As I am sure many of you have noticed, several posters have recently been put up by a Christian group in our school. Most of my friends, even those whom I would regard as significantly less atheistic than me, expressed disdain for those posters. While I had a good laugh about those posters with my friends, those posters did inspire some thought in me.
But just in case you have no idea what I am talking about, here’s a brief head’s up. Basically, there were two kinds of pictures: one featuring a group of girls (Megan Chang, Jeanne Yeo, Melodie Tan, Joanne Gay and Audrey Han) and one featuring a group of guys (oops, no idea who, haha). In both cases, the group would strike a pose, whip up a large smile, and the caption read, “We are very happy. Ask us why.” An email was left, weareveryhappy@gmail.com.
This was the same group who had given out hand written cards carrying biblical verses and other words of encouragement to almost every person in the cohort.
Honestly, I felt fairly touched when I received one of those cards. Nicely hand written, the group had obviously put in much effort. Hence, even though several friends expressed concern at such blatant evangelizing, the difficult issues underlying such a practice escaped my mind at the time.
However, when I saw these posters, I realized that there are indeed contentious questions here.
Firstly, to what extent should freedom of expression be allowed in public spaces like schools?
My personal opinion would simply be: as much as possible. I am perfectly fine with most forms of expressions in school. One of the things I am proudest of VJC is the large amount of autonomy students have in putting up posters on their own initiative, allowing for the expression of several clever and creative marketing ideas. At a very basic level, I also tend to feel okay with religious expressions in school.
However, if religious expressions are allowed, then us agnostics and atheists should have a right to express our beliefs as well. There is no reason why religious beliefs should be privileged over any other beliefs: they should be criticized if they are irrational; they should be criticized if they are harmful. An example of the former would be Creationism and Intelligent Design; an example of the latter would be promoting Homophobia.
Therefore, I believe that religious expressions should be allowed if and only if all forms of religious and anti-religious expressions can be allowed. The school should be neutral, as should all student leadership bodies (SC announcements must not end with “God Bless”), but individuals have the right to associate, form groups, and express their opinions.
However, it is clear that such open and free expression would make many people uncomfortable, not least the government itself. Indeed, a free for all combat between all possible religious factions in public spaces could potentially undermine the fabric of our society.
Hence, I was left in a dilemma. On one hand, I believe that religion is in many areas a negative influence upon society and should be robustly criticized by private individuals (not, I stress, governments). On the other, I am inclined towards hoping for maximum freedom of expression possible.
I was thus left with three options when I saw those posters:
a) Come up with an alternative poster, possibly one featuring our beloved Flying Spaghetti Monster
b) Report to the school on the inappropriateness of religious evangelizing in a public space
c) Do nothing
Well, I chose option c), though I heard that someone brought the issue up with the Students’ Council.
I chose to do nothing, because I finally decided that the posters were not overt religious messages. Rather, they were merely inviting people to email them. Our knowledge that they were religious came from our own background knowledge. If there had been any explicit Christian references, be it a biblical verse or even a cross, I would have chosen option b).
Why not option a), one might ask, since I profess a love for the freedom of expression. The reason is simply that choosing option a) would probably have blown this way out of proportion, and alienated people from non-religiosity.
Seeing the people in this Christian group does make me worry, though, about whether Singaporean elites are becoming increasingly religious. In a country like Singapore, this is especially important. We are a country highly dependent on our leaders being enlightened, knowing where to draw the line between religion and state. Hence, I was extremely glad when, during the Grassroots and Governance dialogue, Senior Minister of State Lim Hwee Hua answered Camille’s question on moral issues in parliament by first stating, “We are a secular state.”
I think this has to be emphasized to the religious all over our country: We are a secular state. The imposition of the values of one religion on the rest of us is tantamount to tyranny. Whether one thinks that homosexuality is wrong is a separate issue altogether from whether or not homosexuality should be banned. The first is a personal opinion, and one has the right to tell their friends and family not to be homosexual. The second is a question of whether the state should ignore the rights of an entire people, criminalizing what is essentially a private decision between two consenting adults.
I strongly believe in the need to speak out against the rising tide of Christian evangelism in Singapore, but I hesitate in lobbying the authorities, choosing to spread the rational word within my private social circle instead. Unfortunately, freedom of expression may not work both ways as the school might censor atheistic opinions while allowing religious ones to propagate.
Thus, should religious expression become more explict and prevalent in schools, an essentially public domain, I truly would become more worried. Perhaps if that were to happen, taking the issue up to the higher ups may be necessary. Though I shudder at the prospect of increased authoritarianism in what I feel is an area where we can afford to relax a little bit, it may just be that Christian evangelists have proven me wrong.
