Why is this a bad idea? This is borderline separating state, commerce and religion. If you want religious harmony, better keep religion personal. Haven't we have enough trouble from the likes of Lawrence Khong already?. Do we want to get Muslims into the picture too? They have already begin to stir over the Pink Dot movement.
As Muslims rediscover their religion they become less nominal and more devout. During this transition some went astray and ended with the wrong jihad, e.g., joining ISIL.
My limited understanding of Islam is theirs is a political religion. That to practice Islam it is not necessary but desirable to live in a truly Islamic society. If they have to share space with other religions, it is best the country is run officially as a Muslim state. Historically it had been this way for them from the beginning. That was why Muhammad and his early followers militarily subdued Arabia in order to create a Muslim society.
The Christian story is different because they started without state power. The Church only got involved with the state when the Roman emperor Constantine converted to Christianity. From that point on it was trouble until during the Enlightenment the State and Church were separated. Today the separation is enshrined in the US constitution and those of many European states. It has brought them progress and personal salvation too for the wise ones.
I hope this is the last year we have these religious leaders perform this role. The greater the separation between state and religion the better. Yes, it is also true the gap between them cannot be too wide but that is the topic of another blog post.
Meanwhile I spend some of my spare time thinking how we are going to cope with political Islam. Can Islam remain a personal religion or at least in the confines of their families and the mosque. If we are not farseeing, our Muslim citizens will de-integrate from us and form a society within a society. To me that is a recipe for future big trouble.
And that's why in addition to countless reasons, I have no time nor patience for Tan Pin Pin's film.
I kind of feel religious leaders can be very good spiritual guides but not political and business figures. Even if the leading person him or herself has good intent, somehow along the way, there are those who assume such role or get close enough to manoeuvre the religious body land up exploiting or abusing the followers and non members. The sins of self righteousness and pride are very overwhelming. In the end it gives the whole creed a big image and worse, bring down the trust and faith of those who believe in it.
ReplyDeletePolitics or state affairs is liken to a person. Religion is her shadow. The former rules reality, the latter fires your imaginations. Those who rule know the importance of their separate functions. To rule you, they have to tame your soul and conquer your imaginations.
ReplyDeleteWhen Rome approved Christianity to share power, Rome ensured that her doctrines(reformed) must and should support state hegemony and not subvert it. It was to be partnership in power and the "kingdom of God" relegated to hereafter or visions of sweet chariot.
Today, the modern term is separation of church and state. Christianity should remain as an ineffective shadow to do the bidding of real people.
Long live the Roman empire.