Tag: Christians

  • Youths In Singapore Shunning Religion

    Youths In Singapore Shunning Religion

    The Department of Statistics’ General Household Survey 2015 report released earlier this month found that those who said they had no religious affiliation constituted 18.5 per cent of the resident population last year – up from 17 per cent in 2010.

    Of this group, many were young. About 65 per cent were aged between 15 and 44, and about 23 per cent between 15 and 24, compared with 14.6 per cent among residents aged 55 and above.

    The religious composition as a whole remained relatively stable – 43.2 per cent of the resident populace identified as Buddhists or Taoists, 18.8 per cent as Christians, 14 per cent as Muslims and 5 per cent as Hindus. The number of Christians increased marginally, while other religions experienced slight declines.

    FACTORS BEHIND GROWTH IN THE NON-RELIGIOUS

    Academics and religious leaders The Straits Times spoke to said the trend of non-religious affiliation is in tandem with an increasingly educated populace, some of whom might move away from religion if it does not connect with their lives and needs.

    The Institute of Policy Studies’ senior research fellow Mathew Mathews said this is more common for individuals who grew up in families where religion was already nominally practised.

    The Catholic Church said traditional religions have also been slow to engage young people and help them appreciate their faith.

    Singapore Buddhist Federation president Seck Kwang Phing believes the youthful face of the non- religious group ties in with a change in attitudes among the young, who have become more independent in their thinking.

    He said: “They ask and argue and do not simply allow their parents to select their faiths on their behalf.”

    Young people today are also exposed to a range of ideologies, which results in a spectrum of views within the non-religious category. The segment therefore includes atheists and agnostics; humanists and secularists; as well as free-thinkers and other individuals who might not necessarily be anti-religion.

    National University of Singapore political science undergraduate Bertrand Seah, 21, grew up Christian in a Methodist school environment, but began doing his own research on religion in junior college.

    He became influenced by religious critics and scientific scepticism advocates such as American Sam Harris.

    Like the other youth The Straits Times spoke to, Mr Seah said he believes in a “rational” approach. “I don’t think I need divine guidance to make a right or wrong decision. Reason alone can guide such decision-making,” he said.

    Experts said the relative stability of a country also means there is less concern about the future because the present is “non-threatening”.

    When this is the case, there is less incentive to look to religion for divine intervention or for security.

    Young people might also be doing their own research before eventually committing to a particular faith, experts said.

    Some suggested that the multi- religious make-up of Singapore and the open-door policy of religious institutions here facilitate “shopping” for a religion.

    Some young people could also be identifying more with liberal ideologies that clash with religious teachings on topics such as homosexuality.

    Social anthropologist Lai Ah Eng of the National University of Singapore (NUS) said this group might therefore find religions “variously limiting, irrational, oppressive, unreasonable and unscientific”.

    Youth and religious experts interviewed noted the high-profile failures of institutional religions to uphold their credibility as a moral voice, which may also have turned some people away from religion.

    Some cited high-profile incidents such as the City Harvest case, where church leaders were found guilty of misusing around $50 million in church funds.

    POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS

    Several religious leaders said they are concerned about the shift.

    Reverend Father Jude David, co-chaplain of the Catholic Church’s Office for Young People, believes that without religion “Singapore would certainly lose a part of her soul or spirit”.

    Reverend Dominic Yeo, the general superintendent of the Assemblies of God of Singapore, agreed. He said religion teaches its followers to be moral, adding: “We need to guard our nation, our children and the next generation against moral decadence.”

    Others are concerned about solidarity in households where the parents or grandparents are deeply religious. NUS sociologist Paulin Straughan said disparities in religious ideology could result in intergenerational fault lines and a widening gap “because religion, when it is functional, pulls families together”.

    Ultimately, the consensus among the various groups is for the need for more dialogue to understand “mutual concerns and find ways to negotiate potential tensions”, said Dr Mathews. They said this should be backed by more research to understand the specific make-up of Singapore’s non-religious segment.

    Communication channels already exist. For instance, the Humanist Society – set up to represent Singapore’s non-religious population – has been involved in discussions organised by the Inter-Religious Organisation of Singapore and the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles.

    Executive committee member Pearl Lin said the society’s role is to provide a voice for the non-religious, whom she said tend to be excluded and forgotten.

    But the Buddhist Federation’s Venerable Seck is not worried about the growing pool of non-religious Singaporeans. To him, good values and morals are more important.

    He said: “As long as there is moral education and the ability to differentiate between what is right and wrong, there will always be common ground among the religious and non-religious.”

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • Pansexual Local Teen To Christian Parents: Watching Movie With Gay Characters Won’t Make One Gay

    Pansexual Local Teen To Christian Parents: Watching Movie With Gay Characters Won’t Make One Gay

    Twitter user @bxbyqueen shared a conversation she and her mother had on a private Whatsapp group. In the conversation, the mother referred to a Straits Times reportt on the National Council of Churches of Singapore’s (NCCS) letter to churches which urged pastors to “alert” their congregation about the homosexual content in Disney’s remake of the movie Beauty and the Beast. The mother suggested that it is an attempt by Disney to influence young minds that gay relationships are normal.

    @bxbyqueen who describes herself as pansexual in Twitter replied to her mother that watching a movie with gay characters in it won’t make the person gay. And that by the parents’ logic, Jesus would love gay people the most.

    The user said that her parents are hardcore Christians and that they were going to get very upset with her for making public their private conversation, but that she could not ignore it. The teens tweet has gone viral with over 3.1K retweets.

     

    Source: www.theindependent.sg

  • The Singapore Muslim Community And The Imam Issue

    The Singapore Muslim Community And The Imam Issue

    By Kamaludeen Mohamed Nasir, Associate Professor of Sociology, Nanyang Technological University

    It is well-known that Singapore is a multi-religious society. The 2014 report by Pew named our city-state as the most religiously diverse among the 232 countries studied. What is assumed in this discourse is that all religions are the same and subjected to similar state-society relations.

    ranking

    2014 ranking on Religious Diversity Index by Pew Research Center

    The fact is, Islam is the most regulated religion in our tiny island and this has been the case for decades. From the appointment of a Minister-in-Charge of Muslim Affairs, to the creation of a statutory board called the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) where the Mufti is located, and to the Administration of Muslim Law Act that has regulatory powers over local mosques and madrasahs (Islamic schools), there is no doubt that Islam is given a unique attention by the state.

    A stark under-appreciation of this social reality, especially among the non-Muslims, is apparent to me in the decade or so that I have been teaching in our local universities. I have always asked my students, that if all the Churches were made to say the exact same thing for their Sunday service with a text provided by an office of a statutory board, how would the Christian community react? The students could not even begin to imagine this! Will this then breed mistrust among the Christian community? This is but just one issue besieging the Muslim populace in Singapore.

    When I had coffee with a top local social scientist of NUS a couple of weeks back, we agreed that Islam is the most hierarchical and bureaucratized religion in Singapore. Failure to understand how Islam is managed leads to a failure in understanding the reaction of its local adherents.

    This distrust of the Muslim religious elites amidst the disciplining of Islam, from prescribed texts for the weekly Friday prayer sermons, to appointed instructors to “upgrade Islam” through the Asatizah Recognition Scheme that makes it mandatory for every religious teacher to be registered (even those teaching Qur’anic reading in the local neighbourhoods), impact heavily on the religious elites. Many scholars have called this age as one characterised by a crisis of religious authority. The situation can be especially dire in our local Muslim community, given the unique structures bearing upon them.

    Distrust breeds distrust. It is not that Singaporean Muslims are predisposed towards being rude or as the Minister of Law put it, “kurang ajar”, towards the state-endorsed religious authority. It is the structures that have been put in place that create such an environment.

    The recent issue regarding the police report made against an Imam for making alleged “incendiary” supplications against Christians and Jews that are outside the MUIS-endorsed text cannot be disentangled from the issue of the autonomy of the Muslim clerics. I have engaged the local religious elites numerous times over the last few years and have rarely met a group that is more in fear. The culture of fear among the religious class is often talked about and in one of the engagements that I had with a group of religious elites, one of them candidly lamented, “We are directed and scripted.”

    It has often been mentioned that attitude reflects leadership. The angry reaction of the Muslim community in light of the Imam issue should be seen against this backdrop. The absence of the voices of the religious elites in the initial stages of the debacle created a void in the community who then went online to make sense of the matter.

    Last week, Assoc Prof Khairudin Aljunied was singled out in parliament for encouraging the “vilification” of the whistle-blower, Terence Nunis.  The fact is that hundreds of Muslims had begun pitching in their views on various platforms after Nunis’ pronouncements on Facebook. This was substantiated in a belated statement by the Minister-in-Charge of Muslim Affairs, Assoc Prof Yaacob Ibrahim, who mentioned that the video uploaded by Nunis had indeed “sparked a storm” and “generated many emotions both online and offline. Many in our community felt angry, because they believe that the postings could be used to cast aspersions on Islam and the asatizah in our Mosques”.

    It is interesting to note that both Assoc Prof Khairudin and the Mufti appropriated a satirical and poetic style respectively, as means of social critique. However, it has been well-documented that the Singaporean brand of criticism is often manifested through humour, satire and poetics as seen in Talkingcock, Mr Brown, Yawning Bread, Jack Neo’s films and the like. Indirect criticism is characteristic of societies living under soft-authoritarian rule.

    There are no differences in opinion that if the allegations against the Imam are proven to be true, his incitement has no place in our multi-religious society. But if it is not – and many among the Muslim community have come to this conclusion upon the explanations provided by numerous local religious scholars who have later gone public in discussing the meaning and context of the supplication – then sadly, the Muslim community will see this as yet another example of disciplining and an attempt to emasculate the local religious fraternity despite the state’s paradoxical pleas for Singaporean Muslims to give the local religious scholars their ears.

    It remains to be seen in the aftermath of the Imam episode if the state would choose to go down the path of imposing further restrictions to ensure that the MUIS-endorsed texts be read to the letter, curtailing any creative license of preachers and punishing any dissent towards state-appointed authority. The more enlightened way must be to empower the religious scholars in the field and to give them ownership over their areas of expertise to prevent religious discourse from being co-opted, hijacked and subjected to ad hominem attacks.

    The coming forward of a good number of religious elites, including its umbrella body, Singapore Islamic Scholars & Religious Teachers Association (PERGAS), with regard to this Imam issue is a good development that needs to be applauded. The social media provides a ready platform for this. These attempts to speak truth to power should also be captured in the mainstream media. PERGAS’ need to again clarify their position after feeling that they were misrepresented in the Malay mainstream media regarding their statement towards Assoc Prof Khairudin is not a good sign. The perception that the Malay mainstream media is not balanced and selective in their reporting has also led many to turn to the cyber-sphere to air their perspectives.

    In fostering this development of active citizenship, we need to keep an eye on encouraging diversity and not just promoting those with a certain kind of thinking that the state can easily manage. This is in line with what the PM had recently mentioned in his interview on February 24th in Today newspaper under the title, “Leaders must be able to take criticism, acknowledge mistakes”. Only then can we move forward as a nation.

     

    Source: TOC

  • Commentary: Supplication Has Been Commonly Recited In Mosques Here For Many Many Years

    Commentary: Supplication Has Been Commonly Recited In Mosques Here For Many Many Years

    Someone shared this on Facebook:

     

    “Dear Sir.

    I spent 10 years in a local madrasah system where I studied Arabic as a language and learnt Islamic religious subjects also in Arabic. Following that, I went on to do a part-time diploma in Qur’an and Sunnah (DPQS) at a local private institution.

    I read with shock and distress the accusations against the imam and I also watched the video that was put up as evidence. In my opinion, nowhere in the video did the imam curse at Jews or Christians (or anyone else for that matter) and at no point did he say anything offensive to incite or encourage violence against Jews or Christians. In my opinion, the accusation being made against the imam is wrong because the accuser has not captured the true meaning and usage of the key action word used in the supplication. The key action word (nasara) used in Arabic actually means ‘to help’. Some (though not so common) may translate it as ‘to grant victory’. If we look at most of the different places in which the word or a derivative of it appears in the Qur’an, it is usually translated as ‘to help’. But there is a specific nuance to it. It is to help/grant victory in a situation where the person asking for that help is in dire need of it due to being oppressed or harmed. So in this instance, the imam was asking Allah for help ONLY from those Christians or Jews who were oppressing or harming Muslims, and not ALL Christians and Jews. What the accuser did not highlight, was that the imam also asked Allah for help from bad Muslims too (those who declare that they believe in Allah but in their hearts they do not believe and they do things to harm Muslims).

    So, at no point did the imam curse Christians or Jews at all. In my opinion, there was nothing offensive. The imam was just asking Allah for help from ANY bad people who are harming any Muslims, regardless of the religion of those bad people.

    Sir, this accusation was particularly shocking to me because this supplication (or those similar to it) has been commonly recited in the different mosques here for many many years and it has never made us think that it demands us to be violent towards people of other religions. We have never been taught by our religious teachers that it should mean that Muslims need to seek victory (implying use of violence) over Jews, Christians or any other groups of people. It has always been taught to us in the manner I have explained above. Also, the idea of help or victory, does not necessarily and immediately imply violence (the accuser unfairly linked the word victory to war and crusades in his original facebook post, however, as Muslims, we believe that Allah can grant victory in many ways and it can be as simple as giving a person a better opportunity at a different area and removing him from the situation or position in which he was being oppressed or harmed).

    Having said all of this, I fully agree that encouraging violence against other religions is something that should not be tolerated or condoned at all in Singapore. We have a rare, precious, peaceful environment here where people of all races and religions have been living harmoniously, and as a Singaporean, it is something I really appreciate and value. If the imam was truly trying to encourage violence against Jews and Christians, then I hope appropriate action will be taken against him. However, I hope that in the future, if there were to be such cases, proper measures or steps could be put in place to prevent the accuser from spreading his unverified accusations on social media causing unwarranted fear or panic from people especially because this accusation is a sensitive issue in multi-religious Singapore.”

    <by Dinah Aziz* to Minister K Shanmugam taken from his FB page>

    Edit: *She’s a daughter of a good friend and is working her way to be a hafiz of the Quran. She has completed her hafazan but has yet to be tested in one sitting and certified as a Hafiz. But to me, certified or not, she’s already a hafiz. She has not posted this on her own FB page but I’m sharing what she’s posted because it’s useful for everyone to know the details of the video.

     

    Source:Effendi Basri

  • Shanmugam: Religious Preachers Who Attack Other Religions Won’t Be Tolerated

    Shanmugam: Religious Preachers Who Attack Other Religions Won’t Be Tolerated

    Religious preaching that encourages violence or pits one religion against another will not be tolerated in Singapore, said Minister for Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam in Parliament on Friday (Mar 3).

    Referring to a video posted on social media which purportedly shows an imam saying “God grant us victory over Jews and Christians”, Mr Shanmugam said the context of what the imam said will be clear once investigations are completed.

    “If the imam had referred to the phrase, to say, for example, that such phrases can promote ill will, hatred, enmity or violence against other communities, and that this is not acceptable in a multi-religious society, then there can be no objection.

    “But if he had said that Jews and Christians should be defeated, and for God to grant Muslim brothers victory over them – to make that very point – then that is completely unacceptable.

    “The Government has taken a strict position when Muslims have been attacked. People have been charged and sent to jail,” he said. “The same applies to any attack on any other religions.”

    He cited the example of a Christian couple sentenced to eight weeks’ jail in 2009 for distributing material that cast Islam in a negative light.

    Mr Shanmugam said the Government’s position has to be made clear because “matters like this have the potential to escalate, with people jumping in, opinions being formed, hardened, along religious lines”.

    If the imam did not make any inflammatory suggestion, no action will be taken and the authorities will issue a public statement, Mr Shanmugam said. But if the imam had engaged in such preaching, “some appropriate action” will be taken.

    “We have to be fair to the imam,” he said.

    Mr Shanmugam also criticised NUS academic Khairudin Aljunied for encouraging vilification of the individual who posted the video online.

    “Looking at what Mr Khairudin has said, he seems to suggest that it is okay for the imam to say that Jews and Christians should be defeated. He assumes that the imam intended to mean that, and Mr Khairudin sees nothing wrong with that.

    “Mr Khairudin’s position and actions are quite unacceptable. He has jumped into this, without verifying the facts and without checking the context. And supports a position that is quite contrary to the norms, values and laws in Singapore.

    “The police will look into the issues, and the conduct of all involved – quite thoroughly,” Mr Shanmugam said.

     

    Source: CNA