Interview Transcripts: Atheism, & What It Means To Be An Atheist In Singapore

In my previous post, I mentioned that I had the ignominious honour of being interviewed by a Straits Times journalist (Straits Times is a national, major newspaper in Singapore), who, upon chancing upon my post with regards to the issue of interfaith dialogues, decided to conduct a email interview, with what I presume as a further query with regards to the atheistic point of view.

Transcripts of the interview was sent to me on the 3rd of July, and my reply was sent out on the following day.

While I was hoping that the interview would be published (knowing full well the conservative nature of Straits Times, I was expecting a watered-down version of it), but the latest word I have received was that the journalist concerned, Ms Li (I shall not divulge the full name. For those who are infinitely curious, leave a note in my email or this blog's comments) seems to be occupied with her work.

So, without further ado, the transcripts, as follows. My replies, in red:

1) As an atheist, do you feel marginalised in Singapore? Why/why not? If so, do you have any specific examples?

With regards to feeling marginalized, I feel that much of what has been said and touched on about faith is mostly centered on two or three faiths, namely Catholicism, Christianity and its related denominations, and most important of all, Islam.

Take the latest issue on interfaith dialogues. We have imams, priests, reverends and even the odd Confucian scholar who gets invited. But no one, none from the scholastic circles, such as historians, scientists and the like, gets invited to such talks, much less atheists.

What is it about religion that allows them this privilege to get a piece of the limelight and spread their propaganda in such a manner? Are we saying that, short of discussing each other's religion, people from the various religions can't really communicate beyond mere religion? Or are atheists and other members of the free thought community so highly ostracized that we aren't even allowed a whiff of these bunch of self-appraised folks?

Dialogues are a good thing, but dialogues such as these are merely political tools fabricated by people who wish to glamorize religion and portray a falsified unified front of various religious views.

2) Do you feel that because of the sensitivity of religious issues and the emphasis on inter-religious harmony in Singapore, you do not have freedom of expression, when it comes to airing your views?

I think a few years back, two young people or teenagers were arrested and charged with the Sedition Act, one for slandering Islam and the other for drawing Jesus-zombies munching cute little babies.

To talk about freedom of speech in Singapore is pretty much like playing Russian roulette: You can heap as much vitriol as you want, but once you bothered some higher-ups, get prepared to be slapped with ignominous charges, such as the ISA (Internal Security Act) and the Sedition Act.

3) Do you think that atheism is a faith in itself? And should it be accorded the same "respect" that other religions have?

Atheism, by its very definition (Atheist from the Greek word, atheos: A, without, theos, God), refers to a negative position of non-belief. An atheist, in essence, is a person who does not believe in God due to the absence of proof (To some atheists, it means observable, empirical proof).

Faith requires an element of belief. In the case of faith, it is more aptly described as "Belief in things unseen", which really boils down to blind belief.

If anything, atheism is the exact polemic of faith: One is an atheist because one sees no proof to validate the claim, while a person who dwells in faith believes because he or she has subjected to himself or herself a creed irregardless of evidence.

As for the question of respect, I feel that we should respect everybody who is generally law-abiding. The case of the gay movement (which I did wrote on my blog), for example, is one that deserves respect, because gays have long been marginalized and in a way, segregated from the majority heterosexuals because of this misguided notion that sex outside the realms of procreation is an abominal sin, a view justified and mortified by the biblical code of stoning gays to death.

Just as law-abiding gays deserve respect, recognition and dare I say, the rights to marriage, atheists deserve to have their voices and views heard. Unfortunately in Singapore, the religious right has mostly reserved for themselves the right to be heard, and many times, their views are highly eschewed by their belief systems. For example, one would not expect a priest to extol the virtues of condoms and other contraceptives, despite the devastating effects of AIDS and other sexual diseases. To the priest, sex for pleasure is a sin, regardless of the outcome.

4) Do you think that atheists should be allowed to set up an organisation to propagate their views, such as Christians have church organisations, Muslims Islam organisations and Buddhists Buddhist organisations to propagate their tenets? Why/why not? How do you think the society and the Government will react?

I feel that the atheist community in Singapore is too small at the moment: Unlike the American Atheists (AA), atheists here are mainly closeted and disjointed, so no, at the moment, atheists should simply focus on getting out of the closet, which itself is a difficult thing to do, especially for those who are stuck in very strict, fundamentalist sects like I was in the past.

If an atheist organization were to exist here, I cannot really fathom the framework which we should go about in setting up such an organization. Religion in Singapore is something that is held in excessive awe and respect, even rationalized in the form of moderate belief systems. If the organization seeks to be just a freethought organization, then I would feel that there is no need for an atheist organization, or for myself to joing one. An active atheist organization that is highly vocal against religious irrationality may be too hot a potato for a distinctively conservative and highly cautious society here in Singapore.

5) Do you think that a Singaporean atheist would be allowed to write a book like that of Richard Dawkins' or Christopher Hitchens'?

The problem here in Singapore, I suspect, is that in higher academic circles here, is that any academic must be strictly neutral, or at worst, slightly sympathetic of religiosity in order to continue their research here.

That aside, most publishers in Singapore would baulk at publishing such controversial material here. If there is even an outside bet that one could actually sneak past such works, I would gladly be the first one to try.

6) Do you feel that there are increasing tensions between those who are religious, and those who are secular, within Singapore? Some will call you a "secularist fundamentalist". Do you agree with such a label?

One of my earliest blog posts (still there, but I have abandoned it) was about this pastor in a megachurch who actually proclaimed that "the red colour of the Singapore flag symbolizes the blood of Christ".

I had attended that service on the behest of a friend,and was profoundly shocked to hear this lie being spoken life in front of 20,000 church members.

While it is too early to say whether the secularity of our nation is under threat, I think there are people in Singapore who definitely enjoy the idea that the tenets of our Constitution is somehow aligned with the Ten Commandments, even if it clearly isn't.

At present, I do not detect this threat in the Parliament. To me, the status quo quo of "Equal playing ground" still holds true up to a point, and I for one would definitely not want to see our nation turn into a fascist theocracy.

The final question with regards to "secular fundamentalist" was left out, because I find that such a term is indeed a grave insult to rational people, religious or otherwise, who do not seek to widen the religious scope towards the secular sector, be it in government institutions or even to the tenets of government.

Frankly, I doubt this interview would ever be published in our closeted media, and hence I have decided to publish this without the permission of the journalist.

In concluding this article, I urge all Singaporeans to speak up in the face of religious domination within our media. We must find a voice in a society that continuously trumpets the need for religious reconciliation, without sparing a thought for the 13%-15% of us who refuse to be part of this hypocrisy of grovelling towards religious moderates who, ironically are the major source of inspiration for fundamentalists and their dastardly plans of terror and extremism.

Interfaith Dialogues: An Exercise In Futility, Or Potential Bigotry?

In the aftermath of the September 911 attacks, one of the first knee-jerk reactions amongst religious moderates was to "reach out" to Islam and its "radical" elements in the form of "interfaith dialogues".

As with all knee-jerk reactions, interfaith dialogue is a uniquely novel political gimmick: By addressing and renouncing "fundamentalist" ideals through the united voices of a mismatched interfaith group of religious leaders, the voices of unreasoning in the name of religion could be "drowned out" and ostracized by a largely sympathetic, religious public.

According to some moderate religious scholars and even politicians, the idea is that "interfaith dialogues" (The very allegory seems to indicate that different people of various faith can only talk about faith and pretty much nothing else) involving bishops, imams and various "luminaries" from all religious sects will help resolve any misunderstandings between various religious groups, thereby promoting some obscure form of religious harmony in the form of religious understanding and tolerance.

Blair: Wants to have another go at "interfaith" gimmicks, after failure in Iraqi debacle

Such is the popularity and novelty of the "interfaith" game, that according to The Guardian, even the outgoing British Premier, Tony Blair, is dipping his hands into muddled waters: His 3.5 million pound home at Connaught Square may jolly well serve as his "headquarters" for a new interfaith dialogue movement. I guess Blair needs something corny to salvage his already-battered political image, mired by accusations caused by his unholy matrimony with Bush as his "unofficial poodle".

In this post, I will attempt to play the Devil's Advocate by presenting a case against such farcical officialdom: If anything else, Interfaith dialogues are almost always doomed to fail even before taking off and, as I shall present in my post, will constitute a new, unprecedented form of bigotry against the secular, freethinking world, if they were to somehow succeed in reconciling their polarizing differences.

A Question of Polemics?

Without question, all faiths share varying degrees of mutual exclusivity that defines them from one another.

Major religions from across the globe fall under three categories: Monotheism, Polytheism and Philosophical/Quasi-religious sects.

Of particular interest here is Monotheism, since it is the most exclusive and polemic of all three groups: The largest amongst them include Islam, Catholicism and Christianity, with Judaism having a profound influence in all three.

While these religions share the same Abrahamic forefather of Judaism, their differences are as polarizing as even the staunchest left-wing/right-wing divide: A Muslim, for example, will vehemently disagree with the Christian belief of a human super god dying on the Cross for Man's Original Sin, while the Christian would simply take note and disapprove of the Prophet Muhammad's obsession with marrying multiple wives (including a 9 yr old girl).

The internal strife within the Judaic sects across the sectarian board is all too evident throughout history.

Hitler: Brought Anti-Semitism to New Heights, Never Been Excommunicated, And Much Loved by The Catholic Church, Despite Staunch Denial

Anti-semitism, an almost singular industry that arose from the supposed betrayal and death of Christians' beloved Messiah, Jesus by Jewish priests (Jesus, curiously, was a Jew), would escalate into one of history's worst racial genocide against any single race through the systematic annihilation of Jewry via Hitler's (Hitler was a Catholic who, until today, has never been excommunicated) infamous gulags of World War II, run by Gestapo and SS thugs armed with sufficient hatred & knowledge to kill and little else to go along with.

Today, almost two millennial since Jesus' supposed death, Jewish settlers in the Middle East are still constantly forced to defend for their lives against suicide bombers and Islamic fundamentalist nations, all armed to the teeth for an eventual ouster of Israel and the "accursed" Jews.

Given such irreconcilable differences and deep-seated enmity, the presumption that an interfaith dialogue could somehow erase 2000 years of religious strife is as bogus as George Bush going through a speech without stammering and tripping over his own words.

Monotheistic religions aside, polytheistic religions, such as Hinduism, are pretty much regarded as "pagan" and "heretic" by monotheistic religions. While polytheistic religions are quite obliging in accommodating their rather more assertive monotheistic hosts, one should not be expecting too much from the more dogmatic monotheistic counterparts.

Religions more aligned with philosophical teachings, such as Buddhism and Confucianism, formed the final portion of this religious trinity. While these quasi-religions generally promote peace and harmony, certain virtues attached to them, such as the role of the submissive women and overtly-emphasized piety, can be just as every bit stifling and archaic as their monotheistic counterparts.

For any multi-faith dialogue to be successful, there is always a herculean leap of faith that has to be surmounted. Religious differences of the kind that goes with "I believe in A, he believes in B, therefore we cannot co-exist" may seem trivial, until you realize that each person's beliefs are aligned with a God in the Sky. Throw in the fact that every religion has his or her own personal heaven and hell, you get a potential confrontation and mayhem that may erupt anytime during a typical "interfaith" session.

Religious Violence & Terror Abetted By Moderates?

Because of the 911 incident and the subsequent spate of attacks in Britain and Madrid, there is a perceived need to "reach out", so to speak, to religious radicals of Islam, and the naive thinking that these terrorists are somehow "indoctrinated" by end-of-the-mill religious clerics and not mainstream ones seem to fuel the desire by moderates and interfaithers to reach out to them before the radicals do.

The real problem, however, is far more subtle. By relying on the perceived pluralism of religious moderates that somehow "tones down" the singular exclusivity of religion's tenets, moderates are ignoring the fact that religion is actually the core problem at hand.

While a religious moderate shuns violence, his adherence to beliefs that a supernatural being exists to fuss over his every need as well as people of his creed, and that everyone else who doesn't follow suit will find themselves becoming unwitting objects of everlasting torture in hell's eternal BBQ inferno, are so utterly egoistic and one-dimensional that his beliefs could have been very well-suited and subverted by radical fundamentalists, who simply reject the moderate portion of the benign moderate's beliefs and transform it into a dastardly recruitment tool for potential terrorists.

By constantly promoting the fundamental aspects of religion, moderates unwittingly provide fuel and heat for consistent propaganda, which, ironically, are used by radical religious teachers to spread and recruit more extremists.

In his article, The Problem With Religious Moderates, Sam Harris writes succinctly:

"While moderation in religion may seem a reasonable position to stake out, in light of all that we have (and have not) learned about the universe, it offers no bulwark against religious extremism and religious violence. The problem that religious moderation poses for all of us is that it does not permit anything very critical to be said about religious literalism. We cannot say that fundamentalists are crazy, because they are merely practicing their freedom of belief; we cannot even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivaled. All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don't like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us. This is not a new form of faith, or even a new species of scriptural exegesis; it is simply a capitulation to a variety of all-too-human interests that have nothing, in principle, to do with God. "

In sum, interfaith dialogues are completely useless in reaching the intended targets: No matter how concerted the attempt to feign religious solidarity amongst various religious sects, the real underlying cause of the problem still lies with religion. The idea that the various sects, particularly monotheistic ones, can speak of tolerance and understanding of other religions while brandying exclusivity to God's unique channel and grace, is, to put it mildly, too quaint for even the most "liberal" fundamentalist (kind of like arguing about the squareness of circles), although the words "religious and political hypocrisy" may seem more apt here.

A More Sinister Motive?

At this point, I would like to consider what I perceive to be my own conjuncture, at this time of writing, on my part. Assuming, then, that interfaith dialogues work, what then, would be the inevitable outcome?

Taking today's political model as a rough blueprint, religion is, and has always been a significantly powerful political and lobbying force, in religiously-dominated countries such as USA and Iran.

Any political ideal, no matter how absurd, can transform into mainstream formality as long as you press the right political buttons. From spreading religiously-slanted doctrines into schools and eroding civil rights, religion has a way of buttressing the national consciences of many a nation, and herein lies a sinister undertone to this article.

In the face of what I perceive as another form of Renaissance by left-wing minority movements such as the Gay Movement and the more recent revival of the Atheist movement, religious fundamentalists, peeved with what they perceive as a form of rapid secularization of their respective countries, may find cause to unite with other like-minded creeds in order to combat these fledgling movements.

A Christian right-wing group, for example, could rally themselves with their Muslim counterparts under the banner of "Ban Abortion Now!", put aside their doctrinal differences, in order to strike a very powerful message of religious piety amongst the public. Such a move, if successful, could very well signal the first down-spiralling of human rights straight towards the nearest dumpsters.

Welcome to the world of burkhas and Creationist Museums.

Dialogues Need Not Be Interfaith

In concluding this post, it is important for me to highlight the importance of dialogues between people of various religions and creeds. By engaging in meaningful, sincere dialogues, one would be better adept in understanding each other's respective cultures and differences, which is of paramount importance in a increasingly globalized world.

This kind of dialogue, however, should not be restricted and monopolized by religion. Interfaith dialogues tend to foster the kind of depraved imagination that religious moderates seems to be at home with: That only religious leaders of various sects can communicate under the umbrella of religion, and no other forms of engagement exist outside this perceived hegemony.

The idea that imams, priests & reverends (religious scumbags, mostly in the Falwell mould) can come together for high tea, with smirks on their religiously-etched faces as they nod their heads at each other's parsimonious jokes against gays, atheists and other infidels that they share a common hatred against, resembles a modern-day meeting of Al-Capone and his merry gang of trigger-happy mobsters.

As an atheist, I find it infuriating and utterly ridiculous that atheists, agnostics and people with alternative or no faiths are somehow "non-existent" in the equation, despite the emergence of many a infidel in the mainstream circuit. In the minds of interfaith organizers, people like us cease to exist outside their sphere of self-imposed religious bigotry, which really is the main reason why I am so irked with interfaith dialogues.

Now that I am finished with this article, anyone care for a piece of halal-style smoked pork*???

"All talk and No Food Makes Jack an Angry Boy." Ok, I made that one up. Bon Appetite!

*"Halal" in essence refers to food prepared to make it palatable for Muslims. Since pork itself is categorized as an "unclean animal" under the Koran, "halal pork" still remains an incompatible oxymoron.