“It’s black-and-white,”
“It’s not because I don’t like somebody, but because the Bible says so.”

oh dear, oh dear. “because the bible says so.”
scary.

“Christian’s belief system, he argued, prevents them from accepting homosexuality as “neutral.””

just confirms my deepest fears.

“People who are involved in homosexuality are no worse than people who lie.”

oh, the irony.

“…they have become more straight, if you like, just like all of us, we’re still a work in progress, we may not commit adultery but it doesn’t mean we don’t struggle with those thoughts,”

the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

“Calling for solidarity, he implored the women in the church to “unite with the sisters and support them.” He also said that the new team’s actions are not “a crusade against the people,” but instead a move to ensure that the nation does not cross the line drawn by God.”

That took the cake for me. I’m horrified by the duplicitous comments from the church. Draw your own lines amongst your church members; leave space for the non-believers (even though they might be a minority) to live a life fulfilling to them.

That’s despicable.

How can AWARE ever be trusted to be secular in future…

To regard homosexual as negative is already a form of discrimination (or lesser form of gay bashing). What contradiction.

Militant gay activists? That’s new.

I pity those 800 followers who may be following the path towards darkness unknowingly… will pray for them.

thanks for the report, just one comment — report would be stronger if the spokesman were named, alternatively if TOC could confirm the spokesman had authority/mandate to speak to outside parties. Otherwise people could claim that the spokesman was just some random unaffiliated churchgoer. Would like to see whether ST will carry this.

one more comment – I think the emails you referred to urge churchgoers to support the AGM that elected Josie, and not the EOGM which is next week.

Rest assured, the spokesman is a church staff who is in touch with Pastor Derek Hong. He has declined to reveal his name though.

Hi, I am referring to one specific email, the one by Shawn Tay.

Ah i stand corrected, thanks. My bad

your editorial is wishy washy Do not
know true or not? What emails from toc members
doing the same?

Deplorable behaviour by the church. Christians should not judge others, and even then trying to effect change on the ‘nation’ in the name of God is just wrong. Let people live the way they want.

The issue here is not the beliefs of any particular religion. People have free will and choice in their religious practices and beliefs, and every religion varies in what they believe in. That is the basic tenet that has to be understood by any individual or group who seeks to live harmoniously in a secular, multi-racial, multi-religious society.

The REAL issue here is 1) the attempt to forcibly push forth one party’s religious views on other people and 2) to do so by effectively overturning a secular organisation that has had more than 20 years of success in helping Singaporean women overcome discrimination, hardship and other trials.

The amount of good that AWARE has done for the community is undisputable, and it’s a shame for it to go down like this – and go down it will, in spirit, if the new Exco were to prevail.

BREAKING NEWS: Staff sent out emails asking members to vote at ……

One Response to “BREAKING NEWS: Staff sent out emails asking members to vote at Aware EOGM”. 1) yw on April 27th, 2009 2.08 am. “Calling for solidarity, he implored the women in the church to “unite with the sisters and support them. ……

i guess they forgot about the 8th commandment..

/quote

He then stated that there are other religions that are against homosexuality as well, including Islam and even Judaism. However, he finds it strange that “the homosexual community never attacks the Islamic people for having that stand.”

/unquote

because islamic people in singapore don’t attempt to get their beliefs legislated and forcing it on others.

Hi everyone!

Well if i was the church pastor i would do the same and rally for support behind Josie and Co.

I am extremely curious to which why the public or alot of the comments represented in most of the posts here are strongly against Christianity.

Why cant people’s beliefs be the driving force for them to want to make a difference? A positive difference?

Angry with “God” and life?

Whatever the outcome of the EOGM whoever wins, lets continue to believe and support those out there running NGOs or VWOs which contribute to Singapore’s society.

At the end of the day, the benefit is always the people, our society, the fringes of society.

Hi iliveintheuk #11,

This is because their action fringes on the indisputable separation between the Church and the State in secular Singapore.

seriously, these scorned women should just stop their petty bickering and squabbles… it’s about time they start fulfilling their duties and render aid to women in need… the distressed, the abused, the raped…

in the weeks gone-by i cant help but imagine how many women with problems are left in the dark because the exco is too concerned with this exaggerated saga…

#12) Hi Donaldson,

So you mean a Christian cannot be in any office whereby he or she makes a positive difference because of his or her beliefs. I.e, doing good to all men?

I mean at the end of the day, if they are not proselytizing, and if they are qualified, with the head, hands and heart to do the job, why cant they be allowed to make a difference through AWARE?

#13)

I totally agree with you on this one!

To start with a disclaimer, or a few: I am as of now ambivalent about the goings-on in AWARE, being away from the country and now only following it superficially through the web. To that end, I am not supporting the old or new guard, and am only pointing out what I think is inconsistency in the comments I have read.

It is not my intention to put anyone down, but rather to maintain the logical integrity of the discussion.

Thanks.

TJ:

Consider what you base your opinions on. ‘because the media says so? Because populist theories say so?’ I’m not referring to opinions on homosexuality per se, but am pointing out that everyone bases their opinions on something, or someone. So what’s the beef with ‘because the Bible says so’? Everyone has the right to choose who or what to believe in.

YW:

Let’s imagine a hypothetical situation that there is a God, and this God has indeed drawn lines i.e. put down laws for peoples of all nations. In which case if these laws are broken, there will be consequences. People who know God and are cognisant of God’s standards will therefore seek to protect their nation from God’s wrath. It seems to me that COOS isn’t seeking to vilify homosexuals, but that they sincerely believe that homosexuality (as does lying) infringes God’s standards and so they don’t want to test His wrath.

That then protects the entire nation from God’s punishment and leaves space for non-believers to carry out their activities, does it not?

Watergate0254:

Secularism is ’separation from religion’, and here I have Wikipedia to thank. While I agree that the state should be separate from organised religion, I hold by the notion that everyone has a set of beliefs to which they adhere, be it monotheism, pantheism, atheism, etc which- I think you’ll agree with me- is another definition of religion.

I go so far as to say everyone makes decisions based on his/her beliefs, whatever they may be. You may believe that homosexuality is fine (correct me if I’m wrong), and so that ‘regarding homosexual[ity] as negative is already a form of discrimination’. Fair enough. That is your belief, whether it be right or wrong. My point is that everyone has beliefs, and no organisation or body of thought should ever be misconstrued as ‘secular’.

The word ‘secular’ has been abused to no end, as ‘religion’ has been.

Usus:

By stating that ‘Christians should not judge others’, you are already making a judgement on a particular set of beliefs you happen not to hold, based on your own beliefs.

Besides, not all judging- which for the purposes of this discussion shall be considered to be making a statement that something falls short of a standard- is wrong. Legal authorities need to judge if an activity such as murdering is criminal, not merely because murdering is incivil and disrupts the order of things, but more fundamentally because it is immoral and cheapens life. If my loved one were murdered I’d be likely to think it’s a wrong, immoral thing on the part of the murderer. I’m not sure how you’d react. Point being that murder falls short of a standard, and that someone needs to say so, and to restore the order.

So in a way perhaps, I am putting murder and homosexuality on the same level in that they both fall short of standards laid out in the Bible. And for those who do believe in the Bible, it is their responsibility to restore the order.

Speedweed:

Correct me if I’m wrong but to my knowledge the 8th commandment is ‘you shall not steal’. Did you mean that, and if you did, could you please clarify why?
–

Thank you all for reading till here. Should I be wrong in my reasoning, please kindly let me know.

So what?

The Old Guard were doing this the same. Weeks ago. I emailed my wimmin friends.

Why didn’t you report on this TOC?

#14, I agree with yr rebuttal of #12, even though I am secuarlist (not of the anti-clerical or religion type like the French state or Turkish govmin or it seems many of those posting on AWARE hen fight.

though Islam do not condone homosexuality,we were taught to hate the sin and not the sinner.We are encourage to advice them and if they decided to be who they are,we would leave it at there and respect their decision.
never are we to disown them.
We believe that whatever decision they made,they would be the one who will be answering to God in the end.
Everyone is a creation of God.If we condemn one,are we not also condemning God indirectly,questioning God’s Creation?

TOC you are threading on dangerous ground. You are creating a hate a church and christianity campaign without realising it!

@iliveinuk
The main problem here is not the fact they are Christian, but the fact that they are advancing a Christian agenda in a secular organization. Granted they aren’t forcing anything upon anyone, but they are making judgments on other people based solely on Christian values, which in a secular organization, is unacceptable

On another note, I find the term ‘militant gay activist’ extremely amusing. You’d think they were taking up arms and declaring jihad on the Church from the way they’re described…

Also, the quote “If you even dare to speak against it, you get disqualified, you get penalised, you get discriminated against.” is so deeply ironic. In Singapore, you’d be hard pressed to find a social group more ridiculed and discriminated against than gays. And now anti-gays get “discriminated” against? LOL is all I can say.

Please not that I’m not gay/pro-gay myself. I personally don’t really like gays, but as long as they’re not harming anyone, why should anyone bother what kind of people they like to f***? I believe above all in freedom of choice, something that is/should be sacred in a democracy. You can have whatever kind of beliefs/practices/inclinations/sexual positions you want, just as long as you keep it to yourself and don’t hurt anybody else.

” ……….a move to ensure that the nation does not cross the line drawn by God.”

A retraction by the church is in order. Under any other name, this would be sedition.

The American Psychiatric Association actually denounced NARTH as a pseudo-scientific organisation. FYI.

@ 14) iliveinuk on April 27th, 2009 5.21 am

“why cant they be allowed to make a difference through AWARE?”

if someone creeps into your house in the middle of the night, carrying a big cudgel, wearing a mask to hide his face, what will your reaction be?

will you say, oh, this guy has not done any crime yet so i will wait and see? (excluding the trespass into your house, which i’ll leave out from this analogy)

will you wait until he whacks you in the head and makes off with your family heirloom? or scream bloody murder first?

Vivian Balakrishnan said – religious organisation should stay above the fray of politicking. So I think COOS should have not got involved in sending emails to influence AWARE’s elections.
We are a multi-cutural, multi-racial, secular society – there should be a rainbow representation in AWARE – not all Chinese and most from a particular church.
Vivian said something about being all inclusive.
Some says one should not impose one’s views on others aggressively – whatever their personal and religious beliefs should not be forced upon others because AWARE is not for this function. the harder one pushes the stronger the backlash. Newton’s third law of motion.

A Christian can be in any office provided he/she doesn’t impose his biblical values onto a society that’s secular. The Bible/Qur’an/Torah might say homosexuality is a sin but in a secular society, there are atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Hindus etc. A Christian has a right to his/her own opinions and beliefs. But when he/she goes out into the secular world and declares homosexuality a wrongdoing and that everyone must abide by the rules of the Bible, to be saved by their God when the fact of the matter is, not everybody believes in their God. And so the point becomes moot. And while they own the right to encourage individuals to pick up the Christian faith, the hostile overtaking of a civil society group as a means to advance their cause against homosexuality is unethical and morally-reprehensible. Why? Because our country is not run by the values of Christianity. What Christians think is wrong might not be the same for the secular public. Muslims believe it is wrong to consume alcohol. But they are not in the position to forbid anyone to consume it, other than for Muslims themselves, and even then, they do not control the meting out of punishments because while they spread the message of God through their own means, they are not God and they don’t represent all people. And in a secular state, lines like these MUST be drawn to allow religion pluralism.

I think the biggest problem still is that a lot of people are getting incomplete information about the situation, which, granted, is not anyone’s fault but the media’s.

This is not an issue of one group versus another group, and to label it a squabble just takes away the importance of what this means.

This is about the fact that one group (with religious affiliations within and between) taking over an established organisation to impose their views upon women (I would call this borderline proselytism), using the kind of clout that the organisation has.

The previous exco, and the women who have been working at AWARE have repeatedly mentioned that they do not have a ‘liberal’ agenda. Instead, what they stand for, and what they’ve worked towards, is providing a safe, non-judgemental environment for ALL women. I don’t see that as liberal at all. I see that as being inclusive and, really, the whole point of AWARE to begin with.

There is no liberal-conservative debate here. It’s simply another weapon that the fundamentalist christians are using because it’s one they’re so familiar with.

I originally gave them the benefit of the doubt myself. But in the month that they’ve been in the exco, what have they done exactly? How have they made a positive difference for women? Do they even have concrete plans? Removing the ‘homosexualism’ from current activities, I would barely consider as positive.

To one point in the article, about why other religions are not targeted for their homophobic views. Er. because they don’t go around shoving it down people’s throats? They don’t go around setting up gay-conversion centres and programmes (Ok, I don’t have statistics here, but they’re definitely not as vocal and prominent). And they definitely don’t go around taking over organisations to promote their homophobic agendas.

And just one more piece of info that’s not included in the article. NARTH, while secular, is highly affiliated with many religious organisations, says Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NARTH (I know, not an authority, but hardly lies either).

/// Speaking on the sidelines after Sunday’s 10.30am service, the church spokesman verified that only Shawn Tay and Linda Seah’s email messages are genuine. Both are staff of the church. ///

/// While COOS has denied involvement in the AWARE takeover, they are actively supportive of their church members getting involved in the EOGM to support the new Executive Committee. ///

Looking at the two quotes above, how can the COOS deny involvement in the AWARE takeover??? What kind of bald-faced lie is that?

/// While homosexuality is clearly wrong, it is not the worst sin either, he said. People who are involved in homosexuality are no worse than people who lie. However, there is a tendency for the church to condemn homosexuality more than other wrongdoings. ///

Well said, Pastor Hong. Wonder if this part of the sermon applies to COOS members, especially the new Exco members?

* * *
——— Forwarded message ———-
From: Shawn xxx
Date: Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Subject: AWARE – Your Action Needed
To:

Dear Friend,

Our nation needs your support and action very urgently!

AWARE is an organization that has existed in Singapore for many years.

It is a non-profit body dedicated to women’s advocacy and gender equality.

They protect women’s rights and help develop women to their fullest potential.

In the last few years, AWARE has aggressively become involved in gay

activism. Many members of their committee are pro-gay. They have even

conducted a sexual education programme in some schools that teach

young people that it is normal and alright to behave homosexually. They

have also screened a lesbian-themed movie Spider Lilies at a Charity Ball.

During this week, AWARE held an election of office bearers. This event saw

many of the pro-gay old guards losing their positions in the committee to new

faces. These new people do not share the values of the pro-gay old guards

and has caused much shock and rage to the latter group.

The pro-gay old guards are retaliating by calling for an Extraordinary General

Meeting where they intend to amend the Constitution to only allow members

who have been with AWARE for more than 2 years, to vote. If this change is

passed, then only the pro-gay old guards and their cohorts will have the

power to do what they want.

To prevent this from happening, we are calling on all responsible females

to sign up for membership with AWARE immediately, and also to attend this

all-important EGM so as to vote against changing the Constitution.

If you are male and have received this petition, please pass it to as many

responsible females as you know and encourage them to sign up for

membership with AWARE so as to vote against any changes to their

Constitution.

The date for the EGM has yet to be announced but it should be soon.

Membership fees are $40 for adult females and $5 for female fulltime students below

the age of 25. Please print the attached softcopy of the membership form,

fill in the details (no need to tell who referred you), mail the form with your cheque.

Singapore is counting on you. Please respond.

You are made for such a time as this!

Pro-Family,

Shawn

________________________________

From: Linda xxx
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 2:21 PM
To: COOS English Church Staff – DL; Derek xxx
Subject: FW: Ps 68:11

Dear Pastor Derek,

The number of members registered on Tuesday night is 13 out of 40 who turned up.

One thing I forgot to mention this morning was the film show Spider Lilies (selected articles attached above)

The school children were told that lesbian lifestyle is okay.

Linda

@ 12) Donaldson Tan on April 27th, 2009 4.16 am

First off I do not support either side… More harm than good has been done. I would however like to question your “indisputable separation between the Church and the State in secular Singapore.”

Don’t you mean the seperation of “Religion and Politics”? Singapore is secular in governance but a significant portion of its population is religious. This is an undisputable fact ;) Thus their opinions should not be ignored just because we are “secular”.

My question is “Where is it helpful to draw the line… No religion in politics? No religion in civil society? That still sounds reasonable. No religion in cultural diversity, in social action, in ethical and moral regards of society? That is rather extreme.

Cheers!

we are not in hogwarts. and dolores umbridge is not the high inquisitor to monitor falling standards in the school of wizardry and witchcraft.

Dear ilivenuk (#14)

Do anything you want to make what you think is ‘positive difference’ to others, while exercising your freewill. However, for the sake of harmony, it is preferred that you do not impose your religious beliefs on others.

Do you like it if the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or any other religion impose their beliefs on you? After all, if anyone of them do, they must have likewise fervently believed that they are making a ‘positive difference’ on you (even if their beliefs may be contrary to your beliefs).

Isn’t life bitter when we start imposing our beliefs on others? :)
But then, you do what you want. I’m not about to impose my opinions on anyone.

Thank you.

I’m afraid some people missed the whole point of the situation.

First of all, this takeover was carried out in an unfair and unethical manner. One does not join an organisation and take over it so as to change its fundamental values. If you are against homosexuality, why not just set up another new organisation? By way of this takeover, the new members are using the reputation and network of AWARE to spread their own, albeit different, beliefs. This is also a manipulation of the public’s trust.

Secondly, please note that AWARE does not focus only on sexuality. Sexuality education is only one part of what AWARE does. Other initiatives include Self Defense, Body Image and Self Esteem, Financial Intelligence, etc. Also, the whole point of sexuality education is not to promote homosexuality, but rather, to allow students to be more accepting to homosexuality and to prevent discrimination. Discrimination by sexual orientation is no better than discrimination by one’s race or religion.

It is also apparent that homosexuals do exist in our society, and, to ignore them completely or to portray them in a ‘negative’ light because of the bible in no way makes our society a better place to live. If, you say, that merely talking about sexual orientation decreases “traditional family values”, then I’m afraid your family values aren’t very substantial to begin with.

Please note that I am not affiliated with AWARE, nor am I anti-religious; I am a Christian myself. However, especially in Singapore’s diverse society, I do not believe it is right for any religious groups to impose their beliefs onto others.

“Singapore is secular in governance but a significant portion…is religious”

More than one faith, one belief system out there.

Are Christians are such bigots to the point that they think the word church is exclusively applied to their religion?

@ 17) jupilier on April 27th, 2009 8.27 am

Being for or against homosexuality does not have to be a religious belief. When it is, what constitutes imposing? Does the Health Minister vocalising that MOH does not welcome Philip Nitschke’s euthanasia workshop constitutes imposition for those who believe in euthanasia or mercy killings?

The cat is out of the bag…the rock has start rolling.

and you are right jupilier at 17) like won’t be good when others impose their ideas/beliefs on us…look at kids out there who react when their parents impose stuff on them, even though some may be for their own good, and it is evident that there is always some form of reaction, usually negative when that happens…

and speaking of judging, i find that we humans don’t have the rights to judge others since we are imperfect

@ 1) tj on April 27th, 2009 2.06 am

Hi tj… Perhaps I can explain the Christian fundamentalism?

In the words of C. S. Lewis: “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” If in reality the sky is blue today… it just is. It is an absolute – and no amount of convincing will make me believe otherwise.

The same principle applies to the Christian worldview of homosexual behavior. The Bible contains inspired words of God; And if the Christian God, the believed God-of-the-universe says homosexuality is offensive to Him, it just is. Man and woman appear to be different anatomy and physiology – different but made for each other.

But Christians are not to be intolerant. We are called to preach the gospel of forgiveness and salvation, not, to throw stones. God loves them, and, Christians should too.

#14 ilibeinuk

Not that Christians cannot be in office if they can make a positive difference. But rather, in this case, almost the whole new ExCo is Christian except for two from the pervious ExCo (not sure if they are Christians themselves).

And the new ExCo has demonstrated that they CAN, and WILL leave non-Christian ExCO members out of the running of the organisation (re their press conference at Raffles Town Club).

Firstly, there is simply not enough diversity of views and opinions in the current ExCo. Secondly, they are acting to qwell even the smallest alternative voice within their management team.

If they can do this now, one cannot imagine the way they will treat or exclude their members based on religion or their values in future.

The ST reported today that Vivian Balakrishnan has come forward to say that ” … a rainbow coalition is vital for any group here to make meaningful change.” I take that to mean that he (and the government) believes that diversity is key in this matter.

I think Josie and her gang need also to listen carefully what else he had to say : the government will not take action on this matter “at this point in time” because they will “‘Let them settle this democratically, according to their own rules, abiding with their constitution.”.

This can mean that they might consider taking action against them in future if their Church pushes this beyond what is morally and legally acceptable in this country.

So Josie… Feminist Mentor (…)… and COOS leaders, please listen very carefully to what everyone including the government is telling you…

First , i don’t see anything wrong COOS garnering support for the EOGM. It is common .
Second, when you mean religion and state should be separated so do you mean person with religion should not hold public offices. Almost 99% of our ruling party are people from various religious background.How do you advise them? Ask them to keep their religious values under lock and key before going to work?
I notice many non religious fundamentalists here keep saying that the Christians are imposing their beliefs on them. Where got? Either stand for the gays is influenced by beliefs and for the good of the gays and it is not anti gays as what many and the old AWARE are labeling the new. The new AWARE is also for the gays but with different approach to their problems.But helping the gays is not within the purview of AWARE but lesbians , yes.
To jupiter, why not? other religions can contribute to the solution .I am sure the other religions have the same view as the Christians regarding gays and lesbains. Maybe the chrisitians are kaypoh but if majority thinks it is not the right way to deal with this issue the Christians can’t do anything just like the casino.
AWARE is under the scrutiny of the public. You can constitutionally remove them .
Don’t be a sore loser.

Yes people are taking issue with the fact that these people are taking it upon themselves to ‘educate’ everyone else. It is not a matter of sexuality or religion, merely one of ethics and from what we see the new AWARE has been unethical from the start.

the pastor mentioned that other religions are against homosexuality, like islam, but gay activists do not rally against them as vehemently or strongly.

well the reason behind this is because these other religions for the most parts leave them alone. they do not create associations or ministries or whatever to try to convert them. and please NARTH is affiliated with Focus on the Family for god’s sake (haha), that’s hardly secular. Read up on George Alan Rekers.

On the other hand many professional and medical bodies in the US have rejected this entire notion of conversion therapy. they even go so far as to call it unethical. so srsly this COOS, is just picking at details. sigh.

and regarding the miss california controversy, here’s what a former miss california turned pastor had to say.

“As a pastor and a former Miss California, I am often asked to interpret what the Word of God has to say on a particular subject. I am quite confident that God prefers that we human beings stick to speaking for ourselves. And yet there are occasions when God’s Word is used as a weapon, and I feel compelled to speak.

In the past few days, much has been made of the words of Miss California USA, Carrie Prejean. She stated that marriage is between a man and a woman. I write not in response to her opinion, but rather about her comments that followed: that the Bible condones her words. She said, ‘It’s not about being politically correct, it’s about being biblically correct.’ While this sentiment is shared by many who seek to condemn gay people and gay marriage, citing pieces of the Bible to further one’s own prejudice fails to meet the Bible on its own terms.

Most people seeking to condemn gay people point to the Book of Leviticus, where we read that men lying with men is an abomination. However, we rarely hear of other verses found in the book of Leviticus that are equally challenging. For example, Leviticus also tells us that eating shrimp and lobster is an abomination. And that a person should not wear material woven of two kinds of material—an impossible mandate for a pageant contestant!

In Paul’s letter to the community in Corinth we read, ‘For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church….’ And yet these words have not prevented Christian denominations from ordaining women, such as myself. Sadly, the Bible has been used to further prejudice throughout history. We have used it to permit ourselves to enslave people; to conquer and kill; and to denigrate the earth.

The truth is that it is difficult to know for sure the intentions of the biblical authors, but we do know something about God. Those of us who know God through Jesus of Nazareth know that he went to great lengths to express God’s love to people who were labeled as outcasts. He spent time with children, prostitutes, and lepers, all of whom were labeled as outside of the grasp of the Holy. As we continue to seek God’s vision for us as a nation grounded in a love for justice, I pray that we might move closer to the cause of grace.”

Nicole Lamarche, Miss California 2003 and now an ordained minister at Cotuit Federated Church. COOS should take a leaf from her book.

“So you mean a Christian cannot be in any office whereby he or she makes a positive difference because of his or her beliefs. I.e, doing good to all men?”

The question isn’t about whether one is a Christian or not. One of the old Guard is a Roman Catholic. The question is recognizing that the decisions you make also affect the ‘Gentiles’. The Gentiles cannot be made to live under the sole values of Christians.

“He also said that the new team’s actions are not “a crusade against the people,” but instead a move to ensure that the nation does not cross the line drawn by God.”

This is quite scary. In Derek Hong’s eyes we are already a nation under God. The Christian Theocracy programme is underway…

Dear TOC, finally a report that is unbiased, factual and balanced. Well done!

For TOC to grow its credibility, would it be too much to ask the TOC team to refrain from participating in the Comments forum, and stick to its moderator role? Comments on TOC’s behalf should be reserved to the Editorial section, and when personal be in a blog of some kind. Otherwise, you could be accused of steering public discourse to pander to personal agenda. Not good for you in the long run.

I like what is written in your “About Us”, which I quote here. I am providing this feedback so that we can foster honest and civil exchange of views.

Quote from TOC’s “About Us”
“Here at TOC, Singaporeans share their honest opinions.

TOC does not pretend to be right all the time in what we say. We are open to corrections and even criticisms. It is our hope that through the honest and civil exchange of views, all of us will benefit and perhaps take public discourse, especially on controversial issues, to a higher and mature level.”

COOS has just made the rest of the moderate Anglican community look bad. And they’re still chest thumping about it.

Um, we don’t live in the biblical world ya know, Pastor. I literally cringed while reading this article. The irony and contradicting points stood out like a sore thumb. Yet the 800 people did not question it.

Gahment subtle warnings just the tip of an iceberg. Would not be surprised if Vivian & WKS are now coordinating on the quiet of possible scenarios that could develop if COOS flexes its muscles too much. Which it has already with the wo/man on the street.

The other religions do not harp on & on about homosexuality becos they have a respect for human beings. Good for them!

As for COOS, well it borders on arrogance, that its their way or the highway for them.

If gahment’s subtle warning is not enough, then its up to WKS’s ministry to swing their pendulum very hard to knock the COOS pastor down. And if it comes, it will be very sudden & swift.

In response to #18) vei,

You are agreeing with me that what the church is doing is imposing their beliefs on the state, albeit the good intentions that they have for the broader community.

In a multi-cultural society like Singapore’s, one does not do things like that. They incite religious tensions.

If every religion were to believe that good intentions is a good enough reason to interfere with matters of the state, I think history has pretty good indications of what would happen (Nazi Germany, for example).

Furthermore, the self-righteous imposition of beliefs goes against teachings in the Bible. He who pays attention to the speck in another’s eye misses out the log in his own eye, correct?

God exacts judgement, and Thio Su Mein and gang are not God(s).

Only God knows what is really going on.

The church is wrong to be involved because it is imposing its views based on its beliefs and values.

If the AWARE President and Exco are aware and part of this call to vote at their EOGM this Saturday, the authorities should step and take action against those involved !!! ; (

Hi vei:

I understand that judging people for judging others seems like an oxymoron, but in the Christian context (and in the Bible) , I believe no Christian can deny that judging others is wrong. COOS’ are entitled to their opinions on homosexuality but their actions point towards having a very clear bias and in trying to impose their judgemental beliefs on others, it seems very unbecoming of a church.

This is how the whole saga could be summed up.

Watch Part 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw215gE6r2k

Watch Part 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ3d3KigPQM&feature=related

#44:

Hi Duh,

thanks for your feedback. Personally, I feel that there is no such thing as a “TOC agenda”or a “TOC point of view”. In fact, I would think that even amongst the TOC editorial team and TOC writers, opinions vary. So perhaps your fear may be unfounded. Of course, this does not stop others from accusing us of having an “agenda.”

Nevertheless, we will take your suggestion into consideration :-)

well..i dont see anything wrong with that…the lau charbo exco has thrown in their gauntlet! what do u expect? Of course….josie and her pussy cats will call in their legion of armoured soldiers!!!!! Why is TOC taking side? let them fight it out!

If you support the Old Exco be sure to register at http://www.we-are-aware.sg There is a lot of supportive talk on blogs and in forums but it’s hard to know how many of those voices will be attending the EGM. Registering will also help them plan and organise the logistics for the day, and to make sure that the event goes as smoothly as can be expected under these circumstances.

There are postings saying how Christians are trying to impose their views on others.

In my opinion, the gay & lesbian activists were the ones who started it all. It’s not that most people are out to make life miserable for the gays & lesbians. It’s only when they try to impose their values & views on sexuality that the public is against.

In this AWARE saga, it has become clear that the old AWARE was slowly but surely promoting pro-gay & pro-lesbian activities and teachings. So, when they try to push their agendas, they have to accept that the vast majority will put put their foot down. It so happens that a group of Christian women were the first to do it, probably because they are more courageous and organised.

So please just accept the reality.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/141616/course-to-prevent-gay-expression

interesting read in bangkok post about monks who use cosmetics, pink bag, having sex etc.

Wow ! It has been a long time since there is any social excitement. Hats off to our female folks – despite the small membership and smaller number of women running it, news of “Aware” have topped national news. Excitement is swelling towards coming D-day saturday when voting will take place and Singapore women will choose. Let us hope that for all the drum ups, it will not fizzle out or be a no show.

As for guys, armchair and busy bodies comments are a plenty – unfortunely unless a sex change take place, none of any male can make a difference at the EOGM. So why are you guys wasting further your precious time – it is not time for you guys to form the “Male Aware”.
Kudos to our women. Hope that they will be many more female ministers in cabinet.

34) Jeremy Chua on April 27th, 2009 8.44 am

Yes Jeremy, that is exactly what I mean.

To observ:

If people wish to ‘put their foot down’ on AWARE’s purported pro-homosexual agenda, there are proper, ethical ways to do it. Not by hijacking the organization. The lack of respect the new guard has shown will likely manifest as a lack of respect for their views as well.

@ 37) yipeng on April 27th, 2009 9.10 am

i wish there are more christians like you. i don’t have the stats on how many in singapore are moderates, as opposed to fundamentalists. as for the definition, i believe this one is accurate: “any follower of Christ who believes that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and who believes in its literal interpretation and fundamental teachings”, source http://www.victorious.org/chur21.htm

iirc there was recent ST article (ah, but the neutrality of ST is disputed, isn’t it? maybe they fake the satistics) that says there are more fundamentalists than otherwise. somehow it suits the singaporean mentality.

now for the thinking christian, please help me understand this paradox: the bible does prescribe capital punishment for sodomy, doesn’t it? and people believe it is “black and white” and to be interpreted literally. so how? no, i don’t hate you, it’s nothing personal, but my bible tells me i have to put you to death.

yipeng, by definition you’re not a fundamentalist because you temper the more bloodthirsty laws with the tolerance clause.

35) Yipeng:
“When it is, what constitutes imposing?”

Specifically in the above context: When you cannot answer ‘yes’ when asked on National TV if you would extend a helping hand to a lesbian.

37)
“In the words of C. S. Lewis: “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”

Now you just have to realise that people see the Sun at different times (the world is round), and at different places, the Sun may appear differently (due to smog?). My point? something as basic as looking at the Sun have many different perspectives.

#53, I agree with you except for ” In this AWARE saga, it has become clear that the old AWARE was slowly but surely promoting pro-gay & pro-lesbian activities and teachings.”

I give them the benefit of doubt.

But I can understand why their actions in the area of sex and sexuality can cause concern.

I’m personally appalled if OG said anal sex for gals is normal. Can the OG explain the context of this remark?

Many prostitutes will not offer this service because they find it degrading or painful. Many men will not ask their wimmin partners because they know their partners rather not oblige because they find it degrading or painful.

And AWARE says it is normal for gals? I hope its views were misrepresented or taken out of context.

Can’t they see it. NARTH is a secular organisation? They put on a sheep skin and infiltrate a secular organisation. That is exactly what is happening with AWARE!! If they feel that the bible is sufficient justification for their view, why put on a false secular label to push their agenda?

To Mrthinktalk 21#)

You said to TOC:-”You are creating a hate a church and christianity campaign without realising it!”

How can you allowed COOS to critisise homosexuality and disallowed gay and lesbian to criticise COOS for inciting hate on them?” Was it fair in a democratic world that only one voice is allowed to be heard?

Like many people who wrote against the stand of COOS not because these people hate christianity but they hate people who are too self focussed on beliefs that they went all out shooting and attacking others openly and did so knowingly the sensitivity of our multifaceted society.

Are they any different from OSAMA Bin Laden who dissagreed with western’s faith and than start throwing bombs to bring his message acrosss. Same analogy applies to COOS who incited hatre and fear and started throwing “bombs” at anti-believable in the name of GOD. Worst statement I have ever heard was to criticise and judge our nation for going beyond the line drawn by GOD, again! Is COOS survival motivated by always judging other people lifestyle, other religion actions, our country’s belief, inorder to keep their church alive.

If that is their strong & only agenda of anti-sexuality and whatnot, than fine, please leave AWARE alone and keep your faith within your church compound. We hate self-serving people moving around and preaching their mission to our people, our nation and turned it into another pro-christianity focus group.

I still want my country to be a multi-relgion place to live in where everyone can accomodate each other without fearing each other because of different belief.

[...] Source: The Online Citizen [...]

[...] writer would like to acknowledge TheOnlineCitizen as the news [...]

@ 18) vei on April 27th, 2009 5.33 am

“So what’s the beef with ‘because the Bible says so’? Everyone has the right to choose who or what to believe in.”

firstly, i’d admit that the comments at #1 was made on the spur of the moment. if something i said has offended you, or is unclear, i do apologise.

maybe you’d be so kind as to refer to my answer to yipeng on #57? it is relevant to this discussion.

“Consider what you base your opinions on. ‘because the media says so? Because populist theories say so?’ … but am pointing out that everyone bases their opinions on something, or someone.”

agreed. we all base our opinions on something, or someone. perhaps the difference is in the individual’s choice to prioritise which is more important in his/her worldview.

for myself, i believe my mind first. cogito, ergo sum and all that, ya know? (you can accuse me of solipsism and all that, but we can always go back to the basics, like, prove to me that you exist for real).

my mind gets its inputs directly from my sensory organs, and indirectly from news of events that has been experienced by other people. often, my mind also gets supplied by predigested material, i.e. other people’s opinions. now it is up to my mind to rank those bits of information and decide which are more relevant. the way my mind works, it ranks logic, rationality, practicality and fair-play pretty high.

i don’t know how your mind works. so i will not presume, and yes, everyone has the right to choose who or what to believe in. i believe i did not infringe upon your right to believe in the bible, should you choose to do so.

Observ and A Tan, fyi -

http://we-are-aware.sg/cse

tj,

what yipeng is saying she is a moderate but she keeps to the fundamentals teaching.
There is no way to say that you accept part of of it and that you are chrisitian or you believe the commonalities of all religion and say you are everything.
You have to be fundamental about your beliefs. The problem the word fundamnetalistsm is assocaited with violence and forcing others , imposing on others.
The problem is , you progay lifestyle are twisiting the words. If the below as quoted by you is not about fuanndamentalism I wonder what it is..
Just like you are followers of the progay life style AWARE that makes you a progay life style and you are fundamental about it.. Stop twisting and put words into the new AWARE.
You are anti new AWARE .
NB. i am NOT speaking on her behalf. I am just interpretating waht you quoted.

“i wish there are more christians like you. i don’t have the stats on how many in singapore are moderates, as opposed to fundamentalists. as for the definition, i believe this one is accurate: “any follower of Christ who believes that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and who believes in its literal interpretation and fundamental teachings”, source http://www.victorious.org/chur21.htm“

To #53 observ,

you are coming from the default Christian point of view, and so you view ‘accepting homosexuality in society’ an imposition.

Let me make this clear: such is not an imposition.

The GLBT community never asked for Christians to be gay nor have they sought to criminalise their expression of worship. The community is simply fighting for equal rights in a society that discriminates against them.

They are neither compromising the value systems of the Christians nor interfering with their lives. Let the Christians do their own thing, while the GLBT community do their’s.

Why would the COOS chaps tolerate their Buddhist, Muslim and Hindu friends while speaking so strongly against the GLBT community? Why the double standard? They are picking on a minority group – where is the integrity in that?

Creating a society is a process of uncomfortable accommodations, and everyone has to respect that process. A public outlash is well-deserved for people who don’t, and if those new guard ladies do not understand this concept, then civil society participation is not something they are going to be able to manage yet.

I’m not a learned constitutional lawyer like Thio Li Ann, but here’s some food for thought. The Christian lawyers among you can feel free to rebut where necessary, but do mind this is a forum for public consumption.

In Singapore, we do protect the right to profess, practice and propagate your religion. This is under Art 15(1) of the Singapore Constitution. But this right is heavily qualified in Art 15(3): this right does NOT authorise any act contrary to any law on public order (among others). Which means religious activities in Singapore are constrained by law, so as to maintain public order. This can be through the Sedition Act, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) and the Societies Act (among others).

How have the courts interpreted the right to religion? Ex-Chief Justice Yong ruled, in a landmark 1994 case, that “the sovereignty, integrity and unity of Singapore are undoubtedly the paramount mandate of the Constitution. Anything, including religious beliefs and practices, which tend to run counter to these objectives must be restrained” .
This was re the deregistration of Jehovahs Witnesses, as well as the blanket ban on their publications (much like the recent banning of seditious Chick tracts).

The Hon CJ’ s ruling must be right. Singapore is multi racial and multi religious. We have balanced these competing tensions for so long in a spirit of tolerance and live-and-let-live. If COOS irresponsibly urges its supporters to reshape public policy or the civil law, which affects all Singaporeans, into the image of its holy texts and world view, then naturally, won’t all other religions be provoked and feel disaffected? Not to mention the non-religious who don’t believe in the bible?

Here are some nuggets from the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act:

s8.(1) and (2): The Minister may make a restraining order against any priest, monk, pastor, imam, elder, office-bearer or any other person of authority in any religious group or institution or any member thereof , if the Minister is satisfied that that person has committed or is attempting to commit any of the following acts. These include:
(a) causing feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups;
(b) carrying out activities to promote a political cause, or a cause of any political party while, or under the guise of, propagating or practising any religious belief;
(c) carrying out subversive activities under the guise of propagating or practising any religious belief; or
(d) exciting disaffection against the President or the Government while, or under the guise of, propagating or practising any religious belief.

As well as the Sedition Act, s3(1):

A seditious tendency is a tendency:
(b) to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore;
(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.

“39) Peace on April 27th, 2009 9.29 am
First , i don’t see anything wrong COOS garnering support for the EOGM.”

Of course, you do not see anything wrong.

More juices are beginning to spill out more and more as day by day goes by. As a person selling fruit juices, we can understand that you have to adjust your story / explanation to fit the changing juices. Do not worry, we understand. We have understood all along from the first day when only a single insignificant drop started to spill – when people like you were crying foul. The aftermath only confirmed the inkling that it has been indeed a tsunami behind of these juices.

I want to know what the Education Ministry is doing now that it is aware that
there are Aware programmes in schools on homosexuality that can go terribly wrong for some children. The government position on the gay issue, as I understand it, is to let sleeping dogs lie — as long as there is no activism to promote the cause. What’s happening in our schools has breached that understanding.

People are getting abit confused. One problem with fundamentalism is that it reads the scripture literally and stifled new interpretations in the light of new emprirical evidences (in the words of christians, these new empirical evidences can be called new revelations from God.)

@ 47) yw on April 27th, 2009 10.28 am

Certainly, I do agree that COOS is extending its beliefs. I am merely pointing out that by disagreeing with what COOS is doing, you are also extending your beliefs, I’m sure with good intentions too.

So the issue really isn’t about whether extending/ imposing beliefs is right, but rather if the belief itself is right, moral, beneficial (which doesn’t necessarily mean utilitarian).

And definitely, if the belief is erroneous, it should be stamped out. Or at least not institutionalised and legislated into a nation’s policies.

Lol yeah Thio and co. are not God, but God does use emissaries. The Church is the Body of Christ. The key then is to ascertain what truth is, whether it’s really God speaking or if they’re just plain deluded. Besides as far as I know the part about God exacting judgement largely refers to vengeance/ revenge on the part of those who have been harmed, not so much of setting order in the world.

@ 37) yipeng on April 27th, 2009 9.10 am

I absolutely agree that Christians should not hate the sinner. Christians are no better than non-Christians, but for the grace of God. We are no less wretched, we have no more claim to God except that we believe that Christ is Saviour and Lord- which is really the pivot of Christianity. For a Christian to be self-righteous is wrong. Love is key, but love isn’t about tolerating every form of behaviour. If you love your kid you won’t want him/her to do something against your will. By definition, there are boundaries in love, which are defined by God’s standards.

I have homosexual friends and even relatives, but I don’t hate them or stigmatise them or discriminate against them. Do I condone their behaviour? No. But do I condone lying, stealing, hating? No. Do I deride and stigmatise the people who do the above? No. I am as liable to fall to any of these things as they are, depending on my natural disposition. That doesn’t mean I can’t disagree with what they do, and I disagree because the Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong:

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. [1 Cor 6:9-10]

@ 42) Julio on April 27th, 2009 9.46 am

Apparently, lobsters and shrimps are rather bad for one’s health, since they are scavengers. That’s partially why the Bible laid down laws to protect the people from poor health. Sure they taste good, but are unhealthy. As an update, Acts 10 relates an account where God tells Peter it’s okay to eat ‘unclean’ animals. There is much more to be said about this subject, but I’ll keep it short for the sake of hopefully, brevity. Also, if you refer to the verse quoted in above segment, homosexuality is still very much condemned in the New Testament, along with a whole host of other things.

As for ordaining female pastors… it is a very controversial subject, what with the various feminist movements that have spread everywhere. I have one thing to say and that is that one has to distinguish between what the Bible teaches and what the people who purportedly believe in the Bible practice. Teachings and practices can be two very different things, though they ought not to be. Karl Marx himself (no, I’m not advocating communism) said that ‘i am not a Marxist’ if Marxism were something that deviated from what he originally proposed. People are not infallible, Christians included.

—
Seems hopeless? Can’t be sexually immoral, can’t get drunk, can’t swindle… Yeah, pretty much, if there isn’t a Saviour in the picture. And Jesus my Lord and Saviour and Friend can definitely handle that and so much more. Really, it’s about a relationship with Him more than dogma and rituals.

Anyway, I’m glad we can all be civil about this.

These pastors should be arrested under ISA by using religion to achieve their motive.

“It so happens that a group of Christian women were the first to do it, probably because they are more courageous and organised” : observ.

I have only two questions on the ‘courageous’ and ‘organised’ action of the new exco. Is this the Christian way? Is this what Jesus would have done?

wrt my remark about Marx in the previous post… i realise it was silly to put Marx and commnunism necessarily in the same breath. so i state that i was not at that point advocating Marxism or communism or socialism or really, any form of political ideology. was quoting him to demonstrate a different point.

This is definitely extremism. And it is very disappointing to see christians doing such a thing…which is totally unkind, selfish and self-righteous and these totally oppose the message of the Cross. Sigh.

“66) yw on April 27th, 2009 12.11 pm
To #53 observ,
you are coming from the default Christian point of view, and so you view ‘accepting homosexuality in society’ an imposition.
Let me make this clear: such is not an imposition.”

Based on newspapers reports (which was not refuted) AWARE did not just teach students to ‘accept homosexuality in society’.
No, AWARE was teaching students that “Homosexuality is perfectly normal”; “Anal sex is healthy or neutral”; “Use the term partner rather than husband” …….
If this is not imposing the gays & lesbians’ point of view, I don’t know what is.

By the way, this point of view is NOT the default Christian point of view (as what gay & lesbian activists have been vehemently trying to label). It is the view held by the vast majority of the public. Especially by parents of school students who trusted MOE and AWARE to do the right and decent thing as far as sex education is concerned.

WeiHan, you have been quoting the Bible without knowing what the Bible is all about and what it teaches. You have been questioning the faith of Christians without understanding what faith is. Why are religious followers called faithfuls? Why do we describe one as a follower of faith? Why does one exercise his/her faith?

Until you have the grace to understand what faith is, you will continue to walk in darkness and make a fool of yourself by your comments.

“68) gemami on April 27th, 2009 12.37 pm
“It so happens that a group of Christian women were the first to do it, probably because they are more courageous and organised” : observ.
I have only two questions on the ‘courageous’ and ‘organised’ action of the new exco. Is this the Christian way? Is this what Jesus would have done?”

I think you are barking up the wrong tree. It could have been any other group of concerned women (parents of students?). Don’t emphasize on the ‘Christian’ part, but on the fact that some courageous women stood up to do the right thing.

As for your last question, perhaps if you do a bit of your own searching, the answer may be clear to you.

Dear Peace

I would say that as a xtian of over 15 years, the actions and words of COOS have scared me to no end. Firstly I am a xtain but liberal in political ideology and beliefs. What has struck me since my undergrad days was how “secular” in out look and beliefs the NT was and how the American xtian right has sought to use religion as a basis for political power.

Two thoughts or two stories about Jesus amongst the romans who were at that tiime a) occupiers, b) evil taxers c) believing in idols. Firstly as part of his temptation by the devil , he was offered political power or control, he refused, the mob sought to make him king, he to refused, when asked by the pharisee;s whether he payed taxes to ceaser, he answered yes saying pay ceaser his dues and pay god his dues to, He in my view never sough political position to push his position, he could have but did not.

The Church in its early days never sought positions of influence but instead sought to influence those in position.

No one is against xtians in political positions, or muslims or buddhist but because the faiths disagree themselves fundamentally on issues of the definition of god, what is allowable or not, it is best to have faith but govern from a secular position.

Would you want say the Muslims to errr take over the SPCA in the manner of Josie and her idiots and then claim that it will not take care of stray dogs because they are not Halaal but cats alone ? Would you want a muslim principle to ban the eating of pork in the schools under his charge ? Or for that matter HIndu’s beef ? In essence this is what COOS has done, it has chosen to challenge the secular state based on its own moral judgements, and please remember what they have done , other organized religions can do to . THAT is why COOS is scary and why IT must be stopped and I am saying this as a Xtian

COOS and Darth Thio are on a collision course with the government on this issue. They have been warned by Ministers and one DPM. They should take heed.

Locke

“but on the fact that some courageous women stood up to do the right thing.”

Standing up to do the right thing must also be done ETHICALLY. Why do you think so many people are pissed?

63) tj on April 27th, 2009 11.51 am

Thank you for your generous response, and I apologise in return if I seemed offended. I don’t write in a sophisticated manner and so my tone might be misconstrued as a result.

Since you seem to be a student of philosophy, why not give the Bible a go? It’s got its own form of philosophy and wealth of knowledge. Believing in something doesn’t mean one has to sacrifice his/her mind. Let the Bible speak for itself. Read it, understand it, critique it. If it turns out to be faulty, you don’t exactly lose out since it’s new knowledge and you sharpen your mind along the way. If it turns out to be something worth your attention, well, score!

And I assure you, I am real, and not merely a figment of your imagination. To be fair, sometimes I wish I were part of the general imagination and not really .. corporeal… But no, I am very decidedly real.

why cant those christian conservatives go set up their own organisation and stop going around to poke their nose into other people’s busines… fancy saying they are savign the world…. they are merely disrupting the lives of many…

what black n white are you toking about? Bible is just a book written by SOMEBODY.. everybody can write and say this is a religion…. he said women are not supposed to wear jeans.. why are women doing so now.. its A GREAT SIN!

WHO said homosexuality is wrong.. its just a social CONFORM…. learn to accept others…..

schools taught us to accept diversity and learn to be respectful.. i dont think christians are doing this at all…. they ought to be banished instead then??

HI observ,

How is it the wrong tree?

You brought us along the notion that the pro-gay and pro-lesbian activities of the old guards, and their agenda toward this end were the underlying reason why the majority had to put their foot down. I do not think this is a fair statement to make.

You have been seeing and is continuing to see, by the turn of events, from the revelation by Thio, and over the weekend, by the COOS pastor, that this has become a Christian crusade to right what they deemed as a social stigma, a society illness.

It is unfair, when the vast majority, though I agree may be offended by the undertakings of the old AWARE toward the issue on homosexuality, myself included, were able to take an ‘accepting’ disposition, unlike those in the small congregation of COOS, who found it necessary to be courageous and to organised such a takeover, in the name of ‘the majority’ and in the name of God.

This has become the ‘reality’ you are asking those on the other side to accept. Do you realise this?

I take offence to your implication that it was not done ethically.They were consititutionally elected. Anyone dispute that? I am pissed off with you, and the others who pissed on their fathers’ tomb. Zefly, Go and hug a tree.
Go and get a dick tionary and look up the meaning of the word ‘ethically’ and your other pissed off can help you to understand. Ok? go fly a kite and hug a coconut tree.

//WeiHan, you have been quoting the Bible without knowing what the Bible is all about and what it teaches. You have been questioning the faith of Christians without understanding what faith is. Why are religious followers called faithfuls? Why do we describe one as a follower of faith? Why does one exercise his/her faith?

Until you have the grace to understand what faith is, you will continue to walk in darkness and make a fool of yourself by your comments.//

I don’t agree with you. At least I know even among christians, there are differing interpretations for the bible.

[...] TOC has revealed yesterday that Church of Our Saviour (COOS) had part in encouraging its members in the takeover of AWARE. Surely, COOS was not alone in this, but its involvement must have played [...]

@58) lobo76 on April 27th, 2009 11.15 am 35) Yipeng:

“Specifically in the above context: When you cannot answer ‘yes’ when asked on National TV if you would extend a helping hand to a lesbian”

Did that happen in the AWARE saga? Sorry much of a TV person… xenophobia?

Mr Peace,

The legal-is-not-equal-to-ethical thread has been mentioned in many other posts. If you strongly believe you are right, you can debate logically, point out the fallacies in the arguments. That is how a civil discourse is conducted. Please do not throw tantrums. You are reinforcing the stereotype that people who believe in the inerrant word of God are foaming rabid irrational red necks.

My father is still alive so it would be a fallacy to say I pissed on his tomb. Besides, in land scare Singapore, cremation and having one’s remains housed in a colubarium is a more likely scenario.

Finally, research has shown that hugging a tree is good for releasing endorphins which will make one calmer and less angry. You can join me in the tree-hugging. It’s good for coping with anger-issues.

Hugs

Ah, so you see WeiHan, you have been bodering yourself with ‘interpretations’ without the basic understanding of what ‘faith’ is.

I share a little summary here which may be of interest to you: http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/04/bloggers-maturity-demonstrated-in-aware-saga/

btw, glad you did not take offence to my post.

This is the evidence. Read what
82) loneron on April 27th, 2009 1.02 pm , says.This lonely boy or girl says homosexuality is taught in the school . He or she also ‘read’ that the bible says women wearing jean is a sin. …… is a social CONFORM ? What is this conform to what ? You can see the loneliness gays are facing. They don’t conform.They have their own life style. They are ‘rejected’ because no straight male would accept their advances.That is why they feel lonely..
Gays can be accepted and welcome but not as sexual partners, not anal sex or oral sex which many find repugnant.I don’t understand why gays have strong sexual urge and randy. If you look at spinsters , do they go round looking for sex? or Bachelors? Why can’t they abstain? is sex all they want? This puts off alot of people otherwise gays are alright as friends for males.

I see, but fail to understand, how supporters of the new AWARE and COOS can condone the methods used to achieve their agendas. Is it not obvious that their actions – while legal – are in contrast with the simple social graces of tolerance and civility? I could be the staunchest opponent of homosexuality and fight it as much as I can but doing it evasively (in the beginning) and now brazenly (in the name of the Lord) is plain disrespectful.

ethical: defined as conforming to accepted standards of social or professional behavior

The ladies of the new guard seem to be well educated professionals who ought to know how our society works. But they seem to be unaware of the social and professional standards expected of them when they wish to speak up.

Even on the nature of bible, christians have differing understanding. See this quote from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

“Many Christians, Muslims, and Jews regard the Bible as inspired by God yet written by a variety of imperfect men over thousands of years. Many others, who identify themselves as Bible-believing Christians, regard both the New and Old Testament as the undiluted Word of God, spoken by God and written down in its perfect form by humans. Still others hold the Biblical infallibility perspective, that the Bible is free from error in spiritual but not scientific matters.”

Yes…but of course, certain factions will assert that their version of interpretation is more legitimate than others and they called that faith.

It’s scary when blind faith takes over and people just believe everything written in books (Bible, or any book, for that matter) without critical thinking.

Please pause and think whether what is written in the book benefits the society and all. If it does, follow and uphold it. If not, throw it out of the window, please!

65) Peace on April 27th, 2009 12.09 pm

Yes Peace is not speaking on my behalf. First of all, I am a GUY. ;)

Peace is partially correct. I wouldn’t call myself a fundamentalist… but almost everyone has something that we believe in.

For e.g. I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God… This is a Christian fundemental (haha!) and I have my own reasons… but that does not mean that I believe that all Bibles are well translated, nor that there have never been copy-errors. Neither do I believe in the infallibility of bible interpretation.

#84) Peace,

That is no way for one who names himself as the bearer of peace to react. I know it can be very frustrating to get people to understand your point of view when somehow they seemingly get distorted further at every attempt.

No thanks to the statements coming out from the new exco and the weekend preaching by the COOS pastor. No thanks also, when the Christian perspective always hold sway to dissenting viewpoints from non-believers.

So, whether you like it or not, this is going to be your battle. Know the size of the mountain before you, and keep focus on your line of argument. Your conviction and your belief, carried out with full honesty, will be enough to make you the person that you are. We have to be righteous even as we expect others to be righteous.

For me, even as I do not agree with some of the arguments here who argue for the pro-gay and pro-homosexual camps, I too, cannot give credit to a group of people who come in the name of God and who had connived to mislead, to lie and to conquer at all cost. Even the Almighty Jesus Christ did no such thing but subjected himself to the ways of the world and was crucified for it.

Be patient. Keep the peace and let your Christian love be the hallmark of your argument. If not, walk away before it hurts your soul. This is just but an online forum where diverse views are shared – yes shared. There is no winner and no loser. The winner is the one who learn the most from such sharings.

Shalom! to you.

Back to the topic of AWARE, I personally think that the New Exco has lost this PR battle. Even if they win, the events that have transpired are likely to close doors for AWARE rather than open them. Is it really worth it to press on?

Hello Journalists!
I think you guys did a great job reporting on COOS’ church service. I felt it was balanced and really showed the head pastor’s stand on the issue.

I think gay people and their supporters now have source material from your report to make decisions about the AWARE saga and COOS.

I think the COOS people now have a strong third party report to refer people to rather than to state their stand when called to explain.

well done TOC.

It seems that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would have lots of fans here. Why can’t the neo-conservatives adopt a live and let live attitude ? Do you know why alot of people hate moderate christians like us? It is because of such arrogant acts by this church to force their beliefs down people’s throat. Please leave AWARE alone and go set up your fruit cake society where your own kind will attend.

Now, I am real mad with MOE and the old AWARE. Did MOE inform parents that the sexual education programme in the schools teaches it is normal and alright to behave homosexually ? Are there policy makers in the MOE who are pro gay? I send my young daughter to school and I dun intend for her to think it is fine to be a homosexual. Something is really wrong with our people this days…..
Thank God, we have some godly people who came out to exposed this perversion issue otherwise who will ever know how far this perversion will go on…. <:(

Hi TOC,

I’m amazed you gained entry into the Church Service! Were you granted access or was this a covert sleuthing on “TOC’s part? Great work.

amid very good points on the issues in the limelight, the core issue is this “should a religiously motivated group go about stealthy taking over organisations, lie all the way till the truth flies in their face (about their hidden agenda)?”

owing to the borderless nature of religious believes & the danger it entails, to say this is Aware’s internal problem for them to iron things out sets a dangerous precedence.

if a 9/11 style attack on rival factions place of worship does happen, by then, “i told you so” is too late.

#79 well said. The real issue at hand is not homosexuality. It is the protection of our secular nature in a society that has many religions. If one group decides to be moral vigilantes, wats stopping the rest to pursue their own “morally-derived” aims? This will tear Singapore society apart.

84) Peace on April 27th, 2009 1.31 pm
“They were consititutionally elected. Anyone dispute that? ”

The problem with people like you is that you feel so grand and “above board” once the constitutional (or legal) aspect is being taken care off.

Likewise, calling for a vote of no confidence is constitutionally allowed also and this so-called legally done tic-for-tac should constitutionally be ok also. care to disagree. so what has been achieved, fighting for women or fighting among women ?

To : #17

They are not proselytizing ? The naive you think they are not ??

It is only the begining of a grand national agenda. First, power-grab in concert, then, pushing of their agenda under cover of a legitamate organization and seen to be ‘helping’ . What’s wrong you may say. Then, increasing their numbers by fear and slow ly brain-washing of the needy, poor and directionless souls. Ultimately, be in power at governmental positions. Then, a huge debale happens….. to take over the govenment. Then ? You come up with the rest………………………………………………Indeed, a scary thought in multi-cultural, multi-religious Singapore, our homeland.

peace to all….just wait for the next election….seriously

The claim that the Bible says woman or Christians cannot wear jeans is absurd. The Old Testament (and Torah) does instruct the Isrealites not to mix two types of thread in clothing. The meaning of this is a mystery but likely to be a representation of the Isrealites seperation to be “clean” or holy as God is holy. It is not binding for Christians to avoid wearing jeans.

Cheers!

What the f**k is a church getting involved with a civic organisation like Aware.

Dont’ they have enough having already to deal with their god, satan, heavan and hell !

93) is this tic-for-tac constitutionally ok ? I guess so. on April 27th, 2009 2.52 pm ,

sure, the calling for EOGM is constitutional. This provision is invoked when a loser feels there had been some unethical approach or the election was rigged. Even, there wasn’t , the loser can still cite anyhting to justify having one.Isn’t this typical of a loser syndrome? or childish syndrome?
Well, after seeing so many anti new AWARE postings, even theonlinecitizen is siding the old women>. Many of my posing s were not published, of course it is the onlinecitizen’s right.
I am not surprised in this EOGM many of the oldies will call for amendment to the constitiution. May i suggest to the oldies to change the rules for takeover or election rules to avoid stealth hijack.
1.. any party inside or outside must give 3 month’s notice of a takeover
2 . they must give reasons and justify the take over
3. they must give the incumbent oldies a head start to recognise and respect
their frailty and their long service
4.no fundamentalist christian allowed, only those with funds
5. at the election the onus falls on the contenders to give a counter program or alternative program to the existing ones.
6. the candidates must have minimum 3 years experience in a civil organisation dealing with women issues and gay issues
7.homophobic candidates are banned form contesting
I hope my suggestions are acceptable to many of you., proxies of the old woman club.

99) is this tic-for-tac constitutionally ok ? I guess so. on April 27th, 2009 2.52 pm

84) Peace on April 27th, 2009 1.31 pm
“They were consititutionally elected. Anyone dispute that? ”

Josie “I was only being polite” Lau and Maureen “I joined after reading a Constance Singam interview” LIED to the world on national TV. Anyone dispute that?

Putting all else aside, is this ethical? I suppose it depends on the meaning of “ethical”.

Looking forward to the EGM, I have some concerns that these New Exco having won power through er…”democratic” means (with full and frank disclosure of their positions, clear exposition of their inclusive platform given on an honest basis in accordance with the teachings of the master teacher Darth Thio – c’mon Singaporeans, let her teach you ignorant savages), they will not allow the democratic process to flow.

Up to today, the agenda for the EGM is not out. It was supposed to be out by last Saturday (did someone mention efficient and new exco in the same breath?). I hear that they are trying to exclude the vote of no confidence from the agenda, reducing it to a discussion item ( see how important lawyers and teachers are?) or maybe not even on the agenda. Sigh. What is Singapore coming to?

HT,

Karl Rove would be proud…

#71 – Vel – absolutely agree with you. I’m a Christian, and I think what you’ve just said is spot on.

“- which is really the pivot of Christianity. For a Christian to be self-righteous is wrong. Love is key, but love isn’t about tolerating every form of behaviour. If you love your kid you won’t want him/her to do something against your will. By definition, there are boundaries in love, which are defined by God’s standards.”

that is quite true – i think that everyone often confuses love with simply “accepting” everything, even something that is not as good (as it should be). but really, if something isn’t as good as it should be (and you love good, assumingly) then if you love e person you’d want him to change and be good. because you love him too much to leave him in a bad state. for eg if you see a person hurting inside, you’d want to help him, to love him, in order that he’ll be well.
and maybe that’s the essense of Christ’s love. we were all sinners, yes, everyone of us, including me, i’m a filthy sinner. but Christ loved me enough not to let me stay in that state that i was in by dying on the cross and coming to save me and love me and be my friend, to forgive e sins that was killing me and healed my wounds. and that’s true love – coz i was in a bad state and hurting – but he came to me brought me to himself and enfolded me and healed me coz He loved me.

i think that with regard to homosexuality, maybe it may be helpful if we looked at it this way – maybe it just isn’t as good as it should be, it just isn’t as pure, or good, as it should be, as perfect as it should be, which by definition if you believe in God will be waht God created. and because it isn’t that good, or pure, if we love these pple who are in such a position where they havent been able to free themselves from what is not as good to reach something that is better for themselves, then understandably if pple love them enough, then they’d want to help them coz they love them.
because perhaps they know how wonderful a life it can be with a heterosexual partner and be involved in a loving, lasting, marriage that is full of commitment love and joy. and they just want to share it, to give it to those pple whom they love so that they may expeirence it as well.

of course, this is founded on the Christian belief that we were made to be heterosexual and not homosexual. if you didn’t believe that, then of course everything above wouldn’t make sense. but ultimately, of course i believe the above, but i dont think i can convince everyone that that is the case. i can’t do it – it is beyond me, and beyond everyone else. i suppose only God can do something like that. arguing and belitting the homosexuals will only be counterproductive, because it will just fuel hatred in their hearts for the Christians which is definitely not what God wants.
i think we should learn from what Christ did. love e sinner. spend time with him. have a healthy interest in the person, GLBTs or anything like that. love. when Christ was around, he spent time with the prostitutes who were hurting, who were lonely – even though Christ did tell her to flee from your sinful ways. mary magdalene, a faithful follower of Jesus, was indeed a prostitute – and she was forgiven much, and that’s why she loved Christ so much that she was the first person to go to Christ’s tomb on the 3rd day when He rose from the dead because she desperately longed to see HIm out of love for Him, coz He was the one who freed her from her misery and desparation. it is a natural human response. so maybe we should just learn to love and be good to people.

that’s why i think perhaps it wasn’t the best way for the new exco of aware to take over the entire organisation. it seems that perhaps they did not have the moral blameworthiness that they should have had. those pple who say that it puts the Christians in a bad light and puts Christianity in a bad light have a valid point, in that the way the committee was taken over was a bit under-the-blanket, a sort of coup, if you like. but of course, that’ sassuming that they really came in, all full-force, stealth-like, and voted in the new exco. if new information surfaces which shows that it was all voluntary and there was no coup-like maneuvre, then we may judge them differently. but the thing is, this takeover/coup doesn’t seem like something done with love, patience, kindness, self-control, gentleness, faithfulness, meekness – it seems a bit …. cunning. hmm.

Peace,

Live up to your name and live in peace.
Go, by the grace of G-d, in peace.
Rest.

Zefly

Your reference to Karl Rove is sadly, all too accurate.

The tactics we have seen which are to deny the truth (” ‘oh no, no, it wasn’t planned, really, trust me…”) , distract from the issue (“arrgghh it’s the Attack of the Killer Gay Tomatoes from Mars”), demonise the voices of reason (“how dare you disagree with me, you hater of public morals, do you know what you are doing to all the pure, pure teenagers in Singapore who would never ever think of sex if not for your evil ways”) and then to defy public opinion and play the martyr card (“why me? “). Along the way, “disinform” the gullible – lies about the AWARE programs are apparent. The postings on the ST forum are particularly virulent.

Someone mentioned Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh somewhere and sadly we see their local equivalents.

There is too much of these neo-conservative tactics and ideology being put in place to be coincidence and I fear that the worst is yet to be. Tactically, I see their moves as having secured a base through their treachery, these fundies will now hunker down and attempt to ride out the storm, to delay and obstruct any legal moves to remove them, knowing full well that public attention is fickle and will surely wane. The sad thing, this may well work.

The latest news I hear is that the venue for the EGM is now changed but not sure to where. Let’s see what unfolds next.

To commenters like Peace who argue that the AWARE takeover was ethical, I would suggest that you misunderstand the nature of civil society. A civil society group (especially in Singapore) is not just a forum or corporate shell in which individuals come and go at whim, and where they from time to time voice their own discordant views. it’s an established institutional voice in society, expressing the shared, cohesive views of a community of like-minded individuals, and having credibility and reach in virtue of being more than the sum of its individual members.

What TSM and her affiliates (using as neutral a term as I can) have done in taking over AWARE is to extinguish that established institutional voice, i.e. a liberal feminist viewpoint which happens to be GLBT-friendly. And because of that, the diversity of viewpoints in civil society suffers (because the views of the new Exco simply mirror the established views of many Christian churches and organizations). This in turn seriously compromises democratic debate, because a diverse civil society is necessary to represent the views of all citizens (individuals speaking alone do not have as much impact), and because citizens can fully exercise their rights to free speech and conscience only if they are exposed to a wide range of competing arguments and beliefs.

So whether the takeover conformed to AWARE’s constitution is really beside the point. Suppose just for a moment that an established conservative church could orchestrate an AWARE-like takeover of the leadership of a liberal, but equally well-established and prominent, church, because it disagreed with the latter’s more generous interpretation of the Bible. (Of course, for various reasons, this is highly improbable.) Might not a Christian who held conservative views nevertheless feel that such a takeover is bad for theological debate and discussion as a whole?

#106 No worries, HT, especially the ministers have come out to say that AWARE should settle the problem “according to their own rules, abiding with their constitution’ and that they would not interfere in this non-national issue.

I’ve mentioned in my first post that once the new exco’s hidden agenda is revealed, they will be expelled from AWARE.

The rules of the constitution are set by the founding members, right?
Exco members are executing officers empowered by founding members, right?
All past donations that made up majority of AWARE’s resources were meant to support the cause initiated by the founding members, right?

Thus, the founding members have the responsibility and the rights to amend the constitution to ensure that the organisation does not fall into the hands of dubious characters who have already incurred so much wrath from some, and instilled so much anxiety and fear on many.

I want to know if the Straits Times is going to follow up with this.

111) Orchid on April 27th, 2009 5.05 pm

Unfortunately I don’t think it works that way. Let me explain. The founding members have no rights as “founding members” per se. Therefore they can’t change the constitution or remove any member, exco or otherwise.

The constitution of AWARE is actually very loosely drafted (25 years ago, fundies were just beginning) and seriously, who would have thought that anyone would want to hijack a civic organisation. Its therefore the members themselves who vote on the exco and on vote of no confidence. So essentially it’s a numbers game.

If you study election engineering, you can see that its about mobilising your supporters and getting them down to vote (as seen in the report on Shawn Tay’s call). AND preventing the other side from voting (note the usage of the element of surprise in the AGM – classic, wasn’t it?) In some elections, it could be even be blocking the road to the voting centre – I won’t give more tactics here – no point helping the enemy).

Yet another approach, if one is not sure about the numbers, is the brinksmanship game. It is hard to kick out the incumbent, especially if the incumbent has stupendously thick skin. So they can monkey around with the agenda, call off the meeting and just generally ignore the rules. Watcha gonna do about that? Huh? In your face. So what can you do? Take legal action – bring them to court. But that’s a long and expensive process. It takes years and there is so much emotional stress as well as costs. Very expensive. So just delay and distract until people get tired and public attention wanes. For the AWARE founding members, they are volunteers with day jobs and families and, besides, are simply not as aggressive and fanatical about their aims.

What then? The government steps in? I’ can’t decide if that’s a good thing or not. But as some have astutely pointed out, by then (and even now) AWARE may be damaged possibly beyond repair.

I sincerely hope I am wrong. I hope that in the face of so much public approbium, the new Exco take the path which is still open to them which is to resign. If their intention is bring this gay thing to the public attention, they have certainly made their point and succeeded. No doubt there will be a witch hunt at the MOE and a review of the syllabus.

But I fear that my first scenario is more likely. Tell me it ain’t so.

Fundie justification ‘Because you hate me, I must be doing something right.”

84) Peace on April 27th, 2009 1.31 pm I take offence to your implication that it was not done ethically.They were consititutionally elected. Anyone dispute that? I am pissed off with you, and the others who pissed on their fathers’ tomb. Zefly, Go and hug a tree.
Go and get a dick tionary and look up the meaning of the word ‘ethically’ and your other pissed off can help you to understand. Ok? go fly a kite and hug a coconut tree.

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

Is this How your church, mentor, elders, teaches you to behave in this manner?

Shameful !!!!!

98) Ah Teck on April 27th, 2009 2.32 pm

“Now, I am real mad with MOE and the old AWARE. Did MOE inform parents that the sexual education programme in the schools teaches it is normal and alright to behave homosexually ? Are there policy makers in the MOE who are pro gay? I send my young daughter to school and I dun intend for her to think it is fine to be a homosexual. Something is really wrong with our people this days…..
Thank God, we have some godly people who came out to exposed this perversion issue otherwise who will ever know how far this perversion will go on…. <:(”

Ah Teck, I share your concern. But could you be helpful and please let me know which part of the programme (ie which page, which paragraph) says so and what exactly does it say. I assume you have read the programme, right? Right?

“Black and White” My goodness! Such words only come out from fundamentalists. No need for interpretation, it is black and white…. If this is not literal reading of the BB then what is… And to think that this comes after Dr Vivian Balakrishnan asked for the non-mixing of religion and social politics!

With such support it means AWARE will not be secular anymore.

Either my fellow lady singaporeans can go down and vote the exco out of AWARE or it will be sidelined soon. Some other organisation will replace it in no time.

And wow! they are afraid of discrimination! They don’t feel that they are discriminating against others because it is Black and White and they come around telling people that they are being discriminated! And ya, who are the ones who want to meddle with AWARE stuff and now that its being exposed and they start telling people that a trap is set for them!

Dunno whether to laugh at such nonsense or be angry abt it!

HT and Zefly,

I think you may be right about the tactical moves for the attention shifting.
And like what HT has said, it may work since the homosexual issue is still sensitive in Singapore and it can generate enough buzz to help them tide over their agenda driven lowly coup. Such things do die down fast in Singapore. Unless of course the EGM throws out some oil over the waning fire…

@HT (#112), I share your pessimism. I think something has been irretrievably lost with the takeover, regardless of whether or not the ‘reverse takeover’ (or more precisely, the vote of no-confidence) succeeds at the EOGM.

It’s summed up by Constance Singam: “That trust is gone.” AWARE before was constituted, not simply by a formally-binding piece of paper, but by a distinctive culture and a shared purpose, reinforced by personal friendship and trust. I’m sure this is what every civil society group (and some companies, too) strives to achieve. Now, with the new Exco’s actions, it’s been reduced to just another organization, where the question of who should lead is purely one of head-counting and tactical manoeuvrings among rival factions.

One wonders whether the EOGM, or any government intervention, can really turn back the clock.

Utterly ridiculous – its like saying embrace christianity and oop ! ! abracadabra and all gays and lesbians transmogrify and become straight people – only nitwits believe him – he can do that if he is not so blessed with straight children.

Islam does not zealously proselytise and vehemently attempt to enforce their belief and thoughts upon other – unlike the co-ordinated and concerted effort by this church and its congregation in this AWARE takeover saga which certainly iirks many people. And we also have erstwhile so called intellect behind the scheme hor……

Attempt at scriptural quotes from this multi denominational religion – spawned out of its earlier various schismatic episodes is not going to convince all – as many wonder why reconciliation seems impossible within.

ALL RELI GION teach us to be good and upright and none of them shall attempt to wield supremacy over one another but rather adopt a syncretic approach amongst them.

Maybe itt would be better for this church and its congregation to start practising the recitation of our state ” Pledge of loyalty ” over and over again and try to comprehend its wordings and its obligations upon them – and not just plain verbatim regurgittations – hopefully , not doing it with empty skulls hor….

I tremble with excitement, looking forward to this Saturday’s EOGM.

#112 HT “It is hard to kick out the incumbent, especially if the incumbent has stupendously thick skin.”

Your words caused me to laugh, yet they’re sadly true.

I can’t explain, you can call it a hunch – the founding members will have a way as they garner support to see that social justice be preserved.

Stay optimistic and smile, guys!

Do not underestimate the unity of a church establishment in pushing key agendas. That’s explain why most churches are cash rich. In the AWARE saga, a lot of us do follow the story with much enthusiasm and there are much sympathy and support for the old guards as they were genuinely working for the betterment of women group. However, I am almost certain that the new exco will win in the next EOGM because church members are actively signing up as members and will vote for their own gang. I’m also pretty sure for the past 3 days or so, there was a sudden surge in comments that are pro-Josie et gang left by new bloggers. You can almost tell their are trying to convince you on one single topic and take your attention away from the broad mission & vision AWARE is actively driving.

To all blogers who are like minded, i urge you to sign up and counter the bully tactics Josie et gang deploying.

Hi Yipeng #104,

If you are not a non-fundamentalist Christian, don’t impose your views on fundamentalist Christian. They will hate you for it. They might accuse you of issuing death threats too. Even PAP appears liberal compared to these fundamentalist Christian.

Correction to my previous post:

Hi Yipeng #104,

If you are a non-fundamentalist Christian, don’t impose your views on fundamentalist Christian. They will hate you for it. They might accuse you of issuing death threats too. Even PAP appears liberal compared to these fundamentalist Christian.

Another denial ? Whatever they(that organisation) say are not to be trusted, based on their “wonderful” track records so far. Somemore drag other organisation into the water. Somemore ask why people so against them, why not others. This is call the boomerang effect lah…Throw stone at others, now kanna stoning by others. So easily get confuse, how to help the others. Better ask the old aware team to give them counseling.

Iliveinuk #17,

Atheism is not a religion, in the same way that not believing in fairies is a brand of “fairigion”. i.e. atheists do not see a god-shape hole in the sky, they just see the sky.

Joel #28,

Covert proselytizing might be more appropriate. And that’s the crux of the issue isn’t it?

HT #105,

Sweet.

after spending so much time reading all the comments, if there is one objective view i have to make, it’d be that the clash in fundamental beliefs is a pervasive problem in this society and before we understand and figure a way through this hindrance, no judgments should be made from either sides.

1. the christians are doing so and are justified in doing so because they truly believe that they are saving the community. think about their intentions, and i think its sufficient to justify their actions. besides, coos has been one of the few churches in sg which embraces homosexuals.. they aren’t harming people. they mean good.

2. the problem is how non-christians perceive this. secular people would have a completely different definition of what’s good and what’s not. if we are to say that christians should not impose their belief on us, should it not also hold that secularism should not undermine christian beliefs?

3. christians dont see themselves wrong, because of a different fundamental belief. non-christians sense violation, also because of a different fundamental belief.

i suppose the gov’s effort in making singapore work as a multi-religious country just isn’t working. there is no unity among religions, and religions being compulsive forces contradicts the idea of toleration.

Correction: Atheism is not a religion, in the same way that not believing in fairies is not a brand of “fairigion”.

when will all this aware things end?

maybe this sat.

LOL! If Thion is “Darth Thio”, then Derek Hong must be the “Sith Lord”.

I have heard his sermon captured on video. This pastor’s intellectual quality is hardly impressive. He said something to the effect “…not that we want to discriminate against homosexuals, it’s because the bible says so…” The Muslim bible also says Christians are infidels whose heads must be chopped off, I suppose Derek Hong will accept that?

@sllim (#125, 127):

Logically speaking, atheism is not a religion. But for purposes of politics and constitutional law, it should be and is classified as a religion, alongside secular humanism. It operates in the same logical space as traditional religions like Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc., in that it addresses the fundamental questions (metaphysical and existential). The proposition “There is no God” is closely associated with propositions like “X is God”, “Y is God”, and “A, B, C, D are gods”. A religion, in this sense, is a “comprehensive doctrine”… the ultimate anchor for a person’s beliefs and opinions. If so, every one has a religion, whether he or she admits it.

What’s the relevance of this, more generally?

I think we must make a distinction between secularism as a principle of political organization, and ’secularism’ as a religion. Atheists (and I count myself among them) must be careful that in advocating ’secularism’, they are not also imposing their own fundamental beliefs on other citizens. That would be a breach of the rights to freedom of speech and conscience.

My stance is this: secularism means separation of religion and ‘the State’. The State, however, does not include civil society or ordinary socio-political life. There is no objection to religious civil society groups co-existing with non-religious ones in the public square. As has been noted before, but often forgotten, Singapore is a secular state, but by no means a secular society; if anything, we are a religious, and religiously plural, society. Many religions flourish, but none is an ‘established’ religion sanctified by the State.

So the mere fact that certain religious people are participating in civil discourse, and expressing their religious views, does not offend the principle of secularism. There is no ‘invasion’ of religion into the public square, because religion is already represented there, and should continue to be.

What is offensive is when there is an attempt to snuff out one viewpoint in public discourse, which just so happens to be a secular one. AWARE has, I think, become closely associated with a moderate liberal feminism which also argues in favour of a more general principle of non-discrimination. It’s an established institutional voice, to which there are limited alternatives (so far as I know). When opponents to AWARE’s viewpoint mounted the takeover, they erased that viewpoint from civil society. Yes, citizens could in theory still air feminist/liberal views on an individual basis, but they will not have the reach and credibility of an institutional voice.

The AWARE saga is an instance of followers of a traditional religion seeking to drive out a competing ideology from the public square. Let’s not fall into the same trap by calling for traditional religion to be expelled in similar fashion. The values of tolerance and inclusiveness must work both ways.

No Homoooo please, it against the nature and idiot with brain short circuit are doing tat.

maybe after sat everyone will walk away as nothing has happened like in the t mobile show

Sllim,
atheisim IS a religion. Atheists don’t beleive in the exisitence of God. It is system of belief. Just like Buddhism , Buddhists don’t believe in the existence of god, is it not a religion?
Atheists can be fundamentalists too. Eg the communists are atheists and they impose that any belieiver in the existence of god shall be committed to hard labour or brain washing or rehabilitation..
Don’t accuse the Christians as fundamentalists as violent people. They are God loving people who love the gays and the lesbians but they hate their ways especailly they try to tell impressionable young people that it is alright to try, to try anal sex, to try oral sex after anal then drink juice. isn’t this recommended by Zefly? Worse , they are propagating in the school.and the old woman ’s club is helping them.
Zefly, continue to hug the coconut tree. Sllim is slim too.

Dear Lynette

Secular Society will always disagree with Religious Society. Pastor Hong is a BLITHERING IDOT and a rabble Rouser with false and misleading examples. To quote ” There is discrimination against Pro Family values” and then he cites the case of Miss USA and using that as justification for support for the Pussy bloody cats.

Firstly last I heard that example was in the US of A and Pastor Hong was in SINGAPORE and preaching to Singaporeans. Has anyone said or even suggested that He COOS COOS members Josie , Darth Thio etc cannot state or practice or support their Pro Family views ? Someone put it bluntly civil society and the country benefits from many views which often do not agree and have to agree to disagree. Has anyone objected so much to the existence of Focus on Faith that they tried to organize a coup to take it over ? LAst I checked nope and the problem hypocrisy and falsehoods are entirely one sided.

He cites examples where he agree’s with other religions on homosexuality, how about other issues which xtianity disagree’s with other religions about ? Xtians will shout secularism when some equally idiotic muslim school principle banned the serving of pork in his school.

The only way religions can live together when they disagree about so many things including the definition of god is for a secular space to exists. Pastor Hong wants that secular space to reflect his morality based on his belief in god. He should preach to his sheep , set up a competing faith based organization , but not support his flock or be part of sending the process of sending his flock to destroy secular organization with views contrary to his own. That and taking the rest of us for idiots as with his regards to his arguments.

Locke

//the problem is how non-christians perceive this. secular people would have a completely different definition of what’s good and what’s not. if we are to say that christians should not impose their belief on us, should it not also hold that secularism should not undermine christian beliefs? //

The problem is that the christians approach is based on BELIEF just like many people have SAID! The secularist approach is based on sound, new emprirical facts which suppports the logic reasoning behind.

For example, thinking that Earth is flat is a belief. Thinking that Earth is round isn’t just a belief but is a truth supported by empirical facts which people slowly uncovered. The problem with christians is that they can’t accept the truth and seek to twist the truth. So, it isn’t true that all beliefs are harmless. In fact, unsubstantiate religious belief tend to be harmful especially if they seek to impose them on everybody.

#126) lynette on April 27th, 2009 10.50 pm

We live in a secular, multi-racial society. Some of us are religious, some of us are not. There is enough space for everyone and we have to respect each other value system. I don’t try to “teach” you what is good for you according to my point of view unless you ask or agree for me to do so. That is why our society has thankfully been free from sectarian issues.

#126) lynette on April 27th, 2009 10.50 pm

Regarding your other points

1. I would not call Josie and the rest of her groupl Christians in the sense that they do not represent all the Christians in Singapore, many of whom do not agree with what they have done. At best, they represent their church and even they disavow that connection, saying that this has nothing to do with their church. It doesn’t matter whether they mean good or not. If I see you eating chocolate on the street and me, being an absolute stranger to you, came up to you and snatched it away from you because I feel that chocolate is bad for your health and I have only good intentions for you, you would probably be very upset with me to say the least.

2. Ah, but no one tried to impose their value system on this particular group of people. No one went to Josie’s place of worship and said what they were teaching was wrong. The logic you use is a very dangerous logic because it leads to a “you are either for us or against us” kind of thinking.

3. I can’t agree with you on this either. The people who are offended by this action (you will have noted that I have studiously avoided references to particular religions out of respect) are offended because of what they perceive as an unethical takeover of a civic organisation that has no religious affiliation, by people who are not upright, open or honest about their motives and whose action since their takeover has only vindicated the criticisms about them.

Let me give you one glaring example –

Ms (Maureen) Ong had previously denied an anti-gay agenda in a televised interview on Talking Point. She was asked by host Deborah Soon whether the takeover was driven by anti-gay sentiment.

Ms Ong had replied: “I for one had come across an article in the Straits Times that had interviewed Constance Singam and talked about AWARE and I felt that AWARE stood for something I believed in”.

But later she said :

“I came into the picture because somebody told me that something is happening that affects children and I am a mother of three children. I don’t want my children to say that oh, it’s all right to go and experiment with homosexuality, to experiment with anal sex, to experiment with virginity or the pill or even pre-marital sex”

However generous you want to be with semantics, it means she lied the first time round. Why? Wasn’t she proud of her beliefs? Let me ask you, would any ethical person, of whatever religion, consider this as the right thing to do?

So this is not about a clash of civilisations. My view is that this so-called new Exco has taken over a secular civic society because the values of that civic society which were perfectly lawful, did not accord with their religious beliefs. This has violated everyone’s civic rights. In addition, the manner in which they took power was utterly deplorable. If they had declared their election platform, said out what they stood for and their value systems and with this knowledge, all members voted, then I would keep quiet and they would have taken over ethically. Their actions should not be condoned in our society.

And finally, Singapore has been a peaceful muti-racial, multi-religious society for over 40 years. Many people, including our ofttimes maligned government work hard to keep it that way. I, for one, have no wish for this to change and I have no wish for a bunch of crazy fundies (yes, tautology, I know) who can’t even tell a lie convincingly to change all that. They should return this brand of fundamentalism back to Hicksville, USA where it came from coz it simply stinks to high heaven.

Weihan,

I know you are probably a reasonable person, and I know what type of people you are referring to when you said ‘christians’, but to prevent unnecessary conflicts with people who may be wont to agree with you, would be advisable to add a word ’some’ in front.

I shall go back to hugging my tree

clap, clap for weilan for his clever esxpositon on religious beliefs and chritianity.
His sound reason that earth is round is empirical is not as sound as he thinks because the earth isn’t round.His empiricism isn’t sound after all. So what he believes is proven. I presume he is a athiest and because he believes there is no god therefore he is imposing on all of us that it is true there is no god. But has he substantiated that there is no god. Does he not realise that what he says can cause a lot of unease to an otherwise peaceful society. And all because he is anti christian and he wants everyone to be anti christians secularists. Isn’t my reasoning sound?

Weihan “For example, thinking that Earth is flat is a belief. Thinking that Earth is round isn’t just a belief but is a truth supported by empirical facts which people slowly uncovered. The problem with christians is that they can’t accept the truth and seek to twist the truth.”

I had one come up to me recently to argue that Carbon dating, is essentially rubbish. All this in an attempt to “prove” that Earth has not existed for millions of years, which would put the timeline of creation from the Book’s perspective in jeapardy.

Oh, & those fearsome-looking Barney’s that are being dug up & re-assembled in museums? Well, those are supposedly placed by the devil to mislead us.

And these from well-educated people whom I thought would more capable of critical thinking. But I guess that is what “faith” is all about.

@Weihan (#132), many religions also cite empirical evidence in support of their claims (in particular, the historical accuracy of statements made in the religious text, and the occurrence of miracles). The question, of course, is whether that evidence persuades you.

Also, while atheism purports to rely on empirical evidence (e.g., in explaining the diversity of life on Earth), that is sorely missing (given the present state of science) with respect to 2 foundational questions: What existed before the Big Bang? How did life on Earth originate?

Lastly, empirical proof cannot be used as regards morality and ethics, the subjective experience of emotions, and artistic sensibility. And yet, these are aspects of the human condition which we cannot ignore.

18) vei on April 27th, 2009 5.33 am

Haven’t caught up with this for awhile.

its the 9th i wish to mention.

“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.”

65) Peace on April 27th, 2009 12.09 pm

“Stop twisting and put words into the new AWARE. You are anti new AWARE .”

now, where did that come from?

Peace, i was discussing re the tenets of christianity and the doctrine of the immutability of the bible with yipeng on another forum in this blog, so may be you’re not sure what i was referring to. there was no insult whatsoever in what i said to her re being a christian moderate.

if you want to discuss with me re the definition of moderate vs fundamentalist, you’re welcome to do so.

@ Vei

no, i’m hardly a student of philosophy. what i wrote is more like basic stuff encountered during discussions in GP class back in JC.

yes, i am attempting to learn more about the bible, as well as other religious texts. there was a bit of such discussions with another member of this forum here: http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/04/we-cannot-have-people-acting-like-moral-vigilantes-says-awares-old-guards/

have you read the qur’an, vei? or the veda? the torah? or buddhist’s scriptures? how as a christian do you decide which religion to follow?

Read the apology from christian.post.sg and Edmond’s repeat of the lies from the new exco here:
http://sg.christianpost.com/dbase/society/1548/12%7C23%7C36/3.htm

/// 127) lynette on April 27th, 2009 10.50 pm
after spending so much time reading all the comments, if there is one objective view i have to make, it’d be that the clash in fundamental beliefs is a pervasive problem in this society and before we understand and figure a way through this hindrance, no judgments should be made from either sides. ///

Agree. That’s why it is important that the various religions should not impose their beliefs on other religions, or on non believers.

/// 1. the christians are doing so and are justified in doing so because they truly believe that they are saving the community. think about their intentions, and i think its sufficient to justify their actions. besides, coos has been one of the few churches in sg which embraces homosexuals.. they aren’t harming people. they mean good. ///

The road to hell is paved with good intention. Don’t you think the intention of the Spanish Inquisition was good? Don’t you think that the early missionaries to the new world was good? Don’t you think the pogroms against the Cathars were good?

/// 2. the problem is how non-christians perceive this. secular people would have a completely different definition of what’s good and what’s not. if we are to say that christians should not impose their belief on us, should it not also hold that secularism should not undermine christian beliefs? ///

Exactly – that’s why the twain shall never meet. You are getting it backwards. It was not secularism encroaching on christianity. In this fiasco, it was COOS hijacking AWARE, not AWARE electing itself into COOS. It was christianity undermining secularism.

/// 3. christians dont see themselves wrong, because of a different fundamental belief. non-christians sense violation, also because of a different fundamental belief. ///

Again, that is why the takeover of AWARE is so wrong. The two parties have very different belief systems. COOS should keep their christian beliefs in its church, not impose them on a secular NGO like AWARE which have members of different religions and atheists and agnostics.

/// i suppose the gov’s effort in making singapore work as a multi-religious country just isn’t working. there is no unity among religions, and religions being compulsive forces contradicts the idea of toleration. ///

It is working in general and so far you don’t see serious religious clashes. It is surfacing now because of a bunch of misguided bigots who wish to impose their world-view and god-view on those who do not subscribe to their beliefs.

#l131) lockeliberal , well said, where is he leading to, judging and talking nonsensical issue. God ASking you to reach ordinary people not asking you TO rub shoulder with rich, famous, and influential. Be fishers of men, a missionary fishing for unsaved men and women, unsaved boys and girls. Go and set up a competing faith based organization with all your HOLY HOLY flocks of “meh meh meh”

141) la nausée on April 28th, 2009 2.11 am
also referring to your entry on (129)

firstly, i admire your voice of calm reason, in the midst of public discourse that occasionally degenerates into name-calling or worse. thanks you also for reminding us non-religious people not to impose our views. “must be careful that in advocating ’secularism’, they are not also imposing their own fundamental beliefs on other citizens”

“many religions also cite empirical evidence in support of their claims (in particular, the historical accuracy of statements made in the religious text”

agree with that statement. my beef is with people who try to pass pseudoscience or bad science as “science” and still argues that people take them seriously.

“Also, while atheism purports to rely on empirical evidence… that is sorely missing (given the present state of science) with respect to 2 foundational questions…”

this is the god of the gap theory, wouldn’t you say?

“Logically speaking, atheism is not a religion. But for purposes of politics and constitutional law, it should be and is classified as a religion, alongside secular humanism”

the difference is that for myself as an agnostic, i know the limitations to my belief.

//la nausée on April 28th, 2009 2.11 am @Weihan (#132), many religions also cite empirical evidence in support of their claims (in particular, the historical accuracy of statements made in the religious text, and the occurrence of miracles). The question, of course, is whether that evidence persuades you.//

That is mainly a reaction from skeptical questioning from the secular world and not due to a fundamental change of mindset of the religionists. You are right also that once evidences are provided, people will focus on the validity of the evidences and logical reasoning that arrive at the conclusion.

//Also, while atheism purports to rely on empirical evidence (e.g., in explaining the diversity of life on Earth), that is sorely missing (given the present state of science) with respect to 2 foundational questions: What existed before the Big Bang? How did life on Earth originate?//

Science does not claim to answer all questions but that does not qualify religions to make false claims and force their BELIEFs on others that do not take up that particular religion’s view. So, this statements, though valid, bear no relevance in our present debate. The point is that claims made need to be verifiable.

//Lastly, empirical proof cannot be used as regards morality and ethics, the subjective experience of emotions, and artistic sensibility. And yet, these are aspects of the human condition which we cannot ignore.//

This is true to certain extend. However, it does not mean that objectivity does not exist. True progresses arrive when more and more people are willing to push the limit and question the validity of these relative aspects of morality and subjective experience of emotions. The result is that people come to the conclusion that these are relative and has no substance of absolute truth that religionists claimed. Interestingly, it is because of this blind subjectivity that atheism view it as harmful sometimes.

I cannot believe pastors lie. So disappointing. Not all pastors are like that. Believe me, there’s hope for this world. But the hope is diminished when we have our kind dabbling in politics and giving the rest a bad name. Please don’t drag the rest of us christians into this mire. Christianity is about love not hate-mongering. Obviously not all christians are intellectually abled to think. God bless.

So many comments and refuttals…and bull shitting too.

Do not impose your religious beliefs as the universal beliefs even you think its good for everyone. Religion should not be the influential component here.
What if for example the Islam does not condone alcohol consumption and they hijacked into your christians groups and start imposing what they believed are for broader good of your community? They can also say they do not “discrimate” drinkers but only want to see changes for a responsible and sober society.

Sure, there a majority of MPs have their own religion. I do not see them imposing their christian laws, islamic laws, buddhism laws etc on everyone.
I do not discrimante gays or lesbians.

Even if i meet one, i will not try to advocate him/her to change. This is what i believe secular is.

I support 27), 32), 43). Well done. Sums up the whole feeling.

//140) Peace on April 28th, 2009 1.14 am clap, clap for weilan for his clever esxpositon on religious beliefs and chritianity.
His sound reason that earth is round is empirical is not as sound as he thinks because the earth isn’t round.His empiricism isn’t sound after all. So what he believes is proven. I presume he is a athiest and because he believes there is no god therefore he is imposing on all of us that it is true there is no god. But has he substantiated that there is no god. Does he not realise that what he says can cause a lot of unease to an otherwise peaceful society. And all because he is anti christian and he wants everyone to be anti christians secularists. Isn’t my reasoning sound?//

Since you are so against the scientific mode of inquisition, I suppose you are probably one that clings to literal reading of the bible. If you are one or some of you here are one,I have a question for you. Do you support slavery? If you do not, how do you then interpret the many quotes from bible that supports slavery?

****
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
****
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
****
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
****
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
****
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
****
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
****
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
****

114) HT on April 27th, 2009 6.27 pm 98) Ah Teck on April 27th, 2009 2.32 pm

“Ah Teck, I share your concern. But could you be helpful and please let me know which part of the programme (ie which page, which paragraph) says so and what exactly does it say. I assume you have read the programme, right? Right?”

HT, tku 4 sharing yr concern which I dun sense it in yr response here. I can c that u battled very hard 4 d old AWARE. But as the old AWARE is the one that introduced such perverted topic/ teaching in the programme, i cannot support such stuff. I will not want to misled u on the page or paragraph since it was also highlighted that the old AWARE team intended to introduce new programme to the school boys as well. (in case there will be amendment to page # etc) But Just the summary for u – the programme indicates clearly that being a “homosexual is ok”. I dun care if the singapore government is not interested to settle the issue but as a parent to 3 teenagers i am not gg to stay by the side line and watch the children get inducted to such programme. I will fight for my daughters and sons against such perversion.

[...] Online Citizen reported [...]

126) lynette

//1. the christians are doing so and are justified in doing so because they truly believe that they are saving the community. think about their intentions, and i think its sufficient to justify their actions. besides, coos has been one of the few churches in sg which embraces homosexuals.. they aren’t harming people. they mean good.

I suppose that this point only refers to those homosexuals that embraces the idea that the religion tells them that they are wrong and/or sick and thus “healing” is the way to go. Only these types of homosexuals are embraced?

Those who does not fit into this category will be treated nicely too?

The old AWARE Comprehensive Sex Education (CSE) also teaches that anal sex is neutral. How is this?

I don’t want my impressionable young daughters to be taught that anal sex is “neutral.” The rectum is meant for holding feces, and not a second vagina. Stop corrupting our daughters with your perverted notions of what sex is.

LEAVE OUR CHILDREN ALONE!

152) Ah Teck on April 28th, 2009 1.26 pm

Ah Teck, yes, I am familiar with this tactic of mindlessly repeating a lie again and again so that after a while, black becomes white. And cloaking it in colloquialism doesn’t really help.

“I will not want to misled u on the page or paragraph since it was also highlighted that the old AWARE team intended to introduce new programme to the school boys as well. (in case there will be amendment to page # etc)”

Yes, yes, but where was it highlighted, Ah Teck? And highlighted by which honest ethical person? I couldn’t find any document that said that. Come on, Ah Teck, don’t hold out on me now. This is important. Let’s nail this down.

“But Just the summary for u – the programme indicates clearly that being a “homosexual is ok”.

Yes, where? Which article which line? Did you read it? or did you hear it from someone else? And does that encourage children to be homosexual?

“I dun care if the singapore government is not interested to settle the issue but as a parent to 3 teenagers i am not gg to stay by the side line and watch the children get inducted to such programme. I will fight for my daughters and sons against such perversion.”

I’m not sure if you are really a parent but if you are (and are not a sheep dressed in troll clothing), please think first before accepting blindly what some people have said to advance their own cause. I don’t know how you will feel if your child is gay. From the tone of your post, you will probably be very angry at that but I sure hope you will still continue to love your child.

Ummm concerned parents,

So what should a satisfactory sex education programme for children contain?

Dear Ah Tec and Ping

Moral judgements and Moral education should be best left to church and family. Secular Schools should in my view teach without making judgements about the facts.

Firstly like it or not, Anal sex exists whether between hetrosxual partners and or homosexual partners. Similarly the very existence of homosexuality and same sex relationships.

Like it or not, unless you can morally censor the thoughts and actions of your children 24/7 365, they WILL LEARN and they WILL FIND OUT about the topics which you are uncomfortable with and find disgusting. If not from school, from friends, if not from friends from the internet. And yes they will make their own moral and sexual choices which might be very different from what you would want them to do morally or sexually.

You can’t stop the flood of information about sexuality , you can’t stop them from finding out, you can only equip them with the facts and then leave it to church and family to moralize their behavior.

That is all AWARE seeks to do, equip them with the facts so that they know what to do and how to protect them selves. They leave moralizing and judgements to church and family which is as it should be.

Locke

[...] Su Mien and Church pastor Shawn Tay’s emails / recruitment drive. (emails have been confirmed by COOS church spokesman to be [...]

Oh, I remember reading somewhere that one of new AWARE people also initially commented that they want to change the Syariah law? Wow. I would really like to see them try. See if this will not result in a clash of faiths and undermine religious harmony. The arrogance of it all boggles the mind. I am new to this forum and reading the posts have been most illuminating. I am amazed that some people cannot seem to see the bigger picture that this is an infiltration of a secular organisation by people with right religious leanings. who intend to use it as a platform to further their agenda. The floodgates should not be opened as it creates a very dangerous precedent. It is cause for serious alarm.

Ah Teck & PingPong,

teaching the students that homosexuals/anal sex (goodness I am as appalled as you if AWARE indeed touch on this) is neutral, is because AWARE was NOT about discrimination. And teaching that those are neutral does not equate to promoting it. If your child comes home and tells you that they think it is ok, because the program said it was neutral, it is then the PARENT’s responsibility to tell the children that although it was said to be neutral, it is wrong. It is the PARENT’s responsibility to teach the child how to discern facts. Any youngsters should be taught by their parents (but I highly doubt so) that they should not discriminate because everyone has their right, but that doesn’t mean they should believe it is correct.

I hope I made sense.

Much as I dislike fundies and do not wish that SG is being overrun by zealous fundies and righties, I do not wish for SG to be THAT liberal.

“54) PingPong on April 28th, 2009 2.18 pm
The old AWARE Comprehensive Sex Education (CSE) also teaches that anal sex is neutral. How is this?
I don’t want my impressionable young daughters to be taught that anal sex is “neutral.” The rectum is meant for holding feces, and not a second vagina. Stop corrupting our daughters with your perverted notions of what sex is.
LEAVE OUR CHILDREN ALONE!”

I think you hit the nail on the head.
All the talk about the new exco engineering a takeover, no respect for the old guards, how the old AWARE was being ‘inclusive’ and so on ….. all these issues just fade away compared to what you just posted.
This is exactly what the public is so upset about. How the MOE allowed the old AWARE to promote such perversion among our schoolgirls. Just on this issue alone, the new exco should be commended for aspiring and working towards a change in the leadership.

The obsession with the perverted homosexual is disturbing. I just had dinner with a non-christian Singaporean last night who is married and who brags about engaging with orgies with three China prostitutes. I also had conversations with Singapore taxi drivers (note plural) who for some strange reason divulged lurid stories of having unprotected sex with prostitutes in Geylang to me. My point is, there are other souls to be saved of people whose behaviour may have such horrific impact on the institution of the family, and the narrow focus of the new guerilla AWARE exco for justification of the AWARE takeover is that the neutral stand on homosexuality equals promotion of homosexuality?? Me thinks they have their priorities all wrong. I pity those old guards who had contributed to the good of women without discrimination of their faith or sexuality. I hope their work has not been tampered with or destroyed. I would imagine it feels a little like being raped.

I learnt one valuable lesson during my time here in TOC. That sometimes when you think you doing someone a favor by speaking up for him, you are actually doing him more harm than good. I learnt this from the liaison officer.

I think the biggest flaw in the argument for the old guards is the reference to the new exco as the Christians that they are. This is made worse by the connection made between their Christian background and the subject on homosexuality. And the new exco will happily engage this end because the majority is more straight, in physical attributes and thinking, than anyone care to admit.

The pro-Old Guards camp would have presented a stronger case if it is able to strip away these allegations, no matter how true they may be, and focus on the action of the individuals that make up the exco, and the manner of their takeover.

Consider this, if this new exco are not Christians and are acceptable of homosexuals for who they are, and they are agreeable to the need to be inclusively inclusive, then what can the old guards fault them with?

One thing is most certain. Even if we decide to be nice and not call them liars, we cannot, by any account, deny the fact that they have not been truthful, all the same.

Josie could be telling the truth when she said that it was not a planned takeover. She wasn’t the planner and this could be true. Maybe it is also true that she was the eleventh hour replacement, as dictated by the puppet master Thio, because I believe they did not expect Claire Nazar to walk out suddenly. It could also be true that Josie did not knew Maureen before the AGM election but she did not say if she knew the other 7 elected into the new exco. There were nine of them including herself.

So you see, she could be telling the truth all along. Unfortunately, she is also hiding the other truths which when come into the light will shame her and her team for who they actually are. The other truths like what the grand old Puppet Master are spewing.

Where and what am I driving at, you ask?

It’s plain and simple isn’t it? Can we continue to believe and support anyone who is untrue to herself? Never mind what they stand for or hope to stand for. Can we entrust our welfare into their hands? These people may not be lying, as presented above, but can the same be said that they are telling the truth? Anyone who hides the truth has a hidden agenda which needs jealous protection until the right time to reveal it.

Over to you Puppet Master Thio. You seem to hold all the answers.

Thank you Modernist!

Whether or not we support the pro-gay or anti-gay stance is immaterial. What is at issue is that we have a group of Christian fundamentalists whose views, by nature of their Faith, are bound to ’save’ the rest of us who do not follow their own religious practices, from ourselves.

We also know that the Christian fundamentalists justify all their actions, even the questionable ones, by quoting from the Bible and saying that they have God on their side.

I bring up one staunch Christian fundamentalist – George W Bush, who waged what he called a holy war against Iraq. The cost of that decision has been immeasureable.

Do women of Singapore want the gains made by AWARE trampled into the dust by a pack of ignorant women who take a too literal approach of the Bible? I might at this point remind them that Jesus Christ was an inclusionist who dined with anyone and everyone. He did not discriminate, and he died for all, gay or straight. But Christian fundamentalists don’t like to remember that.

Whether or not you agree with their religious position, one needs to make a decision based on where we want to take the position of women in Singapore – both straight and gay. I hope that more people agree with and support the improvements brought about by AWARE over the past y ears, and will vote to see more of these improvements with the same people who have built this legacy, rather than those who stage a rough takeover, arrogantly force their views on others and, from the outset, take on an exclusionary path so that even their plans for AWARE are top secret. (Or maybe they are just beginning to realise that they have bitten off more than just another platform for their religious views).

After reading all these debates I sensed that that there are “secular extremists” too. Don’t worry lah, Singapore people are well educated to turn this country in any kind of Teleban. The garmen will not allow this. Moreover, christian form less than 20% and not all agree with one another. So, what is all these fear?

Singapore being a conservative society I can safely said that the majority of the people agree with the moral value of the new guards. I suspect that some people are just trying to scare the “silence majority” by linking it to “christian agenda”.

//154) PingPong on April 28th, 2009 2.18 pm

The old AWARE Comprehensive Sex Education (CSE) also teaches that anal sex is neutral. How is this?

I don’t want my impressionable young daughters to be taught that anal sex is “neutral.” The rectum is meant for holding feces, and not a second vagina. Stop corrupting our daughters with your perverted notions of what sex is.//

PingPong, unlike you many think otherwise. These people think that their daughters should know and be prepared for this kind of kama suttra. I know zefly, tj and weihan are broad minded people and will allow their daughters to learn about these. These people support the old aware . They not only think anal sex isnot enough but it should be followed by oral sex and culminate with some sticky seminal tonic.. This is something unthinkable with civilised people. This may put the prosttiutes to shame. They won’t dare and yet these anti new AWARE supporters clamour for it. I suggested many times that they should hug coconuts and let out pent up frustrations.

Again I would like up to bring up another word I don’t like. Can we agree that “Christian fundamentalist” is being used pejoratively?

It is a derogatory term and I perceive that many of us apply it to “Christians in general”. That is not very fair. Can we call COOS, COOS, the New Exco, the New Exco, and George Bush, George Bush?

Call their specific actions fundamentalist if you must. But don’t use “fundamentalist” as a label for Christian religionists.

Agree with you A Tan!

i would teach my children it is alright to lie straight faced to the public! I would teach my children it is ok to take over an organisation one hasn’t contributed to, for the sake of stopping its agenda. I would teach my children to jump to conclusions about things based solely on heresay!

Hey guess what Tan, my Dad is a conservative dude with Confucian values and he thinks the new ex-co is wrong. And do you know why I agree with him? Because Daddy says so, so I can safely say the majority of conservatives agree with him!

@PingPong (#154) and Ah Teck (#152),

A comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) programme aims to enable teenagers to make informed choices about sex and relationships. As such, facts have to be presented in a non-judgmental way, including facts not just on’alternative’ sexual practices, but also STDs, contraceptives, teen pregnancies, pornography, ’sexting’, handling relationships and peer pressure, etc.. But just as one can’t successfully ‘teach’ students to have sex, one can’t ‘teach’ students to NOT be homosexual either. The moral guidance is still left to parents, family, religion, and (some might believe) psychological counseling. The mere fact that a CSE is offered does not mean that parents etc. can abdicate their responsibilities!

Many parents would rather think of their teenage daughters and sons as ‘innocent’ and ‘impressionable’… but that’s increasingly just a comforting self-delusion. Because of the mass media and the Internet, most teenagers already have their own notions about sex and relationships — some healthy, some less so. Parents, however, often don’t do their part in educating their children about sex, preferring to believe that their kids will forever be 10 years old. Hence, the need for a CSE-based programme offered by MOE.

But any talk or workshop on sexuality really has limited impact, and is not a substitute for responsible parenting. This cuts both ways: both the ‘positive’ messages and the ‘negative’ messages are likely to fade fast from the minds of their young audience. If the kids go ‘bad’ or ‘deviant’, that surely would not be the result of a single talk on sexuality where homosexuality is mentioned in passing.

So my answer to someone who tells me, “My child went to a CSE talk, got ‘corrupted’, and is now experimenting in homosexual sex,” would be: you must suck as a parent! *

* Addendum: Sure, a parent can’t be held entirely and always responsible for his or her child’s deeds or misdeeds. But to pin the cause solely on one factor (a talk which, incidentally, that parent could have opted his or her child out of) seems to me to be the height of inept parenting.

Hi all,

Please do not get too graphic.

Pls leave out the graphic descriptions of certain sexual practices.

Thank you.

How I wish those who claim Aware was promoting anal sex to their daughters could do us a favour by quoting chapter and verse from the CSE program. All I see is irrational fear and demonising. Somehow the argument that if you object to any content of the CSE program there are other avenues to bring that up and engage, not just at AWARE level, but even MOE or public level, seems to be lost on some people here. Hijacking an established secular organisation which you then use as a platform to further your narrow views is not the way to do it. To deny the existence of a christian agenda to this is highly hypocritical in light of the revelations in the media of the Church connection, the rallying call by the pastor for sisters of their congregation to support the work of Sister Josie and to ensure that the nation does not cross the line drawn by God, the predictable views of members of the new AWARE on pivotal issues such as abortion, role of women in marriage and not just their anti-homosexuality stance, and the lie to the nation on national TV.

The issue here is not just about religion or homosexuality. It is the integrity of the new AWARE members to lead what is supposed to be an inclusive secular organisation. Based on facts we know, their objectivity and credibility have already been compromised.

Agree, TOC.

Pingpong, you should be careful with your words. You don’t want young impressionable children reading this to go experiment with whatever it is you just lovingly described simply because it is forbidden.

Chill out those who afraid that GLBT have an agenda to corrupt the “young”, even though I understand Maureen Ong’s concern abt children experimenting. It’s not like trying cigarettes, dope, or hetrosexual petting.

If they are and were using AWARE as Trojan Horse to subvert the young, then the GLBT lot must be pretty dumb people.

Now if the GreensLemonsBananasTomatoes (fruit and veg salad gang) wanted to subvert, they would focus on undergrads, esp those who love parties and experimentation.

“GLBT have the best parties on campus”, “Two for one”, “Anal sex is normal”, “Experiment, be creative”. But they don’t. GLBT are juz as boring as you and me.

Now it could be juz that GLBT are dumb, but I doubt it, not with people like Yawning Bread. They just have no hidden agenda. They juz talk alot.

The Christians are the smart ones. Heard of Campus Crusade for Christ? Anedoctal evidence that many become “gd” Christians via this.

It’s the undergrads you want.

BTW, OG and friends, can you pls give me the context of “anal sex is normal”, or whether you lot were misrep. Otherwise, everytime I see video or pix of the OG, this phrase comes to mind, and I wonder who in the OG practices anal sex as a normal sexual activity.

Weihan,

Please do not quote from the Bible, especially such lengthy quotes. They will not be allowed.

Thank you.

Another word… “discrimination”.

Perhaps I can attempt to shed some light about how this word is confused?

Example 1)
Suppose you have 2 employees under you. You have to pick one to promote. The chinese employee is underserving, he has not been performing, but since you don’t like the race of your other employee, you promote the chinese guy. This is racial discrimination. Most of us can agree that it is clearly wrong.

Example 2)
Suppose we decide to increase taxes for the rich so that we can supply the lower-income Singaporeans with more work-fare. The rich ask, “Why are you discriminating against me?” Some of them don’t think it is fair for the rich to have to contribute more or be forced to. Others think it is perfectly reasonable for the rich to pay higher taxes and do more for our society since they have been benefiting the most. The moral in question is “Whether or not it is reasonable/acceptable for the rich to have to support the poor”. Are we really discriminating against the rich? This cannot be discerned without looking closely at each respective instance, and even then there can be disagreement. Not all of us agree that it is clearly wrong. Why? A moral is in question.

Now apply the same logic to homosexual discrimination. Can you understand why Singaporeans react in a certain way? It might not always be “discrimination”. A moral is in question.

Another example, TOC does not allow Bible quotes. I could feel that TOC is “discriminating” against Christians. After all the Bible is in public domain. Or I could attempt to understand the reason why TOC requests that we do not quote from it.

However TOC does show us some grace when it comes to quotations… (It is also hard to police, haha!)

Cheers!

PingPong,
it is time to check on your daughters and with the principal to keep watchful eyes on the CSE classes.It may not be theory only next time but practical too., class room demos. A lot of pingpong balls will be bouncing all over the place. Play safe than be sorry.

EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL MEETING
TO BE HELD ON 2ND MAY 2009

Notice is hereby given that:

1. The venue of the Extraordinary General Meeting (“EGM”) of the Association of Women for
Action & Research (“AWARE”) to be held on Saturday, 2nd May 2009 , from 2.00 p.m. to
5.00 p.m. is hereby changed as follows:

Singapore EXPO Hall 2
1 Expo Drive, #01-01
Singapore 486150

Admission and registration would be from 12.00 noon to 2.00 p.m. on Saturday, 2nd
May 2009 .

It is mandatory to show your NRIC for admission and registration.

2. Messrs Rajah & Tann have been appointed to act as AWARE’s legal advisors to attend the
EGM to be convened on 2nd May 2009 to address legal queries relating to, and raised
during, the EGM including the matters intended to be transacted, AWARE’s constitution and
meeting law and procedure.

Yipeng -

Define ‘moral’.

@ 92) yipeng on April 27th, 2009 2.01 pm

uh, sorry, yipeng, had not read your above reply before referring to you as ‘her’…

Reply to Recent Comments and Claims About AWARE’s Sexuality Education Programme in Schools

1We refer to recent claims and comments about AWARE’s sexuality education programme in schools.

2Sexuality education conducted in MOE schools is premised on the importance of the family and respect for the values and beliefs of the different ethnic and religious communities on sexuality issues. The aim is to help students make responsible values-based choices on matters involving sexuality.

3Core programmes are delivered by teachers but schools do collaborate with other agencies in delivering additional modules. However, in doing so, schools must ensure that any programmes run by external agencies are secular and sensitive to the multi-religious make-up of our society. Parents can choose to opt their children out of these programmes.

4Last year, 11 secondary schools engaged AWARE to run workshops for their students. The number of students involved in each school ranged from about 20 to 100, and each workshop lasted 3 hours. The objectives of these workshops were to provide students with accurate information on Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs)/HIV, to help students understand the consequences of premarital sexual activity, and to equip students with skills such as decision-making and resisting negative peer pressure.

5AWARE also conducted assembly talks, typically of 45-minute duration, for students in a few secondary schools. Some of the areas covered in the talks included body image, self-esteem, eating disorders, teenage pregnancies, sexual harassment and the role of women in today’s context.

6The schools that engaged AWARE found that the content and messages of the sessions conducted were appropriate for their students and adhered to guidelines to respect the values of different religious groups. The schools did not receive any negative feedback from students or parents who attended the workshops and talks.

7In particular, MOE has also not received any complaint from parents or Dr Thio Su Mien, who was reported to have made specific claims about sexuality education in our schools. MOE has contacted Dr Thio Su Mien to seek clarifications and facts to substantiate her claims.

8If parents and members of the public know of specific instances where guidelines have not been adhered to, they should report them directly to MOE to investigate. MOE recognises that sexuality education is sensitive. In conducting these programmes, the views of parents will be respected and values taught should not deviate from the social norms accepted by mainstream society in Singapore .

#163 Wow, Gemami, you can almost speak my mind now.

“The pro-Old Guards camp would have presented a stronger case if it is able to strip away these allegations, no matter how true they may be, and focus on the action of the individuals that make up the exco, and the manner of their takeover.”

I agree fully. That’s why I refrain from making comments on those two topics which were used by the mastermind to incite emotions.

The only thing I think differently from you is that the Puppet Master or mastermind is not Thio. She’s too childish in the speech she gave at the press conference – like a ‘lau huan tong’. Which lawyer, in the right mind would say that being touted as the organiser of an orchestrated, planned takeover is flattering.

Examine the following excerpt from their speech, and you’ll realise that she really felt so flattered that she contradicted Josie’s denial, thus fully smashing Josie’s credibility.

“Q: But (was the leadership takeover) orchestrated, planned beforehand? Was she the organiser?
Aware president Josie Lau: I will place on record, no.
Dr Thio: No, no, it depends on what you mean by organiser.
Actually it’s kind of flattering, in a way… ”

So who is the real mastermind (if only one)?
- What do you think of this email:
“The number of members registered on Tuesday night is 13 out of 40 who turned up…”
Who was the sender reporting to?

Why is TSM pushed out to take the rap (although to her it’s an honour)?
I think part of the reason may be that her name appeared in the disclosed emails and also she enjoyed being in the limelight.
But the real reason –
Now, tell me, what do you think all educated women’s reaction would be if proven that a guy is behind all these to control women and a women’s association?

Yes, I’m beginning to pity Josie and Maureen at the way they were being made use of. But it’s their choice, isn’t it?

@yipeng (#176),

Just like to add that what amounts to “discrimination” is context-specific. It depends on whether or not the criterion you’re using to single out people for special treatment is relevant to your objective.

For instance, it’s okay to tax the rich more than the poor, because an important objective of taxation is the fair redistribution of society’s wealth. But it’s not okay for an employer to give a promotion to X and not Y (where Y is more competent) just because X is in financial difficulties and Y is sitting on a large inheritance.

So even if homosexuality were immoral, it may be wrong to discriminate in specific contexts. For example, a person’s sexual orientation is usually as irrelevant in assessing his competence on the job as his skin colour, whereas his spoken languages usually would be. Similarly, it would be wrong for the criminal law to single out homosexual sex for punishment on the basis that it is immoral, unless the objective of criminal law is to prohibit all immoral conduct, and all other allegedly immoral acts (like adultery and unnatural sex) are in fact criminalized.

MOE has just issued its statement which in essence says that there is no truth in Darth Thio’s allegations on the CSE program in schools. I have posted it but the moderators are still checking.

The puts to the sword the lies spread by the fundies.

@ 184) la nausée on April 28th, 2009 5.01 pm

Agree… Thank you for clarification, you are clearly more coherent than I ;)

As an atheist, I do not tell anyone that I believe there is no god if others do not tell me there is god.

Whether or not there is Aware, New Aware or Old Aware, it does not matter to most people, there are far more important issues than to be involved with the bickerings of a few women. And from the many comments, we can see that many were trying ‘to prove’ they understand god and religion better than others even when they belong to ‘the same religion’. The squabbles among the believers were the most believeable. HOW DO THESE ‘I UNDERSTAND/KNOW BETTER THAN YOU’ HELP IN MAKING AWARE BETTER AND MORE RELEVANT TO THE SOCIETY

It is not worth to be distracted and be shifted away from more living related social and political issues, especially when unemployment, retrenchment and rising cost of livings are troubling us. There seems to be little and insignificant efforts at tackling our bread and butter problems. It is not fair to speculate that the “Aware’ Issue is an attempt at distraction, though the comprehensive coverage by the MSM does seem to indicate so.

Let us do a favour to ourselves, let us sincerely keep our faith in our heart and respect others’ belief and freedom to their piety.

@HT, thanks for that update. It seems that the Government has sort of gotten involved, but only because MOE was implicated in the new Exco’s slanderous allegations.

I like this line the best: “In particular, MOE has also not received any complaint from parents or Dr Thio Su Mien, who was reported to have made specific claims about sexuality education in our schools.” If the new Exco indeed were acting in the capacity of concerned parents (as they claimed to be), why did they not lodge even a single complaint? I imagine a simple call or e-mail would have been far more expedient than orchestrating a takeover… not least for a self-professed ‘well-connected’ person like Dr Thio.

But atheist, it is precisely why we shd keep our religion to ourselves and respect others’ belief and freedom to their piety, that the infiltration of the old secular AWARE by people who have religious leanings and an obvious different agenda, shd not be tolerated. This is not just about a group of women squabbling. The bigger picture is that it is an encroachment on the civic society. The work done by AWARE in helping women in need regardless of their race, religion or sexual orientation against abuse, violence and discrimination are real “living” related social issues that surely warrants attention. It is also a question of principle. You let this one through, you create a dangerous precedent for other future encroachments on the justification that their actions are supposed to be for the common good. The way to hell may be lined with good intentions.

Quote from MOE’s statement:

7In particular, MOE has also not received any complaint from parents or Dr Thio Su Mien, who was reported to have made specific claims about sexuality education in our schools. MOE has contacted Dr Thio Su Mien to seek clarifications and facts to substantiate her claims.

Yes, lets hear from the feminist mentor as to what she has to say. Now it has been escalated to national level.

By the way, to those who are so concerned about the CSE program having a negative impact on their children, rejoice because you have a choice. Parents can choose to opt their children out of these programmes. So, you can teach your own kids that birds and bees do not engage in anal sex, and if they do it is non negotiable hell brimstone and fire!

It’s Tuesday and Straits Times has not reported on the leaked emails and videos from COOS. Shame shame shame on the Straits Times!

#187, Atheist,

How does atheist have faith? in whose heart?

//let us sincerely keep our faith in our heart and respect others’ belief and freedom to their piety.//

This is a confession or a slip from an atheist. Atheisism is a religion which believes there is no god. Buddhism also does not believe in god either but it is a religion.
There are many atheists who are trying to impose on us and they are atheistic fundamentalists

Why is DBS continue in making Josie to drag the mud much longer ?? How can she be useful now with all the negative attributes such as police reports, threats, arguments, bad press, tv and cyberspace reports bearing on her ?

Read the writing on the wall, DBS.

Btw, Shawn Tay, who is cited as sending out the email from COOS, is an ex-gay. His testimony is at http://www.coos.org.sg/testimony/index.php?coospg=2007/2007_finding_learning_the_truth.html
Gayness is genetic and immutable? Or merely a matter of choice?

And in the context of AWARE, a testimony of a lesbian.
http://www.coos.org.sg/testimony/index.php?coospg=2007/2007_a_second_chance.html
Lesbianism is genetic and immutable? Or merely a matter of choice? Difficult journey whichever way forward.

Ditto,

I believe the testimonies would be more convincing if the people involved step out and say that they are now ONLY sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex.

There is a difference between sexual absteinance and changing one’s sexual preference.

I’m an ex-smoker, but everytime I see people smoke, I feel tempted. Yet I never feel the urge to eat sweets all the time like some of my friends.

D’accord?

The faith is in me the atheist and it is not meant to be shown or imposed on anybody else.

I conclude my comment at this thread.

Peace be with all.

“192) Peace on April 28th, 2009 6.35 pm #187, Atheist,
How does atheist have faith? in whose heart?”

They simply have faith in doing the right things ? must faith be always be associated with some personal higher being ? can faith be some personal philosophy carved out from the summation of past experiences extracting the very best out of it.

whose heart are you referring to. the heart of some powerful being that you need to identify with and with whom all ‘good things’ are necessarily be associated and identified with ?????

“There are many atheists who are trying to impose on us and they are atheistic fundamentalists”

really ? perhaps you may want to elaborate. surely you can tell which group is doing the marketing more (preaching, evagelising, etc).

Has the old AWARE actually done in-depth studies of the pros and cons of homosexual lifestyles on society and individuals before asserting that it is a neutral concept?

A rational research I mean.

183) Orchid on April 28th, 2009 4.59 pm
Spider orchid doing sluething work on assumption and deduction, eh?
We are coming to the end of the episode. No more rumourmongering . Be patient and truth will emerge.
Be at the Expo.Like to meet U. Wear a spider orchid on your hair and be spotted.

@Peace (#192), if I may answer a little on behalf of atheist (the commenter), I believe he or she means ‘faith’ in the sense of a person’s considered views on ‘Life, the Universe, and everything’. In that sense, an atheist has a ‘faith’ too. And even if the atheist’s answer to the question of god’s existence is in the negative, atheism isn’t just a null-philosophy; atheists often have their own definite views about the origins of the Universe and life, and on ethics and morality.

la nausea #129,

How else are we speaking if not logically?

Apply that “inclusive” argument to not believing in divination. Does, not believing in divination occupy the same “logical space” (Poof! It’s logical) as astrology, i-ching, tarot cards. etc. Does it not entail and address fundamental questions (metaphysical and existential)? ….

I understand, as you might, that this brand of pomobabble is an extremely appealing component of the holy roller’s salesmanship:

“Evolution is a religion” (chew on this gambit)

“Science is a religion”

“It takes faith to disavow the existence of a creator”

“Darwin is a god” etc….

Beyond illogical, it becomes farcical when not being affiliated to a religion is being related to a religion. The meaning of the word “religion” is broadened until it has no operational meaning. If I were religious, I will find this extremely demeaning.

Can you clarify “same trap” and “calling for traditional religion to be expelled in similar fashion” ?

The MOE comments really put 1 more nail into the coffin. Whoever talk rubbish about MOE education session in the earlier comments(Still can read them), probably feel very silly now. Sit down, calm down and use your head logically, why things are like that. Your eyes don’t just see things on the surface, search under the water also, many affairs are not so outright. I think that sometimes, mistakes are made so badly that it just got to continue on, as any reversal requires alot of courage and can be damaging to ego. For those who call others “beast”, it reflect upon you and your organisation.

192) Peace

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. ” – R. Dawkins

So, the pastor Derek Hong is behind this whole thing? I chance upon this in wiki:

[Quote:]
At the same time, an alleged email also surfaced during the course of discussion, in which Senior Pastor Derek Hong of Church of Our Saviour, Singapore, supposedly encouraged acquaintances to lobby the government to decide against repealing the code.[28] The email contains a suggested format of writing, which could be found repeated heavily in actual letters to The Straits Times and reach.gov.sg, the Singaporean government online feedback website. The content of the alleged email is strongly similar to an earlier one sent in 2003 by Cornerstone Community Church. Neither Hong nor his church has issued any statement on this matter. [Unquote.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thio_Li-ann

Among the many Gods spoken of in this thread, may I also add that a certain Mentor is also a God.

R. Dawkins is close relative of the chicken. He cackles with his 3 other relatives too much that he has forgotten that atheism is a religion and believing that there is no god he is actually going one god further. This is a play of one upmanship. In here there are plenty of them , from mirax, spider orchid,sllim 10, la noisee to zeefly.
\i suggest that you guys , gays and lesbians go hug a tree with zefly and get a release. Invite R Dawkins to this upcoming EOgm, straight one stop from the airport

@sllim (9.22 pm), as I said, atheism and secular humanism are and should be regarded as ‘religions’ “for purposes of politics and constitutional law”. I am not commenting on any other context. I emphasize also that I’m dealing with the normative rather than factual claims which religion makes, i.e. what we ought and ought not do, rather than what is or is not the case.

One perennial question we face is how a society ought to be governed according to a set of common principles, given that apparently reasonable people disagree over many issues (“reasonable pluralism”). One way out is to observe that the fiercest controversies occur in relation to people’s foundational beliefs, and to conclude that these should be excluded from our society’s formal political arrangements.

Usually, it’s possible to debate with another person over the truth of a proposition, “X is right”, because that will depend on other propositions, “Y is wrong”, “Z is false”etc.. We can point out internal inconsistencies and so on. But in every coherent moral system, there will be some foundational question beyond which argument cannot take us; there is no Archimedean point at which a person can stand to judge the entirety of his or her world-view.

A traditional religion clearly addresses a foundational question, since its answer on existence of God, or some other quasi-divine ‘essence’, constitutes the ultimate organizing principle for the adherent’s world-view, percolating into his stance on homosexuality, for instance. Secular humanism, insofar as it places the good of Man above all else, is also a religion.

Science is not a religion, because it makes entirely factual claims. Astrology is not a religion, but usually depends on some more foundational belief (some ineffable Spiritus Mundi, perhaps).

Atheism, I admit, is not a religion insofar as it operates on a single factual premise (“There is no god”), and makes no normative claims. But there is nonetheless a strong case for classifying it as a religion, for the purposes of politics and constitutional law. First, it challenges the foundational principles of all traditional religions, and is thus equally likely to stir up intractable controversy (the whole purpose of identifying ‘religions’ here is to identify the deepest sources of disagreement, and to exclude them from our society’s political arrangements, such that some consensus is possible). Second, atheism is inevitably closely allied to some other normative world-view (usually secular humanism) which would be regarded as a ‘religion’.

P.S. Apologies for the long response.

//200) are you that peaceful on April 28th, 2009 8.13 pm “192) Peace on April 28th, 2009 6.35 pm #187, Atheist,
How does atheist have faith? in whose heart?”

They simply have faith in doing the right things ? must faith be always be associated with some personal higher being ? can faith be some personal philosophy carved out from the summation of past experiences extracting the very best out of it.

whose heart are you referring to. the heart of some powerful being that you need to identify with and with whom all ‘good things’ are necessarily be associated and identified with ?????//

I already have something to say about this for a long time and now comes the opportunity. It is not necessary that there be a higher being looking at your behaviour before one will be a good person. Why is it necessary? A doctor can simply derive satisfaction from seeing a happy patient who has been cured of disease. A mother simply feel the joy looking at her child. A baker see satisfaction in his customers. A good chef feel satisfaction seeing people enjoying his food. Some one do charitable works because he/she simply feel good, satisfaction and peace with it…..Really, you don’t need to have a higher being staring at you before you will be a good person. Isn’t that psychology of little children?

//194) Peace on April 28th, 2009 6.35 pm #187, Atheist,

This is a confession or a slip from an atheist. Atheisism is a religion which believes there is no god. Buddhism also does not believe in god either but it is a religion.//

Oh! In fact Buddhism believes that there are many gods but they are no different from us, filled with emotion such as desire, hatred and ignorance since they are not enlightened.

Zefly,

totally agreed #196.

by the way, i have been following your replies for the past 2 days. very logical and great sense of humour.

especially like the ones you hug peace. hilarious.

but he not so appreciative leh, stlll harping on the gay/lesbian, parents beware, your daughters will be lose subject.

i also hug him.

213) WeiHan on April 28th, 2009 11.29 pm ,.
you might be right that Buddhism believes in many gods. Meng yi can testify to that.
Of the many gods the greatest gods are the god of desire partnering with the god of greed. How can you say they are no diiferent.from you. They are gods and you worship them and they cause you to have greed, hatred, desire, urges, same sex desires and so forth.

la nausée #208,

“We can point out internal inconsistencies and so on. But in every coherent moral system, there will be some foundational question beyond which argument cannot take us; there is no Archimedean point at which a person can stand to judge the entirety of his or her world-view.”

There are good reasons why argument and evidence cannot take us beyond some foundational questions. One might be that such a question is not worth asking, and less worth listening to. “What is the meaning of life?” is one such nonsensical foundational question so many adherents of organized religion are aroused by. The REAL answer: What can’t “meaning” mean?

“A traditional religion clearly addresses a foundational question, since its answer on existence of God, or some other quasi-divine ‘essence’, constitutes the ultimate organizing principle for the adherent’s world-view, percolating into his stance on homosexuality, for instance. Secular humanism, insofar as it places the good of Man above all else, is also a religion.”

As far as I know, secular humanism does not subscribe to any “some other quasi-divine ‘essence’”. More importantly, having a world-view is a necessary BUT not sufficient cause for religiosity. You don’t have to subscribe to a religion to have a world-view.

It goes without saying (almost) that every religion challenges every other religion’s foundational principles. But the buck doesn’t stop there. Other religions offer a competing brand of God. Atheism as you plainly and accurately described, simply doesn’t have that depth, that wellspring of “intractable controversy”.

You don’t have to apologise for a long response. The foregoing is gratuitous chatter; we’re quits :) As for classifying Atheism as a religion for the purposes of politics and constitutional law, Your argument(s), I believe, can be drastically simplified:

The majority of the population is religious. They are threatened by atheism. To keep the order, politics should pander to the majority. Thus secular politics should include atheism as a “religion”. Just so it can keep it out of decision-making and keep the truly religious’ gormless smiles on.

Besides being untrue, considering atheism as a religion (after your argument) is downright cynical. Although my stomach is turning, I take your larger point: There’s political utility in pandering to the lowest common denominator, such as the bottom-of-the-barrel “Peace”.

P.S. I could have made a counter-arguement: Atheism should not be considered a religion for the purposes of politics and constitutional law. (Consider the fundie’s, even moderate’s, penchant for misrepresenting Atheism as a religion.) But to make my case, I have to drag my brain through the sewage that is sophistry and I am not willing to.

la nausea #141,

I take issue with your first first point, but my complaint is identical to TJ’s, so I will not repeat it.

“Also, while atheism purports to rely on empirical evidence (e.g., in explaining the diversity of life on Earth), that is sorely missing (given the present state of science) with respect to 2 foundational questions: What existed before the Big Bang? How did life on Earth originate?”

It is completely irrational to say that just because science cannot answer all the questions right here right now, scripture can. The course of history and science has taught us otherwise.

“Lastly, empirical proof cannot be used as regards morality and ethics, the subjective experience of emotions, and artistic sensibility. And yet, these are aspects of the human condition which we cannot ignore.”

Empirical proof CAN be used in regards to morality and ethics. It might not bridge “is” and “ought”. But it certainly has more mileage than scripture. Neuroscientists, for example, have made some headway.

They discovered mirror neurons, which might make up the basis of empathy, The Golden Rule. They also found that when people make ethical decisions, the same area of their brains fire up as if they are calculating sums. Many religious people weigh their deeds against their future entry to Heaven, for example.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/425541/1/.html

SINGAPORE: The Ministry of Education (MOE) has contacted Dr Thio Su Mien, who is the “feminist mentor” to the new exco in the Association of Women for Action & Research (AWARE), to clarify the claims she was reported to have made on the organisation’s sexuality programmes.

In a statement, MOE said it had not received any complaints from parents or from Dr Thio about the programmes.

The AWARE saga has stretched out over the past weeks and Dr Thio’s views have been reported widely. She has been quoted as saying that on AWARE’s sexuality programme, homosexuality is now regarded as a neutral word, not a negative word.

Giving details, MOE said 11 secondary schools engaged AWARE to run workshops on sexuality last year. The organisation also conducted assembly talks on topics such as self esteem at a few schools.

Schools that engaged AWARE found its programme content appropriate for their students, adhering to MOE guidelines.

Speaking to reporters at a visit to Yishun Town Secondary School, Senior Minister of State for Education S Iswaran said sexuality education is taught primarily by teachers, but schools have the flexibility to bring in other organisations.

“The guiding principle for this is very simple. It uses the family as the basic building block, as the basic foundation, and helps the students make values-based decision on the whole issue of sexuality and in a manner that’s sensitive to the multi-racial, multi-religious environment.

“Clearly, there are different perspectives in our society, so MOE takes a very deliberate and cautious approach,” he said.

The Education Ministry added that if parents know of an instance where these guidelines have not been adhered to, they should go directly to the ministry.

Full MOE Reply: http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/forum/2009/04/reply-to-recent-comments-and-c.php

To all those who want to hug my rainbow colored tree and have tea with Winne the Pooh, Christopher Robbins, Piglet and Eyore and the Smurfs, can you write to me in advance because it’s getting a bit crowded here with mirmax, tj and silim joining me.

(ps – please bring your own unicorns)

Thank you JL,

Mock the devil and he will flee from thee.

To #183) Orchid on April 28th, 2009 4.59 pm

I have to say I agree with you right down to the last letter – again.

I am hopeful that everyone is able clear away the garbage been thrown about and see the real reason behind all this. There can be no justification for the manner of takeover by the new exco, neither can there be any justification for the “too trustful nature” of the old guards, an excuse given by Kalwanjit Soin.

It is frightening to think the possibility of these women being manupilated by one man working behind the scene. I am now beginning to see the doctrine of COOS at play especially the part about their women sujecting themselves to their husbands. Is the team of women helming the new exco working on their own discretions or are they working along the doctrine of someone behind the scene -a man?

Lest anyone think I am throwing my weight behind the old guards, I must make it clear that I have drawn away from the new exco for the simple fact that they have shown themselves to be untruthful, and anything that comes out after this revelation, is meaningless and useless, to say the least.

No one worth his/her grain of salt and in his/her right frame of mind should throw their weight behind untruthful characters, never mind what they are fighting for, because you can never ever know whether they are truthfully fighting for that cause or not.

However, neither am I standing on the old guards side for the other fact that their complacency (even though they have explained it away as ‘trust’) has resulted in this saga and thus have let its supporters down by their negligence.

A sociologist, Terence Chong, at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, wrote a cool headed and nicely articulated commentary on his survey of the type of responses form local media and public about the AWARE saga.

His main argument is that the 3rd type of response, “warning against ‘playing the religious card’ is but a disingenuous attempt to pretend that such Christian activism does not exist in multi-religious Singapore.” is not helpful and should be rebunked.

Go read at: http://www.opinionasia.org/SingaporeAWARESaga

#212 Peace,

I am a Christian. I worship the Lord, the one and only God, but that doesnt mean i dont have greed, hatred, desire and urges. dont we all have that? dont you?

whichever faith we embrace, we all have those flaws. so i really dont understand when you wrote “They are gods and you worship them and they cause you to have greed, hatred, desire, urges, same sex desires and so forth.”

come up peace the topic is about AWARE being hijack by the new exco, please be focus and not going to religion bashing. dont you have enough from gay/lesbian bashing. so much for peace.

think one hug is not enough, lots and lots of hugs.

now back to the saga. well i am a Christian and i am not pro gay/lesbian movement. i was initially pro new exco until i read further and learnt the following;

(1) they all joined AWARE for less than 5 months
(2) was silent about their ‘disagreement’ with the old exco’s neutral stand on homosexualty subject
(3) but seized power at the recent AGM, kicked the old guards out
(4) initially lied that they did not know each other, till their ‘feminist mentor’ surfaced
(5) dragged the church into it. or should i say the pastors in that church gladly supported their movement

that to me is ’sneaky’ and giving the faith a bad name.

i have never joined a civil group all my life, but this time i intend to join AWARE before the EGM this Sat.

Josie and her team cried out that why they are so much hatred towards them. matter of fact is, i dont hate them, i just despise them.

Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) #216,

I don’t think there is a church of scientology in Singapore after all, so I am free to bring Xenu, their evil intergalactic warlord. I hope his death glares don’t make conversation awkward.

@sllim (#214), y’know, my raising those 3 counter-arguments was mainly an attempt (not quite on-topic) to turn an inward eye of skepticism towards atheism, for the sake of argument… after all, it’s precisely that spirit of rational doubt which most religious doctrines do not accommodate.

I admit that the ‘empirical evidence’ cited by many religious devotees for the existence of god is (1) unreliable hearsay; and (2) does not prove quite nearly enough (e.g. the fact that certain persons referred to in the religious text did exist in history does not in itself show that a certain god exists).

“It is completely irrational to say that just because science cannot answer all the questions right here right now, scripture can. The course of history and science has taught us otherwise.”

We’re really using inductive reasoning here: out of Y number of questions, science has settled X of them; so the probability of science settling the remainder is high ((X / Y) x 100%) (I’m simplifying here.) But inductive reasoning has been criticized as not completely logical — in particular, in the formulation above, we cannot know the value of Y, so we don’t know how successful the scientific method is.

But as TJ pointed out, this is a ‘god of the gaps’ line of argument.

An even more powerful response is that the scientific method (verifying the truth of a hypothesis through observation) is the only way we have to learn about the physical universe. Even if it were flawed, it’s the only mode of inquiry we have, something we use constantly, e.g., when we look at the sky to predict the weather. Tellingly, even the religions try to establish their truth by recourse to the scientific method (as mentioned above).

As for the last point, whilst I acknowledge that science can explain the biochemistry behind our moral judgments, I do not think it can account for our moral universe (taking the moral realist’s view that propositions like “X is right” or “Y is evil” can be true or false). This point was addressed to WeiHan’s assumption that empirical proof is the only way to think about our world. That is true for the physical universe, but not the moral one (assuming, of course, that moral reasoning is not purely nonsensical).

Even so, I do not think that we have to rely on a religious text in order to determine what is right or wrong, good or evil. The opposite is often true: we frequently interpret a religious text in light of our deeply-felt moral convictions. Hence, what is good is good regardless of whether it is loved by the gods, and vice versa.

P.S. I think our parallel discussion on whether or not atheism is a ‘religion’ has sort of stalemated. But I’d just like to emphasize again that my argument that atheism should be regarded as a ‘religion’ was from practical consequences, rather than from strict logic.

I refer to #193. Only cowards try to call on other to fight for them and in this case try to drag her employer to take action against her. Some even threatened to cancel their credit cards, etc. with DBS. Common, don’t behave like little kids.

Though I do not subscribe to Josie’s action, I do admire her courage for putting her job on the firing line. She is definitely not a “yes man” that is why she climbed that high. I think she can easily find another job if DBS do not want her. The problem is someone in DBS was kiasu and make statement to the media for what is an internal issue which unfortunately have drag DBS into the fray.

la nausea #223,

No disagreements. Very nicely done.

Like I said, I takeyour larger point that atheism should be construed as “religion” for political utility. I just wanted to go on about it being illogical for the benefit of religious onlookers for whom every event is an occasion for affirmation i.e. evidence. For “practical consequences”, if you like. It wouldn’t have escaped you that some of them earnestly think Atheism is a competing brand of God.

Cheers

@ 212) Peace
Wow, how mature of you to resort to insulting other religions. Buddhism “cause you to have greed, hatred, desire, urges, same sex desires and so forth”?? What utter bullsh*t. You bring up Ming Yi, the monk accused of embezzling temple funds, but I could point out the numerous cases of Catholic priests molesting children. A quick Google search will show you how bad it is. Does this mean the Catholic Church promotes child molest? Of course not. But it shows that people, no matter what beliefs or religion they hold, can and will f*ck up from time to time. It is the ‘holier than thou’ attitude of idiots like you that created this AWARE mess in the first place. So “Peace”, please go back to whichever hole you came from and stay there.

peace and weihan, pls dun bring religion in. go hug a tree instead.

zefly, can i join u guys under ur rainbow color tree with hello kitty?

THIOLOGY and THEOLOGY – what a potent and portentous mix.

#190, Modernist,

// you can teach your own kids that birds and bees do not engage in anal sex, and if they do it is non negotiable hell brimstone and fire!//

strange, eh? birds and bees don’t engage in anal sex but why this big hooha about humans having anal sex and oral sex? I am confused. There is something wrong with the human race, right? Your son may ask.
Evolution may be the cause. Men and women are ‘changing role’.
About brimstone and fire, that is what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah .Does the word ’sodom’ ring your bell? It has surfaced again, across the causeway.. No, not the crooked bridge. Something more crooked.

/// 228) Peace on April 29th, 2009 6.34 pm
strange, eh? birds and bees don’t engage in anal sex but why this big hooha about humans having anal sex and oral sex? I am confused. There is something wrong with the human race, right? Your son may ask. ///

Peace – that is where you are wrong. Very wrong.

Birds, bees, and animals do engage in homosexual activities – and these are all God’s creatures.

” Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.”

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718

“This list includes animals (birds, mammals, insects, fish etc.) for which there is documented evidence of homosexual or transgender behavior …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

So, there is nothing wrong with the human race. And if there is something wrong with the human race, who made them that way?

yeah there is seriously something wrong with humans… , maybe some hold the conservative view women cannot work, must stay at home. humans by nature cannot fly wan, so why take to the sky? cannot leh, some wrong woh… ^.^

Peace,

Birds and bees also don’t impose their absolutist religious views on other people… isn’t that the natural state of things? Can I then conclude that you are an abomination of nature?

Think about your logic here.

[...] beauty queen about being “biblically-correct” sent a chill down my spine. Likewise, Pastor Hong’s statement about the Christian responsibility to protect “the young, the vulnerable, and the [...]

[...] his church’s “clarification” statement, and it gets even more confuzzling. Even COOS staff are getting in on the act. You can’t throw out the bath water without dashing the baby to the ground. So which is it, [...]

Hmm, I recalled reading Mother Teresa’s biography and later watched the movie adaptation of it. She never imposed her Roman Catholic Christian beliefs on her Hindu patients but what what happened in the end was her selfless actions as compared to self-centred Christians (majority of whom are evangelical Protestants, won converted to the Roman Catholic faith. Even the skeptical, atheist British reporter Malcolm Muggeridge who interviewed her became a Christian much later when he returned to England, I think it’s Anglican. He was inspired by her works which clearly shows pure Christian faith actively working in unconditional love. I’m not Christian but I have a soft spot for Roman Catholics cos I have not come across any of their members delivering pampthlets at public places or knocking on doors to proselytise. They dun seem to bother ppl of other religious beliefs and that’s a key ingredient to living harmoniously in multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore. Maybe they’re inspired by Mother Teresa who like Jesus, humbled herself and chose the path of love and humility to become and live among the poorest of the poor. Isn’t that just like what Jesus did in his lifetime. We Muslims believe Jesus lived a very humble life, no home and a bunch of disciples who are considered outcasts by the society of his time. Compare this with the megachurches, the amount of donations and tithings poured in, the popularity of the pastor, pastor got cut CD, album & living the high life etc. The opposite of what Mother Teresa would have done would be like the evangelical Singaporean couple who was arrested by Singapore Police for distributing religious tracts offensive to us Muslims. See URL: http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_348643.html

Azlina #251,

“I’m not Christian but I have a soft spot for Roman Catholics cos I have not come across any of their members delivering pampthlets at public places or knocking on doors to proselytise.”

That’s a pretty low bar to set.

I wouldn’t play up Teresa’s character if I were you. Read “The Missionary Position” (Christopher Hitchens, a writer of note).

For starters, she was against condom use in a country rife with Aids. Also she spent more donations on religious institutions than hospices for the sickly. She reveled in suffering because she thought it brought her closer to Christ…