We must look out for indications, of people who are pushing too far, who test the limits. All stakeholders – parents, schools and individuals – have to remind themselves and one another of the need for a secular space.
Second Minister for Finance and Transport Lim Hwee Hua
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Let us be reminded that the AWARE issue is NOT about secularism vs religion.
It is about parents who are against AWARE introducing pro-homo material into schools.
Secularism must also mean that sectarian views (in this case pro-homo) must not be forced into school syllabus.
Let us be reminded that the AWARE issue has wide and far-reaching ramifications and/or implications to Singapore’s survival and progress as a whole.
It is not simply about parents who are against AWARE introducing pro-homo material into schools. This is only a side issue used by a tiny section of the Christian community trying to kick up the sentiments and manipulate the emotions of parents to support their extreme views on homosexuals and use them to go against the homosexuals directly and the Ministry of Education indirectly.
This AWARE saga must be looked into together with the overall persistent, aggressive and extremely active movement / surge of evangelistic and conversion activities going on in the last ten years – especially of enticing, luring, brain-washing, indoctrinating and converting young and easily impressionable students into their “religion”, into their thinking that “god has drawn a line for us”, as well as their prolonged and sustained “spiritual warfare” against the whole world of “non-believers”, “idol worshipers”, “infidels”, “pagans”, “sectarians”, etc.
The secular government and the secular leadership (political, public and private) must now be very weary and not to be easily convinced otherwise – into believing that there is no such a world-wide movement that will eventually undermine the peace, stability and harmony of our society, leading ultimately to toppling our government in the process.
Singapore, as one of the key and influential cities of the world, is not likely to be spared by this world-wide movement. (Take note that South Korea is already in the thick of things and many “converted” local Singaporeans are paying regular annual visits there in groups under different guises).
Secularism must also mean that religious conversions must not be forced into the young and innocent students through infiltrated “friendly teachers” befriending students and inviting them for outings, parties, or under other excuses, but finally converting them to be members of their church! The recent huge increases in memberships amongst the mega churches is alarming and a serious point for consideration.
Once bitten, twice shy. We must not be taken by surprise with our pants down again. This time round, it was only a small group but when the momentum gathers pace, the next time round, it will likely be an avalanche! And we will be too shock to know what actually hits us.
It is better to err on caution and be safe than to regret too late. So, ACT NOW!
Before we get side tracked into this AWARE business again, can we relook the Barclays Bank debacle.
How many millions of dollars losses are needed before Teamsek Holding make a report in the newspapers to report to theb shareholders, the citizens of Singapore?
1 mil
500 mil
1 bil?
Why was this loss not declared at the last parliament by Tharman when he was explaining the Citibank debacle?
Why?
It seems we are in the rut of buying high and selling low. Was OLAm bought too high?
We must look out for “imposters”, of people who are pushing too far, who test the limits “by rewarding themselves MILLIONS despite the severity of the economic situation and at clutches in rendering assistances”. All stakeholders – parents, schools and individuals – have to remind themselves and one another of the need for a “democratic” space.
To Team Unbear, you must be living in denial. Your post clearly shows your anti-christian view. The Aware saga came about because of the objection to pro-gay material being introduced in the schools. If not for this issue, this saga would never have happened. It has nothing to do with religion. Even non Christians and people of different religions object to the pro gay materials being taught in schools. And I thank our “secular” government for making the right decision to ban AWARE from teaching in schools until they can regain the trust of the public!!
5) Zorro on June 4th, 2009 12.40 pm
The so-called pro-gay material was a side issue that was manipulated and astro-turfed (and its not even true- yes, I know, you will never agree with me on that, such is the intensity of your beliefs). And in any case, the ends never did justify the means adopted.
Even if there is any danger of a pro-gay agenda being pushed (which I maintain is complete nonsense), the danger of polarisation along religious lines is far greater. Study the situation in Singapore and other countries objectively (whatever your religion or inclination may be) and the facts are clear. This concern is what has turned many non-gay and mainstream (I love that word) people against religious nuts who spout nonsense.
Anti-christian? Yes, that’s the rallying call, isn’t it? Persecution and all. Isn’t that shooting the messenger? Can you try to rebut Team Unbear’s points with facts rather than just condemn without reason? To borrow another commonly-used phrase, “Love the Religion, Hate the Religious Nut”.
I find it amazing that solo bear and zorro can overlook all the other incidents that happened in the AWARE incident – selective blindness?
The fact is that if those women / parents were against what AWARE was teaching in schools, they should have lodged a complaint ato the authorities . The concerned parent who lodged the complaint about CSE to Dr. Thio could have gone directly to MOE. Or Dr. Thio herself could have lodged the compaint on behalf of the parent. By doing so, they might have got support from other like minded individuals without so much of the opposition they faced by taking over a secular organisation by stealth.
Lets not forget too the new team sacking of dept heads and staff, cold shouldering and ignoring past members and advisors, changing of locks and installation of security cameras, the indiscriminate posting of confirdential materials online and finally, the revalation that all their actions were pre-planned and overseen by their infamous mentor Dr. Thio. These are not random acts of conicidence; rather they smack of insidious and sneaky planning with other hidden objectives and motives beyond just the CSE manual.
CSE may just be one of the AWARE programmes that were targetted by the new exco; if the team had been re-elected at the EOGM, they might have proceeded to disrupt other prgrammes; abortion (taking a very pro-family stance again) and possibly women’s rights in Singapore (check out COOS website on their opinion of a woman’s role in the family and society).
You can agree to disagree but lets not deny the facts and resort to name calling each time mud is slung at you when you have thrown the mud balls at us in the first place.
our Economic Defence is down,
our Social Defence is in tethers,
our Psychological Defence is questionable,
with the above less than robust can military defence be a decisive force?
S”pore can do without those who cannot live peacefully with others who have different lifestyles & values.
why is ISD not doing anything about that scourge? isn’t it a threat to national security?
Re-phrase
We must look out for indications, of people in the public service, in GlC, in Temasek Holding who are pushing their luck too far, who test the limits.
All stakeholders – every citizens of Singapore from parents, labourers, taxi drivers, toilet cleaners and individuals – have to remind themselves that they have every right to know “Where is our money?”
#5) Zorro on June 4th, 2009 12.40 pm To Team Unbear,
You make Freudin slip by writing :”Your post clearly shows your anti-christian view.”
If it is really true that (as you wrote) :”Even non Christians and people of different religions object to the pro gay materials being taught in schools.” Then the logical word you used should be “pro-gay”
HT (#6),
Once again you are discrediting people based on “the intensity of their beliefs”. Well, I could say the same thing of you. You cannot bring yourself to see the alternate perspective because of “the intensity of your beliefs”.
It is because of the “intensity of your beliefs” that you do not see the clear pro-Gay Agenda that is being pushed. Or rather, your beliefs make you treat the Pro-Gay Agenda subjectively as if it were “mainstream” views, which it isn’t.
Yes, there is danger of polarising society along religious lines. But that means that there is a danger of polarising society such that there is one religion against another. Concurrently, there is also – as Mr Wong Kan Seng pointed out – the danger of polarising society across the liberal-conservative (religious-or-otherwise) divide. That is what you and smallvice and Sloo refuse to acknowledge.
The issue in the AWARE Saga was precisely this conservative-liberal polarisation. It just so happened that the conservatives happened to be all Christian, and (even more coincidentally) from the same church.
Only the religious people are pushing too far. The secularist are rightful in their role in preserving the harmony of society. All it takes is religion for good people to do evil. Defending the seditious act of religious zealots only make the defenders accomplice to the crime.
Arix on June 4th, 2009 9.03 pm
On the contrary, i do see clearly the polarising divide along various fault lines. That is why if there is any complaint or opposition to any actions by any other party, it has to be done the right way through official channels.
The pro-family individuals have so clearly and efficiently made use of other channels to make known their feelings on the CSE topic: online petitions, letters to the press, emails to ministers and MOE and facebook postings and groupings. Why did the new guard not use these same methods if the wanted to voice or show their opposition to what AWARE was doing?
Whatever the debate, there has to be some rules set – a secular, nuetral space for different parties to put forth their cases and resolve them rationally and logically with or without gov intervention.
What I am against is not your set of beliefs; i have to respect them if i expect you to respect mine.
I am against the methods the new guard used to take over an organisation to advance their cause. And regardless of how you put it, the incident was clearly religiously motivated – as can be seen from all the emails sent out by church personnel to their members to sign up as members and to support the new team.
The issue here is not that we don’t see; the point is we see too clearly what is happening and wonder why the new guard could not have handled matters more civilly with more respect to Singapore’s secular space. If they did, they would not have fond themselves in the position they are in now.
Sloo (#7),
I find it amazing that Sloo and Smallvice and HT and Gang can overlook the realities of the AWARE Saga – Selective Blindness?
The fact is that most parents did not even know what was being taught at school. Plus, the MOE is one of the government agencies that are not particularly responsive to feedback, unless heavily pressured.
Whatever Dr Thio’s inclinations, I do not believe that she runs an Alternative REACH Portal or anything similar. The “complaint” made to her was probably informal, the same way many Singaporeans grumble to each other at coffeeshops.
Let us not forget also the Old Guard’s strategy of unwarranted expansionism. Let’s not forget them rudely demanding an EGM, refusing to engage in proper dialogue with the New Guard, and concealing their CSE manual from MOE for years. And finally, let us remember that the Old Guard called for an EGM to conduct a Constitutional Coup at AWARE, and also chose to invite many men to the EGM. That the managers of a Feminist Lobby would invite men en-masse to something as high-level as an EGM certainly indicates insidious and sneaky planning (probably with the help of the Pink Lobby) with other hidden objectives and motives beyond female empowerment.
Homosexuality may just be one of the issues that the Old Guard is trying to promote in Singapore (without legal permission). Now that Ms Lam and her team are in power at AWARE, they are going to be disrupting other elements of our social fabric; casual sex (taking a very pro-choice stance again) and possibly parents’ rights of custody over their children (Look at how Ms Lam & Co are still unwilling to accede to the Government’s demands).
You can agree to disagree but lets not deny the facts and resort to name calling each time mud is slung at you when you have thrown the mud balls at us in the first place.
Can somebody please give a definition for ‘Secular’? Is there a place for religion and one’s religious belief to co-exist side by side in a secular society.
One side speaks as if religion is not welcomed in secularism while the other argues that secularism has to consider one’s religious inclinations – not to mention the influence of one’s traditional, cultural and social upbringing.
Whenever one side makes an argument, the clear tendency is for each side to stand at both extremes to bombard each other. Is there no middle ground?
Gemami,
Until Arix stopped un-demonising religion, the Secular Camp will not stop responding to Arix.
Gemami,
Until Arix stopped un-demonising religion, the Secular Camp will not stop responding to Arix. Leave this as it is now, so that the current status of religion as a damaged good will establish a new OB marker for religious groups to observe.
Sloo (#13),
that reply was to HT, not to you. TO you, I wrote a separate reply.
I see the polarising fault-line too. Except that unlike you, I see the parties on both sides of the fence. Straits Times coverage became increasingly biased. Neither the New Guard or the Old Guard have spotless records.
I am supposing that the New Guard wanted to exert a direct influence – and saw the chance to do so. Anyway, in all the hype about “religious agenda” that has been stirred up by the media and people here with other self-righteous agendas, people tend to have forgotten that the New Guard was elected into power; it didn’t come into power through an EGM. Put it another way – if you knew that a club you were a member of were promoting something that you didn’t think benefitting the rest of the members, why can’t you run in the exco’s elections to correct their track of policy? Isn’t that how democratic elections are supposed to work?
That having been said, the actions the New Guard took after coming into power were quite unreasonable, although it is just as unreasonable for them to receive death threats. And they could have adopted a less religious tone when promulgating their case. Miss Feminist Mentor obviously muscled her way in too forcefully.
I agree with you that every debate needs a neutral space. Sadly, in practice, that only applies to televised and academic debates. In the real world of politics, each side seeks to eliminate the neutral space. The Old Guard and their Pro-Gay Supporters were as much responsible for trying to do that as they alleged the New Guard of trying to do. What we probably have forgotten in our discussions is that the New Guard initially offered an olive branch to the Old Guard, but the Old Guard was so ideologically-motivated that they dismissed the Olive Branch entirely.
Since the Old Guard refused to give the New Guard the benefit of the doubt, the New Guard started to feel that they were under attack. That is when they (mistakenly) initiated all their defensive measures. Even a rabbit will strike back when cornered. (For that matter, I was chased by a deer once.)
To hide away that fact – in my opinion – the Old Guard came up with the Red Herring of Religion trying to overtake our country. That is what many Christians here and offline – including yours truly – felt was taking a step too far.
A fact of origin became misconstrued in the Old Guard’s propaganda as a fact of destination. The New Guard was an organic group that arose from COOS, not a Christian Conspiracy. Since it arose from COOS, naturally it did not have any Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists. Hence, the New Guard’s purported “lack of inclusivity” was involuntary rather than voluntary. Considering the speed at which the New Guard was put together, it is unlikely that there was actually a consistent plan behind them. Plus, if there had been a plan, the New Guard would have contained more experienced members.
Next, the Old Guard made a scapegoat out of Pastor Derek Hong. Understandably, from and outsider’s perspective – and from the way the Media (irresponsibly) portrayed it – he seemed to be meddling in politics. As a Christian, I see things somewhat differently.
The emails by the Church personnel were sent out only after the New Guard got elected, not before. Additionally, how many emails were actually sent out. Were they multiple emails, sent on multiple dates, to multiple people? Or were they several copies of the same email sent out to a mailing list that included all the parishioners of COOS?
(post truncated)
“Plus, the MOE is one of the government agencies that are not particularly responsive to feedback, unless heavily pressured.”
And do u work a MOE to know that as a fact? A fact is very different from a supposition or belief
“Whatever Dr Thio’s inclinations, I do not believe that she runs an Alternative REACH Portal or anything similar. The “complaint” made to her was probably informal, the same way many Singaporeans grumble to each other at coffeeshops.”
Believe? Assumption? Probably?….Do you know how your statement sounds to those who are dealing with facts that have been reported?
“Let us not forget also the Old Guard’s strategy of unwarranted expansionism. Let’s not forget them rudely demanding an EGM, refusing to engage in proper dialogue with the New Guard,”
Wow guess what you just described the actions of the New Guards too! Of course the difference is that the New Guard did it first…..
“And finally, let us remember that the Old Guard called for an EGM to conduct a Constitutional Coup at AWARE, and also chose to invite many men to the EGM. ”
And so what if they did? The men could not vote; only the women members. And the new guards had more than their fare share of male bodyguards at the event too!
“Now that Ms Lam and her team are in power at AWARE, they are going to be disrupting other elements of our social fabric; casual sex (taking a very pro-choice stance again) and possibly parents’ rights of custody over their children”
And what is wrong wit pro-choice when it would lead to happier individuals, relationships and possibly even families? Does this mean that to be pro-choice, individuals have to give up their rights to choose? To decide on the directions of their lives or their happiness?
You demonise everything that is not pro-family or pro-thio.
Lets debate based on facts and not suppositions, assumptions and suspicions.
# 14 Arix
Do please get YOUR facts right if you are going to found an argument on them:
“(1) Let’s not forget them rudely demanding an EGM, (2) refusing to engage in proper dialogue with the New Guard, and (3) concealing their CSE manual from MOE for years. ”
1. The EGM was called in accordance with the Aware constitution; companies call for EGMs all the time – what’s so rude about having one?
2. It was the New Guards who refused to engage in proper dialogue with the Old Guards – the Old Guards sent them letters requesting to sort out the logistics of the EGM, remember? The New Guards did not bother to reply, and as a result squandered $90000 of Aware’s money, some of it for security guards for the FM.
3. MOE could have sent its reps to check out the CSE at any time; that it failed to do so does not amount to concealment on Aware’s part. Have you any evidence that the CSE was conducted secretly in some dark, underground cellar?
“(4) And finally, let us remember that the Old Guard called for an EGM to conduct a Constitutional Coup at AWARE, and (5) also chose to invite many men to the EGM. That the managers of a Feminist Lobby would invite men en-masse to something as high-level as an EGM certainly indicates insidious and sneaky planning (probably with the help of the Pink Lobby) with other hidden objectives and motives beyond female empowerment.”
4. If a motion of no-confidence is a constitutional coup, then many democracies in the West are guilty of it.
5. The physical arrangements for the EGM was handled by the New Guards, who arranged the venue, and engaged the security guards and APE Communications to ‘vet’ everyone attending. All those who were not in the New Guards’ camp had to queue up for more than an hour to get into the EGM venue. The old Guards were completely shut out from the organisation – even their offer to assist in the logistics to save Aware money was turned down by the New Guards. How could the Old Guards have invited the men to the EGM (and even if they did, get them past the New Guards’ security?)
Do please stop posting ‘mischievous’ and ‘inflammatory’ misinformation. By doing so, YOUare the one guilty of denying the facts and trying to disrupt ‘social cohesion’.
Arix,
Stop flogging the dead horse. This is a done-deal. Stop challenging the existing and recently re-affirmed OB marker on the role of religion in public life. You are entitled to hold your opinion but I must re-assert – there is no religious persecution so just go away.
If religious people don’t like their religious feelings to be implicated, don’t meddle with politics. Religious immunity does not extend to religious persons making political stand.
All organisations associated to the religious persons will be implicated. The best way to protect the Church from such implication is to have no Christians advocating religiously motivated values on any political platform.
Pastor Derek Hong’s “subversion” was to post his own sermon on his own Church’s website. Plus, it wasn’t even a sermon that talked about Government or Parliament. (Or does AWARE have an NMP seat in the House?) If he had called for his parishioners to support their kind in a charity organization, would the issue have been as contentious? Incidentally, isn’t AWARE supposed to be a non-political organization?
I suspect that if he had password-protected his sermon, he wouldn’t have come under fire because then the Old Guard’s hawks would have had one less worm to bait.
What I feel is the issue here is that the Christian Perspective is consistently being maligned by Atheist Liberals who wish to promote their own bias as neutrality. Just look at SmallVice’s posts. I wonder, how does “demonising” a religion promote any neutral space?
self righteous pharisee..shut up!
T Arix
As an atheist, do you know how i feel to see a pastor make comments like ‘God has a drawn a line for this nation and we must not cross it?’ No one made him a scapegoat; he rose to the occasion himself with the statements he made. And lets not forget all his statement demonising gays (‘agents of satan’) in the past as well. Certainly not a case of loving the sinner and hating the sin
As an atheist can you imagine how i feel when i read emails from church members sent to other members to be ‘an agent of christ’ and support the new guard
As an atheist can you imagine my perceptions of a new committee that comprised (conincidently or not) of all christians, with almost half coming from the church of Pastor Hong
can you also imagine my reaction to speeches from the THIOS regarding about how religion should underpin the morals of a secular society?
I respect your views and you can make all the decisions you want regarding them with reference to your and your family’s lives. However i expect you to recognise mine too. If there would ever come a conflict based on opposing views, then we will have to deal with in a nuetral secular space where the arguments will have to be debated rationally and logically to appeal to the majority. Falling back on religious values (which differ across religions) and the holy book will not win any brownie points with the non-religious or even the moderates.
So lets agree to disagree cos no one here is going to change anyone’s opinion or stand or matters. And we most certainly have to agree that for the good of all, no one, gays, fundamentalists, atheists or the politically minded should push too far, insult too much or inflict harm (intentionally or not) and disrespect anyone in our society.
11) Arix on June 4th, 2009 9.03 pm
Ha Ha. You assert that I am “discrediting people based on “the intensity of their beliefs””. Methinks you doth protest too much. Pray tell, at what point in my post did I “discredit” Zorro? I pointed out that I did not agree with Zorro’s points and made a comment that he /she would not agree with me due to the intensity of his/her belief. I should also point out that it was Zorro who labelled Team Unbear as “anti-christian”. And yes, I would also not agree with Zorro nor with you, for that matter, due to the intensity of my belief that Singapore should stay secular. Guilty on all counts.
Arix,
Firstly, I didn’t demonise Christianity or any religion. Josie’s Committee, Thio Su-Mien and dotter are responsible for that. You might recall the Albigensian Crusade (1209–1229) involving one denomination of Christians killing another denomination. Why is the history of Christianity as an organised religion marked with so many dark chapters of intolerance?
Secondly, you got the definition of neutral wrong. Singapore’s secular space is neutral not because Society at large tolerates both demonising and un-demonising of religion but because every faith group and interest group are compartmentalised within society. Singapore’s social cohesion is build on this compartmentalisation. It is the same reason why we tolerate extremists. The fact that nobody has advocated for the excommunication of extremist Pastor Derek Hong merely re-affirms this compartmentalisation.
SLoo (#19),
I take my argument about MOE from what I observed on the old feedback.gov website and in the Straits Times.
Yes, I know how it sounds. But can you prove the converse?
Yes, the point of my response was to show the parallels between the New Guard and Old Guard, which people here have forgotten.
Bodyguards are different from normal participants, qualitatively.
A few years ago, Margaret Sanger – the inventor of the birth-control pill – strongly criticized the pro-choice movement in the USA as having gone “off course”. She had intended the Pill to defend against marital rape, and chafed that it was being used now by mega-corporations to promote promiscuity for the sake of their profits. Has abortion really brought so much goodness that you proclaim? What about all the cases – and statements – of mothers who suffer depression after undergoing abortion, or how about the medical risks that abortion brings? Does casual sex and promiscuity bring joy to families or sorrow and fear and depression from the contraction of HIV?
And always (I know that the intensity of your beliefs will make you ignore this) – don’t the aborted fetuses have the right to choose whether to live or die?
You demonise everybody who is not pro-choice and anti-Thio.
I only wish for a debate where all views are heard fairly and equally, and not made hostage to a liberal agenda, gay or otherwise. Sincerely!!
Genami (#15),
Congratulations – you are the only neutral observer on this thread.
For Arix
A new book by the journalist Gianluigi Nuzzi lays bare a history of political bribes being paid through the Vatican’s central bank
The Vatican appears to have an enduring vocation for Italian political and financial scandal. Secrecy and intrigue were the order of the day when American archbishop Paul Marcinkus held sway in the Bastion of Nicholas V, the medieval tower housing the Institute for the Works of Religion (IOR), the Vatican’s central bank.
The requirements of a clandestine global struggle against atheist communism may explain the choice of business partners such as Michele Sindona and Roberto Calvi, whose mafia links and ruinous bankruptcies brought lasting discredit on the Catholic church three decades ago.
The Vatican hoped that a goodwill payment of $240m to the creditors of Calvi’s Banco Ambrosiano’s would salve its conscience and erase the memory of Marcinkus’s inept and dishonest banking practices. We were led to believe that a new broom, wielded by the lay banker Angelo Caloia, had since swept the premises of the IOR.
Arix
Let’s be clear on this. It’s not a case of demonising any religion. It’s a case of taking a stand against religious nuts who use their religion as an excuse to force their “values” onto others who may not share the same values. When the backlash occurs, said religious nuts then raise a hue and cry and demand that others of their religion to come to their aid because they are being persecuted for their religion. The issues are deliberately confused. This is when the danger of religious polarisation occurs.
You should read Team Unbear’s post #2 carefully especially the second and third paras where he/she makes excellent points.
Smallvice (#26),
Calling religion evil is not demonising religion? There must be a new definition of “Evil” that I don’t know about then. If so, please enlighten me.
The Albigenesian Crusade was not about One Denomination against Another. It was about the Church Leadership fighting against heretics. In the 13th Century, there was only One Christian denomination: the Roman Catholic Church. The Protestants only came into being in the 16th Century with Henry VIII and Martin Luther. Please do not refer to Church History if you have no idea what it is. Anyway, were the Communists any less violent in Russia? What about Stalin’s gulags? What about Hitler’s (Nazi) Concentration Camps? These were all secularists and Atheists as well.
I was responding to Sloo’s definition of “neutral”, so if I was wrong, so was Sloo. “Extremist” is an unfair label imposed on Derek Hong.
#29,
There are no many conspiracy-theory books about the Vatican that it is impossible to sieve fact from fiction nowadays.
HT (#30),
“demonising” is the word raised by Smallvice, and applies mostly to him, not to the rest of you. (Unless you support the general trend of his thinking.)
The AWARE Saga is an example of conservative-liberal polarisation, not religious polarisation. It isn’t Christianity vs Islam. It is Christianity vs Atheism (in this case, represented by the Gay Lobby.)
To the Christians, this is a case where a Pro-Gay Group is hijacking a neutral organization for its own benefit. That is when the danger of conservative-liberal polarisation occurs.
Team Unbear(#2),
And whose view is it that their views are “extreme”. Note: the petition only came out after the Straits Times published its expose on Sex Education.
Your “movement” is made up of several independent denominations working against, and not alongside, each other. Your conspiracy theories are really extreme in themselves. Nobody in the Christian Community is hoping to “topple the Government”, at least nobody I have heard of yet.
Exactly why is religious conversion a problem? Shouldn’t “Freedom to change one’s religion” be part of Freedom of Religion as well? I see that Freedom of Religion is only violated when the child is forced to convert, not if the Child chooses to convert. There are other reasons why the mega churches could be a problem, but increases in membership is not a valid sign.
Interestingly, Christians are still a minority group in Singapore, so what is all the fuss about? Is it right for a parent to force his or her religion on his or her child?
Arix, dun push this topic so far off course. keep your values to yourselve. the ,ore you harp on how much better your values are the more others who do not share them find it replusive.
hi Arix,
can you show us prove there is a pro-gay movement?
does neutral equate to being pro(-gay)?
mice is nice(#35),
It is smallvice and gang who are pushing the topic off course.
Where have I harped on how much better my values are than others? I always strive to be maximally objective, unless I am being sieged. Then, as I said, even a rabbit will strike back when pushed into a corner.
I am simply trying to express my opinion on how the Old Guard was not being neutral in the debate. That is all.
I apologise if I made you uncomfortable in any way. It was strictly unintentional.
Hi Arix,
You really have to differentiate between demonising and calling a spade a spade. It is a fact that organised religion is where bigotry and discrimination strive. Here’s another analogy to further elaborate my point: is Adolf Hitler considered evil because of his conduct leading to and during WWII or because of his leadership that revived German economy prior to WWII?
If the Roman Catholic Church refused to recognise the Albigenesien branch as a denomination, then they are heretics according to the Roman Catholic Church. Moreover, anti-Semitism flourished in Europe under the guise of Christianity, so it is hardly surprising that some atheist governments in Europe are tainted by Christianity historical influence.
The historical aggression by the governments you quoted are not motivated by any religion or the need to maintain hegemony of any religious institutions. Are you suggesting the lack of religion is the cause of their aggression? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?
Sloo (#24),
The pastor was making these statements to his parishioners, not to the general public. As for the comments about gays, was he referring to “Gays” as a group, or the Gay Lobby? Just as the PAP conflates itself with Government, the Pink Lobby tends to conflate itself with Gays.
Why are you reading private emails, and why is the media infringing on people’s privacy? LOL.
Yes, I can see your perception, that is why I write an entire post the clarify the reality.
The Thios’ speeches were academic speeches, and well-argued. You are free to disagree with them of course. However – and politely so – please be clear on the difference between Organized Religion and Religious Morality. Religious Morality is the moral principles that a religion teaches to its followers; the manner in which they are told to relate to other people in general. Organized Religion is the administrative structure and the set of formal rituals that are practiced by the disciples of that Religion. Both do not overlap.
The Thios were arguing for Religious Morality to be the basis of society, not Organized Religion. If not for the Old Guard’s propaganda, I am sure you would have viewed their articles differently. (And no, I am not forcing my values on you.)
I respect your views and you can make all the decisions you want regarding them with reference to your and your family’s lives. However i expect you to recognise mine too.
I would love to approach the entire issue in a neutral, balanced way. Unfortunately, there are people here trying to make the non-neutral neutral, and like you, this I cannot tolerate.
I agree, nobody should push too far. All who have grieviances should approach their “opponents” for dialectic dialogue. This way, both sides will get to see both sides of the issue and come to a holistic solution, instead of tilting too much to one side or the other.
Then, of course, there are people like Smallvice, who wish to tilt the balance in favour of one side…
I am responding to posts here not because I wish to force my views on anybody, but because I want to clear any misconceptions anybody might have about Christian Ideology or Intentions or purposes. And I will not apologize for doing that, since I believe that it keeps the discussion space neutral.
hi Arix,
your view on abortion below,
////Has abortion really brought so much goodness that you proclaim? What about all the cases – and statements – of mothers who suffer depression after undergoing abortion, or how about the medical risks that abortion brings? Does casual sex and promiscuity bring joy to families or sorrow and fear and depression from the contraction of HIV?////
as for depression, it depends on how the lady got pregnant in the 1st place, values & perceptions evolve over time. just as single parents are not shunned like they would be in the past. we should not stigmatise kids of single parents & speak ill of those kids. let alone demonise their parent.
as for being sieged, please refrain from refering to any animal to describe your position.
the old guards could have been more neutral, this i agree, but have you given a thought why they reacted this way? in this context maybe the referance to a rabbit striking back in defence is rather apt.
your apology accepted. being in a forum where strong opposing views are aired, i take it as part & parcel of an open society (online). its unfortunate the 1st post started the ball rolling with a very combative (pro vs anti, neutral be damned) stance, from there every thing went downhill…
Hi HT,
It is so sad that Arix can’t differentiate between demonising and calling a spade a spade. In fact, that’s what all of us are doing – you, me, mice is nice, blackfeline, sloo, ladyMadonna and Team Unbear. I don’t expect Arix to apologise for his position. He is entitled to keep his views but he still must live with the compartmentalised nature of our secular society.
Hi Arix #39,
There is no misconception on Christianity and the intention of its followers. The Secular Camp is only targeting a religious minority who not only doesn’t share those benevolent intentions, but also stressing the social fabric of Singapore.
Religious crowds have always been misled by minority to carry out atrocities. You staunchly denied their existence, which implies that you allege Ministers Ng Eng Hen and Wong Kan Seng lied about the existence of this minority.
Morality is morality. There is no need to artificially insert the prefix “religious” to stain the role of morality in civilisation. Morality is no more than an accumulation of common sense and acumen in the conduct of a harmonious society.
The term religious morality is simply religious propaganda to assert that only religious institutions are key players in setting the moral tone of society. Religious institutions do not have equal position with secular ones to set Society’s moral tone too. But every individual does have any equal role in setting the moral tone of society.
No matter how gentle the rabbit is, the moment it bites, it becomes a bad animal and all bad animals are put away. One’s merits do not offset the gravity of one’s crime.
With regards to your statements made about Derek Hong, are you suggesting that he preaches one thing to his parishioners and another to the public? That is worse than a mere one-time abuse of the pulpit.
Let’s put things back in perspective. Refer to my post at #1.
The issue is not about religion. It is about the use of secularism as a disguise to promote gay agenda in schools, via AWARE’s CSE.
That is what the issue is about.
Let’s put things back in perspective.
The issue is not about gay agenda. It is about the use of family values as a disguise to promote ultra right wing christian agenda onto the secular space.
That is what the issue is about.
43) Solo Bear on June 5th, 2009 9.55 am
Just as in your first post, you are trying to change the thread. Please read the topic and do not hijack this thread.
“We must look out for indications, of people who are pushing too far, who test the limits. All stakeholders – parents, schools and individuals – have to remind themselves and one another of the need for a secular space.”
Also, I reject your claims of a gay agenda and the CSE. This is again an attempt to confuse and obfuscate the issues.
HT,
Please read the the quotes of Hwee Hua’s speech in context. She was referring to the AWARE and CSE saga.
Please note that while AWARE, ST and the gay pride tried so hard to play up the Christian fundamentalist card, it was parents’ objection to the stealthy CSE that got MOE to take a second look.
Also be reminded that it was Aware’s inappropriate inclusion of homo topics in CSE that got MOE to suspend the programme.
Don’t try to cover up the truth as to what the issue is about and what it is not.
46) Solo Bear on June 5th, 2009 6.31 pm
According the ST which was linked, Lim Hwee Hua said : “In this common space, we cannot impose our religions on others. All of us have to carefully guard against that.’ ” She specifically mentioned religion. She didn’t mention CSE.
I see no reference to the CSE. And since you raised the issue, I actually checked the full report in yesterday’s ST. Also no mention of the CSE. So who’s trying to cover what?
Your lies and rants really don’t impress anyone. This plus the fact that you have been booted out of other websites really show you up for what you are – a lying bigot.
HT,
It is a FACT that the most contentious issue pertaining to the AWARE saga is the CSE.
It is a FACT that the ST, TOC and other pro-gay blogs tried very, very hard to make it into a Christian vs secular issue.
It is a FACT that not once did Josie mention religion.
It is a FACT that after Josie and gang left, they never spoke any more.
It is a FACT that after Josie left, the issue left dangling was the CSE.
Please wake up.
hi Solo Bear,
you choose what facts you want to see. that too is a fact. it is very disturning to know how there are people out there who will never come to terms when there are facts that are presented infront of them.
you can choose to walk down the path combating all who contradicts your opinions, views of an issue. where will that path lead you to?
spelling error
////hi Solo Bear,
you choose what facts you want to see. that too is a fact. it is very disturning to know…////
it should be “it is very disturbing to know…”
-.-”