SM Goh’s fear of Religious Enclaves: Classes may help

484812 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fkentridgecommon.com%2F%3Fp%3D4848SM+Goh%27s+fear+of+Religious+Enclaves%3A+Classes+may+help2009-08-03+03%3A42%3A26Christopher+Onghttp%3A%2F%2Fkentridgecommon.com%2F%3Fp%3D4848 on "SM Goh’s fear of Religious Enclaves: Classes may help"

The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 4 Aug 2009 on Tue, 4th Aug 2009 11:10 am 

[...] Goh on Inter-Religious Harmony – the kent ridge common: SM Goh’s fear of Religious Enclaves: Classes may help – The Rot Within: Yes, propaganda is getting challenging – The Temasek Review: SM Goh: “Economic [...]

Lee on Tue, 4th Aug 2009 4:12 am 

Religious Knowledge was tried in the secondary schools before in the 1980s, I went through it. I found it made the fervent Christains much more aggressively in "advocating" their faith. Lots of heat but little light. I am, thus, not in faviour of re-introducing something that was tried and found wanting.

More critically, I doubt many of the teachers will be able to teach the subject objectively. One of the big shocks in my edication was to have one respected teacher declare openly to me that she did NOT believe in evolution – a teacher who disbeliefs science… speechless at how religion blinds one to truth and facts.

saintjohn on Tue, 4th Aug 2009 7:07 am 

"a teacher who disbeliefs science"

do you mean science is a matter of belief too?

or is science like maths, where 1+1=2, even if you die die want to believe it is 6 or 7 or a million?

LCC on Tue, 4th Aug 2009 9:18 am 

Hmm… I cannot help but ask this: where did my comment (made yesterday) disappear to?

LCC on Tue, 4th Aug 2009 9:53 am 

[Note: Am re-typing this comment from memory since I already submitted it yesterday and it seem to have mysteriously disappeared]

Hmm… If I am not wrong, in the 1980s, compulsory religious education classes were introduced into Singapore's national education syllabus.

However, these classes were later scrapped because firstly, there was criticism against the inclusion of Confucian ethics as one of the options available as this was perceived as an attempt by the government to propagate Confucianism (as an authoritarian ideology).

And secondly and perhaps more importantly, a report/study, released a few years after religious education classes were made compulsory, stated that these classes were causing inter-religious tensions and differences to rise.

History lesson aside, I must say that I am sceptical about the prospect of religious education classes helping to contribute to inter-religious understanding.

I am sceptical because firstly, if religious education classes are to be introduced as an examinable subject, it is highly likely that students will just "mug" for it for the exams and forget what was taught to them after the exams. Yet, on the other hand, if such classes are to be introduced as a non-examinable subject, I doubt people will pay attention to them.

In short, a classroom setting is perhaps not the best place to teach religious education.

And secondly and perhaps more importantly, I suppose that religious education/knowledge, while perhaps necessary, is not sufficient for inter-religious understanding to be present. For example, while I, as an agnostic free thinker, may have some knowledge about the different religious faiths, this does not necessarily mean that I thus am able to understand or appreciate them. To use an even plainer example, while I, as an Arts undergraduate, may have some knowledge about Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (thanks to me having taken General Education modules such as "Great Ideas in Contemporary Physics"), I would hesitate to say that I understand or appreciate this profound theory.

Hence, in my opinion, while religious education/knowledge may be necessary, if not important, to establish inter-religious understanding, inculcating a proper mindset is perhaps more important.

By "proper mindset", I refer to a mindset of being intellectually curious (about religion and other stuff), of being open minded, of not perceiving things in purely black versus white terms ("You are either with me or against me") and of being able to look beyond differences to recognise similiarities.

Thus, in the final analysis, I suppose that while it may be a relatively simple, albeit important, task to set up religious education classes to teach people about different religious faiths, it is perhaps a much more difficult and more important task to inculcate a proper mindset in people.

In the end, knowledge or education about different religious faiths would do little good if a religious believer continues to perceive other religious faiths as being heretical, wouldn't it?

Kelvin Teo on Wed, 5th Aug 2009 12:35 am 

Dear LCC:

I think the Intensedebate function can be quite ‘buggy” from the technical viewpoint at times. You may save your comments and email me if you think it may not go through. I will reproduce your comments manually. Don’t worry, we do not bin comments even if they are really hard-hitting to the writers.

Sincerely yours,
Kelvin Teo

smallvice585 on Tue, 4th Aug 2009 4:58 pm 

I disagree with this thesis. In fact, I doubt that "religious harmony" classes will lead to greater understanding between different religious groups, especially when propagating religion is a central doctrine of some religious groups. What is more important in my opinion is that we need to promote an open mind and tolerance in our classrooms. The danger highlighted by SM Goh's "religious enclaves" is no more than the manifestation of ignorance and fear. "Religious harmony" classes will only make Singaporeans more aware of their religious differences.

World at Large on Tue, 4th Aug 2009 5:08 pm 

Religion by nature separates and make visible this separation by rituals and rules of behaviour even about what you can or cannot wear, eg the tudung for Muslim girls, and the turban for Sikhs, etc.

And as these rituals and rules are definitive of the religion, to know more about a religion, is not to make this distinctions go away or blur them away, but rather to entrench it, for what is a Sikh unless you wear the turban and also wear the other 4 definitive items, like white underwear and carry a knife.

And, for example, someone who once was a casual Muslim, may now become aware that it is a sin, or haram, to eat with utensils used for Chinese food, and so may exclude themselves from having meals in hawker centres where these utensils are washed in a common area. And similarly some may come around to conclude that god is to be obeyed even if it is opposed to the authority of the state.

So as people become more conscious of who they are as defined by their religion, they may seek to express their new found identity with more vigour, thus creating more dissimilarities and distinction and even tensions and conflicts.

There is an academic study of religions, where the subject is studied at arms length, objectively and rationally, without getting involved in it personally, just like the study of history or literature.

In this approach we may, for example, arrive at the conclusion that the state of Israel was established via ethnic cleansing, and to analyse why God ordered this. Now however this subject can become emotionally charged, and even taboo for some Christians and may lead to tensions with Muslims supportive of the Palestinians today. Conversely, academics may want to question whether the Quran is really a revelation by angel Gabriel to Mohammed, something which the mere hint of doubt is a great sin to the Muslims.

So unless everyone take off their religious clothes, no one can enter this no holds barred academic approach either.

There is another approach which is beyond rituals and external marks of distinction and so on, and that is to go within the mind, ie to study the basis of thoughts and beliefs, namely philosophy.

For example we need to ask the questions, why do you believe what you believe, and is there such a thing as truth or not, and whether we believe only the truth, and put on a suspended judgement things that cannot be "proven" true, and how do we prove a truth, and so on and so on.

So then anyone so educated can examine himself in his private mind his own beliefs, and try to understand why people believe what they believe, rightly or wrongly. Further there is a common basis for all to discuss their beliefs. Of course there will be some whose god may even forbid such thinking, where the truth, perhap as revealed by god, is unquestionable and beyond reason.

And finally there is a need for a does of ethics to be included too, particularly the question why should I consider the feelings of others important, why is man social, and so on.

ahtong on Wed, 5th Aug 2009 5:16 pm 

These two articles provide a good overview and critique of the short lived Religious Knowledge programme in the 1980s:
S. Gopinathan (1995) ‘Religious education in a secular state: The Singapore experience’, Asian Journal of Political Science Volume 3 Number 2, pp. 15-27
Jason Tan (1997) ‘The rise and fall of religious knowledge in Singapore secondary schools’, Journal of Curriculum Studies, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 603- 624.

The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Weekly Roundup: Week 32 on Sat, 8th Aug 2009 10:47 am 

[...] Goh’s 10 Challenges – the kent ridge common: SM Goh’s fear of Religious Enclaves: Classes may help – The Rot Within: Yes, propaganda is getting challenging – The Temasek Review: SM Goh: “Economic [...]

SoBa on Sun, 6th Sep 2009 3:27 pm 

The second one. But it's more accurate to say 1+1 in Science equals to 2 +/- x as nothing can be perfectly measured.

Hizinhibe on Thu, 12th Nov 2009 4:38 am 

?????????, ?????? ????????,?? ?????? ??? ????? ? ???.