sincerely wonder whether that poor official Zhu Weiqun, who was unfortunately tasked to press the Party's official position, could have done it with a straight face.  Redness in the face? Must be that infamous Asian flush from one too many goblets of gao liang.

No, of course it is NOT about installing a pro-Beijing puppet leader in Tibet, Zhu vehemently trumpets. It is about "respecting Tibetan Buddhism". 

Er.. wut? This is like a Roman emperor exiling the Pope (after "peacefully liberating" the Vatican) and then denouncing a Papal Bull as blasphemy because it doesn't "respect Christianity."  The only thing more absurd than this analogy is that it is not so far off from what is actually happening in Tibet.

No honest person can argue that this is a dispute regarding theology and not politics. Indeed, both the Dalai and Beijing appear to make no effort in masking the political motivations behind this ostensible argument on the central tenet of Tibetian Buddhism,

The only remaining question is whether there remains any Tibetians, Buddhist or not, who could still view this religion seriously and without its richly deserved contempt?

Questions on Morality

Arguments regarding the origin of morality are practically sine qua non in any debate on the merits of religion. Ultimately, the question is be answered is this:

Does morality come from God?

The inconvenient stories

If that is indeed the case, how does God impart morality to His children? Presumably through the inerrant Word of God, the Bible. It is not uncommon for religious people to denounce homosexuals, divorce or abortion by citing scripture. However, it is also no secret that the Bible contains not a insignificant number of morally-questionable stories or parables.  A quick sample:

Homosexuals should be stoned.  

Children who mock prophets deserve a good mauling by she-bears.  

Citizens (including non-combatants, women and children) of a vanquished country/tribe are to be murdered. Apart from the virgins of course, which you should save for yourself. Yum.

Those who inter-marry should expect a spear thrust through their bodies (much to the glee of onlookers)

In this regard, the context defence is usually employed. However, just thinking out loud, exactly under what context is genocide or murder acceptable? I would be pleased if any one could enlighten me on the same.

Do the moral teachings derived from biblical parables and stories acquire an “updated” interpretation as social mores progresses? If so, whose or which interpretation is to be accepted as "correct"? This in turn elicits a more interesting question of whether the (inspired) Word of God is eternal and consistent.

On the other hand, if it is acceptable for biblical interpretation to evolve with prevalent values adopted by society at any given time, then surely Occam's Razor would suggest discarding the Bible altogether.

One can't help but wonder, given that morality is such an instrumental if not an overriding factor in determining the success and continuity of human civilization, why an infinitely-wise God could not have chosen a less tedious, not to mention cripplingly ambiguous, medium to deliver this all so important message.