Understand, don't just tolerate

EVEN though I am a decidedly non-religious person, I believe in understanding other religions rather than merely tolerating them.

'Tolerance' suggests passivity, while 'understanding' implies proactive attempts to seek comprehension.

Besides, the diversity and complexity of religious faiths demand understanding, not ignorance. Even the major Abrahamic religions branch out into various denominations with significant doctrinal differences between them.

That is why I make it a point to attend Christmas services or watch religious processions just to see, well, what they're all about.

Incense smoke, sermons and choral performances have not swayed me. Nevertheless, I walk away each time with a better appreciation of others' spiritual needs, thus reducing the likelihood of committing social faux pas.

One should not shy away from learning more about others' beliefs, even if one does not subscribe to them. After all, your convictions are only such after they have been thoroughly examined.

Wong Chun Han, 22, is a final-year history student at the London School of Economics.

Discussions strengthen faith

I WENT to church regularly for 11 years up to the age of 18, but had no deep understanding of the Christian faith. The situation was the same with my peers and their religions.

They outwardly declared themselves Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist, but their religiosity went only as far as visiting places of worship during religious festivals and going through the motions.

I really understood what Christianity was about only at university, thanks to the serious religious discussions I had with schoolmates there.

Their intellectual challenges did not just force me to learn more about my own religion, but also deepened my understanding of other religions.

My faith has not been shaken as a result, but strengthened instead.

Bryna Sim, 22, is a final-year history student at National University of Singapore.

At times, silence is golden

ONE good reason why the Government restricts serious public critiques of religion here, despite religious freedom, is this: when it comes to religious sensitivities, flare-ups are just a word away.

It is asking a lot for frankness and tolerance to co-exist - there will always be someone taking issue with your opinion.

I base this on my experience in mission schools. Even among peers, there were frequent disagreements arising from interpretations of weekly sermons delivered at chapel services, mostly from the freethinkers and those of weaker faith.

Many take these differing opinions personally, adopting a hostile attitude after these debates.

The situation might have even been worse had students of other religious faiths not been excused from these services. In my opinion, when it comes to religion, silence beats the discordance of open discussion.

Ian Poh, 21, is a first-year law student at NUS.

Seek openness, not conversions

DESPITE being a Muslim, I have studied in Methodist schools because of their excellent academic rankings.

Weekly chapel services came as a shock. When I asked someone why it was compulsory even for students of other faiths, she replied: 'As a sign of respect.'

Unfortunately, respect was lacking in some of my schoolmates.

I appreciate anyone who initiates conversations on religion with me, but not so if they seek only one aim: conversion. There were plenty of church invitations and preaching which I had to fend off through the years.

More discussions on religion should be encouraged, but only if participants genuinely want to learn more about other faiths through objective, misconception-clearing discussions, and not blindly seek to convert others to their faith.

Nurul Asyikin Mohd Nasir, 18, is a second-year International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme student at ACS(I).

Frank talk among leaders

IT IS ironic that as an atheist, I feel that religion should be discussed more openly, if only to expose those with intolerant views to a moderate majority.

Frank talk about beliefs is more important among those who serve in public office and occupy positions of power. Sure, religion is a private affair. But when it comes to leaders, voters should know the biases of their elected leaders, so they can better assess their levels of tolerance towards those who hold differing views.

Otherwise, we may wind up enabling a superpower to claim a 'moral and religious obligation' to justify invading another sovereign nation, or empower a fanatic to evoke 'God's help' to annihilate another.

There's one thing more dangerous than publicly-expressed religious fundamentalism - the unarticulated sentiments simmering beneath.

Eef Gerard Van Emmerik, 20, has a place to read law at Singapore Management University.

This article was first published in The Straits Times on Oct 6, 2008.

For more The Straits Times stories, click here.