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.

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.”

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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……..

Absolutely agree with #65 Glass, that

IT IS REALLY DEGENERATING………..

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

“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.”

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

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?

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.

I have already proof that their religion has no foundation.

Intolerance is thy name.

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.”