Not in Jesus Camp

But what if they took over

If you are like me, you might feel that religious voices, especially Christian voices, in recent years have been embolden. A senior Paster of a Church, Derek Hong, in Singapore has suggested that gays are out to destroy churches. Then just at city hall, a poster within a glass building (a church property) facing the public reads, "Are they making a monkey of you?". Such suggestions imply that those who believe that gays should be accorded equal treatment, that those who believe that evolution is a theory that best explains where we comes from, are somehow 'wrong'. And sometimes the churches are even provocative. There was this sign hanging outside a church, very visible to all taking the mass public transport system that screamed "Homosexuals can change."

On the other hand, religion also have a very special place in Singapore. There are laws protecting them even against satire. Although charges against the Singaporean blogger who placed caricatures of Jesus Christ was dropped, the 21 year old was warned. He had faced a maximum of three years in prison and a fine of 5000 Singapore dollars under the Sedition Act.

But to certain religious leaders, the law should be used in such cases. In a Straits Times Report (June 18, 2006). Father John-Paul Tan, parish priest of the Church of St Mary was reported as saying "The right to free speech stops when it begins to hurt the religious sensitivities of others." The key word is religious. The Anglican Bishop John Chew had this to say, 'We cannot say that just because the West has allowed these pictures to be freely available, we should accept them.'

And Dr. Thio Li-Ann, now an NMP in Parliament, was reported to have said, "Given that 80 per cent of Singaporeans subscribe to some kind of religious faith, it is not conducive to denigrate any faith." Ted Young, writing for Trevvy, described Dr Thio Li-Ann as having "alleged that the gay community has an organised agenda". She was also said to have "implied that Singapore's newspapers were populated by biased liberals, whose unfair reporting paint the conservative Christians as homophobic fundamentalists, while portraying the pro-gay camp as progressive", during a forum organized by Focus on the Family. Focus on the Family is a controversial organisation which have been promoting social conservative public policy in the US.

Following in the Footsteps of United States?
Is Singapore following the footsteps of the United States, where a strong and vocal religious right seek to tap into the conservative middle for political gain and to influence public policy? Are we having our own "Jesus Camp" in Singapore? Is religion threatening the secular nature of state?

I doubt it. Abortion laws are still relatively liberal. The Singapore Government decision to open up two IRs and the embracing of biotechnology (and all its moral hazards) reflects that any vocal and religious right voice will be yet unable to overcome the pragmatic-utilitarian-survivalist mindset of many leaders. Even the founding father, Lee Kuan Yew, decided that gays are natural. At the same times, gays parties and gay runs are still banned. The state has yet to make any comments on evolution, but one can hazard that Lee Kuan Yew, a man who have spoken quite a bit about culture and genes, should be a shoo-in for one who accepts the underlying premise of evolution.

It will still be a few years more before public policy is monopolized by any religious agenda. Yet, demographics in Singapore is ripe for such a scenario. A large group of older and socially conservative Chinese, Indians, and Muslim population can easily support a strong and vocal social conservative religious leaders and public policy. This I think is an obstacle to progress. More so, for individual non-believers, it might mean further alienation and demonization.

There is no equivalent of the British Humanist Association in Singapore. Atheist associations in the United States, while literally struggling against a rabid Christian Right in United States, still manages to provide organisation and comfort. September 11, has unlike in Singapore, been a showcase for many an American, that religion can be really bad. Nearly 50 percent of British people think that their government pay too much attention to religious leaders. Books which debunk the claims of Christian empirical claims and claims of being forces of good are best sellers in both UK and US. Secular organisation have exploded (in numbers) as a counter-reaction to religious forces which have taken it upon themselves to lobby their government for their respective agendas. Singapore have no such equivalent secular organisation.

There is perhaps no need to. But I wonder, do Singaporean non-believers need such an institution to protect themselves against the scenario where religion starts to dominate public policy?

1. History of Homosexuality in Singapore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality_in_Singapore_(2000s)
2. Derek Hong's Sermon's about Homosexuality
http://yawningbread.org/arch_2007/son-788a.mp3
http://www.coos.org.sg/sermons/files/sermonMP3/200708190830n.mp3
3. Straits Times Report, June 18 2006, Divided News over Police Checks on Bloggers, Zakir Hussain
4. Trevvy Article ( Prominent Gay Opponent appointed to Singapore Parliament) http://www.trevvy.com/scoops/article.php?a_id=94&c_id=3
5. Found a picture of the "Are they making a monkey of you" sign which is at ST Andrew's Cathedral from Fresh Brainz : Creationists are Here