"You are my brother and I love you. I love you worshipping in your church, kneeling in your temple, and praying in your mosque. You and I and all are children of one religion, for the varied paths of religion are but the fingers of the loving hand of the Supreme Being, extended to all, offering completeness of spirit to all, anxious to receive all.
I love you for your Truth, derived from your knowledge; that Truth which I cannot see because of my ignorance. But I respect it as a divine thing, for it is the deed of the spirit. Your Truth shall meet my Truth in the coming world and blend together like the fragrance of flowers and becoming one whole and eternal Truth, perpetuating and living in the eternity of Love and Beauty."
— Kahlil Gibran, A Tear And A Smile (1914)
Religious pluralism is a cornerstone for achieving harmony in societies with people of varied faiths. Yet in multi-religious Malaysia politicians shy away from discussing religious pluralism. It is difficult to get straight answers about their stand on or commitment to it.
Take for example the recently concluded panel discussion on 'National Unity through Religion, Law and Shared Values' at UCSI University in KL. It is unclear whether religious pluralism or religious bigotry were fruitfully discussed. The contents of the discussion are not made public enough. It can be gleaned from news reports that there were barely satisfactory answers to barely satisfactory questions.
What is conspicuous is that there is an excruciating lack of focus on the heart of the issue.
Here I refocus attention on what really matters.
Good values and spirituality should be the essence, not religion per se
If a religious position is to be taken by any political party or any citizen that is founded on respect for religious beliefs and support for the freedom to practice any religion (or none at all), then this position should encourage living a life guided by a universal set of shared moral values and one containing aspects of the spiritual, whatever the religious or non-religious route taken. It follows that religion is a means towards these larger goals. This awareness is cardinal. Unity is achieved as a result of these common goals, not by having or propagating any particular religion.
What we should first abandon is the ambition to create a state of “one mankind under one religion”. We should not harbour false and childish hopes that only through one religion for all can we get people to step onto the expressway of righteousness and practice moral values, or that only thus can we lead everyone to the promised land of God-realisation, as if it is our duty and right. Such an aspiration is but a certain road to perdition.
Instead, we should be enlightened and courageous enough to consider accepting that people can take many valid paths towards goals of spirituality and right living.
We should be enlightened and courageous enough to consider admitting that no religion or belief system has a monopoly of or is exclusively privy to these moral values or “steps to the ultimate blessings of God or heaven”.
We should awaken to the fact that moral values and spiritual teachings are not exhaustively found in any one religion. The teachings of one religion can be instructive to adherents of another religion and vice versa.
We should be able to say that the choice of religion is a personal one; that in line with the right to freely practice one's religion as one shall practice it, religion and religious practices should not be imposed upon any individual such as by the authorities or the state, or by a society that has been so conditioned by state policy that it passively imposes religion upon its own members.
Should there be a public demand for religious guidance or for places of worship, then this shall be provided. In no uncertain terms should this be seen to imply consent for the imposition of religion or its practices by a righteous authority.
These are among the things that the so-called religious democrats should be forthright about, but are not.
This is what we should be striving for if we believe in a Malaysia that is just, free and harmoniously multi-religious, but are not.
There are serious obstacles to these that we are reluctant to come to terms with, but must.
Religious chauvinism as a disease to eradicate
These specific obstacles are almost never clearly enunciated. Here they are:
The desire amongst members of society to preach their religions as better or superior alternatives to the religions or belief systems of others and thereby to seek to convert others to their own religion
The related belief that non-believers are lowly, of unequal standing or blessing and their religions inadequate and contemptible
The refusal or inability to approve the values or truths contained in other religions or belief systems regardless of their merit
The related fear that this might shake one's faith in one's religion, or render one's religion comparatively less glorious, or disadvantage one's religion in the competition for religious propagation
The myopia of "only one brotherhood through one way of God" that prevents the acceptance of all religious adherents under an umbrella of one humanity in which other belief systems are acknowledged as valid.
This condition and process, which can for brevity be termed religious chauvinism, is the eye of the storm in all the religious tensions and misunderstandings we have witnessed in Malaysia.
The mentality described is widespread and fairly entrenched. The psychology of insecurity and the politics shaping it are interesting and worthy of separate examination.
But the implication is unequivocal. It clashes with the hopes of building a Malaysian society that is genuinely accepting (not merely “tolerant”) of a diversity of religions and cultures.
It means that lasting peace and unity amongst our people is to remain out of our reach so long as this is left to get out of control.
What remains to be done and a challenge to the politicians
It is for the preceding reasons that this matter must be urgently addressed. If a united Malaysia is in our interest, then an honest, open and peaceable national dialogue on this must commence. It should involve the issues mentioned here and others, such as religious propagation, its targets and the ethics of its methods.
Relegating religious talks of understanding to practically useless and toothless inter-faith panels behind closed doors is a cowardly act of evasion. Understanding and consensus must emerge from the majority — the entirety of Malaysians.
We should also cease deceiving ourselves with superficial multi-cultural and multi-religious images and slogans that are purpose-crafted for international consumption or national celebrations. This lulls us into inaction.
To dodge discussion by offering excuses (e.g., "Malaysians are not ready for this") is an unacceptable denial of reality and maturity. To delay further is to permit more, avoidable conflicts. It is to shirk from the shared responsibility of nation-building.
We need to stop the factors that perpetuate religious chauvinism, remedy existing attitudes and inculcate multi-culturalism and multi-religiousness as the definite Malaysian way.
In view of this, to the politicians and policymakers of Umno, MCA, PAS, PKR and DAP, I put the following question:
Do you have the guts, will and conviction (i) to discuss the issue of religious pluralism and bigotry clearly and openly; (ii) to establish multi-culturalism and religious pluralism as a prime policy and encourage it amongst your supporters and colleagues within your political parties; and (iii) to act decisively to correct the problem of religious chauvinism and prejudice such as those highlighted here?
By Pak Sako
No comments:
Post a Comment