I watched an extraordinarily backdated episode of Rachel Maddow today - it was from a year ago, I kid you not! - and I was introduced to this
marvel travesty:
Last week, in Asheville, North Carolina the fact that one city councilor was sworn in with a solemn affirmation instead of a “so help me, God” so enraged his critics that they are now threatening to try to remove him from office because he's an atheist. Which is remarkable enough that any American would call someone else unfit for public office purely on the basis of their faith or lack thereof.
It's one thing to criticise someone's judgments based on their religious beliefs, but to bar a person entirely from public office because they don't believe in God? I don't think I have to explain why this is downright ridiculous. To add to the stupendous stupidity of the situation, it is actually written in the North Carolina State Constitution, Article 6, Section 8, "The following persons shall be disqualified from office. First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."
Because I get most of my American news and views from Rachel Maddow, I am extraordinarily biased against North Carolina because their representatives annoy me, largely on healthcare issues. (I don't hold a personal stake in the American healthcare debate, of course, but do you have any idea how incredibly
annoying it is for me when someone makes flawed, weak arguments in a
position of power? People actually listen to this crap! And it has a far bigger impact than it should!) But it doesn't stop at North Carolina, because 6 other states have "similar provisions in their constitutions, mandating that officeholders have a belief in a supreme being."
Now back to Maddow:
Maybe you live in one of these states. Arkansas, Maryland, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Mississippi, and the aforementioned North Carolina, all make it illegal to hold public office while being an atheist.
Despite the fact that another Article 6 in another Constitution, the U.S. Constitution, quite famously says that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
There's also the very handy supremacy clause which basically says that when there‘s a conflict between a state Constitution and the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Constitution wins. That‘s the whole united part in the United States.
The reason I'm bringing this up is that we have a very similar provision in our own Singapore Constitution, which I took the liberty of getting to know a little better last year while suffering through my law internship. (I think I wanted to find out something about Malay privilege.) Part IV, Article 12 says "Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be
no discrimination against citizens of Singapore on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment." On top of this, we all understand Singapore to be a
secular state.
Thio Li-Ann has had problems with this. And I have problems with Thio Li-Ann, so here we go.
This is an old debate, brought up by the AWARE saga. Thio argues that we have adopted a form of militant secularism here, where "'secularism' connotes
systematic hostility towards religion, as a synonym for a politicised form of ideological atheism whose creed is that humanity is destined to wholly shed religious conviction". (Oh yeah, have I mentioned her love affair with esoteric rhetorical language? Which is kinda ironic given her shamefully layman-esque perspective on certain issues, for someone of her expertise and experience.) In other words, she's pissy that her mum and their buddies got interrupted in their religion-fueled take over of AWARE, because y'know, t3h gh3yz were there ohnoez~
I mainly had issues with her labeling atheism - or "thick secularism" - as an "anti-religion religion", because it shows a desperately poor understanding of non-theistic beliefs. I cannot posit a comprehensive and factually accurate an argument right now, because I am lazy, but I do have a small point to make - and linked to that laziness, too! Thio postulates that "A lot of faith is needed to believe there is no divine." which clearly forgets that some people just do not
care. Or that they refrain from faith altogether, and
doubt. Atheism is a very colourful thing, and Thio made a major mistake in attempting to stereotype it, just as it would be a mistake to stereotype religions. (And, dear friends, it
is. So please stop writing the religion-related questions for GP if you are going to come from the perspective of a Singaporean having briefly encountered only a meagre number of the world's religions, because some of the arguments I've heard in school annoy me just as much as North Carolina's senators do, if not more.) Please read Yawning Bread's
far fairer treatment of secularism, particularly his discourse about humanism, which I personally hold a deep respect for.
This speech was definitely not as infuriating as her
bigoted homophobic rant, but I also disagree with the bulk of it. Largely respectfully, I must stress, because I will give her arguments some weight this time round. (In contrast, my response to the aforementioned anti-homosexuality speech was basically just.. incredibly similar to
Alfian Sa'at's.) While reading the article I instinctively reacted indignantly to claims here and there, but I must say the best counter to her argument lies in a quote someone brought up in the comments:
Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason.
- Barack Obama
Yes, people get angsty around here when religion is used as a basis for any parliament-directed argument here. They have every right to. But at the same time, it's not like religious interests are underrepresented; most - if not all - of our prominent lobbyists are religious groups! In particular, protestant Christians. It is never, never good enough to say "my God says this is wrong, therefore I will impose this view on the whole of Singapore" or any similarly secular entity, like AWARE. It is okay to have your beliefs grounded in religious convictions. So many of us get our sense of what's right and wrong from our religions. But you can only bring this up if you can truly find universal merit in your belief -
belief, not known truth - in a secular arena, impacting people who are not of your faith and should not be compelled to be. And this is something that I maintain Thio Li-Ann has yet failed to do, so
her angst? I'm not taking it.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
aggravated