FEB 22 — There has been plenty of talk about religious pluralism in Malaysia of late – mainly about how it can’t and won’t work for us.

Taking the cue from our PM and Islamic (albeit government-related) religious authorities, let me summarise it as such: tolerate each other’s religions — yes; respect each other’s religions — yes, but with conditions; accept each other’s religious beliefs as equal — no way.

Incidentally, the head of Malaysia’s non-Muslim faith council also shares those views.

Although I would be very glad to be proven wrong, I happen to agree with this no-conciliation viewpoint. To me, advocating religious pluralism is a futile exercise akin to shoving square pegs into round holes. After all, we’ve got an entire dossier to learn from …

May I present to you: multiculturalism — a similar problem with a different name.

The well-meaning among us would ask: does that mean we shouldn’t try though? Well, perhaps not, but allow me to explain my existentialist exasperation at the entire endeavour because both “isms” are based on false premises and inherent paradoxes.

But, before that, perhaps we should get some definitions out of the way:

* Religious pluralism is a conciliatory point of view that seeks to find similarities within all religions (of course, mainly focused on the major ones) typically exemplified by what is “good” and moral across the various teachings.

That is the good part everyone can agree on. The part not everyone can accept – including people who are in positions of religious authority -- is that religious pluralism also views all religions as having equally valid truth claims. This is unacceptable to many in the mainstream dominant religions ostensibly because agreeing to it also mean theirs is not the only “right” path.

* Multiculturalism is a similarly conciliatory point of view. While very broad-based, it can be summarised as the notion that all cultures are equal for the sake of preserving diversity in one place (usually in a culturally mixed society – either via immigration or colonial manipulation).

The conflict arises when ethno-cultural diversity takes precedence over the imperatives of collective integration. It manifests in many ways – from wanting to preserve a certain way of life, a language or cultural practice to openly refusing to integrate with the pre-existing national identity, including factions refusing pro-integration public school systems.

Multiculturalism

Rewind back to earlier this month when David Cameron the British PM said that state multiculturalism had failed. He advocated a stronger national identity as the counter measure and cited examples that infuriated some Muslim groups.

Prior to him, last October we had Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel singing from the same sheet: “immigrants should learn to speak German,” she said, and “… attempts to build a multicultural society in Germany have utterly failed.”

While it is beyond the scope of this column to detail the complicated sentiments that have developed over decades of open-door migration policies and an earlier lax attitude toward cultural assimilation among the Western European nations; try any of these fairly recent books for a good view from the “other” side: Orianna Fallaci’s diatribe against the Islamisation of Europe—The Rage and The Pride and The Force of Reason, Bat Ye’Or’s Eurabia and Walter Laquer’s The Last Days of Europe.

Western Europe’s past open door policy — somewhat motivated by needing to atone for prior colonial wrongs — has seemingly lobotomised their own societies.

Instead of assimilation, what immigrants have done is create their own “tribal nations” within these first world host countries; siphoning off the host society’s safety nets while giving little in return.

This initially galvanised the far right in their midst, and I do believe the well-meaning centrists have had no choice now but to drop the pretence and take on a similar stance. It’s clear that talk of Syaria Law in England and Burqa rights in Netherlands and France are big enough signs.

Allow me to fall back to Philosophy to explain one reason why multiculturalism is a paradox:  Becoming a multiculturalist depends on others being or staying monoculturalists.

It is an elitist position that denigrates the very value it promotes – that all cultures are equal. A multiculturalist can only transcend one culture and equally value many by going around “respecting” and experiencing others’ monoculture while these monoculturalists stay in their “cages.”

This constraints the extent of respect because one of the implications is that the “open minded” multiculturalist is “superior” to the “closed minded” monoculturalist.

Indeed, as more and more people “become” multicultured or culturally promiscuous, there’ll be less diversity anyway. Championing multiculturalism is therefore ironic because an idealised gestalt culture assists the pro-integration agenda instead of the pro-diversity agenda.

I realise Malaysia as a country does not officially strive for multiculturalism — or heaven forbid, liberal multiculturalism; and I think we needn’t bother.

Religious pluralism

The same parallels exist in religious pluralism — an elitist position that is not congruent with how the Religion meme itself works. History teaches us that Religion is a unifying meme that can powerfully separate one group from another.

Not only that, religion is one of the most powerful known memes ever that has survived the ages because the stronger variants are the ones that seek to gather and convert as many people as possible into its assemblage (the tolerant ones that didn’t have long died out). 

In a religiously plural world, the Religion meme is not as powerful — nullified almost. Compare it in plain language. Pitch (A): This is the only path if you want to live a good life and a good afterlife; reject at your peril. Pitch (B): This is a path for a good life and a good afterlife, but other paths will also take you to the same destination. Now which one has potency?

Therefore the religious pluralist is never a “real” Muslim or a “real” Christian or a “real” Hindu by the strict regard of those very religions’ own mainstream interpretations. If at all the person purports a religion, it is probably more akin to a cultural one (e.g. cultural Muslim).

Indeed, by being able to accept all religions as equal, the pluralist ceases to become a pious member of any religion – a uni-theist, if you like – just north of the border of the agnostic and really not that far away from the atheist (although clearly not an anti-theist).

Concerning the other claim of finding common ground with regards to what is “good” and moral across all religions; that is a false premise. Religion is more concerned with what to believe first and then embellishes it with how to behave.

After all, the “bad” believer is almost always better off than the “good” non-believer. Morality and decency are not derived from religion and indeed exists quite well outside of religion just as religious and non-religious people exist alongside decent and indecent ones (some being stronger in their disposition than others).

As Arthur C. Clarke famously said: “The greatest tragedy in mankind’s entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.”

Therefore, I posit that those for religious pluralism are in the same boat as those for liberal multiculturalism. If I may paraphrase, the other greatest tragedy in mankind’s entire history may be the hijacking of the god concept by religion.

* The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist.