The hold of religion over law and policy creeps in like a thief in the night: once we lose sight of it, we afford religions a trump card, even above fundamental human rights, that they do not deserve.
Human rights, civic rights, freedoms, rights, rights, rights, all this talk about rights, and yet, today, 60 years after the United Nations’ (UN) General Assembly’s adoption and proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR), no one knows for sure who is right — there is the political right, the conservative right, the religious right, all grappling over a matter of who is right, who should be right, who should write, who should not write about what is right or wrong about rights.
This tussle over rights has led to the current situation today, where governments and judiciaries give people the right to impinge on the rights of others — all on the matter of a definitional challenge.
One of the most confounding examples of these “rights to discriminate” is manifested in religion, particularly because of society’s obsessive compulsion to give unadulterated and unquestioning respect to religion.
It is a dreadlock and a deadlock, and so, few people ever question the fundamental assumptions we make about religion or, indeed, if religion has any part to play in the human rights abuses of today. It is critical that we do so, because religion underpins so many other issues in society, not the least of these our concerns with human rights. This article will examine religion and its conflicts with human rights today, reflecting on how our blind-sighted wariness of questioning religion in society is a dangerous handicap.
Giving exaggerated respect to religion
The one major assumption society makes about religion is that it must be accorded, almost fanatically, a sort of shield from criticism, that we must all honour religion with the same sense of the sacred as its adherents. Atheist and evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, in his book, The God Delusion, calls this “an abnormally thick wall of respect, in a different class from the respect that any human being should pay to any other”. How very true. Where we might argue over differing opinions on all sorts of matters, the instant we hit a religious pet issue — say like Creation, or gay rights, or abortion — religions have an automatic trump card, and even governments have no choice but to accede.
The argument that racial, cultural and religious harmony needs preserving is fair enough, but this argument should not force us to give exaggerated respect to religious views, allowing the glossing-over of clear instances of discrimination and abuse inherent in the religious and their attitudes.
We do not have to look far to see this happening. At the height of the 377A debates in Singapore, our own Prime Minister had no qualms saying that we should not de-criminalise gay sex simply because “some people view it as a sin”, regardless of the views of, say, moral philosophers and theorists, or sociologists, or lawyers and gay activists, as if these people are any less erudite than people motivated only by religion.
Elsewhere, this same acceding to religious precepts gives rise to the tolerance of such nonsense as an Ohio court ruling (Los Angeles Times, April 10 2006) in 2006 allowing a boy to wear a T-shirt in school that said “Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white!” based on the statute of freedom of religion, all part of increasing Christian-led sentiments in America condoning the discrimination of homosexuals.
Discrimination arising from religious doctrines
The spurious and emotional wrangling of the Christian rightwing goes so far as to belittle and reject the concept of gay rights, simply because in Christian doctrine homosexuality is deemed to be abhorred by God (Leviticus 18:22, Deuteronomy 23:17, Romans 1:26-32, I Corinthians 6:9-11, Jude 1:7-19) and seen as an abomination to nature. This sentiment is taken to extremes in Islamic countries like Afghanistan, where archaic punishments like being buried alive have been prescribed for homosexuals. Despite their religion’s message of love and charity, how often do those Christians and Muslims that condemn homosexuals forget that homosexuals receive real and actual hurt from what is little more than intolerant hate-mongering?
Even more recently, a 10-year old girl in Yemen stirred controversy when she managed to get a divorce from her abusive husband more than three times her age, who had beaten her and forced her to have sex with him. The incident sparked off concerns that tribal interpretations of Islam allowed for an age of consent for marriage to lie below the official age of 15. When called to raise the age to 18, conservative lawmakers refused to take up the issue, perhaps out of respect to prevailing religious attitudes in the country.
It is this same adherence to religious law that advocates honour killings, marital abuse and female genital mutilation, in instances far too numerous for the scope of this article. Some Christians, too, have been known to argue against feminism, citing Scripture in support of enforcing the subdued place of the woman in the home and in society. That a doctrine based on centuries-old patriarchal sentiments can be so wrangled as to allow the butchery of women’s dignity in our enlightened age is surely evidence of how outdated our inexplicable respect for religion is.
The free press in Denmark experienced this phenomenon first hand after its publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in Jyllands-Posten. It is true that the original 12 cartoons were, in many regards, very offensive and tested fire in their rude portrayals of the Prophet. But when protests by Danish Muslim organisations against the cartoons were rebuffed by other Danish newspapers, who had re-published the cartoons under the mantle of freedom of expression, a group of Imams living in Denmark distributed, in a dossier, the 12 cartoons, along with three other irrelevant and intensely-offensive pictures, (particularly this one, taken completely out of context), to Islamic nations like Pakistan and Indonesia.
The three pictures ended up being falsely attributed to being published by Jvllands-Posten, fanning the flames of an already tense situation and sparking off a furore that saw the destruction of churches and the murdering of innocent people. Here, we see how religious groups can hijack our exaggerated respect (perhaps even fear) of religion to disastrous ends. Sadly, “free expression” is a very loosely-understood term, as we can see from the anti-Semitic cartoons and sentiments (similar to this one) expressed in the media of many Islamic countries in the Middle East.
Indoctrination of children by religions
Most disturbingly, religions often have no issues with mobilising children for devious and dangerous purposes. In Pakistan, young children are taught to hate Jews and how to use guns and grenades — all in preparation to one day give their lives in a smoking testament to their anti-Semitism. In Northern Ireland, children are told they are “Protestant” or “Catholic”, and that the distinction matters, and consequently they grow up with the hatred and stigma associated with each denomination.
In the United States, Christian children are taught by their fundamentalist parents and teachers that they have a responsibility to ensure the rise of a Christian Nation, that the theory of evolution is nonsensical, that abortion is murder, that homosexuals are possessed of the devil, that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that the severity of climate change is a political half-truth (that, even, we should do nothing about it because it is part of God’s plan!).
In many countries, religions, particularly Christianity, are also behind the muting of sex education and contraception, a Sisyphean effort to promote abstinence, which only intensifies a dangerous stigma surrounding sex. This is indoctrination of the highest level — stuffing lies and misconceptions of an absolutist world down the throats of young children to steer them along precepts and beliefs that they may not, at their tender age, be prepared to accept. It is through children, impressionable and malleable as they are, that hatred and misunderstanding and ignorance are passed on from generation to generation, ostensibly to fulfil strong political motives.
The right to religious beliefs vs the right to criticise
Today, many of us shy away from questioning religions and religious beliefs because we respect them, bearing little understanding that this respect sometimes involves condoning gross and massive disrespect for the dignity and liberties of other human beings.
Religious people will not stop short of citing “hurt” at criticism hurled at their religion, but often have no qualms about causing real hurt, in the form of words, sentiments and, as we have seen above, actions, to those who do not stand in line with their precepts.
As we have seen, we do not have to look back terribly far into the Middle Ages to witness human rights abuses being exacted by religions and their adherents, because it happens around us today, from the conflicts in the Middle East to the Evangelical movement in the United States, to Singapore’s own proto-Christian right wing. It is an unsavoury truth, and one deliberately muddled and often confused with the principle of “freedom of religion” or the “right to religious beliefs”.
Undoubtedly, a fundamental human right is the freedom of worship, and that is generally undisputed in most countries, but will we refrain from criticising religion, where reproach is due, simply because of some ill-conceived respect?
A critical difference
At the end of the day, all I am calling for is an understanding that while we should afford people their rights to religious beliefs, we do not owe it to religion to fawn and bend over backwards simply out of deference.
There is a critical difference between rights to religion and criticism of religion, a line blurred only by those who wish to live comfortably with their overt discrimination and maltreatment of other human beings.
It is crucial for states, and especially secular ones, to understand that religions are capable of causing real hurt to people and that allowing them to hold sway over policies and laws that discriminate and marginalise others is unacceptable. Recognising this is not the same as “insulting” religion or denying people the rights to religion, and this should be the guiding principle in our laws.
The hold of religion over law and policy creeps in like a thief in the night: once we lose sight of it, as is easy in a debate of such an emotional and “sensitive” nature, then we afford religions a trump card, even above fundamental human rights, that they do not deserve.
—————–
TOC will be showcasing a contrary viewpoint in a few days time.
—————–
Joel has a personal blog here: The Daily Backtrack.
—————–
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
The author of this article has not managed to distinguish between giving the right to others to freely practice their own religion in a peaceful manner that avoids infringing on the rights/dignity of other human beings, and giving the right to others to use religion as a tool of abuse, intimidation, discrimination, hatred, and propaganda.
In other words, the author should draw a clear line between responsible practice of religion, and irresponsible practice of religion.
We respect the first, but condemn the second.
On the flip side, we must also distinguish between constructive discussions about religion, and discussions about religion that are consist merely of insults and biased propaganda.
The first, we should encourage, but the second, we should NOT condone with any shred of doubt.
Hi;
please allow me to pose a question.
Should one be enlightened(well versed with the tenets of the religion) before believing in religion or should one believes in religion to be enlightened.
The question came to my mind after I read an article in Ridzwan.com articulating about ‘halal’ toilet. It was very interesting!
patriot.
“The question came to my mind after I read an article in Ridzwan.com articulating about ‘halal’ toilet. It was very interesting! ”
How about Islamic Car……
Let me try to say a few more words, although my interest on this topic has been somewhat dampened.
Sprachen,
The issue whether gayness is inherited is far from proven. After all, it can be because of your choice to be such and you therefore behave such, that affects the brain pattern, can’t it?
The fact is that the medical world has not accepted that gayness is inborn. As such, gays should not try to give the idea that is has been accepted.
My main point about this article is why can’t we just live and let live, instead of picking bones with religion supporters?
===
Joel,
you note made this statement some days ago –
>>Strangely enough, there is a third option- I accept people who practise religion insofar as it does not encroach onto the rights and liberties of others. More often than not, this is wishful thinking, and thus arises the need to question and criticise certain practices.
>>
Isn’t the above the heart of the issue of this article?
So I countered that point on June 23rd, 2008 3.05 pm
- “So exactly where has religion been forced upon you?”
Somehow you chose not to address that. But isn’t that the MAIN POINT of this article? So why are you not addressing my point, which is, where has religion been forced upon you?
As for global warming, I did not say that we can indiscriminately emit fumes etc. All I am saying is that there is no concrete proof to correlate global warming with chopping of trees, industrialisation etc. The world is known to go through cycles of temperature change. There is now debate between 2 schools of thought on whether the global climatic change is man-made or natural.
But that is a different topic altogether.
==
Angry Doc,
>>I will not say that homosexuality is proven to be hereditary, but there certainly is a body of evidence that suggests that there is a genetic predisposition to one’s sexual orientation.
>>
That is as good as saying that there is no confirmation that gayness is inborn, isn’t it?
Correct me if I am wrong. But I believe in the medical world, all known hereditary traits are physical, rather than mental thought. The only mental trait that has been accepted by the medical world, that can be passed down, is schizo, am I not correct? NOT gayness, right?
Solo Bear,
“That is as good as saying that there is no confirmation that gayness is inborn, isn’t it?”
It is also as good as saying that there is no confirmation that gayness is NOT inborn, isn’t it?
To discuss that statement it is important to first define what one means by “inborn”. Do you mean whether homosexuality is encoded into one’s genes, or do you mean whether homosexuality is ‘hard-wired’ into one’s brain, either from birth, at birth, or during subsequent development?
“But I believe in the medical world, all known hereditary traits are physical, rather than mental thought.”
Joel has linked to a study that tells us that sexual orientation is associated with functional connectivity in brains, so will you consider that a ‘physical’ thing, or a ‘mental thought’?
“The only mental trait that has been accepted by the medical world, that can be passed down, is schizo, am I not correct?”
What do you mean by mental trait? Schizophrenia is not a mental trait.
If you are asking if there is a gene that determines a person’s sexual orientation, such that a mutation or defect in that gene will cause a person to be homosexual, then the answer is: no such gene has been found. In fact, no such gene is likely to be found because like personality, something as complex as sexual orientation is probably not determined by a single gene, but by a combination of genetic and environmental factors, and perhaps also metabolic and neurological ones.
What you need to ask yourself is first what exactly do you consider convincing evidence that homsexuality is “inborn”, and then whether you truly are willing to change your views on homosexuality when that evidence is presented to you.
Angry Doc
>>It is also as good as saying that there is no confirmation that gayness is NOT inborn, isn’t it?
>>
I agree. So there if there is no confirmation of either, why do gays keep harping that there is evidence that gayness being inborn?
>>To discuss that statement it is important to first define what one means by “inborn”. Do you mean whether homosexuality is encoded into one’s genes, or do you mean whether homosexuality is ‘hard-wired’ into one’s brain, either from birth, at birth, or during subsequent development?
>>
You should be asking gays that, shouldn’t you? It is THEY who make the inborn claim, not me!
I have never bought the inborn argument in the first place – whatever “inborn” means!
>>What do you mean by mental trait? Schizophrenia is not a mental trait.
>>
I do not know the medical terminology for such. All I know is that schizo is not a physical trait. It is in the mind. Likewise, gayness is in the mind. But for sure, I know in the medical world, it is accepted that schizo can be passed down, but not gayness.
>>If you are asking if there is a gene that determines a person’s sexual orientation, such that a mutation or defect in that gene will cause a person to be homosexual, then the answer is: no such gene has been found. In fact, no such gene is likely to be found because like personality, something as complex as sexual orientation is probably not determined by a single gene, but by a combination of genetic and environmental factors, and perhaps also metabolic and neurological ones.
>>
Thank you very much. Now please let the gays know that.
>>What you need to ask yourself is first what exactly do you consider convincing evidence that homsexuality is “inborn”, and then whether you truly are willing to change your views on homosexuality when that evidence is presented to you.
>>
To me, gayness is a choice – like if someone chooses to be incestuous or paedophilic. It is gays who claim it is inborn. Hence, since it is now established that there are no genes that are known to be passed down that caused gayness, gays will have to show how that idea of “inborn” came about.
As for my stance towards gays, it has always been as long you don’t encroach into my space and leave me alone, I won’t disturb you either.
My thoughts as written in my blog was a result of the onslaught of gay pressure on my peers and me, during the S377A saga to support their cause. If they had not harassed my peers and me, I wouldn’t even know there was such a thing as S377A and would have probably not noticed anything aggressive about gays.
PS – I sure hope TOC has cleared the moderation bug cos it sure is bugging me. Excuse the pun.
How was religion forced on me? I don’t see that as being relevant, but I was raised Christian, and you can email me for more heart-gripping sob stories on the matter.
Cheers~
Joel
“I have never bought the inborn argument in the first place – whatever “inborn” means!”
“I know is that schizo is not a physical trait. It is in the mind. Likewise, gayness is in the mind.”
“To me, gayness is a choice – like if someone chooses to be incestuous or paedophilic.”
You show yourself to be ignorant, Solo Bear, perhaps even deliberately so.
You claim you don’t know what “inborn” means, but conclude that homosexuality is not “inborn”.
You declare homosexuality to be “in the mind” like schizophrenia, which displays your ignorance of both conditions.
You claim homosexuality and paedophilia to be “choice”, again showing how little you understand these conditions.
It appears to me that you have made up your mind about people whose behaviour are different from yours, choosing to think that it is all “in their minds” or their “choice”, simply because these things are not in your mind, and you have not made the choice to behave the way they do. When evidence is put forward to show that homosexuality may not just be “in the mind” or “a choice”, you choose to ignore them or dismiss them as pseudoscience.
This discussion is so far from the original point of the article, so I don’t wish to continue anymore – you may have the last word. But before you do, please educate yourself more about conditions you wish to condemn, and hopefully the next time we meet on a thread about homosexuality we can have a more productive discussion.
Joel
>>How was religion forced on me? I don’t see that as being relevant,
>>
That’s strange. Because you titled your article as “Religion and the right not to respect it” – followed by this in one of your replies to me- “I accept people who practise religion insofar as it does not encroach onto the rights and liberties of others. More often than not, this is wishful thinking, and thus arises the need to question and criticise certain practices”.
So more often that not, this is wishful thinking and thus, there’s a need to question and criticise?
So where does religion encroach onto your rights and liberties, such that you need to criticise? In other words, my question, how does religion been forced upon you, has relevance, hasn’t it?
>>but I was raised Christian, and you can email me for more heart-gripping sob stories on the matter.
>>
Basically, it makes no sense to publicly imply that there is reason for you to criticise, yet when it comes to the crunch, you do not wish to support your statement publicly.
In other words, your public statements lose credibility, if you do not wish to support them publicly.
==
Angry doc
>>You claim you don’t know what “inborn” means, but conclude that homosexuality is not “inborn”.
>>
Actually I know what inborn means. What I do not know is what gays mean when they say “inborn”.
Because when I asked for evidence of it being inborn, by way of confirmation by medical experts, as in genes being passed down, you as a medical expert admit that is not the case.
So, what EXACTLY then is inborn, when gays say that gayness is inborn????
Tell me please!
>>You claim homosexuality and paedophilia to be “choice”, again showing how little you understand these conditions.
>>
Perhaps you can show that those are not choice then. Has a pedophile who is charged in court, the ability to use “inborn” as defence? If you were to be called to stand in as a medical expert, would you say that paedophelia is inborn?
>>When evidence is put forward to show that homosexuality may not just be “in the mind” or “a choice”, you choose to ignore them or dismiss them as pseudoscience.
>>
I have asked you if you would put your medical expertise under scrutiny, by claiming to the medical world, that gayness can be passed down. And your reply was….?
>>This discussion is so far from the original point of the article
>>
So it is. As an analogy to the topic of this article, I made the statement in an earlier post, “What if an article is titled – Secularism and the right not to respect it? Or, Gayness and the right not to respect it?”
Pro-gays expanded my analogy as a take against gayness and that’s how we came to talk about gayness. I never had intention to delve into gayness in this article, this far.
>>so I don’t wish to continue anymore
>>
Just as well. I am getting tired, waiting for TOC to fix this moderation bug.
Solo Bear said:
The issue whether gayness is inherited is far from proven.
Totally agree.
My main point about this article is why can’t we just live and let live, instead of picking bones with religion supporters?
In principal I agree. The problem comes about when religious types clash with secular types on a public issue, for example S377A. The religious types can say whatever they want to say which is fair enough but the secular types are restricted by our laws against insulting religions which is not nice.
To me, gayness is a choice – like if someone chooses to be incestuous or paedophilic. It is gays who claim it is inborn. Hence, since it is now established that there are no genes that are known to be passed down that caused gayness, gays will have to show how that idea of “inborn” came about.
And now the shit hits the fan. Do gays have a choice in being gay? I think scientists would cop out and say the answer is “complex”. But to a gay activist, this would be some kind of “Irresistible Impulse” defense and you can’t fault someone if he has no control over it. Hummm…. no good answer but can something still be said with the evidence at hand?
Angry doc said:
To discuss that statement it is important….
Excellent summary of how problematic the question is. Now from a medical ethics point of view how can we handle the question of choice? Its a crap situation I know.
btw I really don’t think the S377A repel really needs an answer to the choice question (there are other better arguments out there) but still this is an interesting question of how science can or should effect society.
To the TOC people,
for a bunch of people with “nothing better to do in there free time”, you guys are far more professional than the real deal.
Dear Sprachen Sie Singlish,
What do you mean we have nothing better to do? We spend every waking hour waiting for Chua Lee Hoong’s next piece in the Straits Times. It’s very stressful, you know? We don’t know if she will protest that we make her blood boil again. :)
To the TOC people,
why stress? You guys should be more professional and just copy minister’s answer can liao. All that critical analysis, waste time only lah! ;-)
Anyway back to Solo Bear’s Question which I though about a bit more.
Pretend, pretend that you (male hetrosexual) are on an Island dominated by people that are homosexual (don’t ask how they reproduce) and it is a crime to have sex with someone of the opposite gender.
Unfortunately, you got caught having sex with another hetrosexual female and are now being charged in court. The prosecution says that you had a choice in have sex with a female and thus guilty. The defense say that it was an irresistible impulse and you had no choice in fighting it (it a bit like a temporary insanity argument) and thus cannot be blamed. An expert witness is called in to give testimony on your ability to make this choice. Which side would the expert witness back, knowing all the knowledge that we know about sexual orientation?
It would be reasonable to say that on any particular day, you would have had a choice to have sex with her (or some other female). The problem is more complicate when choice is to abstain from sex forever or have sex with another male which at most does not interest you or at worst is just disgusting.
Sprachen
>>The problem comes about when religious types clash with secular types on a public issue, for example S377A.
>>
I have clashed with gays in my blog on S377A and there is NOTHING in my arguments that is religious. Why this penchant need by gays to keep blaming religion, when I have given ample opportunity to gays to argue their case from the non-religious perspective?
From what I see, time and time again, gays keep blaming religion. Religion has become the default scapegoat for gays’ ineptness to handle their own inferiority complex.
Here is a link from my blog, inviting discussion from a non-religious perspective. Read the comments from gays, how time and time again, they had to revert to the religious argument!
http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/2008/02/section-377a-and-gay-relations-social.html
>>And now the shit hits the fan. Do gays have a choice in being gay? I think scientists would cop out and say the answer is “complex”.
>>
Come off it. The “scientific” claim has always been a gays’ claim. Scientists have always been consistent. They have NEVER said that gayness has been proven to be inborn.
If gays say that gayness is not choice, the onus would be upon gays to prove it.
Nobody but gays make that claim.
Solo Bear on June 26th, 2008 11.45 am
“Scientists have always been consistent. They have NEVER said that gayness has been proven to be inborn.”
Negative proof fallacy. What rubbish are you trying to drive at.
If human being can be scr**ed up in their genes in a lot of other areas (e.g sight, hearing, physical deformation, etc). Why can’t humans be scr**ed up in their sexual make-up. Are you saying that we must be born either male or female. Even when you walk in a nice straight path, sometimes you do trip over unless you are perfect human which I think no single human being is.
All humans are composed of chemical substances and not all of us have the right perfect proportion in all areas – that is why most of us have different physical shapes, behaviours and emotions, etc. In the extreme, some may born deformed and mentally unstable, etc.
We are lucky that we are straight so we do not have to face this uneasy situation of being discriminated against. Other people may not be so lucky in our country where there are laws not in their favour.
Sprachen,
The reason why you came up with the “fantasy island” analogy is because all scenarios gays have painted are unrealistic. You can’t find a real-life analogy. Thought about that?
===
Straight,
Isn’t it funny how gays try to portray themselves as straight to lend credence to their arguments. I have had enough of discussion with gays to know if you are one or not.
>>If human being can be scr**ed up in their genes in a lot of other areas (e.g sight, hearing, physical deformation, etc). Why can’t humans be scr**ed up in their sexual make-up.
>>
Are you saying gays are screwed up? I won’t object to that if that is your point.
OR
Are you saying that paedophiles can use the argument above to escape conviction?
To that, I’ll object.
>>We are lucky that we are straight so we do not have to face this uneasy situation of being discriminated against.
>>
I don’t think you are straight. But that is not the point. Point is this feeling of discrimination stuff. Sure, ALL minorities get discriminated. Be it race, religion, culture or sexual make up.
Difference is that gays make a helluva noise, rolling on the ground like a spoilt brat kid, when the pain is only a pinprick.
That’s the impression I have been getting about gays, simply by observing their behaviour, since the S377A incident in parliament.
Other forms of discrimination are far worse, yet the victims are silent. So what’s the big deal that gays are facing?
Solo Bear said:
The reason why you came up with the “fantasy island” analogy is because all scenarios gays have painted are unrealistic. You can’t find a real-life analogy. Thought about that?
Sigh… I will have to make things more obvious.
This is the concrete example. Suppose you are a gay guy in Singapore and you are caught having sex with another gay guy. In court the prosecutor says that you had a choice in the matter and hence you are guilty. Your defense claims that you have an irresistible impulse which gave you no choice and hence you are not to blame. A expert witness is than called to give testimony on the matter of choice.
Who will the expert witness support?
Both examples ask one question. Is sexual orientation determined by choice? So the expert witness should support either the prosecution or the defense in both cases. If the expert witness supports the prosecution in the first example but the defense in the second, well this would be inconsistent. The question is the same after all. Similarity, if the support was reversed.
Solo Bear on June 26th, 2008 2.05 pm
You are good in parrying and diverting points and always very dead sure. While you are eloquent, your statements are weak in logics and rationale.
While gays are mostly consenting aduts (just like lesbians). Paedophiles fall into a totally different league where ill-minded adults prey on innocent impressionable children – an act which any right minded adult will abhor & forbid.
While you are right that all minorities get discriminated. Be it race, religion, culture or sexual make up. Mostly, it is done not with the sanction of blatant open laws.
“Difference is that gays make a helluva noise”.
I feel that it is only right that when your rights are not protected and in fact being discriminated against even by laws, it is natural that you make a helluva noise. In fact, I would feel that it is not normal to keep quite and send the wrong signal that it is alright that you should be discriminated.
Just ask yourself, why the tabling of S377A in parliament for possible amendment and retraction (if I am not mistaken about the whole thing in parliament) if there was not a slightest intention for it to be changed in the first place.
Srpachen
>>This is the concrete example. Suppose you are a gay guy in Singapore and you are caught having sex with another gay guy. In court the prosecutor says that you had a choice in the matter and hence you are guilty. Your defense claims that you have an irresistible impulse which gave you no choice and hence you are not to blame. A expert witness is than called to give testimony on the matter of choice.
>>
No, that is still NOT a solid example. We have had some allegations by gays (including Yawning Bread) that S377A has been invoked. However, if you read the articles carefully, it has not been confirmed that S377A has been invoked.
I hate to say this, but gays have been crying wolf for quite some time now.
===
Straight
>>While gays are mostly consenting aduts (just like lesbians). Paedophiles fall into a totally different league where ill-minded adults prey on innocent impressionable children – an act which any right minded adult will abhor & forbid.
>>
So what is the MAIN POINT of your argument? Is it choice (as in whether inborn or not) or consent (as in age of consent?)
Like I said, I have had discussion with gays and they all take the same line of argument. When one argument fails, they move to the next, complicating the discussion. This goes round until we are back to square one.
If your point is that sexual preference is inborn, then it gives the paedophile a case to argue for leniency, doesn’t it?
On the other hand, if you talk about age of consent – Aha! So you admit that it is by CONSENT that you allow another male have sex with you, isn’t it?
So how does the argument of inborn (which implies it is not choice) come into the picture then?
>>I feel that it is only right that when your rights are not protected and in fact being discriminated against even by laws, it is natural that you make a helluva noise.
>>
I have been asking over and over and over again in my blog. How does S377A discriminate gays, if gays are allowed to have sex privately? There have been assertions that S377A has been invoked. Too bad, that is all speculation, if you read the articles written (Yawning Bread’s article included).
So come off with those wolf cries and come up with real, solid evidence that S377A has been invoked.
>>Just ask yourself, why the tabling of S377A in parliament for possible amendment and retraction (if I am not mistaken about the whole thing in parliament) if there was not a slightest intention for it to be changed in the first place
>>
If you ask me, I never really gave two hoots if that section existed or not. I only get myself involved in this, because gays, during the time of parliament debate, had to harass me, my family and my peers for support.
They did not respect our rights. We have a right to remain neutral, don’t we? But noooo, gays had to harass us by screaming that we discriminate them, just because we don’t agree to put our signatures on their appeal letter.
This was my first impression of gays – aggressive and boisterous. I thought that this kind of behaviour was just a one off incident. But again, nooooo – we even had gays threatening a lady MP.
Too bad that the first and last impression gays have been giving is always negative. Visit my blog. See how gays throw tantrums, shout, yell, scream just because I don’t agree with them.
Is this the way to behave if you want society to support you?
I have nothing against gays. All I ask of gays is that the next time you want to fight for a cause and if I practise MY RIGHT not to support it, please respect my decision.
I am not against gayness per se. I am against the way gays behave, when they don’t get their lollipop.
Solo Bear on June 26th, 2008 6.51 pm
“If your point is that sexual preference is inborn, then it gives the paedophile a case to argue for leniency, doesn’t it? ”
They may give you excuse. But in this case, who would you choose to protect. An adult (even with such inborn tendency) or the impressionable kid being preyed upon ? Surely, the answer is obvious or maybe it is not soo obvious to you.
“On the other hand, if you talk about age of consent – Aha! So you admit that it is by CONSENT that you allow another male have sex with you, isn’t it?
So how does the argument of inborn (which implies it is not choice) come into the picture then?”
Are you saying that people with inborn tendency (gay) cannot concurrently excercise the choice of sexual consent (separate act by itself). Whereas, all hetrosexual (by virtue of being hetrosexual / straight) have the exclusive right to the act of exercising the choice of sexual consent. What twisted logic are you trying to prove.
I have nothing specially in favour of gays. All I ask is to for you to respect the rights of others also (even if they are gays, etc). If they disturb you personally without your consent, protect yourself with whatever you have.
>>Are you saying that people with inborn tendency (gay) cannot concurrently excercise the choice of sexual consent (separate act by itself). Whereas, all hetrosexual (by virtue of being hetrosexual / straight) have the exclusive right to the act of exercising the choice of sexual consent. What twisted logic are you trying to prove.
>>
There lies the twisted irony in the gay argument of “inborn”! It has come down to the following argument…..
If you gays feel it is their right to have sex with same gender, than simply say that you are practising your right. No need to go further.
On the other hand, if you claim “inborn”, it gives the idea that actually hor, … “I don’t really want to do it lah, but then ah, got something in me I cannot control. So don’t blame me hor, blame this inborn thing hor.”
Make up your mind. To me, whenever gays bring up this inborn argument, it tells me that gays are not confident that they believe what they do is right. Hence, they have to blame this thing which is beyond their control – the inborn stuff.
This is the wishy-washy argument I was referring to in my last post, in reference to how gays argue. They go round in circles, get themselves stuck, cry foul and blame everyone else for their stuck situation – and come back to square one.
So what is it now? Is gay a choice or not a choice?
If it is, then admit it is and say that you want to practise your right. No need to go further, no need to bring in this inborn stuff.
On the other hand, if you say it is inborn, you are implying that gayness is not really a choice. Then you can forget about being allowed to “practise your rights”, because being gay was never your choice in the first place!
Doing something that you feel is not your choice, and blaming that action on an inherent thing in you which you cannot control, is bordering on mental sickness – like suicide and/or self-inflicted injury. Sorry for the analogy, but can you find a better one?
So what is it now? Choice? Good. Argue no more about this inborn thing.
Not choice? Good. Get psychiatric help, so that you won’t have to engage in something you don’t wish to engage in the first place.
Sorry to sound harsh, but after arguing with gays for months, I begin to feel that gays don’t even know what they want from themselves. What more then about what they want from society?
Solo Bear said,
No, that is still NOT a solid example. We have had some allegations by gays (including Yawning Bread) that S377A has been invoked. However, if you read the articles carefully, it has not been confirmed that S377A has been invoked.
I have only one bone to pick and that is with choice and sexual orientation. The rest of this is not important.
You would say that sexual orientation is choice. Than you would also have to accept that heterosexuals can choose to become homosexual.
The pro gay activist would say sexual orientation is not a choice. Than they would have to accept that when it comes to sex, humans have no free will. They are nothing but sex machines so why have sexual rights?
Both statements really cannot make it. So the scientists just say the situation is complex. (which I think is just avoiding the question)
And yes I agree with you on this one argument about choice and sexual orientation as used by the pro gay people is very bad. Plus they try and drag the scientists who are actually very confuse about the entire thing themselves.
The pro gay camp should just stick to their other (much better) arguments and just drop this inborn stuff.
Sprachen,
I have decided to reply you in my blog instead. Because of 2 reasons.
1 – This topic is now buried behind the front page of online citizen’s home page and hence, it is a chore trying to retrieve this article just to post.
2 – I really don’t know when this moderation bug will be fixed.
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/06/religion-and-the-right-not-to-respect-it/
Hope you don’t mind me redirecting you.
Oops, silly me, Posted wrong link.
here is the link
http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/2008/06/gayness-is-inborn-is-indefensible.html
Dear Readers;
do forgive me if I sound offensive but I really got to say that natural inclinations, be it sexual orientations, needs and other behaviours, cannot and should not be allowed just because they are inborn.
Humanity has always some forms of codes of conduct to regulate the behaviours of the tribes, the society and the Human World. Religions too have teachings to ‘enlighten’ humanity towards ‘acceptable norms’, though I do feel that not all Religious teachings are perfect.
Yes, there are also scientific proof that mankinds maybe born with criminal, drinking, drug and other wayward genes. And it is exactly because of these natural inclinations that laws, religious teachings and family disciplines come into play to prevent ‘unintended misdeeds’ due to inborn nature. In conclusion, may I say that inborn nature does not mean acts related to it have to be accepted as normal.
patriot.
Sprachen (#122),
I guess you are probably not here anymore, but anyway:-
Congrats on raising a good point, which would be good for everybody to bear in mind. It is indeed confusing when the pro-Gay Lobby keeps shifting between 2 arguments: (1) Homosexuality is in-born; (2) Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.
When people argue against (1), Pink Lobbyists say that they are disrespecting (2).
When people argue against (2), Pink Lobbyists say that they are ignorant of (1).
Joel Tan:
It is strange of you to argue that Religion can be opposed to Human Rights, when the Human Rights philosophy – although its proponents forget now – largely was inspired by religion in the first place.
To be true, certain members – including sadly leaders – of religious groups were hypocrites (i.e. violated human rights), but that doesn’t discredit religious groups themselves. The basic fundamental human rights are always promoted by all religions, if you bother to examine properly their scripture.
By “examine properly”, I mean that you have to examine the proper scriptural context, rather than impute modern environs on them. For instance, St Paul is anti-Slavery; Onesimius is an example of a slave that he freed.
I do find the concept of “Religious Freedom” quite narrow, because it only encompasses religious doctrines and rituals; whilst religion is far more than just that.
Don’t fall into the trap of religious camp by acknowledging their moral framework. Yes, they moralise the issue to assert they are right. By acknowledging their moral framework, you will end up giving them some degree of legitimacy to their moral arguments. Moral arguments have no substance if they have no legitimacy. Deprive the Religious Camp of any legitimacy is the way to deal with them.
Smallvice (#129),
Legitimacy exists, and independently of public support.
Joel, thank you for your excellent article.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.
You said you were brought up as a Christian. May I ask: Are you still a Christian, or have become ex-Christian?
Joel’s article has generated some very good arguments from other posters.
I would like to express my concurrence with the posts initiated by Michael [#3],
The Editor [#7 & #19], angry doc [#48, #56, #73, #86 and #93]
Patriot #126: “And it is exactly because of these natural inclinations that laws, religious teachings and family disciplines come into play to prevent ‘unintended misdeeds’ due to inborn nature. In conclusion, may I say that inborn nature does not mean acts related to it have to be accepted as normal.”
I don’t think anyone can argue against your conclusion.
The politicians and the priests in the world have been in cahoots with one another over the centuries. Each are playing their part to control the masses. Both are playing the same greed and fear game. In religion, we call this heaven and hell game. Therefore, it should not surprise many people why our Prime Minister (I didn’t choose him, by the way) would submit to the unsoundf religious views in the matter of repealing 377A. He is not acting in the name of sound logic. He is acting in the name of politcs. The stronger the religious views are in Singapore, the easier it is for him to control the masses. This is because religion has been doing a great job in keeping people in line. The priests were the bygone politicians in the past and their presence is to seve a consistent mechanism to keep the psychology of fear running among the masses.
Objectivity? this article commits the very wrong it seeks to address. It shows scant knowledge of the religions it criticises (mainly Christianity and Islam) thereby putting up straw mans to shoot down. seems disrespectful already on this count. you claim to be objective but display an explicit and inherent bias toward atheism and science as your absolute truth. Religions are practised by people and people are not perfect. The wrongs committed could be the fault of the people themselves who abuse the name of the religion, and not the religion itself.
and what so wrong about teaching creationism? at least it didnt teach us the distinction between aryans and negroids, it doesnt teach us that the strong must dominate the weak (which evolution does). and you assume that creationism is a lie. Maybe evolution is a lie as well?
the very fact that you can post this online, the very fact that there are books like the God Delusion. The very fact that Christians are publicly castigated in the newspapers for expressing disapproval of the gay lifestyle. where is this “thick wall” of protection and excess respect that you speak of? If someone were to come up with a book called “the atheist’s delusion” (for e.g.) would he receive widespread acclaim and approval ala dawkins? it seems that RATHER than a thick wall of respect, there’s a growing antagonism against monotheistic religions among the young and opinionated in singapore.
and FYI, it was not only the religious groups who shot down 377A. it was a large majority of the conservative older population in Singapore as well, religious AND non-religious. dont accord undue “blame” on select groups only
To Joseph,
The article by Joel Tan was well written, as you can see from the comments from several readers.
You appear to have missed the main thrust of Joel’s argument, which is that religion in general has been given the respect it does not deserve. For centuries, religious believers/practitoners – the God-believing kind – have been taking centre stage, and they still appear to be doing so, and enjoying privileges and treatment that appear non-existent for non-believers; this is not strictly in reference to our local environment.
“Religions are practised by people and people are not perfect. The wrongs committed could be the fault of the people themselves who abuse the name of the religion, and not the religion itself.”
Not entirely true; in the so-called holy books of some religions there exist edicts supposedly laid down by their God calling for the killing or condemnation of infidels. If you are a Christian, the Judeo-Christian Bible is your source.
“and what so wrong about teaching creationism?”
Has anyone here said teaching creationism is wrong? Creationism can be taught to those who are interested in learning more in this area, but it must not be taught in a science classroom as a science subject. Why? Because creationism is not science; in recent times creationism has tried to intrude into public school science classrooms, in the guise of intelligent design. Are you savvy about this?
As for evolution or evolutionary theory, there are enough literature written about it; I think you should make an effort to read up on this topic before questioning whether it is a lie.
From reading your comments I would presume that you are a religious person, probably a Christian.
Try to convince me that religion is not a human invention; I will give up my atheism if you can produce cogent arguments.