Why even Jesus would agree religion has no place in the public square of civil society
April 23rd, 2009 | 
Author: 
Written by Darkness of the brotherhood / A simple question: should individuals be allowed to make decisions about their objects of interest based on religious beliefs? Sure they can. But what happens when that “freedom” is extended to the whole idea of public square of civil society? Should we still allow it?
Well the short answer is it really depends. Take for instance the hornet’s nest that’s currently played out in the AWARE saga; does a group of Christians have a right to project their views by seizing control over a secular organization? (if that’s indeed what they did).
Some may argue that’s a moral hazard. As when any religious group actively engage in politics, they risk placing whole congregations in a spiritually untenable position. Consider the contemporary example of radical Islamists politicizing the Muslim faith and misinterpreting it, in the minds of many, as a religion of bent terrorists bent out to cause mayhem.
Others may even choose to go further by pointing out the moral contradictions: to the extent when churches attempt to use political power to force their beliefs on others, they violate their fundamental tenets by becoming manipulators themselves.
So as you can all see this is a complicated question i.e as the question is not whether religious organizations have a right to color the opinion of others in the public square of civil society; but can they do so in a way that still allows them to remain faithful to their fundamental tenets of love, humility, and justice?
As I mentioned earlier it depends – and that’s basically the nub of the problem; because when anything “depends” on anything; usually its no good – and that rule of thumb even applies to women; if I ask my woman whether she loves me? The answer has to be a snappy, “yes.” If it’s a depend, then sorry, no baby Lexus, no supplementary Amex platinum card, bye-bye and see you in my next life – I keep my life simple, that’s why I will never end up slitting my throat underneath a bridge.
My point is when everything hinges on the word it depends; then it can only get awfully fuzzy and that’s one reason why I am not in favor of faith seeping into the public square of civil society; as that can only mean all prospects of craving out common ground goes right out of the window. That’s one reason why really smart systems try their level best to gut out the twin heads of evils of it depends, be it religion or money – as where they feature, they’re likely to produce undesirable “it depends” aberrations – and that’s even biblical – don’t believe me, then consider Matthew 22:21. When some Pharisees asked Jesus whether paying taxes to a pagan Roman emperor constituted a sin against God, the latter replied curtly:
“Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”
To paraphrase: keep it simple stupid, don’t complicate your already complicated lives by trying to jumble up religion with politics – keep the line clear – keep it absolutely clear!
And if you really think about it that has to be wisdom; because if civil society is to remain a public square; then the personal needs to be kept a bay (otherwise, it would be the opposite of “public”); and this includes religion – otherwise the bad will surely drive out the good. Note: I am not saying religion is bad per se; but where it can take a wrong turn is when people use it as a basis of legitimizing one set of values which they consider to be a conception for all – when that happens, the whole idea of the public square becomes slightly larger then a five by eight jail cell – it becomes oppressive, defeatist, and decadent, trapping us in one level of intelligence that only promotes the belief of a few, instead of the many.
One reason why this can so easily happen when religion features in the public square goes back to a failing common to all religious beliefs – they all without exception suffer from the “it depends….” attitude which is OK, if you’re revisiting Jesus’s birthplace in Israel and wondering where he may be buried – but as a means of fashioning a common vantage point where everyone in the public square is able to see the same thing and agree on how to move forward, its just offers a lousy Archimedean perspective to make sense of the known world.
Religion can edify and in certain cases even uplift the soul; but these are hardly attributes that can be used as building blocks to construct a public square – here no one denies they may be excellent material to construct a church, mosque, gujwara or synagogue.
But to build a public square what it required has to be secularism; as the mere fact certain practices may be sanctioned by the traditions of a particular community can never by themselves make them just or even right – as to make justice or right the creature of only one conception that serves ONLY one community is to deprive it of a broader meaning which may serve those who choose to occupy the domain of the public square – unlike religion, secularism at least satisfies the quest for truth and accuracy. Religion however remains stoically a matter of faith – secularism on the other hand holds out a road map that’s aimed at getting the truth or, at the very least, at keeping scrupulously close to the evidence – religion is none of these things (if it were, then you wouldn’t get bent pastors going into the real estate business in the name of JC). It is instead predicated on a declaration of faith – to produce a story that satisfies certain needs; that those needs may serve as wholesome moral instruction is never in dispute; only its aim is to offer a spiritual history for a particular people, not the actual history of a time and place that’s able to resonate with the masses.
To appeal to the masses, there remains only one testable model; it should appeal only to our sense and sensibilities and never our faith – as a failing common to all religions is it’s not even open to critical challenge and that by default simply means it has the character of the sacred, serving different audiences for different ends which cannot even be questioned without causing offence.
Neither should the whole argument of religion versus secularism in the public square turn on whether both dichotomies can co-exist – or whether by decamping on one in favor of another that would be able to seed the greater good and drive out the bad.
Those ruminations are sterile. As what’s cogent has to be the very real business of setting the four corners on the public square of civil society on a solid foundation – one where its necessary to make it absolutely clear from the onset religion can never be allowed to even take one corner.
Darkness 2009
The Brotherhood Press 2009
Side reads: Find out who is Oh Tham Eng! Find out what is his real mission in the internet? Scroll down the thread and read for yourself: http://wayangparty.com/?p=8002
Posted in Snippets
13 Responses to “Why even Jesus would agree religion has no place in the public square of civil society”
Loading ...
Alex Tan Allan Ooi AWARE Chee Soon Juan Chiam See Tong Claire Lee David Widjaja DBS Dr Allan Ooi Dr Silviu Ionescu Dr Vivian Balakrishnan Foyce Le Xuan highnote5 Hong Lim Park Jack Lin Xinli Jack Neo Jack Neo affair Jack Neo scandal Josie Lau Josie Lau Meng Lee Lee Kuan Yew Lehman brothers Lighthouse Evangelism MAS minibonds Miss Singapore World NTU stabbing PAP Pastor Rony Tan Ris Low Romanian diplomat in hit-and-run Rony Tan S-League silviu ionescu Singapore Singapore 2010 Youth Olympic Games Tan Kin Lian Thio Su Mien Tiger Woods affair Tong Kok Wai Top 8 Vivian Balakrishnan Wendy Chong Y O G Youth Olympic Games
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.
Darkness. My dear friend.
Why the change of heart?
The Brotherhood is powerful and has a glorious history of victories.
We are weak and few in number. We only read and wait.
“As what’s cogent has to be the very real business of setting the four corners on the public square of civil society on a solid foundation – one where its necessary to make it absolutely clear from the onset religion can never be allowed to even take one corner…of this public square called civil society.”
Perhaps Darkness has not made it clear. But I will share my interpretation.
One’s beliefs and values should not be the sole basis for decision-making, nor should they be imposed on individuals who do not subscribe to those beliefs.
However, being a public square, there will be different kinds of people with myriad values, beliefs, motivations etc. The key would be to resist the temptation of shutting out other voices and acting based only on one’s beliefs. Instead, one should also listen to what others have to say, and try to reconcile each others’ needs with a common ground which everyone is comfortable with.
I don’t think it is reasonable to expect christians to keep out of the public square, or exclude gays from entering it, for instance. But that they should be mindful to keep their own agenda in check and think about how pursuing and fulfilling their own agenda might affect the others.
Goes both ways and applies to all other faiths, “non-faiths”. Equilibrium could only be achieved through acceptance based on mutual trust and understanding.
I do not think it is possible to have a “secular” public square because if it has to be inclusive, every individual of all beliefs and inclination will have to be welcomed and they would inevitably bring with them their own perspectives as the basis of evaluating situations and making choices.
To refrain from imposing one’s desire and beliefs on others is a mark of true understanding and acceptance, and that is as close as we could ever get to being secular.
Why do I keep thinking “Brotherhood of Nod”…
This is not the first time darkness has spoken about “four corners” of the public square. He first mentioned this in his speech to the international confederation of gamers after he had vanquished the Aryanians during the Ascension wars something in the age of steel 700 years ago. These were a group of Christian right wing theocons based in Texas that the brotherhood wiped out.
There he drew on the scholarly treatise of Williams and Jefferson who both recommended neutrality between religion and politics. Williams expressed concern about the dangers posed by government to religion. Jefferson, vexed over the dangers posed by religion to civil society. His primary fear was that a religion representing a majority of Americans would usurp power and use its political power to deprive religious minorities and disbelievers of their freedom to worship and curb freedom of speech.
The two religious clauses of the First Amendment came to be two as the 2 corners which resulted in the establishment clause: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Williams’s emphasis on protecting the independence of churches became the free exercise clause: “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Taken together, these two clauses prohibit government getting entangled with religion.
The other 2 corners was when darkness lamblasted Bush and even lampooned him by throwing the question to the entire confederation. “Who in his sane mind will talk to a Bush, the last time someone did that they wandered lost in the desert for 40 years…” He went on to criticize the administration has sought to undermine almost every one of the contributions Williams and Jefferson made. By giving religious denominations the power to directly influence public policy, it has allowed them to force their way of life on others. This became known as the 3 corner, darkness accorded to Montesquie who advocated the doctrine of the separation of powers. Darkness went on to chide the bush administration stating it had also exploited religion for the sake of legitimizing its power. And it has used religious faith to justify the carnage of war.
He also went on to call the Bush administration a carpet baggers outfit, as it had fought embryonic stem cell research, abortion, contraception, sex education, and the teaching of evolution, all apparently in deference to the whole idea of promoting faith. This became know as darkness fourth corner who he ascribed to Aristole, who once warned of the pervasive influence of faith subverting intelligence.
That is what he meant by the four corners. His address to the confederation lasted one hour thirty seven minutes. At the end, it received a standing ovation and the Primus Interspacing Accord 296104 was passed ratified by all the member states. In gaming it became known as the 4 post rule.
Paradoxically, three months after giving the 4 post speech. All the assets of the guilds were seized along with warrants of arrest issued out to break the monopoly of the guilds who were closely linked to the clergy. It was pursued so ruthlessly, it became known as the evening of the long shadows. In this purge hardly anyone was spared. Many said, this was how the brotherhood subjugated the once powerful guilds and subsequently gained control over the mercantile wealth of the once powerful guilds. Others were more direct labelling darkness as a clever power crazed delliante. Whatever it was this eventually became known ironically as the age of reason in their annals.
the notion of a civil public square is liberal – and thus it has to be inclusive. deliberate enforcement of secularism within the public square is another form of hegemony, as that forces participants of the public square to accept the values of secularism. that goes against the fundamentals of a civil public square.
although religious groups should be allowed to participate in the public square, and precisely because the public square must remain inclusive it should not be built based on any particular set of religious values. i totally concur with brotherhood regarding this.
Thank you for your charming fairytale 4 post. I would prefer it, if in future all post relating to gaming be kept strictly in gaming forums. As there is a real danger if you begin sharing stuff from over there, you will end up confusing many readers here – who have never been there bfr – so they really dont know what the hell you are talking about!
I think what is written here has to be open ended, ONLY bc this is a very broad topic and it really embraces a lot of ideas.
What I feel the author is trying to say is ONLY this, “keep it simple stupid, don’t complicate your already complicated lives by trying to jumble up religion with politics – keep the line clear – keep it absolutely clear!”
If you look at the aware impasse. You dont have to be a rocket scientist to figure out 99.9% of the problems centers on the issue of intention – that is to say many people are NOT even sure whether these new incumbents have a religious agenda? Do they come from the same church? etc.
Some may say that is not a pertinent question. But what the author is trying to say (I believe) if masquerade your religious intentions to try to project your religious agenda, then you will run the moral hazard of undermining the whole idea of what religion stands for; as you are nothing better than a cheap manipulator using deception to fulfill your agenda; it cannot be god’s agenda. As we all know he is an above board fellow.
The other question is can the PERSONAL be kept out of the PUBLIC square; here the author says it MUST be kept out, as he believes that is what it takes for a idea to work. Notice here, he never once touched on philosophy (so I have no idea how Williams and Jeffersons text even featured) – as the whole idea of what makes possible the PUBLIC square is the exclusion of the PERSONAL – here although he ONLY referenced religion; it could very well be extended to even cover cases where the gay movement have fashioned their cause along the lines of religious organizations.
What I think the author is try to say is for ANY public square to work; there is always a need to craft an Archimedean lens i.e a common vantage where everyone can agree on their objects of interest; for this to happen it cannot be based on mumbo jumbo; it has to be based on logic.
This does not mean if one day we all hold a makan session in this public square; we should all eat ONLY halal food bc there may be some muslims in this public square; but we should at least cater for halal food for those who may wish to keep to their faith – here there is alot of improvisation on the personal and private. I believe the author has keep it deliberately free and easy to be as accomodative as possible. But one thing to me remains very clear no one categorty of rights should ever be allowed to gain primacy to subvert the rest – if you think long and hard about it, the whole idea of the public square can even be extended to the internet, it would appear this may even be thematic; where darkness has written frequently on the evil power of ONLY one; there he has publicly said, if blogosphere = toc, then the whole idea of a free and independent net is doomed – hence their powers must be counter balanced.
I agree this essay is written so broadly, it is difficult to pin down the edges; but I think it was wise for him to have cut the cloth that way.
SD (Internet liaison officer of the brotherhood)
The purpose of my sharing SD is to show everyone here. What is the cost of creating this so called public square. The brotherhood would like every single one in the gaming community today to believe this was accomplished peacefully by seeking buy in only. That I am afraid is not true. It was accomplished with whips and scorpions. Darkness was not only ruthless, he even broke every single treatise, convention and accord to bring about this new order in the gaming world. Whole entire galaxies were destroyed. Whole tracks of people were wiped out. Whether you like it or not many have even questioned whether in his zeal to promote a new order in the gaming world, he had not somehow created a new religion in the guise of secularim. Pls dont come here and try to gag me. If you do, I will just go to the gaming forum and tell everyone the liaison officer here is trying to muzzle me! I have a right to tell everyone what once happened. You dont want me to share with people here as it paints darkness in an evil light, but why do people call him darkness then? He has blood in his hands, it will never wash off SD. Never!
[...] – Alice Cheong in Wonderland: AWARE saga: Too many questions left unanswered – The Wayang Party: Why even Jesus would agree religion has no place in the public square of civil society – ST Discussion Board: New exco tells of death threats – HWZ: THIO SU MIEN – Behind AWARE takeover [...]
Chua Mui Hoong should learn to think independently, instead of plaigarizing material from the brotherhood press inorder to earn her salary as a journalist for ST.
We are trying our level best to ignore these people. But if the likes of Miss Chua cont to copy their tenor lock, stock and barrel, how then might we still be able to advance the trite line.
The internet is full of lies and half truths?
How Miss Chua? Pls think bfr you decide to copy next time. All you are doing is flattering these slurping monkeys.
Pls try not to feed the monkeys. Try Miss Chua.
C.S. Lewis, who is greatly respected in the Christian circle supported the legisation of divorce. His justification is that the law is for everyone, not just Christians. Trying to impose Christian morals unto the masses back to the dark ages. The strangest thing is that Jesus once declared that the whole world will recognise his followers by their love for each other, not hate for others not like themselves or dogmas. The rights for Christians to take part in politics is the same for every citizen and if under free elections, these people choose to oppress other minorities, then it is a sad but true reality. But the constituition of every democracy is suppose to prevent this. Singapore is a very special case where our constituition is suppose to prevent but new exceptions introduced has muddied the waters. And the people have no way of influencing the laws. (Unlike in US where the juries can choose to ignore the wrong laws if it goes against the constituition and do what is right) In the bible, the most respected politician in a pagan state is Daniel. If Christians can read that book carefully, I am sure they will know that being a Christian means being faithfully to what you are suppose to do. He was called to be serve the people, not enslaving them to what he thinks God wants. That route has been tested and has led to the dark ages. Again I say, Jesus said that people will know that you are my disciples if you love one another.
For one moment, I feared this issue would threaten to boil over and even turn brother against brother in the gaming world. As there were already disturbing mutterings on the ground, some had even taken upon themselves to forming cliques in the gaming forums to presumably take sides. Then this came out and the storm suddenly disappeared. And as quickly as it came, it became calm like a sleeping lake again. It seemed as if common sense came into the minds of those who were once so angry and confused.
Now everything is clear. Why cant everything in the real world be as simple as life in the virtual?
I have heard Darkness will have to leave the brotherhood soon. It seems this is their way. Tribal law. And if he doesnt go. The rest will strike him down. In their nomadic culture, no man is allowed to be indispensable it seems, the system must be greater than the individual.
To me it seems a trifle waste. As through the years I have seen Darkness grow from a gutter street ruffian to a truly wise man. In the years, he read so many books to acquire wisdom. Many said, he even gave up on his favorite pastime watching TV to find this one line. And considering he must have already found it and is still a very young man. It just seems like a great waste that he has to go now.
I hope, I am not to forward for saying this. But this has labored in my mind for such a long time. It is a great waste. A very great waste, indeed.
He can always be Brotherhood Mentor.