Tham Seong Chee. Religious Diversity in Singapore. Editor: Lai Ah Eng, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008.
Introduction
A discourse on religion will need to consider three pivotal social institutions and how they interact with each other, that is, society, state, and religion itself. Current international trends would suggest that it is also necessary to view all three social institutions in their broader global context. Among other developments, globalization, has made possible as well as encourage closer ties among the adherents of a religious faith transcending national borders, while simultaneously afford more effective mobilization in support of shared causes and concerns. Major and critical issues that now confront mankind command global or multinational cooperation and this too, has drawn the attention and involvement of religion. Moreover, contemporary majority thinking is towards pluralism in religious belief and in cultural development. The religious impulse then could be of internal as well as external genesis.
Religion, State, and Society (1)
Looking back, one can detect a criss-cross, up-and-down and to-and-fro trajectory in the evolution of relationships among the three social institutions of society, state and religion. This, at least, is the case of the West, which continues to exercise extensive influence over much of the world since the Industrial Revolution. How they relate to and have an impact on each other is complex and therefore challenges sociological praxis. For example, in what way can one say that religion is the “cause” and not the “effect” in social, economic and political change? Similarly, what religious impulses can one claim to have emanated from society or even the state? Or, is it the other way round where societal change or intervention from the state has created the impulses for religious change?
It could be argued that religion as a “sacred canopy” characterized the early societies and rudimentary states. Religion, as it were, was regarded as the sacred cosmos—a divinely sanctioned spiritual-moral foundation for the construction of a God-loving and God-fearing society or state. For example, in medieval Europe, the support of the Roman Catholic Papacy was critical in ensuring political legitimacy to rule. Acts of opposition and disobedience to church authority invited sabotage and, in a worse case scenario, ex-communication.
Religion-inspired mapping of society is perhaps exemplified most sharply by classical Hinduism. In terms of religion and society, Hinduism cannot be understood without recourse to the caste system. The central aspect of Hinduism is that of fulfilling duties according to the caste into which one is born. The origins of the caste system go back to the early history of Hinduism when peoples of the Aryan race invaded India. Out of this was constructed the pyramidal caste system: Brahmins (priests), Kshatriayas (warriors) and Vaisayas (farmers and traders), all three considered “twice born” and therefore could participate in rituals and study the wisdom of the Vedas. Below these three castes were the Sudras (peasants) who were regarded as “once born”, and below the Sudras were the outcastes, members who not only performed the meanest of tasks but were despised and oppressed. Classical Hinduism, therefore, not only provided the religious justification for social organization but rigidified the status system.
In the case of the early history of Islam, religion became the basis of social organization, providing in the process a comprehensive and complete moral-ethical system for the conduct of life (syariah) from family relationships to the responsibilities of political leadership, the conduct of war, the management of business, care for the poor and destitute, and fulfilling duties to God. The syariah is commonly known as Muslim law, upon which an ethical society in obedience to the teachings of God (as exemplified in the revelations of the Prophet Muhammad and documented in the Qur’an) may be realized. Pious Muslims, in particular therefore, do not differentiate between the “secular” and the “religious”. For them, every thought and action has a religious connection and its permissibility or otherwise should be judged in accordance with a religiously sanctioned scale of values. Compared to Christianity and Hinduism, the religion of Islam remains a powerful influence in Muslim thinking on how a spiritually guided moral-ethical society may be constructed. The source of this religious impulse is the Qur’an itself, which Muslims believe to represent the very word of God—sacred, unchangeable and relevant for all times.
The moral-ethical philosophy of Confucianism represents another interesting example. Though not a religion (Confucius himself had explicitly denied this), its adoption as the organizing principle for the construction of the state is comparable to the early intention of the major world religions. Both Confucianism as well as the world religions discussed so far were guided by the concern to ensure peace and stability within the state and concomitantly, harmony and social cohesion. Taoism, as it evolved to assume religious significance, did not supplant Confucianism but on the contrary, filled the spiritual vacuum left by Confucianism. Similarly, when Buddhism became an accepted faith in China, its stress on moral-ethical self cultivation harmonized nicely with Confucianism. The impulse of Buddhism was therefore moral-ethical perfection and the accumulation of merits in order to achieve total release (Nirvana enlightenment) from the cares and temptations of this world. It was also tolerant. The relationships underlying Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism implicitly allowed Confucianism to function as the ideology of the state and as the basis of Chinese secularism. Chinese attitude to religion has in general been “instrumental” rather than ideological. There has never been an instance in Chinese history where attempts were made to create a “heaven on earth”. Chinese religion as it exists today is syncretistic—a combination of folk religion, Taoism, Buddhism and deified Confucianism.
Religion, State, and Society (2)
Yet, the sacred canopy proved impermanent. Tears and cracks began to appear from the fourteenth century onwards in Europe. Humanist ideas associated with the Renaissance began to take root in Italy. In the sixteenth century, Martin Luther (1483-1546) set in motion the Reformation despite efforts to counter it by the established church (Counter Reformation). The nature of religious practice would henceforth change drastically. Schism reared its head and led to the founding of the future Protestant Church. Luther’s message and later, John Calvin’s (1509-64), was that “Man was answerable to God alone” and not to human agents of God, be they lords or clergy. Papal authority over the laity (society) was therefore, further eroded.
By the late seventeenth century, a revolutionary intellectual disposition had crystallized that was to challenge and eventually displace religion’s hitherto all-encompassing influence on state and society—the era of the Enlightenment. The torrent of intellectual energy epitomized in the works of Descartes, Locke, Newton, Leibniz, Kant, Goethe, Voltaire, Rousseau, Adam Smith and David Hume, to name the main protagonists, criticized both church and government. Collectively, they altered the then existing worldview founded on religion and in the process introduced a new construction—one that rested firmly on man’s rationality, autonomy and creative genius. In short, man was seen as the master of his own fate. Henceforth, development and the progress of man itself were to depend on his dominance over nature. Instead of the pursuit of divine will and purpose, the universe was reconstructed and impregnated with human meanings. This opened the door for secularization, the separation of religion from the business of the state, and simultaneously the validation of the intellect as the organizing norm for social ascent. No less important were the bursts of scientific and technological activities that followed the Enlightenment. In the process, what science could not explain or prove was regarded as superstition. Scepticism and agnosticism became rampant and further weakened the hold of religion on thought and action.
The values and attitudes of the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Enlightenment have remained the intellectual bedrock of Western civilization. Secularization, the cumulative withdrawal of the role of religion in the affairs of the state, could be said to be inevitable given the circumstances. Equally pertinent was the rise of capitalism led by the emerging European bourgeoisie which further eroded the role of religion in matters pertaining to state and society.
The characteristics of capitalism as conceptualized by Weber were anti-traditionalism, rationalism, dynamism and calculated long-term planning to ensure economic gain (the profit motive). The central motif was rationality which was to permeate all areas and levels of life, from the legal system to the political structure, social behaviour, scientific and technological pursuits and management of the economy, labour relations and even philosophy and the arts. Understood this way, capitalism may be said to have strengthened secularism and in the process widened the separation between religion and the state. Thus, from the time of the Industrial Revolution, religion’s influence on the development of the state in Europe waned—a situation which prompted Goethe (1749-1832) to epitomize knowledge and power over religious faith as depicted in the character of Faust.
Christianity’s reaction to the rise of capitalism was exemplified in due course by the flowering of Protestant sects—a process that had begun during the Reformation. The development of the printing industry made available translations of the Christian scriptures that reached out to a much wider and more varied community of believers. This in turn allowed for a diverse interpretation of the Bible and concomitantly the emergence of “new prophets”, charismatic preachers and cult leaders. The ethos of capitalism then, implicitly encouraged religious diversity both because of its values and attitudes as well as its transformative power in social relations and economic practices, that is to say, in the make-up of the social structure and in the new trades and industries that came about. No longer were religious truths taken literally.
Be that as it may, the essential driving force of capitalism is the profit motive. While it fulfils the yearnings for “this worldly” comforts, wealth and power, it cannot provide answers to the deeper questions of human existence, that is, the religious and spiritual motivations that are inherent to the human psyche. Moreover, there is also the ugly side manifested by capitalism that protagonists of socialism and communism had tried to expose and ameliorate especially in the early post-war period. Indeed, despite capitalism’s triumph, a residue of communistic-socialistic ideology and practice remains in various guises in countries such as China, Russia, Vietnam, North Korea and Cuba. Capitalism, socialism and communism are “Godless” ideologies. The fact that socialism and communism surfaced to address the perceived inequalities and inequities of capitalism does testify, once again, to the dominating belief that man has all the answers to his needs. However, the negative developments coming out of capitalism and its practice have, as it seems the case, revitalized the religious impulse, especially in countries and regions where poverty, corruption, disease, lack of human rights and bad governance prevail.
Religion and Politics in Global Perspective
How then has religion adjusted to the challenges posed by the global capitalism in practice? Has it been reactive and adaptive? Have current existential conditions and global uncertainties given religion a new dispensation? Or indeed, is there now a reversal of the process of secularization consequent on the apparent religious resurgence in Asia, Africa, South America, the United States and parts of Eastern Europe including the Russian Federation? What social and political impulses are at play?
The situation that religion finds itself does vary from faith to faith, from state to state and from society to society. In Asia, Africa and South America, membership in religious institutions (church, mosques, temples, etc.) has risen. In contrast, in Western Europe, church attendance continues to fall. In the case of America, there is an apparent resurgence of religious fundamentalism (the religious right) in politics and “born again” Christian evangelism. In the case of Muslim countries, both history and contemporary tensions obtaining between the West and the Muslim world have led to religious radicalism and the hijacking of religion by extremists for political struggle. Equally notable is the rise of religions of “experience” as against religions of “expression”. Others have used such terms/categories as “live religions” as against “conservation/canned religions” and “dynamic” as against “open religions”. To be sure, they were alluding to the growth of religions of “emotion” in contrast to institutional religions characterized by “worship and sacrifice, theology and ceremony and ecclesiastical organisation”. Whether religions of “emotion” represent a new religious impulse or is adaptive is moot. Finally, there are those who decline any religious affiliation yet declare themselves believers in a personal God (inner religion). What does this mean? What are the precipitating circumstances that have prompted such an attitude? What implications, if any, do these have on religion and the state?
There is no doubt that religion and politics are now intertwined as a result of cumulative globalization underpinned by the spread of global capitalism. At the same time, unlike the period of the Renaissance when confidence in human progress prevailed and shaped human response to the challenges of existence, current uncertainties have made many return to religion to seek meaning and direction in their lives. In this connection, two major consequences for religion may be detected as a result. First is the expansion of transnational religious outreach, by the Catholic and Protestant churches (in the early days by missionaries and evangelical groups from the West) and in recent years by Muslim missionary and welfare groups financed by oil-rich Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia. Other countries that have benefited from global capitalism such as Japan and South Korea, have established religious outlets beyond their national borders as exemplified by the Buddhist Soka Gakai and the Korean Reformed Church of Reverend Sun Myung Moon, both examples of “new religions”. Second, the transnational outreach of these major world religions have directly and indirectly forced the state to take steps to ensure that it does not pose a threat to its national development policies, especially in multi-religious states. Globalization then, may be said to have dual consequences: both for the national economy (in the sense that it needs to retain control over the power of multinational corporations to influence local economic and social practices); and for nation-building which obviously involves the management of inter-religious relations and practice.
Globalization thus has moved religion to a new but much more uncertain plane at both the national as well as international levels. By the same token, the logic of modern capitalism, characterized by the world as a free market, is now securely embraced by one and all, engulfing in the process all other ideologies. In this connection, the most potent grand idea of the twentieth century has been that of freedom and democracy—an idea quite in line with the ethos of capitalism, child of the European Enlightenment. No wonder that Francis Fukuyama was moved to declare the “end of history” as if to suggest that liberal democracy would erase all “ideology” based conflicts in future.
Modern Capitalism and Liberal Democracy: Impact on Religion
As mentioned earlier, intellectually and ideologically, both modern capitalism and liberal democracy make logical bedfellows. However, their impact on various religions and religious practices show significant differences. This is especially true for Christianity and Islam in which, as religions of the prophetic tradition, each has in its evolution striven to create a God-fearing society encapsulated by the “sacred canopy”.
Impact on Islam
In the case of Islam, this religious motivation remains a powerful influence in Muslim minds. As mentioned earlier, the concept of secularism, the separation of politics from religion does not exist in Islamic doctrine. No doubt Muslims now live in a variety of existential circumstances and are citizens of a variety of countries practising a variety of political beliefs. In brief, Islam recognizes three existential conditions: (1) Dar al-Islam (literally the abode of peace) where Islam and Islamic law prevails in the territories and countries concerned, (2) Dar al-Harb (literally the abode of war) where Islam and Islamic law is proscribed or where the individual struggles against the will of God, and (3) Dar al-Sulh, also Dar al-‘Ahd (literally the abode of treaty) where treaty obligations made between Muslims and non-Muslims living in the same state or territory allow for the practice of Islam and Islamic law.8 The last relates to Muslims living as a minority within a state.
It follows, therefore, that Muslims in various degrees of religious conviction harbour sentiments of an Islamic society governed by the syariah—that system of Islamic law accountable to the Qur’an and later, as Muslim society grew and expanded, incorporating the sayings and traditions attributed to the Prophet Muhammad. The religious laws of the syariah are the result of the intuitive experience of the Prophet and represent the ethical system towards which Muslims expressed their total submission to the will of God. Islamic ethics, as stressed by Gibb, is “revealed ethics, not the product of rational speculations or of social experience”. This overlap between religion and society found its most perfect form in the first century of Islam’s history when the four “rightly guided” caliphs (Abu Bakar, Umar, Uthman and Ali) ruled over the Muslims. This period of Islamic history is regarded, in ethical terms, as the most perfect by modern-day Muslims, a time when Muslims lived and practised fully the commands of God. It was during this period that a truly ethical society was attained.
This yearning for the perfect past continues to have a hold on Muslim thought and thus colour their response and reaction to the exigencies of modern-day life. Followers of traditional Islam not only hark back to the perfect past but believe fervently that by recapturing and reinstating the past, the social evils, injustices and economic disparities of contemporary society would be overcome. For Muslims in general, the life of the first generation of Muslims (salaf) and the Islamic impulse that gave rise to the civilization of Islam continue to excite and inspire. Perhaps, more than that, it was the form of Islam that was fundamental and pure, untainted by “additions”, “accretions” and “deviations” as a result of the spread of the religion through conquest or conversion. Hence, a consistent effort on the part of Muslim religious authorities as represented by the ulama throughout much of Islamic history to the present day, has been to expunge contrary beliefs and practices that undermine Islamic monotheism. This was to reach its apex of intensity with the teachings of the Muslim puritan movement in Saudi Arabia, the so called Unitarians (Arabic: Muwahhidun) founded by Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahab (1703-92) in the eighteenth century. There is no doubt that generations of Muslim pilgrims to Mecca and Medinah were aware of his teachings which came to be known as Wahhabism. In this respect, it can be argued that advocates for the establishment of a Muslim theocracy are calling for the re-institution of the “sacred canopy”.
In Islam’s response to the demands of globalization underpinned by modern capitalism, one can detect various forms of religious rationalization. First of all, the vast majority of Muslims desire the fruits of modernization and at the same time believe that they can attain them. The nineteenth and early twentieth century revivalists of Islam had all acknowledged the importance of science in the struggle for advancement. However, this must not result in the erosion of Islamic values and concomitantly their Islamic identity. This means in effect faithful obedience to the laws of Allah (syariah) as espoused by Prophet Muhammad. This also means that the practice of syariah, as mentioned earlier, constitutes the foundation of the Muslim polity and its ethical system. It follows that Muslims in this category share the belief that answers to all their problems and predicaments for all times are already found in the Qur’an. It is up to its adherents to find them using their God-given intellect. Understood thus, the majority of Muslims are fundamentalists despite the negative connotations that fundamentalism has given rise to in public discourse. Thus, in modern Muslim discourse the terms “fundamentalism”, “revivalism” and “reformism” may be taken to mean one and the same thing.
Another form of religious rationalization refers to the thoughts and actions of a radical Muslim minority that is directly opposed to the West and its institutions. These are the religious radicals or so-called “jihadists” referred to in Western media. In Western discourse on Islam, the term “jihad” has been interpreted as “holy war”, an interpretation that is partial but does not address the central meaning of the term. The Encyclopaedia of Islam defines jihad as “a divine institution of warfare to extend Islam into Dar al-Harb, the abode of war/struggle/disbelief in non-Islamic territories or to defend Islam from danger”.
According to the sunnah (words and deeds attributed to the Prophet Muhammad), jihad is not lawful unless it involves summoning of unbelievers to belief, that is to say, when unbelievers have accepted either Islam or have a protected status within Islam (dhimmi). Currently, jihad as understood by Muslims in general also means “struggle” within oneself to overcome moral-ethical weaknesses or to achieve excellence in everyday pursuits. In short, Muslims are reminded by their leaders to see life as a constant struggle for perfection—this at least is the case of Muslims who have embraced modern capitalism and pluralism. However, Muslim radicals are driven more by memories of the past, beginning with the Crusades and extending onto the political manipulations of Arab-Muslim societies in the Middle East in the nineteenth century and throughout the twentieth century until the present. These manipulations include the ousting of Ottoman control and the subsequent fragmentation of the Arab-Islamic heartland by the British and French colonial forces; the invasion of the Suez Canal in the 1950s; American support for Iraq under Saddam Hussein in the war with Iran (ostensibly to check the spread of militant Islam), the covert American support provided to the mujahidin (warriors of Allah) in Afghanistan to oust the Russian occupation of that country (and which the Americans abandoned after having met their objective to check Soviet/Russian expansionism and which subsequently led to the rise of the ultra-conservative Taliban government); the genocide in Bosnia; the plight of the Palestinians; and the invasion of Iraq by the American-led coalition with the continuing carnage and instability. Further, the perceived restrictions put on the practice of Islam in the West and elsewhere by followers of the faith is seen as a denial of religious freedom and ipso facto an act against Islam. In the eyes of the radicals, Islam is under “siege” (a Dar al-Harb situation) everywhere.
Thus, it comes as no surprise that Muslim radicalism is aimed specifically at the West and its institutions including the Christian faith. Muslim radicals not only regard themselves as defenders of the faith but at the same time as “renewers” (mujaddid) in which, according to one tradition (hadith), Allah would send a “renewer” to rouse “drowsy” people back to the fountainhead of revelation and faith. In an important sense, the religious rationalizations of the radicals have swayed sections of Muslims to the detriment of orthodox or mainstream Islam, despite their one-sided, unbalanced, selective, evil or perverse interpretations of Islamic doctrine.
A third response is found in the apparent rise in the practice of Islamic mysticism or esoterism. Commonly known as Sufism (Arabic: At-tasawwuf) it has been described as “metaphysical” Islam or the inner dimension of Islam. It is the science of direct knowledge of God in which its doctrines and methods are derived from the Qur’an and Islamic revelation. In a sense, it is the obverse of doctrinal or intellectual Islam, and allows followers to leap from human reason to knowledge of God. Sufi orders (tariqah or “path”) are founded on the precept that esoterism is inherent in all “true belief” in God and theoretical knowledge is nothing without “the eye of the heart”. In the history of Islam, all levels of Muslim society, from the most powerful and learned to the most common, have in some degree or other professed Sufism as the path to a complete knowledge of God. Indeed, Sufis played a major role in the early Islamization of Southeast Asia because they were able to tap into pre-existing esoteric impulses associated with Hinduism. Such esoteric impulses are evident in the practice of Javanese mysticism (kebatinan)—a practice which though frowned upon by orthodox Muslims, nonetheless hold sway even among some members of the Indonesian elite. No doubt some movements claiming to show the mystical path to God are suspect and are therefore proscribed by religious authorities.
Fourthly, despite mainstream Islam’s insistence on orthodoxy, like Christianity, it has not been able to expunge so called “deviations” (Malay: ajaran sesat/songsang) which usually assume the form of cults led by charismatic individuals who claim special spiritual powers by dint of inheritance, association or command from God or His prophets, in particular the Prophet Muhammad. In Malaysia such cults are not only regarded as a political and religious threat to Sunni Islam (Arabic: Ahl al sunna wa’al jama’a) but also as morally offensive because of the excesses of their leaders. Still, movements regarded by the religious authorities and establishments as “deviationist” continue to be reported from time to time—suggesting another facet of the ongoing struggle within Islam for the hearts and minds of its adherents in a changing and uncertain world underpinned by globalization and the challenge posed by Western economic and cultural dominance.
Impact on Christianity
How then does Christianity compare? In what way(s) has the religious impulse evolved in modern times? And in what forms has that impulse assumed? Needless to say, the most significant difference in the case of Christianity is its full acceptance of the notion of secularism—the clear demarcation between affairs of the state and religious practice, this at least in ideological terms if not in practice. Indeed, the notions of liberal democracy, human rights and free-market economy are now given full rein—a situation that seems to have resulted in a backlash against rampant secularism as witnessed by the gathering political influence of the American religious right. Key issues that have united the American religious right (evangelists, born-again Christians, traditional Catholics, Southern Baptists, conservative organizations such as the Focus on Family group, Latino evangelists and even orthodox Jews) include: abortion, gay marriages, HIV Aids, euthanasia stem cell research and excessive pornography purveyed by the media and film industry, not to mention the spate of corporate scandals and the perceived threat of Islamic radicals. It is excessive liberty and licence granted in the name of freedom and human rights which the religious right blames as the cause for their prevalence. The fact that some American judges at both the state and federal levels are seen to be too liberal in adjudicating religiously sensitive matters has also raised anger. The issues of abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research and euthanasia hit directly at the core of the Abrahamic faiths. Indeed, Creationism (in opposition to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution)—the worldview based on the teachings of Christianity that it is God who brought order out of chaos, is now enjoying a revival. It can thus be seen that the aforementioned societal developments have provided a powerful impulse for religious reaction, not only in reaction to “rampant” secularism and its underlying processes, but equally in reaction to the threat posed on the future of the church and what it represents. There is then an uneasy tension between state and religion.
It would appear that religion is able to re-assert its influence on matters hitherto reserved for the state, to reinstate what one pro-right senator has called “a biblical worldview”. It implies that the order created by man has failed and only a return to the ways of God that the current “chaos” can be overcome. Implicitly, such a reaction is a contemporary indictment of the arrogance of man and the state of mind that had characterized the Renaissance. The question is: Will the spread of liberal democracy and modern capitalism to other parts of the world, as in the American case, lead to the same outcome?
In Europe, in contrast to America, secularism reigns supreme. In the case of Spain and Holland, the “laws of man” seem to have prevailed as when gay marriage is made legal. Holland and Switzerland have legalized euthanasia, despite the opposition of the Vatican, the capital of Roman Catholicism. The Spanish government has also passed legislation to facilitate divorce. In several European countries, issues such gay rights and the right of abortion are decided by parliament. Support for these issues or otherwise depends on sentiments on the ground. And given the lack of religiosity in general, religion-based voting is not on the cards. Instead, in such countries as the United Kingdom, mainstream religion such as the Anglican Church has apparently embraced the ethos of liberalism, human rights and secularism as when it consented to the ordainment of women priests and of late, even women’s appointment as bishops. It also recognizes gay rights as when gay priests are allowed to remain in the church despite opposition from the membership. However, the archbishop of late had spoken of the public’s unhappiness and distaste for the high rate of abortion in the United Kingdom. It would appear that one’s choice of lifestyle is not in contention except the taking of life as in abortion.
Yet, in most developing countries outside Europe, religion is thriving. In the Russian Federation, there is a total reinstatement of the Russian Orthodox Church following the collapse of communism. The same has happened in China where the Roman Catholic Church has been reinstated. In Catholic majority countries, the potential for the church to play a political role is ever present should it decide to provide spiritual-moral support to causes perceived to be just. The best example is found in the case of the Philippines where “people power” saw the dismissal of two governments in recent years. The reasons for this are varied: the tolerance or intolerance as the case may be, of the governing elite to the activities of the church; the support of the laity for the church and the church’s resources to mobilize that support; the relative openness of the political system; the historical role of the church in state formation; and last but not least, the church’s willingness or unwillingness to observe to the letter, the biblical maxim “to grant what is due to God to God and what is due to Caesar to Caesar”. What can be said is that by and large, the church in developing countries has not fallen victim to political co-optation.
Still, the church’s role is not aimed at capturing political power. Its impulse is also not in reaction to secularism but the result of perceived social and political ills that have come about, such as poverty, misrule and corruption, abuse and neglect of human rights, and last but not least, moral decay. Be that as it may, liberation theology that guided the response of the Catholic clergy in non-European countries in the past is now being put in question. In Brazil, about 20 per cent of its Catholic population of 97 per cent have switched to the Pentecostal faith while others have turned to Christian evangelism. It would appear that the socialistic-communistic underpinning of liberation theology have put off many of its supporters. Similarly, the recent spate of scandals involving paedophile priests and the issue of celibacy have cast the Catholic church in bad light. In any case, in strictly secular states, the involvement of the church in what are perceived to be secular matters (either real or putative) has been proscribed by law and other means, especially in multi-religious states.
Impact on Other World Religions
Compared with Christianity and Islam, Buddhism, Taoism and Hinduism by nature of their theologies and geographical provenance are not “world conquering” religions. Islam has the most comprehensive system of ethics within the syariah to constitute the basis of government. As such, the syariah could very well provide what Gibb has termed “a steel framework” for the unification of the entire Islamic community (ummah)—hence the radicals’ call for the re-establishment of the Caliphate to lead Muslims back to the Golden Age. In the case of Christianity, the unifying factor is the theology and doctrines of the church but this too, is subject to some diversity in form and practice. The laws governing Christian states no doubt reflect Christian morals, but they have evolved from an indigenous base and after long years of democratic struggle and constitutional government.
Compared to Islam and Christianity, Buddhism’s main doctrinal thrust is that of spiritual self-cultivation (the Four Noble Truths and the Eight-fold Path) and human compassion. Its founder had rejected the world of government and politics to pursue enlightenment, that is to say, release from the world of greed and suffering. In Buddhist states like Thailand, Myanmar and Laos, government and politics remain secular though in the case of Sri Lanka, the Buddhist clergy of late had shown some restiveness as a result of the unsettled internal conflict. No Buddhist political party in Asia such as the Komeita Party in Japan has yet to capture power. In general, Buddhist scriptural teachings served as the basis for the conduct of everyday life rather than political conduct.
In the case of Taoism, its founder, an archivist in the Imperial Court, had also rejected the artificial and affected (unnatural) lifestyle of the court and then left to pursue a life of simplicity, close to and guided by the lessons of nature. Confucianism was a political doctrine founded on moral-ethical concerns that its founder believed was critical to the peace and unity of the divided Chinese rudimentary state. However, like Hinduism, it was not meant to be repeated elsewhere. Both Korea and Vietnam adopted Confucianism as the state ideology after undergoing Chinese imperial rule, both the result of external imposition and later on, acceptance. In the case of Japan, which was never conquered, Confucianism was assimilated into the state’s mode of governance. Hinduism was embraced by the early Southeast Asian states and was largely a peaceful process. In accordance with Hindu cosmology, it provided religio-political legitimacy to the early kings and shaped state-craft.
In contemporary times, both Hinduism and Islam in India and Buddhism in Sri Lanka have acquired a degree of political salience. The case of Sri Lanka has been briefly mentioned. In India, Hinduism’s relationship with Islam goes back to early sixteenth century when the Moghuls ruled India. The demarcation of India and the establishment of Pakistan in the middle of the last century, and the bloody clashes that ensued between Hindus and Muslims have left bitterness between the two religious groups. The rule of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party in the late 1990s has resulted in an overt expression of Hindu-based nationalism. The Babri mosque in Ayodhya served as the flash-point for religious conflict because the site of the mosque happens also to be the birth place of Ram, the supreme God, the Hindu model of the ideal man and the seventh incarnation of Vishnu. This assertion of identity on the basis of religion is not new, but it does at the same time pit one religion against another. A similar situation obtains in recent Indonesian history where members of the now banned Laskar Jihad which, in the name of Islam, attacked Christians in eastern Indonesia. Christian places of worship have also been attacked and razed in Jakarta. It is possible that there is also a religious (including racial) dimension in the internal conflict in Sri Lanka—government being in the hands of the majority Buddhist Sinhala-speaking population and the irredentist Tamil Tigers who are mainly Hindus.
Religion and the State: The Case of Singapore
This final section attempts to locate Singapore’s position in the overall scheme of things as has been outlined thus far.
Secular State Policy and Religious Diversity
Singapore has embraced the politics of pluralism and the values of modern capitalism in its economic pursuits. In governance, it has chosen the path of full secularism and the rule of law. In religious and cultural matters, the state has very much left the management of both to their respective adherents except on issues of state interest. What the state has done thus far is to ensure that “no religious groups are involved in politics” and that “religious organizations not stray beyond the bounds of educational, social and charitable work”. Other legal instruments to ensure toleration and respect for religious differences are found in the Sedition Act, the Penal Code, the Societies Act, the Newspaper & Printing Presses Act and the Internal Security Act. The 1969 Presidential Council for Minority Rights also guarantees the constitutional rights of minorities in religion, culture and employment. During the colonial period, religious proselytization with the intention to convert Muslims was proscribed as in the case of the Malay States—a step informed by the religious-motivated riots in Singapore in 1915 and 1951 respectively. This arrangement continues to be respected and Singapore remains outside the provision of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights that provides for freedom of the individual to choose the religion of his/her choice or to change it. Given the extensive power of the state, the religious impulse would of necessity be bounded.
All the major religions in Singapore (Buddhism, Christianity, Taoism or Chinese religion, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Sikhism, not to mention Zoroastrianism and Baha’ism) are of external provenance. Therefore, how these religions fare and their positions on social and political issues elsewhere will have either a positive or negative impact on the various religious communities and their perceptions towards each other in Singapore. In particular, present global tensions involving Muslims and Christians and the tensions prevailing in India among Hindus and Muslims have drawn religion onto issues that are otherwise non-religious, to the extent that divisions between secular and religious affairs has become blurred.
Furthermore, in the case of Singapore, there are social and psychological strains emanating from the push for economic competition and security within the world of modern capitalism that have given religious institutions a new impulse, and in the process deepen religiosity among their followers. This is perhaps best exemplified in the increase in the number of church, temple or mosque-based organizations ministering to the poor, sick, lonely, homeless, jobless, and those unable to cope with the demands of life. A corollary is that uncertainties and crises resulting from rapid and frequently unpredictable change throughout the world have also intensified the search for meaning and purpose in human existence, and thus deepened religiosity. Among the younger generations of Singaporeans, better education and knowledge of the world (accessible through the internet and the mass media) have given them greater freedom to chart their life pursuits, including their choice of religion. In this regard, the variety of religions practised in Singapore not only fascinates but equally provokes, given the fact that most Singaporeans claim to have a religion. Equally, other than Christianity, all other religions in Singapore overlap or conflate with race or ethnicity. Fifty-one per cent of Chinese Singaporeans (who form 75 per cent of the total population) are either Buddhists or Taoists (two religions that have co-existed peacefully for a long time); almost the entire Malay population (15 per cent of Singapore’s population) have remained Muslim; and two-thirds of Indian Singaporeans (4 per cent of the total population) continue to practise the Hindu faith. It is also pertinent to note that historically, Chinese attitude to religion was ambiguous. Religion has never assumed the proportion of a political ideology. This probably had a connection with the influence of Confucian teachings which permeated all levels of the society. Whether the new generations of Chinese Singaporeans share this religious attitude today is difficult to ascertain. Still, given the current religious trends and the high incidence of conversion to other religions, this merits further observation.
What then, are the dynamics and pragmatics of religious practice in Singapore? Is religion reactive or accommodating vis-à-vis the dominance of the state as exemplified by its legal powers? In what sense has religion made a difference in maintaining peace and harmony in multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural Singapore? And last but not least, is the prospect of religion entering through the back door to influence state policies (such as through the power of the vote) real or a figment of the imagination? In this regard, it is worthwhile to note and be reminded that religion is not merely “faith”; it can generate emotional power such that feelings long dormant can seize the imagination of its adherents under certain circumstances.
Be that as it may, current national policies have largely pre-empted potential threats to inter-racial and inter-religious harmony. Secularism has moved religion out of the equation on state matters. The parity of status granted to all the major religions (and now the “new religions” as well) has removed in one stroke, potential inter-religious contentions. Furthermore, religious and ethnic minorities are also granted equal access to public goods: in the allocation of land for the construction of places of worship and devotion; in the care and disposal of the dead; in representation at public functions; in official patronage when religious festivals are celebrated, etc. All these provide comfort and assurance to religionists of whatever faith and add authenticity to the multi-religious policy.
The constant reminder that “national identity” must supersede “religious identity” when religious issues of an external provenance threaten harmony is backed up by documented cases of arrest, detention and deportation of trouble makers who use religion to cause mischief and dissension. The concern for “survival”—a concern that arose following Singapore’s departure from the Federation of Malaysia in 1965—still reverberates, now in the face of economic globalization and in particular the emergence of Indian and China as economic powerhouses in Asia. Be that as it may, political leaders continue to stress the need for resilience in order to cope with the rapid and constant changes of the global economy on which Singapore’s “survival” depends. This state of mind is shared by most thinking Singaporeans, including religious and community leaders. At the same time, religious leaders are receptive to inter-religious dialogue, this for reasons of goodwill, toleration and mutual adaptation to the legal parameters governing religious practice. There is then a “don’t rock the boat” mindset which contributes to religious harmony. Last, but not least, is the practice of meritocracy in public life—in education and employment. This has ensured that any divisiveness caused by prioritizing religion and race are neutralized.
Equally, secularization in governance can be said to have aided the acceptance of the philosophy of pragmatism—a reality that has had an impact on religion’s role in influencing and shaping state policies. Pragmatism as practised has an over-riding economic definition or is governed by economic logic. It is the outcome of the recurring concern for “survival”. This is illustrated by the way the state has handled such contentious issues as abortion, euthanasia, gay rights, stem cell research, donation of human organs and vices such as gambling, prostitution and drug abuse.
Some Contentious Issues
Abortion is considered morally wrong by all the major religions. Catholics, Protestant groups and Muslims in particular have expressed concern in the past. However, to overcome religious opposition, the government made a distinction between the rights of a religion and the rights of the individual, in that it would allow “women who want abortions be allowed to get one” guided by his/her conscience. This seems to validate the constitutional provision that “a person has inalienable rights to his/her body.” Religious groups, in this regard, are encouraged to preach the message of “conscience” to its adherents. Thus, the pro-life impulse of religion is necessarily circumvented to address the practical consequences arising from unwanted pregnancies, notwithstanding the fact that abortion sometimes is done in order to save the life of the pregnant mother.
The pragmatic approach to dealing with pro-life and religion-based objections to state policy is also found in euthanasia. In this the government has passed legislation to enable individuals the right to end his/her life by depositing a signed Advance Medical Directive (AMD) ahead of the event. This is on condition that the person was of rational state of mind at the time of his/her decision and that no medical cure was likely or forthcoming, while other safeguards to prevent abuse have also been laid down. There are two contrasting arguments underlying this legal provision. Firstly, the legal provision recognizes the right of the individual to his/her own life. It is up to him/her, if he/she has a religious faith to answer to God. Secondly, in view of the medical cost to both the individual and the government, not to mention the care and concern of the family members should the medical condition linger, the pragmatic consideration has prevailed.
The subject of stem cell research also pits pragmatism against religion but in a diametrically different way. As it is known, the promotion of stem cell research has an underlying pro-life motivation. Its primary purpose is to minimize pain and lengthen life through the application of medical science. In this regard pragmatism complements religious doctrine. But at the same time, there is a powerful economic dimension given the fact that there is a huge market for services relating to the discoveries made in stem cell research. A further complicating dimension is that stem cell research touches directly on the use of the human embryo, which proponents of religion declare is “life”. To overcome this objection, the government-initiated Ethics Committee (which included representations of the various religions and which considered their submissions) has published a set of guidelines—the most important being its determination of the point in time when life is said to begin following conception.
Pragmatic prioritization also shaped the implementation of the Human Organs Transplant Act (HOTA). This particular issue refers directly to Islamic doctrine which states that the human body is inviolate, being a gift from Allah, and therefore should be kept whole. To circumvent this objection, the state introduced various provisions, the main one being to exempt Muslims from the requirements of the act. Non-Muslims are automatically included in the act, but Muslims have to “opt in” voluntarily in order to be included. The HOTA has been revised to include other human organs besides the kidney to save lives through human organ transplant—a procedure that harmonizes perfectly with religious doctrine. It is on the basis of this argument that caring and pragmatic Muslims in Singapore have formed a society to urge Muslims to support HOTA by “opting in” and at the same time request the government to remove the current provisions aimed at assuaging Muslim sensitivity.
The recent announcement of the government to build two “integrated resorts” which would include a casino in each is another indication of state pragmatism. The states’ rationalization for instituting these two projects is once again based on economic criteria—that it would have a ripple effect on the economy and make Singapore more attractive to tourists in the highly competitive and lucrative tourist market. And in any case, Singaporeans are already indulging in different forms of gambling in Singapore and in neighbouring countries. To soften disquiet from the various religious representations made against the resorts’ set up (which appears to be unified and widespread) the government emphasized that the casino would not be the dominant feature of the resorts. More importantly, it would put in place procedures aimed at limiting access to the casino by locals and at the same time set up facilities to cope with the damaging after-effects of addictive gambling.
Gay rights is still a taboo subject in Singapore despite the clamour from its supporters. Still, the government has shown some shift of late, as when it was publicly announced that there should be no discrimination against the employment of gays in the army and the Civil Service, but gay gatherings would be banned. There is an unequivocal stand among those with religious faiths against recognizing gay culture, a stand informed by developments among their co-religionists in many Western countries. Such recognition would imply accepting the rights of gay couples to marry, adopt children and claim for legal rights hitherto reserved for couples who are man and woman. The gay lifestyle has been closely associated with the incidence of HIV Aids and the government’s guarded approach so far to dealing with this phenomenon has the support of all religions. Still, the rights of gays to employment without discrimination, while morally correct, is also sound in economic terms as it would ensure that all Singaporeans are productively engaged, whatever their choice of lifestyle.
The issue of prostitution has engaged the religious leaders of all faiths and denominations for a long time. Prostitution and gambling are regarded as the gravest forms of human moral degradation, not only because doctrinal teachings say so but equally for their multiple negative effects on the family and society. For Muslims the consumption of alcohol is equally condemned because it distorts the mind. And yet, prostitution, gambling and alcohol consumption are regarded as inherent to modern capitalism which treats each of these as legitimate components of the economy. Here again, a pragmatic frame of mind prevails wherein prostitution is regarded as a matter of choice both for the vendor as well as the buyer of such services. The states’ stand seems to be that religion-based moral reservations against prostitution should be built into the church’s/mosque’s/temple’s/synagogue’s sermons to members of their respective congregations and in that way, mitigate the adverse consequences.
The Rise of Religiosity
It can be seen that moral issues that can provide religion the impulse to influence and sway government policy is constrained by the twin impact of secularism and pragmatism within the framework of demands imposed by modern capitalism and pluralism. Religion as it were, has to accommodate the claims of the state as a first charge. Does this then affect religious doctrine? What can religion do to offset this? This has to do with the maintenance of the purity and distinctiveness of a religious doctrine in order to preserve its identity as a religious faith in the eyes of its real and potential believers. While religious leaders may be converted to the idea of inter-religious harmony, in their daily ministrations they have to ensure that their adherents remain faithful and loyal to their chosen religious faith. Thus, the questions of “conversion”, proselytization and religious “renunciation” need to be addressed. This is especially pertinent in view of the rise in religiosity among the young, and the acknowledgement of all religious faiths that there should be no compulsion or coercion on the matter of religious choice. There is then an unresolved tension between acknowledgement and practice or, alternatively, between inclusiveness and exclusiveness. How the different religions negotiate through this complexity now and in the future will have a shaping influence on society at large. Religion becomes “evil” as Kimball argues, when it makes claims to absolute truths, imposes on followers blind obedience and accepts that the ends justify the means.
Against this background, there has arisen of late a new religious attitude among some Singaporeans which may be termed “internal/private” religion, that is, belief in a Supreme God or Creator without professing any specific religious faith or formal ties to a religion. It is a form of civil religion, a moral-ethical compass for life in a turbulent world, yet must subsist on the teachings of the main religions in order to have meaning, purpose and direction. Is this then a manifestation of Singapore’s growing cosmopolitan societal make-up characterized by diversity and tolerance? Or is it a contemporary manifestation of the syncretic attitude of the majority Chinese toward religion? Or is this the consequence of deepening secularism, pluralism and the rule of law that puts a premium on the management of life in this world as against life in the hereafter?
An important facet of the religious spectrum in Singapore that may have future implications for the state relates to the Chinese community which makes up 78 per cent of the population. Fifty per cent of Chinese Singaporeans declare Buddhism and Taoism as their religion. There is also a high percentage who do not profess any religion, most probably practitioners of Confucianism or free-thinkers. At the same time, the rate of conversion to Christianity in particular is higher than conversion to Buddhism and Taoism. A major reason for this is the fact that both Buddhism and Taoism together with Chinese folk religion (three components of Chinese religion) were until recently, mainly confined to the observance of rituals connected with the rites-of-passage and calendrical celebrations. There is now clear evidence that both Buddhism and, to a lesser extent, Taosim are undergoing a process of reform and renewal which stress doctrine and exegesis, that is, on the philosophical and intellectual aspects of the religion, in order to seek answers to contemporary problems and predicaments. A related aspect is that Chinese families in Singapore exemplify the greatest religious diversity—a situation that can either encourage greater tolerance to religious differences or lead to family conflict which potentially threatens inter-religious harmony. Buddhism and Christianity are the most active religions among Chinese Singaporeans. Both Buddhism and Taoism are inherent to Chinese history and culture whereas Christianity remains the religion of choice among many of the English/Western educated elite. In this regard, Hinduism in Singapore shares comparable experience with Buddhism and Taoism.
Finally, as in the developed liberal democracies of the West where new existential conditions have led to the flowering of “new religions”, a comparable development is observable in Singapore as well. What are the reasons for this? What do “new religions” offer to their adherents that established/institutional religions are unable to? And what religious impulses underlie the “new religions”? Does democratic liberalism, because it allows for openness and freedom of thought, empty the universe of coherent meanings and offers instead a multiple and varied search for new anchors among adherents of “new religions”? Or are “new religions” to be regarded as religious revivalism and evangelism combined?
One view is to regard the rise of “new religions” as a reaction against secularization on the one hand and, on the other, as the “failure” of established/institutional religions to meet the emotional needs of their adherents. Secularization has led to disenchantment with the world, hyper-rationalism and a premium put on instrumentality. This has deprived the individual of transcendent perspectives which could provide meaning and purpose for his daily struggle. According to Durkheim, the elementary form of religious experience is characterized by passion and ecstasy: warmth, uplift, revivification, abnormal surge of strength, effervescence, frenzy, transfiguration, rapture, metamorphosis, over-excitement, spiritual exaltation, etc. “New religions” are, in that respect, fundamentally grounded on emotions. Are “new religions” then examples of religious renewals, a re-enrichment of the symbolic universe weakened by secularization and a reaction against ethical religion represented by the established religions, where systematization of doctrine and acclimatization of religious practice in everyday life remain the norms? If so, one could legitimately regard religious renewals as attempts to re-assert emotional experience over a hyper-rationalized world—in short, a form of “de-secularization” protest.
With regard to established/institutional religion, modernization and secularization have curtailed or limited its role in shaping and influencing policy decisions of the state, though the need to preserve its doctrinal teachings remain. In this connection, even the religious fundamentalist who is driven to re-institute the sacred canopy is forced to grapple with the demands of modernization and secularization. This, in a sense, has created a religious “market place”. Criticism levelled at established/institutional religion is that it has become too arid and bereft of the emotional depths that drive the religious impulse in new religions. Seen in this way, adherents of “new religions” (especially charismatic movements) are attracted to the new religious language (glossolalia [speaking in “tongues”], touching, embracing, miracle performing, sharing and personal narratives or testimony—a meta language that is both expressive and poetic. Indeed, hymns sung are resonant of the beat and rhythm of modern “pop-music” except for the lyrics. This appeals to the tastes, temper and aesthetic dispositions of the youthful who constitute the congregational majority.
Can “new religions” be regarded as an important component of modern youth culture born out of deepening secularization pivoted on liberal democracy and modern capitalism? Or, alternatively, are “new religions” cathartic in that they offer relief from stress and work demands of everyday life in modern capitalism? In this, all religions in Singapore in different degrees are offering counselling and pastoral care to mitigate work and relationship problems by recourse to their respective religious creed. In a recent survey Singapore was declared as “a nation of believers” and that religions were “reaping a harvest of believers”. The level of religiosity was recorded at 59 per cent of which 9 per cent said they were very religious and 50 per cent said that they were somewhat religious. Among those converted, 34 per cent reported that conversion to a “new religion” gave them meaning and purpose in life, and 38 per cent converted as a result of encouragement from family and friends. Most converted to Christianity (44 per cent) and Buddhism (26 per cent).
Thus “new religions” may also be regarded as a reaction to the existential conditions created by the processes of secularization and modern capitalism. They offer their adherents a sense of community closeness, individual empowerment, healing, fellowship, therapy and a unified experience of awe and submission to God in worship. For some, participation in “new religion” worship may even be “a fashion of the moment” occasioned as it were by the fact that society has become a “market place” for religion.
Concluding Remarks
This chapter has attempted to show how the processes of secularization and rationalization, the outcome of European intellectual development since the sixteenth century, have affected and shaped the relationship between the state and religion on the one hand, and the relationship between religion and society, on the other. These processes have anchored the state as the arbiter in matters pertaining to social organization and religious practice and at the same time fostered the institutionalization of modern capitalism. Globalization entails pluralism, the acceptance of diversity and the rule of law at both the national and international levels. It is the state that enacts laws and enforces them. These laws ensure the orderly development of society as well as the pursuit of religious aims and purposes. Indeed, it is the laws of the state which now provide the “sacred canopy” under which society functions and religion operates. The religious impulse therefore, has to accommodate the overarching power of the state. Still, the adaptive capacity of religion remains vigorous, as witnessed by the growth of “new religions” and the resurgence of the religious right, not to mention the use of religion for political and nefarious aims and purposes. As such, the underlying tension between religion and the state is ongoing, as indeed the underlying tension between the major world religions which in some countries have become more intense. The health and vitality of society then depends on the harmonious and mutually reinforcing roles of religion and the state in managing human affairs.