“Speech that is not grounded in reason and reasonable inferences should fall outside civilised society”

Motherhood and apple pie atatement.

But who defines “reason and reasonable inferences”? I often perceive that the GLBT militants shout down and call names anyone who dares disagree with their views, claiming that reason is on the side of GLBT.

But when the other side does the same to GLBT brigade, the militants cry foul.

Tell that to MM Lee Kuan Yew then ;-)

Reason is on the LGBT side. Don’t forget that the Religious Right derives their reasoning from Holy Scriptures and when they use “Cuz the Bible tells me so” to justify whatever they are doing, they fall into the fallacy of circular logic.

Hi A Tan

You took the words right out of my mouth. Just need to add to your comments – the latest line of reason and being reasonable is via the mob brigade.

1)A Tan
“…call names anyone who dares disagree with their views”

I dare say this is the same for both sides.

There is a Cantonese saying that goes: “Ork yan kor cheong”–roughly translated as “the aggressive person sued others for aggression”. I rest my case.

Well said Alex. Agree with you totally.

Donaldson (#3),

Pray, just what is wrong about the Bible?

To #8 Arix on May 21st, 2009 12.42 am:
“Pray, just what is wrong about the Bible?”

Nothing if you believe in it and practice its teachings at a personal level. IMHO, you have a right to your opinion, even if your only basis for your stand in a controversy is “because the bible says so”.

However, “because the bible says so” would not be a persuasive argument to convince a secular public, someone of another religion, or even another Christian who interprets the bible differently. E.g. Would you be convince by a Muslim/Jew/Buddhist/Taoist if the only basis he/she quote in support of his/her stand is the koran/torah/dharma/dao-de-jing?

I am not making any judgement about the rightness of your stand here, just the observation that “because the bible says so” is not a very effective means to win your stand more supporters in the multi-religious and multi-cultural Singapore. In fact, repeating it ad nauseam may actually put-off the moderates and send them flying to your opponents’ camp.

I could not have put it in a better way that Hahaha did.

I could not have put it in a better way than* Hahaha did.

It appears that there are still some who are unable to move away from the Aware saga. GLBT militants, mob brigade – phrases reminiscent of the FM. Were you even there?

Obviously not; otherwise you would have met the ordinary women (neither gay, nor militant) from all walks of life – teachers, lawyers, clerks, homemakers, even some grandmothers, christians, muslims, hindus, buddhists and secularists – who turned out to vote for what they believed in.

And why is it, I wonder, that it is mainly MEN (if one excludes the FM) who seem to be making these allegations about ‘mob rule’ and GLBT militants? Could it be that they are unable to accept that women can make secular, rational decisions without their assistance? That they need to denigrate what for most women is a victory of rationality over religion by labelling the women members who attended (and the men who supported them) as gay, pro-gay, lesbians, hooligans? And make out as if the promotion of a gay agenda and an inappropriate CSE was the reason for the EGM?

So it was not what some conservatives would expect the meeting of a women’s organisation to be, but there was a great deal of provocation from the ousted Ex-co. The women were articulate and passionate, certainly, and they put across their points forcefully, but they were neither militant nor a mob. And perhaps there were lesbians and gays present too, but how did the FM and her supporters reognise them, given that none were sporting badges or signs displaying their sexual orientation? By the mere fact that they did not agree with her that the Aware old guard was promoting a gay agenda? In other words, if you are not with me, you are against me?

But I digress; this has nothing to do with the attacks on Siew Kum Hong. But then what has the GLBT and mob rule either?

Christian Group Encroaching Secular Schools
http://www.bb.org.sg/cos/o.x?c=/wbn/pagetree&func=view&rid=31818

The Boys’ Brigade is a Christian organisation. They should not be allowed in Non-Christian schools. This is another proof that a Christian group is encroaching
into secular space. The Ministry of Education should not allow it to happen. This shows the Ministry is biased in favour of Christianity allowing them to promote Christian values and proselytizing.

The Scapegoat

A look at the Bible reveals the origins of the term “scapegoat.” In accordance with religious rites, a goat designated as the scapegoat, was symbolically laden with the burden of the sins.

Leviticus 16:11
“And Aaron shall bring the bull of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make atonement for himself and for his house, and shall kill the bull as the sin offering which is for himself.”

Leviticus 16: 14.
“He shall take some of the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it with his finger on the mercy seat on the east; and before the mercy seat he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times.”

Leviticus 16: 15
“Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering, which is for the people, bring its blood inside the veil, do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and before the mercy seat. 16 So he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, for all their sins.”

The ritual described above is barbaric. It was an expression by people with the barbaric and scapegoat mentality.

John 3: 16
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”

Influenced by the above ritual, the crucifixion of Jesus was given a scapegoat interpretation! Our belief is the reflection of our mentality. The scapegoat interpretation attracts many people who have the scapegoat mentality of always finding a scapegoat for their wrongdoings and sins.
The clause, “whoever believes in Him”, is a condition.
Love is unconditional. If there is a condition, it is not love. It is an exchange, trading and business transaction. It is an insult to the teaching of Jesus Christ by turning love into a trade. Now, you know why some pastors are millionaires.

Did God give His only begotten Son?

Mark 16:19
“So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.”

God did not give His only begotten Son. Jesus went back and “sat down at the right hand of God.”
If something is given and taken back, it is not giving.
If I have a son who can come back and sit at my right hand after he dies, I will happily send him to fight in the wars and die a hundred times.

True sacrifice does not mean sacrificing a scapegoat or getting someone to die for you on the cross. This is the reason why Protestants and Catholics are having religious conflict. They cannot unite if they pray to Satan in the name of God. If they want harmony and peace, they must be guided by universal values because God guides them through the universal values.

Universal values are accepted by people of different religions because they are divine.

Religious values are not accepted by people of different religions because they are not divine.

The Thirty Year War (1618-1648) was a series of wars in central Europe stemmed from conflict between Protestants and Catholics.Four million people were killed and another 20 million were made homeless. Each group claimed it was fighting for God.

The lesson learnt from this war is we should separate religion from politics. Our daily life should be guided by universal values like care and compassion. Love for power should be replaced by power of love to care for our community and country.

Don’t forget the Albigensian Crusade whereby one branch of Christianity preyed on another branch of Christianity in the most brutal fashion.