many feathers may have been ruffled for now…..but must rem to forgive ok?

Well, the public sentiment appears to be that, after their highly suspicious behavior, the onus is on the fundies to prove that they are NOT. Besides, true fundies are not afraid to be labelled as fundies.

Mr Tang should take a chill pill.

Christian fundamentalism has several meanings , depending on who you speak to. And I think it is fair for us to draw, from the actions of the new Aware Exco, conclusions that they are in some ways, Christian Fundamentalists.

You talk about “civil discourse”. Perhaps you should be targeting the new Aware Exco, who has not made its stance clear, causing all these so-called “misperceptions”.

Chill, Tang. Train your guns elsewhere.

I’m sorry, but Christianity holds women in high regard? There is *some* regard but not as high as you make it out to be. After all, the Bible was used to keep women at home for hundreds of years, and was in the past used to condone or justify wife-beating, on the basis that men had to “master” their wives. Most significantly, there was this idea that women were to be almost completely subordinated to their husbands as a result of Eve’s role in causing the fall of mankind from the Garden of Eden.

Such ideas persisted well into the early 20th century, and I think it is understandable why feminists or female rights activists (not sure if that is the right term for AWARE members) might be a little skeptical of having… shall we say, very staunch Christians as their new exco?

Mr Tang is right in pointing out that Choo shouldn’t link the actions of the new AWARE committee with Christianity. There is nothing Christian about hijacking a well-established organization to fulfil their own agenda. There is nothing Christian about stonewalling the press when it comes to making known their religious affliations. There is nothing Christian about claiming to be against discrimination and yet evade Balji’s questions about what would their stance be if a woman is discriminated in her work place due to her sexual preference. There is nothing Christian in dishonesty.

So what? Using divisive label is still not wrong.. This letter reflects the value of an uncompromising fundamentalist who mis-interprets conveniently for his or her cause.

Just want to add this:

The new Aware Exco has single-handedly, in a matter of just a few days, discredited Christianity and brought a bad name to it.

The faster they realise it, the better.

And it starts with humility – which is sorely lacking in its new Exco.

Based on the Strait TImes article, that means, the following are all attending Anglican Church of Our Saviour.

1. Josie Lau (President) and husband Alan Chin
2. Charlotte Wong (Vice-president)
3. Irene Yee (Committee member)
4. Jenica Chua (Honorary secretary)
5. Maureen Ong (Honorary treasurer)
6. Sally Ang (Assistant honorary secretary)

That is 6 posts out of the 11 posts (1 less from original line-up of 12, as committee member Josie Lau is now the President), where all the 5 decision posts – President, Vice-president, Honorary secretary, Honorary treasurer and Assistant honorary secretary are taken by the same clique.

http://blog.alicecheong.com/?p=411

I wonder if the 80 odd new members who suddenly turned up at the AGM to vote them in, were from the same church.

Hi smallvice,

Thanks very much for your support for my original article, but i hope you will respect shang jun as a person and instead debate his point of view if you find it objectionable. i think we can all play a part in keeping discourse open and civil. Thanks again.

To Tang Shang Jun,

Call a Spade a Spade. It is just as simple as that. Plus it is AWARE’s responsibility to maintain unity among its members. It is no one else’s job or responsibility. To demand an external party to do that not only demonstrate the potential atrocity the Christian fundamentalists are capable of, it also shows the total disregard of how the public views AWARE. Remember, when Hitler exterminated the Jews, he did so believing he is doing a greater good by cleaning the world of Jews. Evil things of grand scale are often done in the name of good.

Excellent decision by TOC to publish this letter.

when you have the maturity to acknowledge dissent on your own turf,
you display commendable maturity.

I hope to see more such letters on TOC in future. It will be a sign that the site is truly having an impact on society.

Hi Zheng Xi,

It would be a discovery to learn that fundamentalists are human inside too.

Hi all,

First of all, thank you to TOC for deciding to publish my letter and also to Mr Choo who has the admirable grace and maturity to consider opposing views.

I do not have the time to respond to every counterpoint made here in the comments section but i will choose a few to respond to generally.

1) Firstly, i object to being labelled as a fundamentalist. I am sure i have done nothing to deserve such a label being tagged on me.

2) Eidetical: thank you for your thoughts and opinions on your perception regarding Christianity and women. Other evangelicals may disagree with me here, but i shall state my view which i believe in good faith to be based on sound Biblical principles.

I agree with your statement that the Bible has been used in the past to repress women and to justify wronging women in many ways. But this was done through twisting and perverting Christian theology. it was done in violation of the teachings of Christ.

To show a full picture of how women were treated in the Bible and by Jesus Himself would take too long. I shall therefore be content with just using one example. Jesus commands husbands to “love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up to her…and present her to Himself as a radiant Church…” (Eph 5:25).

The metaphor is striking as it is humbling at the same time. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church! The Church is elsewhere described in the Bible as the “Bride of the Lamb” and also as Christ’s body. Christ loved the church with a sincere, pure and constant love, regardless of her failures (Matthew Henry’s Commentary). Husbands are held to THAT high a standard.

Therefore based on this (and many other passages), i would go as far as to argue that repression of women is unbiblical and unjustifiable within the theological framework of Christianity. Women have, unfortunately, been oppressed in the name of Christ but as i’ve argued above, it is done in violation of the Bible’s teachings

3) ST Observer: great point you made. Yes, there are several meanings to fundamentalism. and therefore i find it objectionable that the article could use the term without a proper definition of what fundamentalism means.

The point of my letter was not to analyse the whole situation, let alone speculate on the new AWARE ex-co, but rather was a response to the use of certain terms by Mr Choo

Cheers.

eidetical,

Hinduism was also used to promote a terrible Caste System for thousands of years. And some people still use the Rig-Veda to argue for the Caste System. That is why even anti-proselytists must sometimes be suspect…

What is more important to know is that what Christians use the Bible to justify is not always justifiable through the Bible under proper scrutiny. It is a sad fact that many Christians have perverted the meaning of the Bible, either through malice and pride or through sheer ignorance, but there are also Christians working hard to destroy these distortions.

Christianity does not ask for females to be subjugated in front of men. In fact, many Biblical stories have females as key characters – Ruth, Deborah, the Virgin Mary, the woman at the well – showing that they are not always the low-level, sub-servient characters. Anyway, it appears that even the Atheists are catching up with this idea. Which is why Dan Brown and Gang are positing for a Sacred Feminine Theory. If one can use the Bible to postulate a Sacred Feminine, that cannot be anti-feminist, can it?

IMHO, there is nowhere in the Bible that permits wives to be beaten, not even in the harshest laws in the Book of Leviticus. Where people get that idea from is through wanton imagination.

Well, then it seems reasonable for any third party to say that AWARE is now run by anti-homosexuals…or if you like a milder term, persons who happen to be females and happens to hold anti-homosexuality views.

The failure of Christians to separate social practise of ancient times written in the Bible from actual practises prescribed by God? Haha.. A fundamentalist is only as sound-minded as his preacher.

1 Timothy 2:12 (New International Version)

12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
-

go on tell us that we misquote or misinterpret the bible. ;)

selectively following of what is convenient for you and to ignore whats not just shows who you really are as a person.

sure the divisive labeling is wrong. good call on that.

lets just call them; homophobic christians

What an Irony, the term Fundamentalism was not too long ago used on Muslims sweepingly, is now back to the original host. If the New AWARE Ex-Co (a.k.a agents of the Anglican Church of Our Saviour ) thinks that they have the right to be self-appointed representatives of Women of different ethnicity, religious beliefs, denominations in Singapore, they are only confirming the labels used to describe their actions.

Fortunately, the many christians I know are followers of the Moral Teachings of Jesus as the defender of the weak and oppressed not the Christianity that was founded in the Ruling Courts of Rome.

Dear SpeedWeed,

Thank you for a great comment! Indeed 1 Tim 2:12 deserves to be dealt with.

Before i do that, i would like to refer to the following criticism that you have levelled at me:

“selectively following of what is convenient for you and to ignore whats not just shows who you really are as a person”

Now in order for this criticism of me to have any moral force and foundation on your part, you must (a) be sure that i have selectively followed what is convenient and (b) if (a) is true or if you assume/consider (a) to be true, you must not be guilty of the same charge. if not, the charge backfires and self-implodes.

I note your citation of nothing more than 1 Tim 2:12. I wonder if you could affirm that you did not ignore the other passages in the Bible which affirm the status of women before concluding that 1 Tim 2:12 is conclusive of the Biblical repression of women?

Having said that, on to my explanation. I argue that i have not selectively followed what is convenient.

There are two main schools of scholarship when it comes to 1 Tim 2:12: the (i) egalitarian and (ii) the complementarian. The egalitarian school argues that 1 Tim 2:12 is limited to a local context, that Paul was preaching against the Gnostics of that time which, amongst others, used a lot of feminine imagery and that when the verb, ‘to permit’ (epitrepsein in greek) is used in the new testament, it refers to a specific permission. They therefore argue that the correct translation of 1 Tim 2:12 should be that “i do not presently permit” indicating future permittance.

The complementarian school argues that 1 Tim 2:12 should be interpreted as it is: that women are not permitted to have authority over men in the context of Church authority. That they are ‘complementarian’ indicates that they affirm the different roles of men and women in church according to God’s intended order. The correct question to ask is therefore not “is it discriminatory” but rather “what did God intend.” The question of discrimination does not even come in here.

We also need to note that it does not mean women cannot have any form of authority in Church. there were female prophetesses, deaconesses that Paul refers to as well.

Lastly, from the perspective of creation, woman was created in the same divine image as man. from an eschatological perspective, women receive the same salvation as men and there are no status differences in the new creation. We also need to see women from a historial perspective, which i will deal with in my conclusion.

I’ve gone on for far too long on Biblical exegesis than is appropriate in the setting of a political and news forum like this one. Let me conclude.

I am not simply dismissing your quoting of 1 Tim 2:12 as a misrepresentation or misquotation of the bible. What i am saying is that 1 tim 2:12 cannot be taken as a standalone. We need to consider the position of women in the context of entire Biblical history, we see Debroah, Rebekah, Ruth, Mary, Priscilla, Mary Magdalene, the women Christ revealed Himself to after the resurrection and the samaritan woman at the well who Christ reached out to, unheard of during its time that a Jewish man could converse with a samaritan woman. When we see the important role that women played and still continue to play in Christendom, we do not see injustice levelled at the female person. Instead, we see women cherished no less than men and as i have argued in my previous post, we see that men have to love their wives just as Christ loved His church.

Hi everyone

Since some of the discussion here pertains to what I have written, I’d like to make a comment.

First of all, I do not think Christianity is “inherently” or “necessarily” opposed to women’s rights. As I state in the original Editorial I wrote on this incident, as well as in many pieces I have written for Glass Castle over time, I do not see bigotry as inherent to any religion (and I do not see support for gender equality as inherent to humanism or atheism, although I consider myself an atheist). Faiths change over time in what they mean in terms of practices and attitudes. It is particular practices and attitudes which can be bigoted or liberatory, and I criticise bigoted these practices and attitudes whether they are religious or secular.

However, there is a particular movement of Christians who put forward a vision of social morality which is decidedly hostile to women’s freedom and women’s welfare. (The in’s and out’s of how this is so, I discuss on Glass Castle and cannot quickly summarise here.) The movement themselves consider this vision of morality to be not only inspired by, but in fact mandated by, Christianity. I do not think that their mode of Christian practice is the only mode of Christian practice, or the “most Christian” mode of Christian practice, or that it exemplifies Christian practice, or anything of the sort. There are many other kinds of Christian practice, many of which I prefer on a variety of grounds. But as an atheist it is not my place to judge between kinds of Christian practice with a view to saying one is more fully reflective of Christ’s teachings than another. I think that sort of thing is for believers to sort out amongst yourselves (unless you specifically invite us to comment and make judgments – but how could we qualify to do so, really?)

Nonetheless, because I recognise this particular – bigoted – movement does not represent the totality of Christian practice, while it is inspired by what its adherents consider to be Christianity, we need some kind of terminology to refer to them. I understand that “fundamentalist” may even have been, originally, a description applied to themselves by the particular Protestant Evangelists who have become today’s Christian fundamentalist movement, because of their belief that they are returning to the “fundamentals” of their faith. It is because of that that I identify proponents of this movement and their ideological allies as “Christian fundamentalists”.

It is interesting to me that you think the term “fundamentalist” itself is divisive. I use it only to indicate that I am referring to a particular movement and a particular mode of practising Christianity, and I think the word usually communicates this fact. My objection to those I call “fundamentalists” is quite apart from the word. I think that most people understand the term as referring to a particular set of beliefs and practices; and also that their attitude depends largely on their opinion of the sets of beliefs and practices in question, rather than depending on the word. In other words, if people associate “fundamentalism” with intolerance, it is because the people whom they recognise from the word “fundamentalists” are also people they believe are intolerant, rather than because the word itself prejudices them in some way. What do you think the word means – aside from denoting the group concerned – which is so prejudicial?

In addition, I would point out that there are many people who use the word “feminist” in a perjorative way. But I do not object in the slightest to being identified as a feminist; in fact, I am happy to own it. I don’t feel any need to hide my feminism and I don’t consider anyone pointing it out to be prejudicial to me.

Finally, as to the alleged divisiveness of saying that Christian fundamentalists as a movement are “anti-homosexual”. I do not think that people who support the criminalisation of gay sex, consider homosexuality to be an “abomination”, and seek to “cure” anyone who is not heterosexual of their sexuality, can be described as anything but “anti-homosexual” without doing serious violence to the English language. Perhaps the letter writer would be kind enough to reflect on the effects of treating LGBTQ people in this way and with this tone, prior to pointing fingers at the sources of “divisiveness” in society.

Jolene

While I suspect that Tang and I would disagree on a lot of things I think it showed the writer’s underlying assumptions, not exactly neutral.

Maybe Christians shld pray that he fail his exams. If he does, they can say “God is with us, so how can we not fail”. And while they are praying for him to fail, they shld pray that many of those who want an EGM get sick on day.

Show sceptics like me that prayer in the cause can work!

I’m a liberal and I always wonder why Christians vocally taking action against gays do not speak out against abortion. Could it be govmin is pro abortion, while “neutral” on gays? Whatever happened to the spirit of Christians who were fed to the lions because of their faith?

I think using letters to erufy what Jesus said is a little bit empty of critical academic research.

The letters, on which the above arguements for the treatment of women are the hear-say accounts and the memories of men, they are not the “word of god”. In fact the gospels themselves were not written by anyone who actually new Jesus, and the attributed authorship is is serious doubt amoungst biblical scholars.

But even ignoring that, I think if one wants to say “Jesus said” to support one’s stance then such should be limited to the attribution of himself (the gospels) and not the letters in which a man writes, “Jesus said” after all for a long time people have been claiming “Jesus said” and as such nearly any behaviour can be justified.

It should have been very simple for them to say if they are from the same church and their relationship with each other. The no comment remark from the Anglican Church and them actually backfired on them badly.

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/04/aware-new-president-first-interview/

21) Sarek_home.

in the second interview 3minute 40 sec to 3 min 50 second.

Apparently Josie Lau and Maureen Ong claims they did not know each other before working

but Josie Lau cut short her remark and the hosts let it past without digging further.

6 members from the same church, not a planned coup?

I say: “Holy Shit”

Omg….do u study theology? If u do not, then please do not criticise what you do not understand. Even athetists studying theology and philosophy knows what the above means.

Strange people are getting worked up with the word “Christian Fundamentalism” when the word “Muslim Fundamentalism” is used by all media left, right and centre????? IMHO, the word Fundamentalism is a terribly misused word in today’s world. Anyone using that word should know its actual meaning before using it.

Came across one website about the saga. It has a few pictures, one of which is a picture of Josie Lau. And the caption to indicate who’s who and where, wrote “… Josie Lau (extreme right)” How prophetic

I am disappointed. TOC of all folks should know how to criticize robustly but without resorting to name calling like using the terms “Christian fundamentalist”. Attack the bigotry, not the religion.

Jolene,
you did cause the division by the use of those words that give very negative connotations in today’s context. The association of the word fundamentalism with terrorism seems to have sparked this unnecessary debate on religion
For your information all good Christian should be fundamentalists but the word fundamental was never used as prefix. It is assumed that every christian is a fundamentalist, ie, complete submission . Unfortunately the word today gives this negative connotation. As some posters put it, fundamentalism is also seen as going round ,prowling the streets enforcing the injunctions , like the Talibans.
For your information there is no such thing as liberal or moderate christian. Maybe , you think the moderate ones are christians who keep to themselves and don’t go round evangelising and the fanatics are the ones who are always sharing their faith. Evangelising is every Christian’s duty and not an option.It is a commandment.
Jesus calls these moderate ones who are outwardly Christians , who go to church every sunday ; who are involved with Christian activities but no faith in their heart ,goats , meaning they are not truthful in their heart . They also compromise and condone to unchrisitan activities.When it comes to the crunch or when the rubber meets the road they compromise ,they deny, they play to the gallery.
Well ,I am just explaining some of the behaviors of Chrsitians that you might mistake as fanatics with sinister motives.Yes , there bound to be some over zealous ones only to the ire of non Christians.
I hope i have not opened up another thread.

Christian or Muslim or Others Religion teaches towards Goodness.

They can be manipulate towargs Constructive or Distructive Ways especially during the Middle Age where the Pope is the King. After the Age of Reasons, people came to questions the truth.

Singapore is basically a Non religious country, the separation bet Business, Politics, and Religion is very impt.

No one has the right to questions the doing of others unless he cause harm to society. Whatever he do in private is his own business unless he do it in public places.

A fundamentalist is also seen as someone who is very faithful to something which create anti-soclialism & self centerness in him. Thus he thought he is always right and do no wrong and the world should surround him and nobody else,. Soon this person will be too focused on “self” that he deny and cannot accept the slightest happeing around him which he thinks he owned them and should have full control. This is what happened in the end.

Peace,

Could not agree more with your comments. A fundamentalist is someone who believes in his faith strongly, but sadly in today’s context, it is miscontructed as militant, hardline and even terrorist! Fundamentalist= Taliban= Inquisition, need I go on? A total misuse of the word. Be it Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, etc, if we believe in a certain religion, we are Fundementalists by default. A Fanatic more apt description for what we discussing about but I doubt that anyone is such an extremist in the context of this discussion. Singaporeans are very pragmatic people.

Hi Biblical?,

Thanks for sharing your concern regarding the scholarship of such documents. This reply is not to give a robust defence of the scriptures as it would take far too much time (and is also not the topic of this entire discussion), but to merely register my disagreement with your view that relying on the Pauline letters is a “little bit empty of critical academic research” and that “the attributed authorship is is serious doubt amongst [sic] biblical scholars.”

I think this is far from the view that is taken by theologians. just because people like Dawkins has come out in “the god delusion” to state that the scriptures cannot be trusted does not make it a fact. Dawkins stands as a minority in this. Other ministers-turned-atheist people like Bart Ehrman also try to discredit the gospels but have come under severe challenge that reveal the deficiencies of Ehrman’s work.

It is far too easy for one to take the bible and say it is all “hear say” and that nothing can be trusted. i won’t say anymore on this matter other than that there is far more to it than meets the eye.

# 28 Dear E_Jay, I believe you’re mistaken. The label ‘Christian fundamentalist’, far from being attack of Christianity, can also be a critique of the more extreme (and perhaps erroneously understood) versions of Christianity.

Thus, the point is about the who/what of religious fundamentalism (in this instance, Christianity), and not about the label per se.

Peace,

It is not for me to judge whether people are “real” Christians or not. I will refer to all the people who identify as Christian by the word “Christians” whether or not you approve of their mode of worship. It is their identification of themselves, not yours, which I will respect. If you believe there is a more appropriate word than “fundamentalism” for the particular movement discussed in this conversation, you are welcome to suggest it, but I will not use terminology which suggests that other people who identify as Christians are somehow “not doing Christianity properly”.

That would truly be divisive and disrespectful of religious believers’ feelings.

I do not think fundamentalism equates to terrorism and I think that most informed people also recognise a difference.

Jolene

Agree. The whole thing started with TOC. Such divisive labels should not be published….especially on religion ..threading on very dangerous grounds. Can uimagine what can happen if another religion is talked about in this way?
I am glad that the new team did not use a divisive label on the whole guards.

‘Fundamentalism’, I agree, is a word with a clutch of imprecise meanings. Clearly, it has associations with terrorism, i.e. when the means of persuasion employed are linked to violence and anti-social behaviour. And clearly, that would be an inappropriate meaning when talking about the AWARE saga.

Yet another connotation of the word ‘ fundamentalism’ is fanaticism, i.e. belief without reasoned argument. But fanaticism is not limited to one end of the ideological spectrum; I’m sure we’ve all seen our fair share of rabid, foaming-mad liberals who fail to adequately defend their positions.

I submit, however, that the term ‘fundamentalism’ should be viewed as just a gloss on our disagreement on the policy positions of certain groups. The term ‘Christian fundamentalists’, as I understand it, should refer to those particular Christian groups which, among other things:

(1) oppose abortion rights (except under extraordinary circumstances);
(2) oppose GLBT rights, in particular ‘core’ rights such as the freedom to engage in sexual intercourse without penal sanctions and the freedom from discrimination in areas such as employment and education;
(3) advocate serious restrictions on the rights of divorce and re-marriage;
(4) argue for no, or a limited, criminal law provision against marital rape.

These policy positions contradict those which AWARE has historically campaigned for. Hence, the term “Christian fundamentalists” is merely a shorthand (infelicitous though it may be) for a particular group we oppose, just as that group identifies and refers to ‘us’ as “liberals” or “radicals” peddling, for instance, “the gay agenda”.

Is it fair to typecast particular Christian groups with this particular set of policy positions? I would argue “Yes”; an examination of our actual sociological landscape (as well as countries such as the U.S., U.K., Canada, France, Australia, etc.) shows (1) that these policy positions tend to manifest as a ‘cluster’ (i.e. the typical person who holds some of them will likely hold all); and (2) that Christian groups have been especially vocal about these policy positions within civil society.

May I also point out that the term “divisive” is as slippery as the term “fundamentalist”, because it assumes that consensus and harmony for their own sake comprise always an unqualified good. In reality, the divisions (based on world-view and moral principle) are an inescapable fact of life within a plural society; the use of ‘divisive’ words merely erects barricades upon lines already drawn in sand.

“Divisiveness”, I suggest, is ordinarily nothing to be concerned about. We do disagree (and vehemently at that), and to deny or whitewash this would be the height of hypocrisy. “Civil discourse” need not always be conducted ‘civilly’, in hushed, diffident, inoffensive tones; it’s precisely on the basis of ‘reason’ and ‘civility’ that the State has curtailed freedom of speech. More important than civil, respectful debate is honest debate. If I despise your position, because I believe it oppresses some of my fellow citizens, then I shouldn’t have to mince my words in voicing my dissent. Whether I’m taken seriously is a different matter altogether, and that depends on my use of reasoned arguments to back me up.

Lastly, is it fair to call the new Exco of AWARE “Christian fundamentalists” (in the sense i have described)? Perhaps not, but it is logical to do so. The circumstances before and after the March 28 AGM suggest that it is more probable than not that (1) what happened that day was a coordinated effort by a group of members; (2) this group took over the helm because it has a certain agenda/programme; and (3) this programme differs from the one advanced by the previous Exco. This new programme remains undisclosed, some 3 weeks after the AGM. Naturally, one must take an educated guess, on the best evidence available. We know that a third of the New Guard have written in opposition to repealing 377A in the past. Hence, in the absence of other evidence, this suggests (again, on a balance of probabilities) that they will adopt the policy positions outlined earlier, which as a matter of empirical fact appear to come in a package. Hence the label, “Christian fundamentalists” to denote the New Guard.

All this shows that the onus is on the new Exco to articulate its new agenda for AWARE. Simply asserting that they have been ‘democratically-elected’ rings false and hollow; as a prominent civil society group in Singapore (often consulted by the Government when it drafts new laws, for instance), AWARE (and by extension, its Exco) is accountable not just to its own members, but to all women living in Singapore and to Singapore society in general. Until the new Exco is fully transparent about its objectives, it lacks democratic legitimacy.

Hi Ejay,

Thank you for dropping by the site. As we mentioned quite clearly in the note appended to Shangjun’s letter, which you must have read, it was never our intention to criticize the religion as a whole. All the best for your work in the Reform Party.

Regards,
Zheng Xi

Oh , Christians are sane and reasonable people and would not up their arms just because of this mild and childish challenges from Jolene and others. This is no big deal. Imagine what Dawkins and the gang of four are doing and yet chrisitanity is not even slightly dented. At the end of the day, as christians their job is to defend and to enlighten and clarify and leave it to the hearers. The job of vengeance is God’s. Your persecution by labeling and calling them by all sort of names would not deter them instead it convinces and strengthens them that indeed it is the true religion. A true religion has many enemies.

Hi all

I wonder if this thread is turning ugly.

Just by scrolling down, I see insults and verbal attacks on not just a Church in Singapore, but also Christianity and Hinduism too.

Words such as ‘fundies’ and ‘Taliban’ are not to be taken lightly when labelling a religious group.

Doesn’t anybody moderate these things? If Islam was being insulted here, somebody would have been arrested by now.

Regards,
Nicholas

I agree….this thread in fact has divided instead of uniting singaporeans

Get All the Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddist Whatever Whatever out of TOC.
You can read your Bible, Koran, Hindu Buddisht Scripe till the Cow call the Moon with no results!

Religions got no place in TOC. TOC should be a place of discuss Social, Political and Economy Condtions of Singapore.

{“Peace” wrote on April 20th, 2009 12.49 am #15: The old committee was unfocused. They strayed into non women issues. What has gay got to do with a women organisation? Focus on women and there are plenty for them to focus. The old women deserved to be ousted}

AGREE WITH MS LAU: OLD COMMITTEE WAS GETTING UNFOCUSSED

It was a strategic mistake—a terrible bad judgment—for Mdm Singam to fashion her arsenal on “gay versus Christian” against Ms Lau and her jolly team to roil up public’s sentiments against the new Exco. So it is pathetic to see her and her old-girls network recoiling from the hot political potato that they could not shake away.

Maybe, this is what Ms Josie Lau meant when she said on TV yesterday, that AWARE is becoming unfocussed and too diversified. So there is a need to refocus and optimise scare resources. Maybe Mdm Singam can help her by taking out of her savings or the wealth of her husband, children and grandchildren and give it to AWARE, stipulating that she wants it solely for gays/lesbians in need of surgery or whatever, areas that are outside the purview of AWARE’s assistance. I’m sure Ms Josie Lau and company will be more than happy to oblige her, rather than she digging into AWARE’s limited resources.

I also observed that when Mdm Singam marshals her forces for the forthcoming EOGM to try ousting the new Exco—with scare-mongering, misrepresentation and obfuscation—it is her act of holiness. But when Ms Josie invited her friends to attend the 28 March meeting, somehow that was her a mortal sin. So can any kind soul please help me unravel this great cosmic mystery? After all, wasn’t it in response to Mdm Singam’s clarion call for new faces to step out to serve the women through AWARE that Ms Josie Lau and company gallantly responded? Is this then not a case of “Do and be damned! Don’t do and be damned too”?

Honestly speaking, as “Nicky” has stated below, no one is comfortable to see two women or two men locked in passionate embrace (in the public’s view, like what is happening in the Wild West), even in the dim light of the moon where others can see. Nonetheless, “Nicky” is correct to have said that most Singaporeans, like me, are not homophobic towards gays or lesbians, so long as they do it discreetly; practise hygiene; and don’t be too evangelical about it.
I’m a simple man. I believe in “Loving the sinner, and hating his sin”, just like “Loving the drug addicts, but hating their addiction,” which is destroying them. Why on earth would any sane person wants others to be trapped in the terrible bondage of drug addiction?

Well, if Mdm Singam wishes me to grow up to be more sophisticated and modern so that I too can share with her their appreciation of how the modern world has changed—sic—progressed, I’m afraid she will have many more years of waiting to do. Can you then live that long, dear Madam?
-

{“Nicky” wrote on April 20th, 2009 12.47 am #13 “…gays are not doing themselves a favour by attacking the so-called conservatives.
I personally do not want to have to explain to my grandchildren why two men (or two women) are kissing or why are both parents of the same sex. Still, like most Singaporeans, who though much preferred normal gender and heterosexual lifestyle are, equally, not homophobic towards our gay “}

truebluesingapore:
even from a completely secular point of view, how can you say religions have no place in TOC? how can anyone discuss social, political and economic conditions in singapore without giving fair examination of what religious groups think and do about these issues? thats hardly democratic, non-prejudicial or realistic for that matter.

you cannot even discuss a “secular” topic like human rights without bringing in examples like the apartheid or civil rights movement or Gandhi’s Salt March without understanding the religious views they stemmed from. you might as well just close off all discussion except whatever pleases you and you alone.

please consider how you are smearing the name of “moderate” liberal, unprejudicial, educated discussion with your brand of “fundamentalist” liberalist closed discussion.

it is plain insulting to tell religious people to get out of the conversation.

#36, moderators take time.. unless you want all comments to be approved prior to posting. anyway I believe in free speech. and if some one wants to use that freedom to insult, then i think the answer is to respond with your logic and calm, not with arresting that person.

anyway I agree with #18. people seems to have no qualms with calling muslim terrorists “fundamentalists”, when the more accurate term is “extremist”. if we had not build up such a bad connotation on “fundamentalist” and distorted the meaning, then we won’t be having this discussion today.

and in any event when I read the original article on TOC, my impression was that TOC was quoting the feminists. what do YOU think?

“Among feminists, concern was voiced about the implications a Christian fundamentalist AWARE Executive Committee would have on feminism.”

so i think the complaint against Mr Choo is ill-aimed.

29)Peace,

You are right to say that all Christians are called on to ‘evangelize’ and be a ‘light to the gentiles’ so to speak. I dun wanna add more ‘religion’ to this thread, so I’ll skirt the whole thing about what evagenlizing means to different people. We all can accept that people with religion with feel duty bound to convert others if they believe that theirs is the ONLY one that matters. What I feel distinguishes fundies from others is, as I mentioned in another thread, that they believe the ends justify the means.

Despite the way things are phrased in some of the comments you find, I believe what everyone were against isn’t the religion per se, but extremism, and questionable methods, though legal to achieve goals. In hijacking an NGO, these people also hijacked the name of a religion which I happen to be very fond of.

Yes, the exchange on this thread is certainly turning ugly – something started by some selfish women with a hidden agenda (whether it’s christian or not has no relevance) who hopefully will realise by now their foolishness – AWARE will and should always be secular and inclusive, NOT to be dominated by members from any particular organization, religious or otherwise.

Church of Our Saviour’s Position Statement on Homosexuality.
Our position is totally founded on the Bible which we believe to be the Word of God.
1. Homosexual practice is clearly sin against God
BUT
2. God loves all sinners, straight or homosexual according to

What type of Christianity does the Church believe in?

To Mr. Tang. Please enlighten us

This is God’s divine order:
1. God
2. Marriage
3. Family
4. Church (ministry)
5. Government

a) The husband is the head
b) The wife is in subjection to her husband
c) The responsibility of children is to obey their parents in the Lord
d) Servants have likewise to obey their masters

Divine order is an order of authority and responsibility that is spelled out in the Bible
1. Head of every man is Christ
2. Head of every woman is the man
3. Head of the children are the parents

God’s Order for Wives
God has declared to us that His will for a young woman is to do four things:
1. marry
2. bear children
3. guide the house.
4. not be a reproach to her husband

Church of Our Saviour
Deeper Life Camp 2006 – “We Are Family!”

who is responsible for all these mess???

Each our us got our Own God!

Unless you can show your God infront of everyone, what is the point of discussing!

Too are many right-wing ultra-conservative christians in Singapore nowadays.
Too many crazy yet so few lions to feed them to.

Even a blind person can see how TOC is one sided in their view against Christianity, to even allowed such an article to be published, all the reputation of TOC down the drain. What has TOC done to itself?

As for Mr Choo ZX, he knows he jump the gun too far, now like a “GUI” shaking his head in disbelieve and except to act innocent. What has been spilled out from his mouth cant be taken back. That should teach him a lesson not to mess with religion or incite anything seditious.

What has got into him? Must be some bad experiences with christians in the past? Kept haunting you? You see i am jumping gun now, just like him. Give yourself a break Mr Choo, GOD has forgiven you.

53) What is wrong with U? on April 20th, 2009 7.36 pm

It Has nothing to do with TOC or Mr. Choo

Too often the church does not present the truth of what it means to follow Jesus
And we are trying to convince people of a promise in the life to come without understanding the expectations in this life
We tell people just enough information to convince them to choose Jesus, but not what the life after choosing Jesus will look like

Dear ShowUsTheLight,

Thank you for your comment. I believe i have commented adequately in the comments above regarding my thoughts on the scriptural basis of this issue. I will make no further comment on Christian doctrine here as this is not a forum on religion. I believe in good faith that what i’ve presented above is adequate food for thought for those interested in delving deeper into what Christianity has to say about the position of women.

I will also refrain from commenting on the doctrinal beliefs of the Church of Our Saviour. I am in no position and neither do i think it appropriate for an outsider like me to do so.

Dear What is wrong with U?,

I’ll just limit my comment to acknowledging that Zheng Xi has taken the initiative to publish a view of mine that is contrary to his own already. I think that is fair and admirable.

Kind Regards

Dear Ng E Jay,

You are a seasoned political commentator, yet you are unable to recognise a political movement disguised as a faith movement. When this group of people get criticised, they hide behind the mask of an OB marker. This is the real bigotry!

smallvice,
”
62) smallvice on April 20th, 2009 8.11 pm
Hi Ejay
You are a seasoned political commentator, yet you are unable to recognise a political movement disguised as a faith. This is the same strategy the Taleban uses to carry out its terrorist activities.”

Why not tell us your name and email address? So we all can get real evidence and share in your findings that Christianity is A “Terrorist activity” in disguise. This forum is getting hot! Really blatant accusations and seditious comments on religion.

What a shame!

63) FeverGuy on April 20th, 2009 8.11 pm

See 54) and thank you for your views

The right phrase to use is right-wing ultra-conservative christian and not teleban or christian fundamentalist

To Singaporedaddy,

Be patient. If your comment does not appear, relax. It takes time for us to release the comments from the moderation queue. Many other commenters’ comments are also caught in the queue from time to time.

To the Brother Hood,

Did I say Christian fundamentalists are terrorists? I merely pointed out the similarity in strategy to masquerade a political movement in the faith circles. In fact, there is a good wikipedia entry on this religious political movement.. It should give you some good idea of what actually goes on in Singapore.

Why not tell us your name and email address? So we all can get real evidence and share in your findings that Christianity is A “Terrorist activity” in disguise. This forum is getting hot! Really blatant accusations and seditious comments on religion. – FeverGuy #58

What seditious comments on religions? I see a lot of seditious comments against secularism in Singapore. No organised religion should have a voice in parliament!

ai yah at the end of the day everyone still die.

write so much letter also no use.

write letter no action no use tang.

same for myself post comment no action no use.

just past time and waiting to die.

hahahahaha

think many contributors on this TOC forums should be charged for seditions and defamation – its amazing, there is so much fodder to feed on….. I think we will have more fun when the ‘clean up’ team comes…. Would suggest all contributors please watch out your language and what you guys say.

Its DEGENERATING…..

a person ask his optometrist is lasik surgery good?

not fair to answer good and not fair to answer not good as well.

then go and ask a lasik surgeon is lasik surgery bad?

not fair to answer bad and not fair to answer not bad as well.

ai ya just decide yourself.

I decide to support Choo Zheng Xi.

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

my action is just type

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Hohoho, and your point is?

I am a homosexual but I used to be Christian.

I was born into Christianity. My church was my father’s church, which was his father’s church, which was my great grandmother’s church.

My grandmother’s parents were Presbyterian missionaries born in China, martyred in Indonesia, and my granny was adopted by the then-Methodist Bishop of Singapore, a kind and good American. His name is still on the plaque on my old primary school at Coleman Street.

When I was in church, my world revolved around it. My family was there and so were most of my friends. I was in the youth fellowship, choir etc, cell group etc.

But as I grew, I realised something was not right, and I had a liking for guys. I never ever felt anything remotely similar for girls. I tried for years to change, and I can tell you I really really tried. I had everything to lose and nothing to gain by going homo.

In desperation, in my mid-twenties I even went to this Church of Our Savior programme that says gays can change. It was the saddest part of my life. All these broken people being told to change, and this strange parading of ’success’ stories, all dubious to me. No one in the group I was in had a healthy self image and I was very discouraged by my impression that the church would consider me to be a real success only if I married some girl some day, a sign that I was ‘cured’.

But there is no such thing, and to ask someone do this is to ask him to do something dishonest, and worse still, to involve an innocent party, who should be able to ask for more in marriage than what any conflicted homosexual male can give her. Let’s not even talk about how the children of a marriage based on such delusion will fare. The end result, which I have seen so many times, is some poor closeted married man, cheating on his wife with other guys on the side, dishonest to himself, hurtful to his wife, and absent to his children. And this tawdry fiction of ‘marriage’, from what I can see, is what some Christians prefer.

I left organised Christianity shortly after that experience with Church of My Savior, and I have never looked back. I am at peace with myself, and I have a partner of seven years whom I love. My parents and brothers, all good church-going Methodists, have put aside their dogma and love me for who I am and they do not shy away from allowing me to play with my beautiful nieces, whom they know I love dearly. It therefore pains me to see all of my life and my meaning dismissed by people like some of the new exco-members, whose past ‘anti-gay’ statements are not in doubt.

It is because of all this that I so very much appreciate the old AWARE’s stand of inclusiveness and their advocacy on my behalf, even though homosexuality is not even their core area of interest. AWARE fights for marginalised women, like maids not getting a day off in law, and so on. They have been doing this for decades and that this whole controversy is on the front pages shows that their work is instinctively recognised and that people know what is at stake.

My impression is that it is because the old AWARE team are intimately familiar with the marginalised that they sympathise with gays in Singapore. They recognise instinctively who is marginalised and who needs their voice and support. And more importantly, they are not afraid to stand by their principles, even if it costs them with the so-called “conservative majority” that I keep hearing about. I wish them all the very best in their fight for their values and the protection of their long legacy.

Whatever the weaknesses of the old AWARE team, be it complacency, sour grapes, a certain tiredness even, I believe that their hearts are good and that they have proven so with their decades long roster of of kindness, charity and good will.

The new exco, I have no such faith in.

smallvice,

focus on the issue here. If it’s a political movement like what you mentioned, why this explicit focus on the word Christian? It would well be any religious group. Secondly, if you treat fundamentalism as a practice other than a political movement, perhaps there are ways to accomodate the semantics without resorting to dichotomies.

Here lies the case for you to prove, are Christian fundamentalists a lot more different in terms of motivations and actions than most people or is it a matter of choice? If you choose to become a Christian fundamentalist do you change in anyway that you must? If it’s just a way of life, and that some people choose to want to impose their way of life on others, then Christian fundamentalism has no wrong as much as Muslim fundamentalists. The only problem comes when some groups resort to impose values upon others, likewise the Taleban. Do note that most people try to do that, including free market economists, liberals, socialists etc. The key issue here is whether the imposition is on an inclusive or exclusive definition.

And to those who say that religion is the root of all problems, you would do wise to remember that Hitler thought that he could eradicate race from this world. Again to those focusing on the problem of religion and AWARE, the issue has always been the danger of some groups who seek a very exclusive definition of what a civil society group like AWARE should be. I certainly don’t recall to anyone rejecting our members of parliament holding any faith in particular, why shouldn’t the same be applied to AWARE? The question that people want to ask has always been firstly, the method of takeover which seems to suggest some hidden agenda, that was not properly addressed through the media. Secondly, the background of the group and the manner of takeover which is probably related to the first. I would haphazardly guess that if the new exco were members who have joined for many years and have been in the same church all along, no one would have objected to their inclusion if they did not post any articles against gay rights. Past actions speak for themselves, what people want to know is how would the past influence the future.

hi bismaker

I am alright with the liberals, free market economists, etc imposing their views on others. But I am absolutely against any religious groups doing that. If Christian fundamentalists want to object against the separation of the church and the state, they better do it in their own grave.

Hi Robert,

Thank you for openly sharing your experiences with us.

Well lets give the new EXCO some time to prove themselves.

Not all Christians portray themselves in a bad light. There are still many who do good to the community and are inclusive as well.

Perhaps with the new vision and plan outlined by the new commitee, AWARE will be a stronger platform in enriching the lives of female individuals.

Ultimately, the benefit of AWARE should be for the people, and it should not be a platform manipulated by any group with hidden agendas. Whether it being the promotion of homosexuality or Christianity.

I hope this matter would be resolved asap for the benefit of everyone.

So it’s okay for Gay Fundamentalists, or Secular Extremists to cry out against trepassses against their worldview, but not for others to speak up for their values?

{“die die must say” wrote on April 21st, 2009 11.09 pm #26: “Can we just stop talking about AWARE for a year? This is the best solution and let them do what is needed and you can report in a year what they have achieved. This is the best for everyone.”}

SAD THAT MM LEE SAID HE WON’T BE ABLE TO SEE A GRACIOUS SINGAPORE DEVELOPING

I agree with you, “die die must say”(#26). Why are the Old Guards in such great hurry to pass judgment and dstroy AWARE and its reputation and credibility for some cheap political gains? No wonder MM Lee Kuan Yew said that till the day he dies, he won’t be able to see a gracious Singapore developing.

Sad to say that this little society is getting more ungracious, less discipline and more chaotic by the day.

As there are no solution either due to the lack of capable national leadership or nature has consigned this society to the dingo, the prospect is simply not beautiful. Imagine a tiny place mired in socio-political, racial and religious frictions, local versus foreigner employment AND citizens unhappy with leaders.

It is clear that we have created a chaotic and toxic society that benefit nobody.

patriot

//Even a blind person can see how TOC is one sided in their view against Christianity, to even allowed such an article to be published, all the reputation of TOC down the drain. What has TOC done to itself?

As for Mr Choo ZX, he knows he jump the gun too far, now like a “GUI” shaking his head in disbelieve and except to act innocent. What has been spilled out from his mouth cant be taken back. That should teach him a lesson not to mess with religion or incite anything seditious.

What has got into him? Must be some bad experiences with christians in the past? Kept haunting you? You see i am jumping gun now, just like him. Give yourself a break Mr Choo, GOD has forgiven you.//

It is typical trait of some christians to say these small heart words. Not only they have a chicken brain, they have a heart as small as that of a chicken.

Funny how the xtian fundies like to accuse the gays of asking for special rights, when they themselves have this special law that enables them to hurl insults and accusations at others while hiding behind the name of religion, yet do not allow their victims to retaliate or even defend themselves. To do so would be “seditious”. Yah right. This moronic and backward law should be scrapped.

I read this peace guy writing that christianity is THE true religion.

How have they become so narrow minded?

Afterall, even if we believe what the bible said to be true, the pillar of christianity is just based on the fact that Jesus body has disappeared three days after he was crucified. They called this “resuurection” and this proved that he is god.

BUT….human body of highly evolved spiritual person dissolving itself into light and ultimately disappearing into space isn’t anything unique to jesus. many individuals have accomplished these feat in other world religions such as Buddhism, Taosim, Hindusim etc….And the fact is that they kept occuring even into this modern days. So what is so special about the fact that the entire christianity was founded on?

The problem is this! This phenomena only happened once in Christianity to Jesus 2000 years ago but the instructions of how to accomplish this feat was being passed down in other religions and practitioners with this instrcution kept attaining the same results even up to modeern days. Yet, I doubted Jesus has successfully handed down the crucial instructions because his followers were/are all too interested and embroiled in politics and other trivial stuffs.

Bodies of high elvoled spiritual beings dissolving into light is a real fact though little known. Some tibetan refugee masters have even accomplished this feat in front the eyes of skeptical westerners in Europe after they past. The best part is that some have their bodies partially shrunk to the size of 10cm and all these were kept by the buddhists in specially built structures called stupas. Even some more open-minded christians caught attention and decide to take to a look. Good for them.
http://www.snowlionpub.com/pages/N59_9.html

So you see, the foundation of christianity that fundamentalists based on isn’t really that solid even if we take what the bible said to be true and uncorrupted.

BTW, if you are skeptical, some of these happens right in front the eyes of skeptical communists during the cultural revolutions when many tibetan monks were detained. These happenings were documented in the religious department of the chinese communists.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/soul-search

HI Ah Lian #72,

It is okay for anyone as long as the values are not religious. The Church and the State must be separated at all cost, including the lives of Christian fundamentalists.

Tang Shang Jun,

I searched “fundamentalist” in the article which you took offence. It appeared twice. Here they are in context:

“Among feminists, concern was voiced about the implications a Christian fundamentalist AWARE Executive Committee would have on feminism. Jolene, Editor of feminist webzine Glass Castle, worries that an overtly Christian fundamentalist AWARE Executive Committee might be regressive to women’s rights.”

1) Choo ZX didn’t “conclude that AWARE is now run by a group of ‘Christian Fundamentalists’” on either occasion.

2) You then go on to defend Christianity (ad nauseum) as though CZX passed judgement on Christianity as opposed to its “fundamentalist subset” (which, again, he DIDN’T conclude). Is this not a strawman built on a misreading? If one is determined to take offence, no bar is too low.

3) Finally, even if it is divisive? So what? Why should criticism of (any) religion be out of bounds? ALL news stories are partial in nature; it is the nature of the beast. If everyone claims special status against (perceived) criticism and TOC panders to them…

P.S. I also find it a bit rich that you have charged the article with “divisive labeling”, Isn’t religion fundamentally divisive? I refer to Peace’s comment #39: “A true religion has many enemies.”

i.e. It is ok as long as the values do not contradict your own (make-) beliefs.

Intolerance is thy name.

3) Finally, even if it is divisive? So what? Why should criticism of (any) religion be out of bounds? ALL news stories are partial in nature; it is the nature of the beast. If everyone claims special status against (perceived) criticism and TOC panders to them…

I have already proof that their religion has no foundation.

@all vice starts small

I could very well argue that you have to be excluded from society at all cost and the onus would be on you to prove it using your reasoning of religion and state

and like it or not, religion and politics have never been separated at all cost.

hi bismarker,

Christian fundamentalists are setting a dangerous precedence for organised religion to have a voice in Parliament. If their church has something against other people’s values, do it as a church. Don’t take over an organisation that traditionally has a NMP position in Parliament. Now the Christian fundamentalists do it, who’s next? Muslim fundamentalists?

Dear Mr Tang,

If bible indeed talked about valuable women rights, pls quote books, chapters & verses too.

I’ll reply and quote where women are treated as 2nd class.

nic

Bismarker #69

“If it’s a political movement like what you mentioned, why this explicit focus on the word Christian?”

I hope you are not playing the victim card. There is no singling out of Christianity, it just happens to be Christianity in this case. The same arguments against fundamentalism would apply with any other religion.

“Here lies the case for you to prove, are Christian fundamentalists a lot more different in terms of motivations and actions than most people or is it a matter of choice? If you choose to become a Christian fundamentalist do you change in anyway that you must? If it’s just a way of life, and that some people choose to want to impose their way of life on others, then Christian fundamentalism has no wrong as much as Muslim fundamentalists. The only problem comes when some groups resort to impose values upon others, likewise the Taleban. Do note that most people try to do that, including free market economists, liberals, socialists etc.”

Can you clarify what you were driving at in the first half of this paragraph?

The difference between ideologies of religion and movements like liberalism, socialism is that it is SUPERNATURAL at root and runs on decrees from on high.

It is also different in that it receives widespread shelter from criticism, regardless of whether it is vald. You don’t hear a lot of liberals feeling hurt and crying “I’m offended” to valid criticisms, do you? I refer to Tang Shang Jun: “Even if one believes bona fide that someone is a “fundamentalist,” perhaps there are other less offensive terms that can and should be used.”

A guy wrote along with his or her post above:
“small heart words……chicken brain……heart as small as that of a chicken…”

Absolutely agree with #65 Glass, that

IT IS REALLY DEGENERATING………..

Such bloggers are shooting themselves to disrespectability……and opening themselves up to justifiable isolation.

Now that Thio Su-Mien has come out. Do youthink the above “small heart words……chicken brain……heart as small as that of a chicken” is suffcient description about this bunch of people?

Bloggers are bloggers are bloggers….

Here however is unique – RA LTY had valid things to say about bloggers in the MP Seng TH case….
and bloggers should not continue to be selfish but take the cue and be more intelligent in expressing themselves

More concern about TOC being used as platform for personal agenda…..and attacks…..instead of discussing and then debating issues, guys like #84 weihan resort to name calling……….all of TOC’s good work, maturity and reputation it has will take a knock if “this bunch of people” continue to “degenerate” the thread as #65 glass, wrote.
Bloggers cannot win, not to talk about “Bloggers Winning Big” if they do not appreciate TOC’s position in this political landscape……..

Why digress?

Even the new Exco feels that their own motivation is illgitimate that they have to lie and waited 2 weeks to finally reveal it. This is not chicken brain?
And about #84. What name calling? It is a statement that one of fundamentalist christians foundation has no basis.

Hi guys;
Wow – it seems like this comment post is really getting very heated! let’s chill.

Hmm. I just want to say that, ultimately, (and I will confess that yes, I am a Christian – in case you may believe I have underlying agendas – I do not – coz it’s not underlying at all), Christianity is a religion of love. We should love the souls of everyone that God has created, because God has told us to do so, because God loves them (everyone) since He made them. Christ himself summed up all the ten commandments “Do not kill”, “Do not murder”, “Do not give false testimony”, etc – as two commandments, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and strength” and “Love your neighbour as yourself”. This is quite logical from a human point of view – if you love people, you would not kill, nor murder them, nor lie to them – you will value them, love them, cherish them, and not take away anything from them (stealing from them, murdering them). Thus the commandment of “love” fulfills the law of the Ten commandments. Thus, when entering debate with people who do not share the same views, i guess that as Christians it would not be good to criticise the person that his views are “shallow” and all that because they may take it personally. We all do. When someone labels our views “homophobic”, or what, often we take it personally – ie. we cannot separate the criticisms of our views from criticisms of us, even though they are very different. Simply put, different viewpoints does not mean any criticism of the person himself, or, any “looking down” of the person. Thus, I encourage everyone here in this forum to really just debate, discuss, and even choose to disagree, or agree to disagree, on views alone – ideas – and not the individuals themselves. Thus, I urge everyone to respect each other’s views even though one may disagree with it, and maybe just understand where the person is coming from.

A gracious society, as MM lee has wanted for, is one where its citizens are prepared to disagree, and even when they have “lost” the argument (note that it’s just about views) they can still accept the outcome, and live peacefully with one another, respecting each other because the other person is an individual who is just like one of us. If society was not gracious, one can really have a situation like that of Thailand, where the Democrats and Thaksin’s party have been engaged in many coups, conflicts, protests demonstrations – it never ends; what happens is, when Thaksin wins, and the Democrats lose, the Democrats are unable to accept the fact that they have lost – and they protest – and when the Democrats win, the Thaksin supporters are unable to accept the fact that they lost, and protest some more – having a democracy is to accept the fact that, sometimes, you will not win – those are the rules of the game that it is impossible to satisfy everyone sometimes – but having the grace to consolidate and move on, such as the case in America where they closed ranks after the election and wroked together towards a common goal.

Sometimes, when Christians disagree, and often come across as ‘fundamental’, it’s because really they believe very strongly in something, because God has told them so, among other reasons. and sometimes in eagerness to defend their views, they come across as bigoted, or “extremist”, because of the way they are so eager and enthusiastic to stuff their views down someone else’s throat, and not consdier any other views at all as being valid, or even hearing them out. sometimes they do have motives that are not really Christian, such as the motive to destroy another individual who doesn’t share the same views (which contradicts the command ‘love your enemies as yourself’), or sometimes it may be because they are just so eager to share their views that they keep emphasiing their own views and it appears that they have discredited other views. But, please, an ideal Christian should love the person (as I have mentioned above – the person, the soul) but hate the sin, or the wrong view. In fact, the right justification for hating a “wrong view” in the eyes of God is because that view causes harm to the individual – one would hate something that causes harm to others, right? For example, if ur loved one has cancer, u would hate cancer, because it is harming the person you love. Thus, Christians (should) view “sin” like that, not through a staunch legalism, but because it harms the person and destroys him – even though he may not know it.

The parable of Jesus with the prostitute is a fantastic example of loving the person but hating the sin.
Please read!

Luke Chapter 7:
36Now one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, so he went to the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table. 37When a woman who had lived a sinful life in that town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume, 38and as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.

39When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner.”

40Jesus answered him, “Simon, I have something to tell you.”
“Tell me, teacher,” he said.

41″Two men owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii,[a] and the other fifty. 42Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he canceled the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?”

43Simon replied, “I suppose the one who had the bigger debt canceled.”
“You have judged correctly,” Jesus said.

44Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. 46You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. 47Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little.”

48Then Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”

49The other guests began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”

50Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

Isn’t it wonderful how the Lord Jesus forgives sin? Make no mistake – Christians like myself believe He is God – and thus, “sin” is not just against God (His Father, as Christians believe), but also Him (Jesus), because He is God – thus He is forgiving something offensive to Himself.

Note that, yes, the Bible is explictly against homosexuality (see the references above in Leviticus) – but in such situations, it is important to love the sinner and not the sin (the wrong act). If the new Aware exco have bona fide (good faith) motives in wanting to bring some desirable change (in their eyes, admittedly) to the organisation which they feel is right, perhaps one should judge them on their motives and whether they had good intentions or not. Ultimately if they respect a view very strongly and decide to pursue it through the taking over of the exco, perhaps we should laud it as something admirable, to have the courage to pursue one’s own point of view and bring it to pass because of the strong belief of the good of that view.
Of course, some will argue that the way it was done, through the extra-ordinary meeting, when they all turned up in full force, etc, was quite ‘opportunistic’. This is equally a valid view – perhaps a more reasoned appraoch would have been to deal with the organisation instead of instituting a take-over. But ultimately this is an issue rightly left to their discretion on what is the best effective measure to fulfill their aims, though of course such ‘opportunsitic’ behaviour may be seen by the public as being rather sneaky and below the moral high ground that is viewed as a requirement of Christians.

But let us agree to disagree, and not flame each other personally; we can disagree with the view, but let us never judge, condemn or hate the person. it woudl be good to have more love in society. thanks!

Dear Nic,

Thanks for your comment. I think if you care to look further up the comments thread, i have posted two medium-length comments regarding the position of women in the Bible. This is not a forum for religion, i think i have said enough and i will limit myself to that and make no further comment on it.

Regards

Lovely. Truly enlightening.

Adherents of the Religion of Love wants to tear apart the socio-religious harmony of our society; those of the Religion of Peace want to tear our bodies apart.

And you wonder why sane non-delusional people dont like you very much.

hmms mirax – are u talking about my post?
truly speaking, i dont want to tear apart the socio-religious harmony of our society. i dont think that was what Thio Su Mien and the others were trying to do. If i understand it correctly, if she felt that the organisation was moving away from its original purposes as an NGO to champion woman’s rights and issues and she felt a need to do something about it to revert it back to its original justifications and reasons why it was set up in the first place, then it could very well be that she had legitimate grounds for doing so from her subjective viewpoints. and i dont think that will tear apart the socio-religious harmony of our society in any way, if really it is about the future and direction of AWARE irrespective of religion, race, or sexual orientation.
then in the end the people of aware should judge the exco on their performance in championing women’s rights, etc.

because ultimately Singapore, as someone rightly said, is pluralistic; pluralism, as the term suggests, means all-inclusive, all-encompassing. thus all views, christian, pro-gay, anti-gay, liberal, hedonist, animalist, etc, should be allowed to come into play into the “discussion” arena, and in the end let everyone decide what they want based on debate and discussion. this certainly won’t tear the socio-religious harmony apart; harmony is not just having similar views on everything, or agree on everything; but even when there are differences, there still can be harmony; having differences is not the same as sowing discord, isn’t it? like for eg. a symphony is definitely harmonious, but is consisted of many different elements, such as the wind instruments, the cellos, violins, timpani, brass instruments, etc; if they were all violins, it will be incredibly boring.

so i dont think that the fact that everyone has different views will destroy socio-religious harmony. and i dont think that thio su mien and the rest are trying to “shove the views of the conservatives down everyone else’s throat”. in fact, if they do start preaching and evangelising under the guise of aware and under the control of aware, then i will be quite alarmed as well that something is amiss. but if they are simply taking over the exco because they believe they can do a better job, then, time will decide if they are indeed justified in their claims.

Dear Shanjun and all,

Thanks for responding, i know this is not a forum to debate about religion but if you read the above letter, it is precisely the quoting of bible that is causing most of these comments.

Many theologians also admitted there are thousands (up to 30K found in the 18th century if i remember correctly) of changes made by scribes over the years either intentionally or otherwise.

Kindly read Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman.

Dear Shang Jun Christian Fundamentalist,

If you don;t like the brutal truth, don;t hijack other people’s organisation. form your own. you want to maim other people and yet hate it when your victims call you murderer?

Sliim,

It’s really that simple. Its trying to define fundamentalism in religious terms, like being a sticky follower of the doctrine, in the account of political events. I’m guessing that you are not a follower of anything, judging from your comment about supernatural, but that’s not my point, the point is more of implying causation between ‘fundamentalism’ and what is happening at Aware regarding the article. So who’s playing the victim card here, any one that defends some aspects of religion is automatically a religious believer? Whoever writes that article would kid themselves in saying that fundamentalism is not a negative word and it’s all in the eyes of the interpreter.

if you read my post right, i was more in replying to all vice that starts small. This small group of people which is now the new exco tries in saying that we have certain beliefs about certain things. Whether or not that imposition of values comes because it is a characteristic of being religious remain a point to be proven, certainly by labelling Christian alongside fundamentalists when you could jolly well use a group of women who believed themselves to be Christians. My point is saying if you’re going to argue that people are imposing your values on you and that’s wrong, that’s a fine argument, but the problem comes in when you say that religion leads to people imposing their values on others.

My point was never regarding religion if you read right. But you were more than hasty into jumping into conclusions that because religion is based on SUPERNATURAL root that’s why it’s wrong and the problem is that it’s not being discussed enough. Well that’s your own version of how matters relating to religion should be, that’s not really part of the point i was bringing about. Half a millenium ago, most of the world were under some form of religious control or another, and judging from your posts on history in another topic, if history shows us that back then they didn’t see anything wrong with it, your argument becomes a moral argument in saying that men who are more enlightened would do well to judge things based not on religious beliefs but on facts and science. which might very well be your own personal belief.

as for liberals and free market economists, there might be some grounding on empirical facts at some point of time, but if history has shown, likewise it’s very possible that such ideals would change if circumstances change, you wouldnt hear a free market economist preaching about non market intervention in a recession would you?

Bismarker #97,

Thanks for the clarification. I don’t disagree at all about “fundamentalism”. It carries extremely negative connotations. I also pointed out, as a matter of fact, that the article’s writer didn’t “conclude” Christianity has anything to do with Fundamentalism in the thread with the misfiring complain letter.

As for the victim card, no, not everyone who defends religion, in general, is playing it. I didn’t say that. But to suggest that Christianity is being singled out “via explicit focus”, I would argue, is playing that card. It just happens to be Christianity in this case, story.

On your point that “…that imposition of values [by the new exco] comes because it is a characteristic of being religious remain a point to be proven.” I doubt that it could ever be “proven” to a person who refuses to be satisfied. One could well say, praying is not a characteristic of being religious because we see the non-religious mumbling to themselves too.

Religions, at least the ones that have gods and miracles, have supernatural components. And that makes it different from free market economists and liberals. That was my only point.

I cannot follow the logic in this section:

“Half a millenium ago, most of the world were under some form of religious control or another, and judging from your posts on history in another topic, if history shows us that back then they didn’t see anything wrong with it, your argument becomes a moral argument in saying that men who are more enlightened would do well to judge things based not on religious beliefs but on facts and science. which might very well be your own personal belief.”

The letter make very valid points.
The moderate christian majority (or should I say more well-informed?) should not be pigeonholed with the new Exco and smeared with the same brush.
It could lead to hostile reactions from those who would be ambivalent or even sympathetic to the old guard otherwise.
No one would be served by this matter being blown out of proportion and becoming a fight between ALL christians and the rest of singapore. Such an outcome would be disastrous, to say the least.

However, that this issue has been brought up presents a unique opportunity for the moderate majority to speak up about THEIR stand on this whole fiasco. Are they anti-gay? Do they support eh vigilante actions of the new Aware Exco?
It is imperative that the respected Christian leaders of Singapore state clearly their stand on the whole issue, be it one where they believe that religion should not interfere with the workings of secular civil groups or otherwise.

Good letter.
Cheers, Mr Tang.