Bravo ! While I am a practicing Muslim – I do however agree with some of your views.

Sometimes we give religion too much leeway. After all if the Church had its way in Europe 500 years ago – we’d still believe that the Earth is the center of the Universe !

Copernicus, Galileo etc had to fight the doctrines of religion.

The trouble with religion is that it asserts itself as the unquestionable Absolute Truth……..thats the whole trouble !

Your points here are elaborated in The God Delusion by RIchard Dawkins.
Any readers not familiar with the book, should read it, agnostics or atheists.

http://www.richarddawkins.net

Joel,

Thanks for writing this article. I think that it’s a step forward to having more frank discussion about religion in Singapore.

I concur with your main argument that religions demand more blind respect than they deserve, even from non-believers or those of other beliefs. However, I think that you should make a clearer distinction between the fundamentalists as well as radical religious groups, and the average religious person who does not actively discriminate against others and demand exaggerated respect for their religion. I don’t think that most of the problems caused by religions today are directly caused by the religious moderates, but by the zealots who wish to change society, governments or businesses to conform to their beliefs, just because they think it’s right.

Anyway, I think that religious beliefs should not be spread or evangelised by any means, as people should have the right to decide what they want to believe in without pressure from others. Therefore, the only “respect” for religion that I have is to people who have an active desire to keep it to themselves, out of consideration for others.

I also think that children should not be exposed to religion, by parents or others. While religions do teach some universally accepted moral values, not all moral values taught in holy books are universally accepted. Also, children listen and believe anything and everything that their parents tell them, so it is morally irresponsible for parents to indoctrinate religion to their children and in effect, not give them a chance to rationally come to their own conclusions about religion. However, I think that you are on the verge of generalising that all religious indoctrination of children is for “devious and dangerous purposes”.

Thanks for writing this article. I look forward to seeing it spark a healthy and frank discussion in Singapore, where it’s sorely needed.

I think the biggest problem with religion is that it does not allow us to question its doctrines. It must be accepted on faith as the Absolute Truth.

Thats the problem because if you begin to question – then many things will fall apart…………

Dear People,

Below is a link to an article that discusses the conflicts between Islamic Law and Human Rights :

http://www.iheu.org/node/2949

Interesting to read about Hirsi Ali fighting to free herself; her struggle epitomises the conflicts between religion and human rights.

About time someone publicly questioned the mindless respect we are forced to pay to religion. While your essay does a good job of enumerating the various injustices and atrocities perpetuated under the banner of religion, it is – intentionally or unintentionally – silent on an even more fundamental question about religion: The question of religion’s truth.

It is a fact that many religions make various claims about our world that have been proven to be false. Creationism is only one of them. Yet because these collections of claims have been placed under the category of “religion”, we are inexplicably prohibited from question them with the same vigor with which we question other truth claims, and are instead compelled to respect them, for fear of being accused of “insulting” someone else’s religion or disrupting religious harmony.

No where else in public discourse do you see such a phenomenon where some assertions are automatically shielded from scrutiny merely because the claimants attach a particular label to their claims. If someone tells you that he was abducted by aliens while asleep, you would be extremely sceptical about it and be entitled to question said claim. But if someone tells you that an invisible, undetectable deity who was born of a virgin had died for your sins and rose again after three days, you are strongly discouraged from challenging his beliefs; to do so would be at best a social gaffe and at worse a crime (if you are too vocal about it).

I yearn for the day where religious claims are no longer elevated on a pedestal that they do not deserve, shielded from the criticism and disputation that we routinely apply to all other extraordinary claims, merely because some religious fundamentalists take offense and kick up a fuss when their beliefs are challenged. I applaud the religious moderates who are open to critical discussions of their beliefs.

Finally someone said it! Thank you Joel! TOC has just reached a notch higher towards objectivity. Political correctness towards religion is detrimental to our society.

In primitive times, cavemen probably clubbed each other to death.
That was great writing, Joe. Thanks for sharing

Usually a temporary political right (correctness) can be a long-term wrong.
Fire-fighting solutions adopted under the guise of pragmatism can do more
damages to the nation in the future if they are not monitored closely and
arrested in time before some even more serious problems arise.

Take for example the temporary measure of adopting the “Two-Is-Enough” family
planning policy in the early 1970s. What happened? The miscalculated result is
that we have to now adopt a policy of encouraging an enormous influx of foreign
“talents” and foreign “non-talents”, even to the extent of encouraging China Beer
Girls to replace our own folks who need a second job to survive. This lack of
foresight is now becoming detrimental to the livelihood of many of our people
and perhaps also to the survival of our nationhood.

Another example is the unspoken practice of the “Robin Hood who robs the poor”
in order to enrich those who are already rich. This has caused the income gap
to widen further and further, making the rich becoming richer and the poor
poorer. If not checked in time, this would lead to more problems in the future.

The same can also said about religions, as pointed out by you, Joel. And just
like those before me, I also concur with what you have written.

It is about time that some of the undeserved rights given to religions be examined
and reviewed for the purpose of national harmony, not just religious harmony.
Because the nation has to be bigger than the separate religious organizations.
Nation before self should be the right emphasis. That means nation before
religion.

As most religions are based on FAITH rather than upon the real truth of the
TRUTH, questioning the TRUTH of each religion would bring no end to the
arguments and could easily lead to heated exchanges which should be
avoided as far as possible. Therefore, what we the netizens can do is to
examine those areas of religious activities that infringes upon the rights
of other non-believers or separate faiths.

To start off, I would like to suggest that we look into activities such as
house-to-house evangelism and subtle evangelism to the young in schools
as well as outside schools. Why must we also include outside the schools?
It is because some of the cunning evangelists who are so-called “school
teachers” may invite (through a third person) their pupils/students to a party,
picnic or outing in order to brain-wash them without having to infringe upon
school regulations. Such instances are happening very regularly, yet the school
authorities or the Ministry of Education can do nothing about it. I think this
“poisoning” of our young minds for selfish religious interests should be
stopped if we can help it.

Just my two cents to start the ball rolling. No offense meant to anybody. If I
have said something wrong, I apologise without any reservations.

Cheers and be happy.

Kaypo Citizen – 15 June 2008.

I think we should be careful that while, as I have argued above, religious beliefs and ideas should not be granted exaggerated and automatic respect (these are ideas as any other and need to earn respect, through argument, discussion etc), we should respectfully agree to disagree and tolerate peoples’ rights to hold on to different opinions about “Truth”, even if we feel they are mistaken.

This is the basis of religious freedom and harmony, and something the liberal-minded, especially atheists and agnostics, need to be wary of preserving in spite of their heated (arguably more erudite :p) arguments. It is partly for this reason that the article doesn’t deal with the issue of religious truth- the main factor is that it would have been beyond the article’s scope.

Also, much has been said on the issue, in ways I cannot even hope to emulate:

Richard Dawkins, in _The God Delusion_ makes some excellent arguments (especially from biology and astro-physics), and has a wonderfully readable and witty prose style- I certainly recommend it to those curious on the matter of religious truth. Christoper Hitchens, too, in _God is Not Great_, which engages the matter from an overtly more literary, philosophical and historical perspective.
Sam Harris’ _Letter to a Christian Nation_, while dealing specifically with America, does make interesting reading as well.

The fact that these books are readily available in our stores is indicative that things aren’t that bad in Singapore, but it does not say much for the level of public discussion on religion, or the government’s wishy-washy tendency to pick-and-choose religious perspectives in decision making (casino vs gay rights, for example).

Dear Joel,

But how do you deal with Creationists who deny Evolution ? For that matter – how do you deal with the schism between Modern Science and religion ?

Religion makes truth-claims which can be checked against Modern Science. When it does not check out – then what do we do next ?

Take Malaysia for example. What is your opinion regarding the Lina Joy controversy ?

Hi everyone,

im curious to see an article that has the other side of the coin. I.E religion improving human rights.

I guess ultimately religion should be something of choice. Not being forced upon people (i.e lack of human rights) but instead allowed the freedom of choice to make.

I for one advocate religion because of the good sound moral values. Religion should not be an excuse for the contravening of human rights (i.e crusades / jihadists starting wars taking lives) but a platform to promote life, promote sound moral value and the inevitable question of after life.

Personally as someone who has a religion thats my take on ti.

Just my 2 cents imo.

Cheers

Well this is my first comment on this website. So pardon me for my bad language and sentence structure.

There is one thing I hate about this religion issue is that it is ok to be vocal about your religion e.g telling other people how great your religion is but it is not ok to be vocal about why religion causes problems or the contradictions/authenticity of the Bible.

Dear Editor,
moderates are often are the ones who will be enraged and not the fundamentalists.(enraged only but not voilent)
The fundamentalists are more grounded in their religion and more tolerant of views like you have about a ” invisible, undetectable deity who was born of a virgin had died for your sins and rose again after three days”.. The fundamentalist love you raising such issue and of course provided you are willing to “listen”. Fundamentalists are not interested in converting you. That is not his job.His job is sharing with you and not forcing and imposing on you.
I agree if dubious means are used to hoodwink innocent children into a situation to spread the religion to them is wrong. This is as good as lying. The means cannot justify the ends.
That goes for you too, Mr. Komnenos. The Bible has been attacked since time immemorial and it is still. You can attack it. No one will be up in arms. No rioting, i assure you. It will be fair if you are willing to give the right of reply to the fundamentalists.

Yes Komnenos, it’s such a double standard, isn’t it?

Anyways… Joel. Thank you for bringing this up, though I think the points in your great article could be reinforced by more examples. Such as what the crazy religious people have done, right here at home. Put it here for the crowd to see. Granted, lots of it is available at yawningbread.org, but I have a feeling that many people avoid reading the site just because “it has nothing to do with me, it’s about gay issues”.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. YB writes about everything and he’s very good at it.

Joel, an excellently-written article. It brings out a somewhat taboo subject – that we should be able to criticise some of the actions of those driven by religious beliefs. Therein lies the gist of it:

The difference between criticising a religion (which I still do not think we should unless it preaches violence and abuse) and the actions of those driven by religious beliefs.

I think that is a distinction which needs to be made – criticise the actions but not the religion itself. And I think that is what the singapore govt is actually concerned about. That some may start criticising others’ religious beliefs and draw visceral reactions leading to divide and distrust.

I do feel, however, that criticism of the actions because of religious beliefs is necessary, as you eloquently quoted the instances where this is justified.

Actions based on religious beliefs which abuses the rights of others is a matter which we all need to be mindful of – and not turn a blind eye just because the action is borne out of someone’s religious beliefs.

You’re right. Deference to religion is something which we should not do.

Dr. Alwi,

I may disagree with the position, but I don’t disagree with people having the right to hold a sincerely-felt mistaken or unscientific view. It is unfortunate and sometimes tragically comical. The schism between modern science and religion is best dealt with, I feel, by waiting and seeing- science is, inherently, the pursuit of empirical truth, so perhaps this is ultimately a self-resolving problem. Denying evolution does not make it go away, nor can it erode what has been proven with empirical evidence, so the tussle in my opinion, is just something that serves to annoy those who are convicted in their beliefs.

J,

I feel that one does not need religion to derive moral values (or to be ‘good’), nor can we say what, indeed, are ‘good’ moral values because morality changes with the times. Richard Dawkins makes reference, for instance, to the fact that some of the highest crime rates in the USA are in States that profess to be the most religious. He also discusses the instances of how morality has evolved over the years (the position on slavery, for instance, arguably condoned by Old Testament teachings, is not the same today as it was maybe 2 centuries ago).

Religion ‘makes’ people good with either incentives or punishment- reincarnation, heaven, hell, karma etc- are we good for good’s sake or good for the sake of a good afterlife?

Religions offer what I think are very common-sensical values, but also preach moral absolutism, which can be dangerous. This absolutism can be taken to extremes, if you look at Fred Phelps and his God Hates America campaign in the USA- Phelps and his cronies roundly thank god for American deaths in Iraq, saying all this is the result of tolerating homosexuals amidst other offenses against the Christian doctrine. Less extreme preachers in the States have been known to say that HIV is god’s punishment for homosexuality.

Joel,

I am not saying that we shouldn’t tolerate other people’s right to believe in things we hold to be false; we should – freedom of religion and the freedom from being discriminated against due to one’s beliefs is a cornerstone of a free society. What I am questioning is the view that we shouldn’t dispute the truth of religious beliefs at all, because it is somehow impolite or because some theists take offence when their core beliefs are challenged.

If religion were just like any other set of inconsequential, private beliefs, then it really wouldn’t matter whether they were objectively true or false. But the fact is that religion plays a significant role in informing public policy, setting community standards, and even shaping our knowledge of the world around us. For example, when the Government wanted to craft Singapore’s policy on stem cell research, they consulted religious leaders for their views. When your personal religious beliefs start to encroach on the lives of other people in society, those other people ought to be entitled to question the truth of your beliefs.

The Editor:

I agree!

In fact, one could argue that consulting religious leaders on stem cell research, abortion, homosexuality and other hot-button issues is perhaps a display of the deference to religion- why should religious leaders be taken to hold any level of expertise on these matters?

zhummeng:

“The Bible has been attacked since time immemorial and it is still. You can attack it. No one will be up in arms. No rioting, i assure you. It will be fair if you are willing to give the right of reply to the fundamentalists.”

This may be true, but perhaps you might want to consider how the fundamentalist Christian rightwing, once again in the USA, constantly agues that the right to be Christian is being eroded by the onslaught of attacks on the Bible by atheists and scientists et al, and that they are being “intolerant” for doing so.

These groups may not riot, but they hold demonstrations against abortion, against gay marriage, against gay adoption…. it’s highly questionable whether or not, as you say, their job is not to “convert” you as to their beliefs, but they certainly want to influence policy and build a nation that is to their liking, that they are comfortable with, regardless of how others may feel.

Good article! Sooner or later the role of religion(s) in a nation has to be tackled. Religion has always been a sensitive issue since it involves the fundamental beliefs of the believers. Devout followers may feel threatened by subjecting religion to scrutiny since the “absolute truth” is put into question.

Though I see the necessity for the promotion of inter-religious harmony etc, I can’t help feeling that the nature of religion itself is just not compatible with the coexistence of other religions…i.e. any religion precludes the existence of other religions by virtue of its nature.

While it is not impossible for the issue to be resolved spontaneously, the next best thing is to have an engaging (and hopefully constructive) discussion for a positive outcome.

Dear Joel,

I tend to agree with The Editor. Problems arise when religious belief is imposed on others. I quote The Editor,

“When your personal religious beliefs start to encroach on the lives of other people in society, those other people ought to be entitled to question the truth of your beliefs.”

Very true indeed !

Take the Lina Joy decision in Malaysia for example. Her human right to follow the religion of her choice and to have it displayed on her i/c was trampled upon.
All because the religious views of others were imposed on her.

The same can be said of the Creationists and so on. Do we then NOT teach Evolution in Biology classes just because some religions do not accept it ?

Indeed in Malaysia – there was a major major debate on Islamic Law. Many aspects of Islamic Law are in conflict with modern notions of Human Rights.

Trouble begins when Religion affects the Civil Liberties of others.

Trouble begins when Religion interferes with the functions of the State.

Trouble begins when Religion begins to spell out and dictate Moral standards of a bygone era.

And so on.

This debate may not be so acute in secular, cosmopolitan Singapore. However in Malaysia it is extremely important in view of the Islamisation policy and also because of the rise of the Islamic party, PAS.

There the question of Islamic Law versus Human Rights is a very real one.

Did you know that they do NOT teach Evolution in Biology classes in Malaysia ?

>>Dear People,

Below is a link to an article that discusses the conflicts between Islamic Law and Human Rights :

http://www.iheu.org/node/2949
===

Syed, you appear to be pasting that link repeatedly all over the place. Isn’t that bordering on spamming?

Dear Solo Bear,

Well I was hoping to draw people into a debate over it. Maybe use the article as a basis for discussion.

Besides – here is a very concrete example where religion and human rights may be in conflict.

In any case, the fact that the OIC actually declares an Islamic version of human rights ishould be of great interest to a Singapore surrounded by Muslim countries.

How about if we debate this article ?

I think you’ve blamed far too many problems on religion.

Excellent commentary!

And Joel rightly stayed away from delving into truth claims; after all people can believe whatever they want to believe privately about unassailable truths. That is a human right – the freedom of conscience.

Joel has kept his focus on the public space — why we defer so much to religion.

Having said that, it is hard to distinguish where the private ends and the public begins. His illustration of religious indoctrination of children is a good example. Where does the public interest lie?

In the US, some parents demand that schools not teach their children about evolution. At the rate things are going, I won’t be surprised if we hear of similar demands in Singapore soon.

Actually, I think that Evolution is a pretty bad theory on the grounds that quantitative predictions are few and hard to come by. Basically, you can’t predict when a specie will split into 2 species as opposed to predicting the movement of a satellite in space from Newton’s Laws. Having said this, evolution is the best and simplest theory that fits the empirical evidence so far, as opposed to being made of clay by some divine power. btw this is the Popperian point of view.

Scientific theories are not absolute facts that can trump religious truths. It is just that scientists have spent a lot of time testing them against empirical evidence as apposed to most theologians. So I would argue that we should not band the teaching of Creationism out right but instead should point out why Evolution fits the empirical data better than Creationism, e.g. fossil records, fruit fly experiments, etc.

In the same vain, evangelism in its many forms should not be restricted on the grounds of the Right to Free Expression but I would suggest that science type people should make the time to educate the masses instead of just writing papers or attending conferences all day. Also explaining stuff without the nerdy lingo would be nice.

Also, be aware that Evolutionary theory is a descriptive theory not a nominative theory. It tells us what goes on instead of what should go on. The Human Rights is nominative instead of descriptive. Further, Human Rights are predicate on Free Will while Evolutionary theory has undercurrents of genetic determinism. A social policy of Eugenics would be much better supported by Evolutionary theory but that would really be a very, very bad idea.

Just my 2 cents.

Human rights – what is the basis? Most liberal writers like Locke seem to ground their defence of rights on religion, without religion, is there any basis for the so-called human rights as we know of them presently? The human rights abuse from religion is ever so publicised, yet the human rights defence from religion is always pushed into the shadows – probably because ignorance is bliss?

Even if a secular defence of human rights can be carried out, are they based on justifiable grounds? Is a utilitarianism defence of liberty possible? Without an understanding of the defence of human rights by liberal writers, in my humble opinion, we cannot achieve a robust and constructive discussion about the right form that the relationship between religion and the state and society should take. Even within a secular defence of liberty, harm to others is usually justified as a legitimate reason for interference with the liberty of others.

B said:
The human rights abuse from religion is ever so publicised, yet the human rights defence from religion is always pushed into the shadows – probably because ignorance is bliss?

Agreed and I will give a real world example to back this.

Starting from the 4 Sept 1989, demonstrations began every monday after prayers at the St. Nicholas Church in Leipzig, Germany till almost when the Berlin Wall fell. This was the first mass demonstration that eventually lend to German Unification. It was sanctioned by the Lutheran State Church and was opposed by the officially atheist Communist Party.

Even from a epistemological atheist’s point of view. Credit should be give where credit is due.

It seems with so many versions of RIGHTS, it is in danger of accumulatively becoming one huge WRONG…

I just wish that you people are more aware of the Religion versus Human Rights debate in neighbouring Malaysia and Indonesia. These are real life test cases. The debate is very acute because the consequences are so real and vivid.

Any comments on the Ahmadiyyah ?

Lina Joy ?

Moral policing in Malaysia ?

PAS and Islamic Law ??

“Starting from the 4 Sept 1989, demonstrations began every monday after prayers at the St. Nicholas Church in Leipzig, Germany till almost when the Berlin Wall fell. This was the first mass demonstration that eventually lend to German Unification. It was sanctioned by the Lutheran State Church and was opposed by the officially atheist Communist Party.

Even from a epistemological atheist’s point of view. Credit should be give where credit is due.”

‘Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s’ (Matthew 22:21). It could be said that the Lutheran State Church wasn’t behaving very religiously :p

Interesting, you sound like the very people you condemn.
Uncompromsing, absolutist, pseudo doctrinal even.
Point taken tho….never in extreme to be taken

No, I was actually trying to suggest that the example mightn’t have been religiously motivated.

Joel said:
It could be said that the Lutheran State Church wasn’t behaving very religiously.

If your Right to Worship is curtailed by the State, I see no problem with resistance through Civic Action motivated by Religious Inspiration. Note that religious groups were very marginalized by the East German Government .The Government was prone to demolishing churches for example.

I must admit though, that once it became a mass action, much of its character would have changed.The demonstrations mass appeal was mostly about the suckiness of the Communist system.

I hope somethings will change and that the govt wud do more in cosmo singapore to address the sensitivites of religious activities that affects other groups. loud prayers from the mosques thru amplified speakers in the past have today quieten substantially, is an example of considerations to other religious groups. on the other hand, the joss burning, loud clanging and related activities in the public whether during chinese funerals or others, have besides increasing pollution, also rudely intruded into the quietness of other religious groups, have not stopped al these years.. during some of these activities, there were ritual performances on the side, where screams can be heard in the middle of the morning. and the free sprouting up of religious artefact shops with their burning incense sticks within aircond shopping complexes, to the total disregard of the sensitivities of other religions is an issue the govt shud look into. there are more than one religious groups in singapore, everyone shud play its part to be considerate to each other.

And the govt shud be proactive in seeking solutions of fair play instead of just leaving things as it is.

This sort of remind me of what is happening right now – with the judiciary and criticisms of it. It seem that it is held in the same high regard as religion. That we cannot criticise it.

Sadly, this is how corruption creeps in slowly but surely. Absolute trust in anyone or any institution inevitably results in corruption of some kind. Paedophiles posing as priests is one other such example.

Religion doesn’t really make people good with rewards such as going to heaven. Rather,it forces people to follow it with threats of hell and suffering. Look at the bible,it says that the person who believes in God will go to heaven. So that means that people who believe in that religion can bomb buildings and kill innocent children and still go to heaven while a good guy who helps people for nothing in return will go to hell becos he does not believe in that religion?

I’m an atheist,btw

Dear Rebel Peasant,

Yes – I have long thought about this. It seems to me that the majority of people are simply born into a religion due to their family and society. Only a small percentage of people convert to a religion of choice.

Doesn’t it follow that God should judge us according to our deeds – instead of our beliefs – since our beliefs is shaped largely by the family and society we are born into ?

Indeed had you been born into a Saudi Arab Muslim family at the turn of the century – you would probably remain Muslim all your life.

And had you been born into a Buddhist family in Tibet – you would probably be Buddhist today.

And so on.

To me – what matters most are one’s deeds. After all – to quote Shakespeare – what’s in a name ? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet !

Besides – one’s beliefs and faith level can change and cannot be objectively quantified………..its all too subjective.

Atheists are an interesting bunch. By certain religious standards, they are considered “fools”, and yet by these same standards, even though they don’t have to account for their “sins” or immoral behaviour to any supernatural forces, you don’t generally see atheists detonating themselves or bombing abortion clinics or picketing against gay rights in the name of scripture.

I am not against religions but over-zealous prozelytizing and insensitive preaching by claiming that there is only one ‘true god’ in the universe is something I cannot accept.
An interesting article can be found here: http://www.xanga.com/LevDau/661307069/item.html

Joel said:
you don’t generally see atheists detonating themselves or bombing abortion clinics or picketing against gay rights in the name of scripture.

Actually, Eugenics which among other things advocated(some members more strongly than others) sterilization and euthanasia of the mentally handicapped was a legitimate research topic at one point in time.

Clinical psychologists use to classify homosexuality as a disease (I think this may still apply in Singapore).

At least one game theorist (Herman Kahn) advocated a preemptive nuclear strike killing millions to win the cold war.

The point is that scientists, the majority of which are atheists, can make bad moral judgments just like everybody else. Science which is often used to justify atheism is like any tool amoral. Basing something on science does not automatically give you the moral high ground.

That is why ethics committees in research often do have religious types on it. Checks and balances are always necessary.

” Andrew Loh on June 16th, 2008 9.55 pm

This sort of remind me of what is happening right now – with the judiciary and
criticisms of it. It seem that it is held in the same high regard as religion. That we
cannot criticise it.

Sadly, this is how corruption creeps in slowly but surely. Absolute trust in anyone
or any institution inevitably results in corruption of some kind. Paedophiles
posing as priests is one other such example.”

============================================================

Dear Andrew Loh,

When wolves start to wear sheep skins as white as wool, then all the innocent
little Red Ridding Hoods will be in serious trouble/danger.

When foxes start to act as Robin Hoods, then they will rob the poor to help the
rich to get even richer.

When crooks adorn the dress of respectability as monks and priests, or CEOs
of charitable organizations, then the gullible would donate millions for them to
live lavish and glorious lives.

When adulterers start to hold high positions, then immorality becomes the norm
of the day.

When lawyers enter into the conspiracy of silence, in the name of loyalty and
royalty, then justice and constitutional rights are least on their minds.

When Opposition MPs also join the conspiracy of silence, in the hope of gaining
approval by playing the role of watch-dogs, then the peasants will have to suffer
in silence.

When most of the peasants either have no guts to act or couldn’t care less about
politics and society, then they deserve to continue to suffer in silence.

Everyone can only reap what he has sown, individually and collectively. This is
the Law of Nature that over-rides every man-made law.

Dr S Alwi,

I am agnostic, becos I have not yet found my “truth”. I had spoken once to my colleague, who is a muslim. I asked him, “we know each other for more than 20 years, I am not a perfect person but as u know, I do observe most, if not all, of the 10 commandments. But, without embracing any religion, when my time comes, will I be going to hell or heaven???” Without hesitation, “HELL. Becos, u are given the opportunity and yet you refused to believe. Thus, you deserve to go where you deserve…”

Dear searching,

I myself find that organised religion has serious philosophical problems if taken too literally.

As a practicing Muslim, I try NOT to judge others but rather leave it to God to decide who goes where.

It is not our business to decide on matters like salvation etc. Thats God’s business.

But – yes – we are mostly the products of our families and societies. Very few people actually convert to a particular religion of choice.

Indeed – had I been born as a Southern Baptist in Alabama – then what are the chances that I will be Muslim today ?

The point is – believe in whatever religion you choose. But please be a good person and observe the Golden Rule. Its not our business to judge you. That is God’s business.

An article well written, and I yearn for the promised contrary viewpoint. While I should wait for it to be published before I post a comment (even in this article), I’m afraid I’m too free at the moment to resist adding a few thoughts, and I’m quite occupied next week in a fabulous one-week SAF holiday camp.

Anyway, I digress. I’m a scientist (or at least, in training), and so often do I observe conflicting views between science and religion. From the famous stories of Copernicus and Galileo in the past to the theory of evolution and issues surrounding bioethics today, science has always been in struggle with religion or other authorities of “truth”. And indeed, how many times had I have to argue with others on such an issue, defending science as the “truth”?

However, it just dawned upon me one day, after a great deal of thinking, that there is no meaning in claiming that science is “correct”. This is because science has its own domains, its own axioms, the basis of science, which is, mainly, empiricism (tests against experiments/observations), rationality (based on logic/mathematics) and Occam’s razor (choose the simplest theory that explains the most). If you accept these assumptions, then science is correct. But someone can always claim that, for example, empiricism may not be the best way to probe “truth”; faith is a better method. And if I were to insist that empiricism is the right way of investigation, then how is am I different from someone who insists on his religious text?

Likewise, when we argue about human rights, when we argue about the freedom of religion, there is an underlying basis, i.e. fairness. Is there any justification for fairness to be more fundamental than religious truth? As much as I would like to say yes, I can’t find any substantiation for that. Is it apparent that fairness is more fundamental than religious truth? To us, it may seem so, but to those of the Middle Ages, religious truth ranks higher than fairness: a sign of changing moral basis. So ultimately, in my opinion, fairness is just the flavour of our times. Just as centuries ago, religious authorities impose truth above fairness, today we impose upon religious believers fairness over their truth.

Who knows, maybe five hundred years into the future, people may look back at our times and say, “See those people championing fairness and human rights and all? How barbaric!”

Actually,if everyone learnt to stop saying,”My god is better than your god,” or, “Believe or go to hell,” then atheists wouldn’t really bother religious people. That’s what I would do.

“And if I were to insist that empiricism is the right way of investigation, then how is am I different from someone who insists on his religious text?”

You are different because empirical evidence can be observed by all, which makes a proposition/hypothesis falsifiable, which in turn makes it possible to try to find out if something is true or not.

Belief by faith is in contrast (and by at least one definition) not based on evidence, and this renders religion unfalsifiable, which in turn makes it impossible to prove that something is true, or for that matter untrue. If we accept faith as a legitimate argument for ‘truth’, what happens when we are faced with two (or more) conflicting accounts of faith-based truths?

However, it just dawned upon me one day, after a great deal of thinking, that there is no meaning in claiming that science is “correct”.
Nice! Exactly my sentiments as expressed in my previous comments. If your really into the hardcore stuff, read some Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend and other Philosophy of Science people.

Advance Topics
And if I were to insist that empiricism is the right way of investigation, then how is am I different from someone who insists on his religious text?
Flipping this the other way around, can we use science (rational model + empirical evidence) to justify certain religious doctrines? They are societies which have existed for thousands of year and their precepts may have give members a higher level of “evolutionary fitness”. One of these would be the idea of social (hetrosexual) marriage.

Occam’s razor (choose the simplest theory that explains the most).
Never figured out how to a) formulate a variational problem on a space of possible scientific hypothesizes and b) final a unique global minimizer on “simplicity” for this space.

Who knows, maybe five hundred years into the future, people may look back at our times and say
Depending on the time scale, the asymptotic case is not of practical interest. “Yes, I know that expectation of a random walk is almost surely zero, but that may take for ever to arrive at.” I would argue human rights are very useful principals(I will get in trouble for calling them axioms) for society in our current (initial) conditions. They don’t have to be the best principals, just some where close by and better than what we have currently.

Dr. Alwi,
i like to comment on your remarks of June 16. I wonder if it is your observation or your beleif that a small number of people convert to other religion by choice and the others inherited from family. You have observed correctly in so far as Islam but not the others. For example, Christianity CANNOT be inherited or rather no one is born a Christian but it must be by conscious choice and by faith.All Christians became Christian by choice and by faith and no other way and definitely not by deeds.

Angry Doc,
either you found truth by faith or by faith you found the truth.
The truth will set you free.

Sadly, so many attention grabbing professers of religion,
so few practitioners.
If the walk and the talk does not match, something is rotten!
In the recent words of raja petra admonishing his vocal fellow beliver-citizens in Malaysia……bullshit Islam by bullshit Muslims!

Angry doc said:
Belief by faith is in contrast (and by at least one definition) not based on evidence, and this renders religion unfalsifiable, which in turn makes it impossible to prove that something is true, or for that matter untrue.

There is no empirical evidence free of modeling assumptions. If you wanted to find out if smoking causes(correlates with) cancer, you would have to know before hand (a priori) that smoking and cancer were the variables you which examine. You would have to have some beliefs before testing anything.

Just to note, “science” has generate a number of unfalsifiable theories. Freud and his “someone who denies having an Oedipal complex is interpreted as repressing it” is a text book example.

I do agree though that quite a bit of religious reasoning is circular, especially “God/Goddess/Gods/Divine entity made it this way” type.

If we accept faith as a legitimate argument for “truth”, what happens when we are faced with two (or more) conflicting accounts of faith-based truths?

Pick the one which maximizes expected utility. As per my previous remarks, you don’t exactly why you are the fittest but just that you are so.

There must be a line drawn somewhere and we need to find that.

Religion is a personal belief. The relationship between a believer and the worshipped/god/diety is a direct one-on-one, and not by proxy, group subscription or bulk purchase.

While a believer should be allowed to feel and act the way her religion has taught her to emote and behave, she should not be telling other people how they should lead their lives or influence how they should feel.

Therefore while Singapore has about 45% Buddhist, who generally believe that it is sinful to kill a human or living creature voluntarily, the Buddhists do not impose that on others. They do not advocate the abolition of the death penalty for example.

While some Islamic teachings will have more severe punishments prescribed for certain crimes, such as dismembering of hand/limp for thieves, that is not imposed on the general population.

These religions have respect for the living space and liberty of other lives who share this land. Unfortunately there are some people who do not feel that way. Some are close to behaving like brats, though in disguise as lobbyists, to want to preserve their feelings of divine bliss by dictating that others and none believers should not do this and do that.

When one religious group moves as much as to interfere with the conduct of the lives of other non-believers (and believers who do not agree with their stand), should we not consider that a demonstration of political activism. When religious organisation overstep to try to set markers for how others should lead their lives in this country, I think it is about time they are required by law to register as a political organisation instead of being giving excessive liberty to override the elected government and relevant empowered authorities’ position with incessant complaints, fault-finding, threats, smearing and hatemongering.

When religious leaders use words that can hurt the feelings of some people in the country, it should not be accepted as freedom of speech or freedom to practise their faith. Such behaviour deserves no respect, even if it hurts only a dozen Singaporeans. Causing emotional harm to even one individual is one too many.

Where are our laws to guard against that? Does that make free-thinkers second-class citizens in Singapore since they can be emotionally abused by all and protected by none?

Dear zhummeng,

1) Its not a belief but rather an observation. The fact is that family and societal influences are very very strong.

Indeed – had you been born into a Hindu family in Tamil Nadu – what are the chances that you would be Christian today ?

What if you had been adopted into a Malay-Muslim family at birth ? You ought to know that there are many Chinese children adopted by Malay-Muslim families and they grow up to be good Muslims.

In view of these sort of questions, I am of the opinion that deeds matter most. That beliefs are secondary to deeds. Of course – this is NOT the orthodox Muslim view. But then – I will be the first to say that all organised religions face many philosophical problems and cannot be taken to be literally true.

2) In Islam – everyone is considered to have been born a Muslim ! A baby is pure and sinless. In Islam we do not speak of Muslim converts but instead – we talk of Muslim REVERTS ! Everyone is born Muslim but their family and society make them “others”.

Personally I do not take this view too seriously – although I may be a practicing Muslim. Its too wishy washy. Its always easy to say these things but how do you go about verifying it ?

3) Ultimately there are very serious philosophical problems with organised religion. We live in an era where Science poses a severe challenge to the dogmas of Religion.

Indeed – what is the future of religion should Science succeed in creating life in the labs – albeit just a tiny single celled organism ?

4) I would find it rather strange if family and society had no role to play in influencing one’s views on religion.

Imagine if you had been born in Saudi Arabia, into a Muslim family. What are the chances that you would be a Christian today had that been so ? Clearly very very slim………….

5) In Singapore the influence of Western and Buddhist culture – is certainly in favour of Christianity and Buddhism. Hence the number of conversions to Christianity, Buddhism etc is relatively large as compared to conversions to Islam for example.

But in Malaysia where the Islamic influence is strong – more of the Malaysian Chinese and Indians convert, instead, to Islam rather than Christianity. Indeed in Muslim countries, Christian evangelism towards the Muslim population is under strict prohibition.

Once again – here is a case of social influences at work. I have no doubts whatsoever – family and society plays a very very important role in shaping one’s religious views.

No doubts at all…………….

errata:

you wanted to find out if smoking causes(correlates with) cancer, you would have to know before hand (a priori) that smoking and cancer were the variables you wish to examine.

As per my previous remarks, you don’t need to know exactly why you are the fittest but just that you are so.

“either you found truth by faith or by faith you found the truth.”

I’m sorry but I think that is a rather meaningless statement which fails to explain anything.

Sprachen Sie Singlish?:

“There is no empirical evidence free of modeling assumptions…. You would have to have some beliefs before testing anything.”

True. Mathematics, which we use to process data, is axiomatic. However, the model which we build based on the assumptions we use allow us to predict observable outcomes. The same cannot be said of religious beliefs.

“Pick the one which maximizes expected utility. As per my previous remarks, you don’t exactly why you are the fittest but just that you are so.”

Let’s take the subject of afterlife as an example then. If I define the maximal utility to be a good afterlife, how do we go about testing which religion is true?

angry doc said:
Let’s take the subject of afterlife as an example then. If I define the maximal utility to be a good afterlife, how do we go about testing which religion is true?

I would have a problem answering your question in its original form on the other hand, if I define utility as producing warriors which would not hesitate to kill under orders, having the “right” afterlife would make more sense. For example think of the warrior cults in nordic myths that only allow those fallen in battle to enter heaven or forgiveness of sin for crusaders kill muslims during the crusades or the motivations of islamic terrorists in our day and age. You don’t need to be aware that your maximizing some utility to do so, some other completely different justification (like an afterlife) would do.

Certainly that works if you are looking at the utility in terms of producing warriors/killers (something we can observe empirically), but it says nothing about the veracity of religious ‘truths’.

angry doc said:
but it says nothing about the veracity of religious ‘truths’.

You’re right actually, but I’m being subversive.

This is what i’m thinking. Imagine 2 groups of missionaries, lets say Nordic and Pharaohic, trying to convert you. Both groups preach separate ‘truths’ and natural denounce each others ‘truths’ which differ from their own. S o which one would you pick?

I would convert to the one which maximizes my utility. For a Singaporean pragmatist, that would be whoever had the bigger houses (for the dead) so he would pick the Pharaohic group. And naturally, they have big houses because of their afterlife believes.

Oh forgot to mention.

Picking the ‘truth’ that maximizes utility also works in scientific situations.

Research spending and personal is skewed quite heavily toward applied research instead of basic research. Even in basic research, stem cell biology get way more money and attention than abstract mathematics.

Hi,

The title of the post is very apt – Religion and the right to not respect it.

I think brainwashing persons (especially children) to follow a particular religious faith is completely unethical. So is all forms of intolerance.

The spiritual path and all forms of spiritual development are difficult and require effort. It is impossible to put in the required effort if you are not committed ir lack conviction. So forcing a person to follow a path (or respect a religion) is completely useless and in fact is harmful to the person being forced.

AS they say ” A Man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

There is also the fact that a person who is told that it is his duty to believe will lose the habit of inquiring into truth and questioning what is true and what is false. And this is a quality that needs to be widely encouraged in the modern day with the threats of religious fanatics and other terrorists.

regards

Nikhil

I’ve been reading this with great interest especially on Dr Syed Alwi’c comment. Thank you for your frank opinion. I have been following your articles not only in here but also in Malaysiakini.

I am a Malay and by definition [as in the Malaysia constitution] a Muslim. I grew up as a Muslim and go through all the rituals of attending religious classes including the Quran classes etc. I’ve attended many religious discourses in mosques and suraus with a hope that I could learn something and be a good Muslim but in return it goes on the opposite direction. Just to let you know, I attended all these religious discourse at my own accord, usually on my own without any persuasion from my parents or friends. It’s from this religious discourse that when I started to change. As I continue to listen to them, I began not to like what I’m hearing. Then one day I decided to walk out and never want to go back there again. Do you know why? Just listen to some of the religious discourse and maybe Dr Syed Alwi will know what I’m talking about.

One day while walking along the road and I pass by several Buddhist and Hindu temples, as I stood there and watch these people performing their daily prayers, I am reminded many times of my own religious discourse “these are all idols… if you push all these idols in the drain, they will not be able to get up on their own…… why do these fools still worship these idols” and then something from within began to ask question “these are no fools. Those people who come to these temples are not ignorant or stupid people. They are intellectuals… what do they see that I don’t. That is the beginning of my quest to find out: what am I missing here!

I’ve been approached by the Christians, the ISKON movement and several others. I did not reject them and listen to them politely when they do not come to me, nor do I reject them. I just politely say, thank you, but I have found my own path. My basic ideology is this: Divinity is like one big Ocean and all rivers lead to that big ocean. No one religion has the right to say: Only we have the key to heaven….. Or only we have the passport to heaven.

Many Malays will condemn me for my actions. I am glad I am born in Singapore and not in any other Muslim countries least I will be executed for just trying to exercised my right to choose, but I have no regrets.

I believe religion is a personal choice and shouldn’t be force upon anyone. Line joy is not the only sad happenings in Malaysia. How many more are there being ‘put away’ supposedly in the interest of the society and brainwash for just trying to exercise their rights!

So do you think Dr Syed Alwi religious upbringing and family influences still do play a role in one maintaining their faith? Yes! I support your motion. Lets discuss about [1] Moral policing in Malaysia [2]PAS and Islamic Law ??

An excellent article, and followed by many stimulating comments. When the government setup an online forum to seek opinions on stem cell research, I noticed the relatively high concentration of religious arguments. Having just read Dawkins’ A Devil’s Chaplain at that time, I couldn’t resist expressing my opinion there, that religion really has no right to make the call on the direction of scientific research. After all, shouldn’t the burden of deciding be left to the researchers themselves, who are well-qualified to discuss the issue at hand? Yet there were other citizens who felt that my post was ‘offensive’, just because I said that there was no real need to consult any religions over this issue.

I think that pretty much exemplifies the problem that Joel has described so eloquently in the article. At times, I wonder if it is especially taboo in Singapore because of the looming Sedition Act. After all, who’s to know when your views will be deemed as having ‘crossed the line’? Even now I have vigorously steered away from airing my own opinions on my blog, just in case I go ‘overboard’ by others’ definitions.

I’m definitely going to grab a copy of The God Delusion soon. Don’t know why I put off reading it for so long, despite being an admirer of Dawkins’ prose.

“either you found truth by faith or by faith you found the truth.”

Jiddu Krishnamurthy, one of the great Indian Philosopher remarked :

Truth is a pathless land. Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophic knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through
observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection.

Any takers?

[...] to Die, Wouldn’t You Help To Let His Mother Know? – e pur si muove: ICA Fails.. Again – TOC: Religion and the right not to respect it [Recommended] – Sg_Ljers: Singapore man with armpit fetish gets 14 years’ jail, caning – [...]

I find it amusing that it is OK to bash religion, but no OK to bash secularism, democracy or gayness etc

What is an article is titled –

Secularism and the right not to respect it? Or, Gayness and the right not to respect it?

Exactly what do you people have against religion, such that you must bash it?

Are you not displaying the same intolerance, you accuse religion supporters of?

Sorry, “What is an article is titled –” should be read as, “What if an article is titled –”

Sorry but I don’t see how this can be construed as ‘bashing’ religion. All the author is questioning is how come religion has this ‘immunity’ to any kind of criticism. E.g. it is considered ‘taboo’ to express doubt over the validity of certain things that are espoused by certain religions.

Nobody is saying that it’s “OK to bash religion”! The issue is, why should it be LESS OK to criticise religion over other things? Sure, if you go screaming insults at gays, then don’t be surprised if labels of ‘homophobic’ are hurled back at you (not that either is inherently wrong or anything). But religion? Nooooooooo suddenly a deathly silence fills the room, and accusing gazes fall upon the perpertrator.

Sample conversation:

A: I think that genetic modification should be banned in Singapore because the Pope says that it’s a sin.

B: No, GM has great potential to cure lots of diseases and alleviate uncountable suffering.

A: But it’s a sin!

B: Says who?

And somewhere down the line B says something like “I don’t care what your religion says about GM!” And then woah, suddenly the OB marker lights start flashing crazily. Remember that for better or for worse, religion has immense direct / indirect influence on politics (look at the Republicans vs Democrats), so it is even more imperative that it should not be above question.

>>Sorry but I don’t see how this can be construed as ‘bashing’ religion. All the author is questioning is how come religion has this ‘immunity’ to any kind of criticism.
>>

Really? What’s this posted by the author?

“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…..”

There is a difference between saying what people do and what religion teaches.

What if I said that many homosexuals have committed pedophilic offences around the world, and as such, homo ideology is wrong because it teaches wrong morals?

>>Nobody is saying that it’s “OK to bash religion”! The issue is, why should it be LESS OK to criticise religion over other things? Sure, if you go screaming insults at gays, then don’t be surprised if labels of ‘homophobic’ are hurled back at you (not that either is inherently wrong or anything). But religion? Nooooooooo suddenly a deathly silence fills the room, and accusing gazes fall upon the perpertrator.
>>

You need to be more objective rather than selective. If at all, religion has been under attack consistently. From Christianity (how the media keeps hammering the clergy and ministers have sex romps), to Islam (cartoons of the prophet by those who seek “freedom of speech”), to Buddhism (how China treats Tibet).

Religions not criticised or bashed? [Comments deleted by TOC moderator].

My point is why can’t secularists simply say that let’s all live hand in hand, instead of being “religionophobic”, acting like the very religion supporters they so accuse of?

Basically, what is wrong if someone is a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or follower of any religion? What is wrong if that follower practices his religion, as what that religion requires him to do?

Is not democracy about choice? What is wrong if someone chooses religion then?

Homosexuality is not an idealogy, and therein lie your blinkers. That brightened up my night, it really did :D

Yes, democracy is all about choice- the choice to have a religion, the choice to do what your religion teaches you to do and, certainly, the choice to speak against religion where reproach is due. As in all things, these three elements will rub against each other, but we hear the most moaning from conservatives who want to defend their rights to discriminate.

Re the children, I was actually pointing back to how religions do not offer children any element of choice in their indoctrination. If, for instance, a Catholic child in Northern Island could look at the situation objectively, he or she might regret being brought up to believe that Protestants are horrible people. If, indeed, you believe that democracy is all about choice, then you might want to rethink the bit you lifted and how it might not really be “bashing” as much as it is “stating facts”.

You said:

“From Christianity (how the media keeps hammering the clergy and ministers have sex romps), to Islam (cartoons of the prophet by those who seek “freedom of speech”), to Buddhism (how China treats Tibet).”

I think you need to be more selective in your examples :p.

In the first, I doubt the critique was really one about Christianity per se, in the second, no one is saying the pictures weren’t offensive and that it was prudent of the newspaper to publish them and in the third, I’m hard pressed to see how secular China’s treatment of Tibet is a Buddhist issue.

In my opinion, you need to re-examine what you mean by the words “OK”, “criticise” and “bash”. When does criticism become bashing, and when does that become not ok?

If you transplant yourself back into school and imagine a classmate picking on the effeminate boy everyone loves to make fun of simply because he doesn’t “fit in” with what boys ~should~ be like at the age of 10, is it a) bashing or is it b) criticism if you tell him to take his fingers our of the poor boy’s nose? And even if it does reduce down to fists and knuckles (bashing? haha), are your motivations entirely unforgivable?

>>Homosexuality is not an idealogy, and therein lie your blinkers.
>>

Pro-gays have long tried to say that homo is not choice and hence, not ideology. Sorry, but there is not a shred of scientific evidence to say that it is hereditary.

>>I was actually pointing back to how religions do not offer children any element of choice in their indoctrination.
>>

There goes your quick-draw to gun down religion. What you have pointed out is what people do, rather than what religion teaches.

>>In the first, I doubt the critique was really one about Christianity per se, in the second, no one is saying the pictures weren’t offensive and that it was prudent of the newspaper to publish them and in the third, I’m hard pressed to see how secular China’s treatment of Tibet is a Buddhist issue.
>>

Using your analogy, how about saying that S377A is not a direct attack on gayness per se, but just a law needed to protect society from the harms of male-male anal sex, which is known to be a major cause of Aids?

My main point is not answered. Can you accept people who practise religion?

If yes, what need is there not to respect what they practise?

Worship God, not religion.

“What if an article is titled – Gayness and the right not to respect it?”

Actually, no one can stop you from posting such an article on your own blog – and frankly I think some of your blog posts already fit that title.

But let us return to the issue of religion.

The fact is religion and race are protected from ‘bashing’ by law whether or not the criticisms are justified (whereas male homosexuality is ‘bashed’ ‘by law’).

And therein lies the problem.

As civilised people we can present facts and argue about economic policies, environmental issues, education policies, civil rights, gender equality, and a number of other issues which concern all of us, but when it comes to religion, we do not or are not allowed to do so.

This is largely a matter of social condition, now being reinforced by law, but the underlying problem is that from an intellectual point of view, religion brooks no argument. One cannot argue about the basis of a religion because religion is justified by faith, which far from being embarrassed by not being able to produce evidence to back its beliefs, is rather proud of it.

Living in a multi-cultural society (and world), it is inevitable that we will sometimes disagree over issues which concern all of us. If we can discuss these issues using reason and logic, weighing each argument on its own merit, then we can save ourselves a lot of grief. If, however, both sides stick to their position based on faith, and neither side is able to required to produce arguments or evidence to back their faith, then how do we decide who is right?

Solo Bear-

“Basically, what is wrong if someone is a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or follower of any religion? What is wrong if that follower practices his religion, as what that religion requires him to do?”

Of course there is nothing wrong inherently with practicising your own religion. I’m not advocating any special discrimination against religion here. But we seem to have forgetten that there SHOULD be a clear-cut delineation between what religions preach and actual translation into influence over decisions in issues that are completely non-religious in nature.

Take for example the huge amount of religious-based opposition to chimera research, for example. If one were to were an objective pair of lenses to debate the issue, and argue based on ethics for example, at least we would have some basis to engage in discussion. But once people bring religion in, how are scientists to refute in a “politically correct” manner? Why should they even have to bother to be ‘nice’ and wear kid-gloves, if not for the taboo that is endemic throughout most societies today?

And regarding what the author wrote about Pakistani children being taught to hate Jews, etc, he is not criticising the RELIGION, but the POTENTIAL HARM that can come out of such a dogma/faith-based vehicle. It’s like technology; it’s not inherently good or bad. The good and bad comes from how you use of it. There are uncountable examples of how religion has been ABUSED (do note my intentional use of this word here) by those who wish to achieve their own devious personal ends. There are plenty of checks and balances for science, such as bioethics advisory committees and such, that ensure that the fruits of scientists’ labours are not used for wrongful purposes. But who checks religion? It is precisely that there are no such (unbiased and external) safeguards, that religion should not be invulnerable to counter-arguments and criticism in the public realm.

By all means, carry on practicising your own personal religion, but only so long as it stays there, in the personal (and in some cases, community) space. You cannot deny that religion has a huge amount of influence on non-religious issues, be it through swaying of the masses or otherwise.

I posted a message at 12.12 am 22 Jun 08, but somehow it was placed on “moderation”. In view of the fact that I had part of my previous post deleted, I am beginning to wonder if I am being singled out for being a “heretic” here.

This was my post made on 12.12 am 22 Jun 08.

>>Homosexuality is not an idealogy, and therein lie your blinkers.
>>

Pro-gays have long tried to say that homo is not choice and hence, not ideology. Sorry, but there is not a shred of scientific evidence to say that it is hereditary.

>>I was actually pointing back to how religions do not offer children any element of choice in their indoctrination.
>>

There goes your quick-draw to gun down religion. What you have pointed out is what people do, rather than what religion teaches.

>>In the first, I doubt the critique was really one about Christianity per se, in the second, no one is saying the pictures weren’t offensive and that it was prudent of the newspaper to publish them and in the third, I’m hard pressed to see how secular China’s treatment of Tibet is a Buddhist issue.
>>

Using your analogy, how about saying that S377A is not a direct attack on gayness per se, but just a law needed to protect society from the harms of male-male anal sex, which is known to be a major cause of Aids?

My main point is not answered. Can you accept people who practise religion?

If yes, what need is there not to respect what they practise?

===

Angry doc and wyx, I will address your points later. Thanks.

Am I being censored in this article? Why are my posts being placed on moderation?

I cannot post anything more than a few lines

Alerted TOC since last night, no reply. If I am being censored, let me know. I will leave this topic alone.,

angry doc, wxy,

I would like to reply but looks like I am being moderated.

Incidentally, I have also replied to Joel, but it is under moderation. Isn’t Joel part of TOC? Am I missing something?

Solo Bear, you are not being moderated. I replied to your email already. Please check your mail.

To everyone,

Please be patient if you do not see your comments being posted immediately. Sometimes they get caught in the spam folder or are automatically put in the moderation queue – for various reasons.

TOC moderators will release the comments as soon as we come across it.

Thanks for understanding.

Also, Solo Bear,

Joel’s comments at times too get caught in the moderation or spam queue. :) You are not missing anything.. as you can attest to the immediate appearances of your latest set of comments.

TOC,

The comments of others showed up before mine did. In any case, if I have not been moderated, can you explain this?

http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/2008/06/my-views-under-moderation-by-toc.html

angry doc and wxy,

I am not in a mood to discuss this topic further. My interest in this area has been extinguished.

Thanks for your input.

I’m sorry you have decided to leave this discussion, Solo Bear, not because I think I stand any chance of changing your mind, but because I would have enjoyed rebutting your arguments on an open forum.

(You may argue about how ‘open’ this forum truly is, but let me say that my comment too had to wait for moderation.)

“Pro-gays have long tried to say that homo is not choice and hence, not ideology. Sorry, but there is not a shred of scientific evidence to say that it is hereditary.”

I am confused. Ideology is something you buy into and can change, while the “pro-gays” are saying that homosexuality is not something you buy into and can change.

As for evidence, there are evidence being presented to show that homosexuality is inborn. You can question the quality of the evidence, you can present conflicting evidence, you can reject them outright; but to say that there is “not a shred of evidence” is to tell an outright lie.

“What you have pointed out is what people do, rather than what religion teaches.”

That is a “no true Scotsman” fallacy, isn’t it? Whenever someone does something wrong based on their religious beliefs, they are “not truly religious” or “not acting as the religion teaches”.

What critics of religion are arguing here is that the underlying basis of religion, where scriptures, revelations and teachings by religious authority cannot be challenged breeds a mentality that makes it favourable for fanaticism, exemplified by that saying “for good people to do evil things, it takes religion”. (Incidentally I don’t think so; I think for good people to do evil, it just takes a lack of independent thinking, so atheists too can do great evil if they do not think about what they do.)

“Using your analogy, how about saying that S377A is not a direct attack on gayness per se, but just a law needed to protect society from the harms of male-male anal sex, which is known to be a major cause of Aids?”

You can in fact make an argument for that, and in fact you have. And when you base an argument on that, we can examine the statistics and evidence and argue about how significant a threat to society male-male anal sex is, and whether S377A helps to reduce the spread of AIDS. We can in fact have a reasonable argument. It doesn’t really matter if your underlying basis for arguing for S377A is religiously-motivated, because as long as you are willing to argue on such common ground, we can weigh the arguments and see whether they have any merit.

The problem is if you stop at faith-based arguments like “homosexuality is a sin”, “God hates fags”, or “God made Adam Eve, not Adam and Steve”, which brook no argument, because you have already shown that the basis of your argument is a belief in a certain set of ‘truths’ which are not proven. When I hear or read of people using such arguments it frightens me, because their arrogance speaks of a confidence in the veracity of beliefs which they cannot reasonably have, and of the knowledge that social norm and the law protect them from being challenged.

“Can you accept people who practise religion?”

If you decide to return to this discussion, Solo Bear, it is likely that you will ‘win’ eventually because you will have the last word. But that’s not because you are right, but because the law is currently loaded in your favour.

If I, or any other poster on this thread dared to reply ‘no’ to that question above, we run the risk of running afoul of the law. And that is why we wear kid-gloves in this debate. That is why we even have to have this thread to begin with.

To have an idea of how it feels, imagine if there was a law which forbade “any act, speech, words, publication” that will “promote feelings of ill-will and hostility towards people homosexual orientations”.

“I am confused. Ideology is something you buy into and can change, while the “pro-gays” are saying that homosexuality is not something you buy into and can change.”

Actually, it turns out I *was* confused. Do ignore that line.

I know this is over-stepping the boundaries of this thread, but perhaps Solo Bear might want to read this: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html?feedId=online-news_rss20. This may not quite qualify as a “shred” of evidence, but science humbly proffers what it can.

You might have fun debating with the people on this thread: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/2008/06/homosexuality_biology_or_choic.html, I’m sure it will be a fruitful discussion.

I think it says a lot that in a thread about religion, someone ~has~ to come along and write about the horror of homosexuality, invoking the arguments of yesteryear which have been roundly rebutted over and over in various places. Do not conflate the two- it was religion that first picked the fight with homosexuality, and yet rising to the defense of homosexuals is seen as being dogmatically pro-secular and anti-religion.

Because your views are gilded by our country’s laws and what I assume to be doctrine, the right to reply on the part of the “pro-gay” people here will never be anything more than liberal god-hating, which is pitiable because ~so much~ can be said in reply to your many assertions.

Incidentally, homophobia strikes me as more of an idealogy than homosexuality.

>>”Can you accept people who practise religion?

If yes, what need is there not to respect what they practise?”

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. Religion is a set of ideas, and like any other set of ideas needs to earn respect- the cause is not helped if interpretations of these ideas lead to human rights abuses and the potential for human misery and suffering, I thought the assertion was clear enough.

Okay, I’m going to submit my comment now and wait patiently for it to come out of “moderation”.

Since the air has been cleared about this “moderation” stuff, I am in a better frame of mind now to discuss issues.

====

Angrydoc
>>I am confused. Ideology is something you buy into and can change, while the “pro-gays” are saying that homosexuality is not something you buy into and can change.
>>

Yes, I agree. So it is just the word of gays that it is something they “cannot change”.

>>As for evidence, there are evidence being presented to show that homosexuality is inborn.
>>

That is just talk. We have pseudo scientific arguments, but not real solid scientific arguments. To illustrate, since you are a medical doctor, you will be able to confirm that certain traits can be hereditary, right? Like high blood pressure or even schizophrenia, correct?

As a medical practitioner, do you dare put your medical expertise under scrutiny, by claiming to the medical world, that homosexuality is proven to be hereditary?

>>Whenever someone does something wrong based on their religious beliefs, they are “not truly religious” or “not acting as the religion teaches”.
>>

I see it differently. If a person does evil, and if someone claims that evil deed is a result of his religious teaching, then the onus would be upon the person who makes that claim, to show that the evil action is a direct teaching of the religion.

Otherwise, like I mentioned earlier, it would be like saying that just because there are homosexuals who commit pedophilic crimes, we conclude that homo ideology (I know you object to that term – but hey, no one has proven that it is inborn), is evil.

>>The problem is if you stop at faith-based arguments like “homosexuality is a sin”, “God hates fags”, or “God made Adam Eve, not Adam and Steve”, which brook no argument, because you have already shown that the basis of your argument is a belief in a certain set of ‘truths’ which are not proven.
>>

You claim to have read my blog on homosexuality. Where have I once used the religion argument, to disagree that I should support the gay cause? All along, I have used the social argument.

====

Joel,

Your links are what I would call “pseudo” science reports, as what I have mentioned to Angry Doc.

Pseudo science is now used as a platform to sell ideologies and thought to the masses. One of the most oversold pseudo science thought is the global warming stuff. There are now scientists who say that this global warming stuff has been over-hyped.

Note that in your links that supposedly support the idea that homo is inborn, just mentioned “study” or “studies”. Very conveniently left out are:

Names of the researchers
Method of research
Sample size
Demographics of the sample size
When was the study conducted
And yes —– the data itself! – Where is that data?

That’s what I call “pseudo science”.

>>I think it says a lot that in a thread about religion, someone ~has~ to come along and write about the horror of homosexuality, invoking the arguments of yesteryear which have been roundly rebutted over and over in various places.
>>

I have in my blog, argued that while gays claim that religion supporters cannot shake the religion argument off gay issues, gays themselves cannot shake the religion argument off their backs too. And true enough, read the comments by gays that follow my article below.
http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/2008/02/section-377a-and-gay-relations-social.html

>>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.
>>

So exactly where has religion been forced upon you?

It is indeed special site to work since I got useful Religion & Faith service from the Visitthebest links…

First, may I say that Joel Tan has written this article very well.

Two, as an atheist, I am very interested in things religious simply because I feel that I have not understand human behaviours in relation to religions. Most believers have peculiar behaviours to conform to their religions which believers of other faiths find incomprehensible though they all believe in god(s). I am intrigued and love to find out more.

The atheists on the other hand, cannot deny the existences of religions though we do not believe in the existence of god because religions are all around us in the believers, places of worships and rituals.

And to me, there is no questions of respect or no respect, I just leave them alone. When I feel no harm in participating in their religious activities, I join them, when I feel uncomfortable, I ignore them. In that sense, I feel free and easy.

patriot.

Solo Bear said
That is just talk. We have pseudo scientific arguments, but not real solid scientific arguments.
First lets be clear about the people that we are talking about and not lump everyone who makes (possibly pseudo) scientific arguments into one monolithic group. I will divide them into the following. Scientists, science journalists and policy wanks (or activists).

Scientists know that there are no solid scientific arguments. What they do believe is that they have the current best hypothesis that fits the empirical data as currently known. This is actually an over simplification but it suffices. More details in previous comments by me.

This current best hypothesis quite often changes and even backtracks as new data is obtained. Further, in exciting fields like climate science, there are many dissenting voices who believe in alternative hypothesizes though different interpretation of the data. Agreeing is boring, thats what makes science fun!

As for scientific journalists, their job is to make science at the edge understandable to everyone else and that includes scientists in other fields. Due to the technical language used, it is not an easy job making it understandable to regular joe. Unfortunately, this often translates into making scientific results look a lot stronger than what a scientist would publish in a highly technical paper with lots of qualification. One example is the difference between causality and correlation. Correlation is a far weaker statement.

Finally, there are the policy wanks/activists who feed on sciences articles of journalists and make decisions (or try to affect them) on “solid” scientific arguments. This is where I agree some what that ‘pseudo-ness’ might creeps in. For example, homosexuality and genetics or the more general problem of nature vs nurture is a flash point in modern biological research. None of the results are clear cut and contradict each other even for nonhuman models. A pro repel position on the bases of victimless crime is much more sensible than the “its nature” argument.

If you want fully experimental design, statistical methology, model derivation, etc go read the original journal article (or the supplementary stuff where it is usually buried). If you want something which capture the main point and is still readable, then a science magazine is excellent! Just don’t take all the assertions at face value. As for the policy wanks/activists, I would not expect too much objectivity although intentions maybe in the right place.

Once last bit, if I was to pick between using an experimental parachute designed by some scientist or a holy talisman blessed by some priest when falling from 100 km above the ground, I would choose the former. Similarly, who would you rather believe, a climate scientist who says, reduce carbon emissions,climate change will cause a 5 m rise in sea levels or a holy prophet who says dig an underground shelter, the sky will rain fire?

Angry doc said:
You can in fact make an argument for that, and in fact you have. And when you base an argument on that, we can examine the statistics and evidence and argue about how significant a threat to society male-male anal sex is, and whether S377A helps to reduce the spread of AIDS. We can in fact have a reasonable argument.

The main thrust of your argument is method and agree with that. But as an alternative to banning gay sex why not just legalize monogamous gay sex through marriage to achieve lock out of the disease reservoir. Sorry, couldn’t help myself but it is a perfect example of how one can come up with a different course of action from the same data. Who is right will be determined when the epidemiological from the post gay marriage legalization comes out.

Solo Bear,

When I wrote

“The problem is if you stop at faith-based arguments like “homosexuality is a sin”, “God hates fags”, or “God made Adam Eve, not Adam and Steve”…”

I meant the term ‘you’ as in ’someone’, and not ‘Solo Bear’. I apologise for the confusion.

“We have pseudo scientific arguments, but not real solid scientific arguments.”

Good, at least now you acknowledge that there are evidence presented, even if you reject them, and not say that there is no evidence.

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.

“If a person does evil, and if someone claims that evil deed is a result of his religious teaching, then the onus would be upon the person who makes that claim, to show that the evil action is a direct teaching of the religion.”

This is why I wrote that you will ‘win’ this argument eventually.

I cannot write about how the teaching of some religions are indeed evil and violent, because that will open me to being charged under the law.

By putting religion in an unassailable position using legislation, we make it impossible to criticise it meaningfully.

“Who is right will be determined when the epidemiological from the post gay marriage legalization comes out.”

Of course. The point is that if we look at facts and statistics and not just justify using faith, we can weigh each proposal logically.

Sprachen

Are you talking about the “scientific studies” on the gay issue, or are you talking about “scientific studies” per se?

If it is the latter, I don’t think I want to delve into it.

If it is the former, all I can say is that the gay community will have to come up with something more solid and tangible, before making a claim that “scientific studies support the theory that gayness is inborn”.

===

To TOC admin –

My last post b4 this took more than 6 hours to be approved. You may come up with whatever the reason for it, but in the end, what matters most is how all this moderation stuff affects posters.

To me, I am beginning to lose interest posting here.

===

To all,

This may be my last post for this topic, depending on whether this “moderation” stuff gets cleared. It really is a put off having to wait for anything between 6 to 15 hours to get your post approved.

Dear Solo Bear,

As I have explained before, there are various reasons why your posts – and some from others as well – are put in the moderation or spam folder. I thought it was already explained?

For your information, even TOC writers like Joel Tan and Tan Kin Lian’s comments sometimes inexplicably get put in the same folders. Just yesterday night, I had to manually release two of Kin Lian’s comments from the spam folder.

I have also increased the url links limit so as to allow postings with more than one url link to be posted. And I have taken off some IP addresses which were put on moderation for spamming and personal attacks.

I apologise for your waiting “6 hours” for your comments to appear. All the editors were out the whole day – I only reached home at 11+pm last night. We are not glued to our computers 24 hours a day going through the comments section.

I hope you will accept my explanation and desist from making insinuations about us – such as why we champion freedom of speech and yet moderate comments. I have already told you that believing in freedom of speech does not, at least for me, mean that everything and anything is allowed. If that were the case, you would see endless spamming and personal attacks here.

Let me repeat that TOC only put certain known nicknames who engages in incessant personal attacks on moderation. Even then, if they make rational and sensible comments, they will be allowed.

I truly hope this clears it up for you. Short of allowing you to have access to our administrative panel to verify for yourself that you are not put in moderation, there really is nothing else we can do to convince you.

Regards,
Andrew Loh

TOC. Keep up with your hard & important work. You are doing Singapore a very important service and guiding us towards a healthy direction as far as public discourse in our country is concerned.

TOC,

I accept your explanation. I have since yesterday. I have stopped saying that there is a deliberate attempt to moderate me.

I am just expressing the effect this episode had on me. I did not mean to say TOC is wrong. My point is not whether TOC is right or wrong.

My point in my last post is that this episode has had a dampening effect on my interest in this topic of religion.

Solo Bear,

Thanks for accepting our explanation. I understand your point about the effect that inadvertent or unintended moderation will have on readers’ participation on discussions. We are trying to solve the problem as far as we can.

In the meantime, we appreciate readers’ patience in bearing with us.

We hope you will continue to visit with us and post your comments. Again, allow me to apologise for our shortcomings. Rest assured, we will try and fix the problems as much as we are able to.

Regards,
Andrew Loh

Solo Bear perhaps needs to read the article above in answer to his questions on where I stand on some things.

Also, unless I am mistaken, you were probably referring to the discussion thread in response to the report whose URL appears below. The writeup on that page was merely a summary, so you must excuse their lack of detail. I hope neuro-science doesn’t count as pseudo-science, because that would really spell dark times for our future.

For your perusal,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jun/16/neuroscience.psychology

>”If it is the former, all I can say is that the gay community will have to come up with something more solid and tangible, before making a claim that “scientific studies support the theory that gayness is inborn”.”

Once again bordering on irrelevance, I want to suggest that regardless of whether or not “gayness” is inborn, responding to the widespread occurence of homosexuals in society with such disdain is hardly the right way to go. You can argue all day about it, but it doesn’t make homosexuals go away, and when it is realised that homosexuals asking for equal rights will not impinge on the rights of others (and certain religions and sectors of society have a gentler learning curve than others on the matter), perhaps society can finally move beyond this frankly tiresome debate and focus on happier things than the strange and sad things that divide us all.

People argue that we should respect religions to preserve cultural diversity, but it seems other types of diversity are too much to stomach.

Your assertion on climate change is also highly distressing- regardless of whether or not the problem is “over-stated”, it is irresponsible to suggest that global warming is not a problem (current or imminent, who cares?), and that we can continue pillaging the earth until she crumbles beneath our weight. It is an alarming suggestion and one that seems to stem from the fact that there are people who feel the earth will end within the next 50 years from forces beyond the natural. It is the same thing people said about over-population years ago, and look at the mess we’re in now.

Solo Bear and friends may have an enraptured and nihilistic world view, but I shudder to think that such ideas bear credence in the public sphere.

Pro-gays have long tried to say that homo is not choice and hence, not ideology. Sorry, but there is not a shred of scientific evidence to say that it is hereditary.

So this is the problem.

The scientists, Ivanka Savic and Per Lindström, in their paper entitled “PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects” say

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0801566105v1?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Ivanka+Savic&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

The present study shows sex-atypical cerebral asymmetry and functional connections in homosexual subjects. The results cannot be primarily ascribed to learned effects, and they suggest a linkage to neurobiological entities.

and near the end they say

As to the genetic factors, the current view is that they may play
a role in male homosexuality, but they seem to be insignificant for
female homosexuality (55). Genetic factors, therefore, appear LESS
probable as the major common denominator for all group differences
observed here.

The journalist, Andy Coghlan, in his article entitled “Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex” says

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

Brain scans have provided the most compelling evidence yet that being gay or straight is a biologically fixed trait.

And Joel thinks that the article is supporting the proposition that homosexuality is hereditary.

The 3 groups don’t seem to be supporting the same interpretation. Its just a case of Chinese whispers.

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.

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.