The hold of religion over law and policy creeps in like a thief in the night: once we lose sight of it, we afford religions a trump card, even above fundamental human rights, that they do not deserve.
Human rights, civic rights, freedoms, rights, rights, rights, all this talk about rights, and yet, today, 60 years after the United Nations’ (UN) General Assembly’s adoption and proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR), no one knows for sure who is right — there is the political right, the conservative right, the religious right, all grappling over a matter of who is right, who should be right, who should write, who should not write about what is right or wrong about rights.
This tussle over rights has led to the current situation today, where governments and judiciaries give people the right to impinge on the rights of others — all on the matter of a definitional challenge.
One of the most confounding examples of these “rights to discriminate” is manifested in religion, particularly because of society’s obsessive compulsion to give unadulterated and unquestioning respect to religion.
It is a dreadlock and a deadlock, and so, few people ever question the fundamental assumptions we make about religion or, indeed, if religion has any part to play in the human rights abuses of today. It is critical that we do so, because religion underpins so many other issues in society, not the least of these our concerns with human rights. This article will examine religion and its conflicts with human rights today, reflecting on how our blind-sighted wariness of questioning religion in society is a dangerous handicap.
Giving exaggerated respect to religion
The one major assumption society makes about religion is that it must be accorded, almost fanatically, a sort of shield from criticism, that we must all honour religion with the same sense of the sacred as its adherents. Atheist and evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, in his book, The God Delusion, calls this “an abnormally thick wall of respect, in a different class from the respect that any human being should pay to any other”. How very true. Where we might argue over differing opinions on all sorts of matters, the instant we hit a religious pet issue — say like Creation, or gay rights, or abortion — religions have an automatic trump card, and even governments have no choice but to accede.
The argument that racial, cultural and religious harmony needs preserving is fair enough, but this argument should not force us to give exaggerated respect to religious views, allowing the glossing-over of clear instances of discrimination and abuse inherent in the religious and their attitudes.
We do not have to look far to see this happening. At the height of the 377A debates in Singapore, our own Prime Minister had no qualms saying that we should not de-criminalise gay sex simply because “some people view it as a sin”, regardless of the views of, say, moral philosophers and theorists, or sociologists, or lawyers and gay activists, as if these people are any less erudite than people motivated only by religion.
Elsewhere, this same acceding to religious precepts gives rise to the tolerance of such nonsense as an Ohio court ruling (Los Angeles Times, April 10 2006) in 2006 allowing a boy to wear a T-shirt in school that said “Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white!” based on the statute of freedom of religion, all part of increasing Christian-led sentiments in America condoning the discrimination of homosexuals.
Discrimination arising from religious doctrines
The spurious and emotional wrangling of the Christian rightwing goes so far as to belittle and reject the concept of gay rights, simply because in Christian doctrine homosexuality is deemed to be abhorred by God (Leviticus 18:22, Deuteronomy 23:17, Romans 1:26-32, I Corinthians 6:9-11, Jude 1:7-19) and seen as an abomination to nature. This sentiment is taken to extremes in Islamic countries like Afghanistan, where archaic punishments like being buried alive have been prescribed for homosexuals. Despite their religion’s message of love and charity, how often do those Christians and Muslims that condemn homosexuals forget that homosexuals receive real and actual hurt from what is little more than intolerant hate-mongering?
Even more recently, a 10-year old girl in Yemen stirred controversy when she managed to get a divorce from her abusive husband more than three times her age, who had beaten her and forced her to have sex with him. The incident sparked off concerns that tribal interpretations of Islam allowed for an age of consent for marriage to lie below the official age of 15. When called to raise the age to 18, conservative lawmakers refused to take up the issue, perhaps out of respect to prevailing religious attitudes in the country.
It is this same adherence to religious law that advocates honour killings, marital abuse and female genital mutilation, in instances far too numerous for the scope of this article. Some Christians, too, have been known to argue against feminism, citing Scripture in support of enforcing the subdued place of the woman in the home and in society. That a doctrine based on centuries-old patriarchal sentiments can be so wrangled as to allow the butchery of women’s dignity in our enlightened age is surely evidence of how outdated our inexplicable respect for religion is.
The free press in Denmark experienced this phenomenon first hand after its publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in Jyllands-Posten. It is true that the original 12 cartoons were, in many regards, very offensive and tested fire in their rude portrayals of the Prophet. But when protests by Danish Muslim organisations against the cartoons were rebuffed by other Danish newspapers, who had re-published the cartoons under the mantle of freedom of expression, a group of Imams living in Denmark distributed, in a dossier, the 12 cartoons, along with three other irrelevant and intensely-offensive pictures, (particularly this one, taken completely out of context), to Islamic nations like Pakistan and Indonesia.
The three pictures ended up being falsely attributed to being published by Jvllands-Posten, fanning the flames of an already tense situation and sparking off a furore that saw the destruction of churches and the murdering of innocent people. Here, we see how religious groups can hijack our exaggerated respect (perhaps even fear) of religion to disastrous ends. Sadly, “free expression” is a very loosely-understood term, as we can see from the anti-Semitic cartoons and sentiments (similar to this one) expressed in the media of many Islamic countries in the Middle East.
Indoctrination of children by religions
Most disturbingly, religions often have no issues with mobilising children for devious and dangerous purposes. In Pakistan, young children are taught to hate Jews and how to use guns and grenades — all in preparation to one day give their lives in a smoking testament to their anti-Semitism. In Northern Ireland, children are told they are “Protestant” or “Catholic”, and that the distinction matters, and consequently they grow up with the hatred and stigma associated with each denomination.
In the United States, Christian children are taught by their fundamentalist parents and teachers that they have a responsibility to ensure the rise of a Christian Nation, that the theory of evolution is nonsensical, that abortion is murder, that homosexuals are possessed of the devil, that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that the severity of climate change is a political half-truth (that, even, we should do nothing about it because it is part of God’s plan!).
In many countries, religions, particularly Christianity, are also behind the muting of sex education and contraception, a Sisyphean effort to promote abstinence, which only intensifies a dangerous stigma surrounding sex. This is indoctrination of the highest level — stuffing lies and misconceptions of an absolutist world down the throats of young children to steer them along precepts and beliefs that they may not, at their tender age, be prepared to accept. It is through children, impressionable and malleable as they are, that hatred and misunderstanding and ignorance are passed on from generation to generation, ostensibly to fulfil strong political motives.
The right to religious beliefs vs the right to criticise
Today, many of us shy away from questioning religions and religious beliefs because we respect them, bearing little understanding that this respect sometimes involves condoning gross and massive disrespect for the dignity and liberties of other human beings.
Religious people will not stop short of citing “hurt” at criticism hurled at their religion, but often have no qualms about causing real hurt, in the form of words, sentiments and, as we have seen above, actions, to those who do not stand in line with their precepts.
As we have seen, we do not have to look back terribly far into the Middle Ages to witness human rights abuses being exacted by religions and their adherents, because it happens around us today, from the conflicts in the Middle East to the Evangelical movement in the United States, to Singapore’s own proto-Christian right wing. It is an unsavoury truth, and one deliberately muddled and often confused with the principle of “freedom of religion” or the “right to religious beliefs”.
Undoubtedly, a fundamental human right is the freedom of worship, and that is generally undisputed in most countries, but will we refrain from criticising religion, where reproach is due, simply because of some ill-conceived respect?
A critical difference
At the end of the day, all I am calling for is an understanding that while we should afford people their rights to religious beliefs, we do not owe it to religion to fawn and bend over backwards simply out of deference.
There is a critical difference between rights to religion and criticism of religion, a line blurred only by those who wish to live comfortably with their overt discrimination and maltreatment of other human beings.
It is crucial for states, and especially secular ones, to understand that religions are capable of causing real hurt to people and that allowing them to hold sway over policies and laws that discriminate and marginalise others is unacceptable. Recognising this is not the same as “insulting” religion or denying people the rights to religion, and this should be the guiding principle in our laws.
The hold of religion over law and policy creeps in like a thief in the night: once we lose sight of it, as is easy in a debate of such an emotional and “sensitive” nature, then we afford religions a trump card, even above fundamental human rights, that they do not deserve.
—————–
TOC will be showcasing a contrary viewpoint in a few days time.
—————–
Joel has a personal blog here: The Daily Backtrack.
—————–
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
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?
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.