Religious Non-harmony

Okay. I mentioned it before: I don't actually think that harmony between religions is ever possible. Unless religions somehow stay completely outside social interactions, harmony will break soon or later.

Religions make assertions about the world. Different religions make contradictory assertions. These assertions inform the beliefs which in turn inform actions. Actions have consequences -- and in the case of actions based on opposing beliefs, the consequence is frequently conflict.

That's a simplified way of explaining why religious harmony is ultimately not possible unless all religions agree (in which case there is only one religion) or one religion takes over the world by brute force and silences all dissenting opinion. The third option is for everyone to recognize that all religions are false and skip requiring "religious harmony" altogether.

And now onto a little viewpoint published in the Straits Times (ST Forum online):

Religion
'Learn to have an open, mature discussion without getting worked up.'

MR MICHAEL ANG: 'To strengthen racial harmony, Christian evangelists need a less intrusive method of spreading their message, while Singaporeans should learn to have an open, mature discussion of major religious differences without getting all worked up ('Christian group says sorry for remarks'; last Friday). Religious harmony can be better solidified, not through finding similarities among the major religions in Singapore but through understanding one another's deep doctrinal differences. As much as non-Christians should refrain from branding every form of Christian evangelism as undesirable proselytising, Christians should spread Christ's message without pestering non-believers to follow the religion. Such an evangelistic approach would, hopefully, help to reduce any disruption to Singapore's religious harmony.'

I can see how people may think that is fine and dandy. Sounds pleasant, doesn't it? A call for more or better religious harmony. So nice and sensible.

I actually think it's rather vacuous. Sorta missing the point a little as well.

Let's take a look line by line.

To strengthen racial harmony, Christian evangelists need a less intrusive method of spreading their message,

"Don't be a dick when spreading the word of god"; Sounds reasonable.

Might work with non-believers who believe in debate and discussion and would peacefully discuss about the evidence that bears on the question of whether your religion is true.

What about a religious believer who believes in his own religion being the one true religion, that non-believers are damned to hell and should ideally be killed if they so dare spread lies (false religions)?

Those are extreme of course. But what about those in between? Some may think it's okay but others might think it's plain offensive. Again, "harmony" is likely shattered.

while Singaporeans should learn to have an open, mature discussion of major religious differences without getting all worked up.

This, I thought, downplayed what transpired. Perhaps there were some folks who got worked up because some Christians were proselytizing against Buddhists, but there are other opinions. I'm of the opinion that asserting that non-believers of your religion can't possibly be happy (expressed in the poster) is plain bigotry.

I don't care what religion or non-religion you belong to. If that's your position then you're an asshole. Even atheists don't claim religious people can't be happy because they're religious. Barring perhaps brain/emotion experts, who the fuck are you to say that?

Religious harmony can be better solidified, not through finding similarities among the major religions in Singapore but through understanding one another's deep doctrinal differences.

I'm not too sure what's this supposed to mean. Understanding differences? Probably. But you probably won't be religious as well then.

I submit that if one were to actually understand what and how differences between religious doctrines come about, one would deconvert and be an atheist. I doubt anyone who studies comparative religion would still proselytize for a single religion with evangelistic fervor.

As much as non-Christians should refrain from branding every form of Christian evangelism as undesirable proselytising, 

Again, it's not the method that drew the attention, it's the message. Bigoted beliefs are undesirable regardless of the method used to spread.

Christians should spread Christ's message without pestering non-believers to follow the religion. Such an evangelistic approach would, hopefully, help to reduce any disruption to Singapore's religious harmony.

Yea, sure. I'd like to see how that happens without evidence on any religion's side.

Until the majority of Singaporeans realize that there is and never was any evidence for any religion and therefore abandon their vacuous beliefs, I find it difficult to envision "religious harmony" with all the religions running around thinking that they have the truth.