Ravi Philemon / Head, Current Affairs Desk
Critics will accuse Christians like Thio Li-Ann of pushing their own agendas in public space. But perhaps their views on homosexuality are not so different from the Singaporean majority after all. Nonetheless, the vocalness displayed on both sides of the issue can only be a good thing for the country.
Photo: Many Singaporeans have voiced their opposition to the Integrated Resorts when the idea was first mooted by the government. Courtesy of Joshua Sosrosaputro / Creative Commons
CHRISTIANS have been in the most vocal in Singapore in various issues; from the issue of casinos in the two integrated resorts to the recent controversy regarding the contents of the Comprehensive Sexuality Education.
But by being so vocal, are these Christians trying to impose their own value systems on the rest of Singaporeans? Perhaps not.
Christians generally share the same values as the majority in a multiracial, multi-religious society. But in most instances, Christians are perceived to be the most vocal group is because of their mastery of the English language as a tool to make their views known and heard.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in speaking on the opposition to the Integrated Resorts (IR) in 2004 said:
“Many Singaporeans, though not all, who oppose the (integrated resorts), do so on religious grounds. The main religious groups have all made their views known. The churches, the Buddhist and Hindu groups, as well as MUIS and Muslim groups have all stated their stands. I have also received letters from many Singaporeans, especially Christians, expressing their objections on religious grounds.”
The expression used by PM Lee seems to imply that although many Singaporeans of all religious groups oppose the IR, Christians tend to voice their opposition individually in addition to doing so through their churches. Other religions, on the other hand, do so mostly through their religious institutions.
A question that begs to be answered would be: do these vocal Christians speak only for themselves or did they echo the sentiments of the majority in Singapore?
A multi-religious chorus against homosexuality
In July 2003 during an interview with Time Magazine, then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong surprised Singapore by announcing that the government is now openly employing gays, even in sensitive jobs, despite homosexual acts remaining illegal under the Singaporean Penal Code of 377A, which drew a strong backlash from the Singaporean conservative majority.
In response to Mr Goh’s announcement, Venerable Shi Ming Yi, the then secretary-general of the Singapore Buddhist Federation was quoted as saying: “People have different likes and dislikes. Of course, as a religion, we do not think that homosexuality is right”. Venerable Shi perhaps spoke for the majority of Singaporean Buddhist when he said that.
Mr Alami Musa, president of the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore, also spoke out against homosexuality. In a recent statement on the comments by Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng on the role of religious groups in the public sphere, he said: “I am appreciative of the fact that he has re-stated the government’s unchanged position on homosexuality. That reflects the conservative nature of our society.”
His views sum up the sentiments of the Muslims in Singapore.
Hinduism has taken various positions on the issue of homosexuality, ranging from positive, to neutral, to even antagonistic. For example, the Hindu law code Manu Smriti refers to both female and male homosexuality as a punishable crime, where punishment may vary from having a ritual bath, to public humiliation, to even having the fingers of the offender’s hands cut off.
In a 2004 survey titled ‘Discussions on Dharma’ facilitated by Rajiv Malik of Hindustan Times, most swamis said they opposed the concept of a Hindu sanctified gay marriage.
The fact is, sexuality is rarely discussed openly amongst Singaporean Hindus today, and homosexuality is largely a taboo subject - especially among the strongly religious Hindus.
In fact, a 2007 ‘nationally representative’ study by Nanyang Technological University found that seven in ten Singaporeans frown on homosexuality.
And so, if Christians hold similar views as the practitioners of other religions when they speak up for certain values, it makes more sense to assume that they are speaking up not only for themselves, but also for the majority.
Vocalness a good thing
As a challenge to the Christians who are not shy about vocalizing for the majority, another group counter-proposes the majority view, vocalising and lobbying just as loudly for the . They are the LGBT community, as well as their proponents and sympathisers. The recently held pink-dot event is a testament to that fact.
This tussle between different values has a drawn-out history. On 3 October 2007, an online campaign was launched to repeal Section 377A, the “anti-gay” law. But on 18 October the same year, Mr Martin Tan, an entrepreneur set up Keep 377A, a counter campaign, to give citizens a channel to voice support for the Government’s retention of the law.
In just two days of its launch, the Keep 377A campaign had gained more signatures than the other website. But the fact that the LGBT even has such a loud voice can be considered a form of victory for them.
The tabling of the petition to the Parliament in support of the repeal of section 377A was an unprecedented occurrence in Singapore. Although Section 377A was not repealed then because it was deemed that Singapore was a “conservative society uncomfortable with the notion of homosexuality”, Members of Parliament like Ms. Indranee Rajah expressed hope that “Singaporean society could evolve to accept homosexuality in the future”.
The “vocalness” of this tussle between differing belief systems can only be good for Singapore; for as ideas and ideals are tossed back and forth by the opposing camps, very often, a more informed, less ignorant, stereotype-free middle ground could be forged.
Nevertheless, while suspicions, highly-charged debates and emotional confrontations are part-and-parcel of such debates, we should not allow public discourse to denigrate into name-calling or labeling.
We should avoid terms like ‘fundamentalist’, ‘militants’, ‘agenda’ when advocating for the majority or the minority. Those that engage the public or even each other for their cause should be reminded to do so in a passionate yet civil manner.
When engagement is civil, the end result will be a better Singapore.
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
I think Singapore is conservative but trying to act liberal and open.
smallvice (#50),
I suppose TLA did make a mistake then. But well, it wasn’t really her fault. It was more of the fault of people who are willing to adopt the dirty tactics of “isolating, divide and conquer” to force their views on others.
These tactics spoil any debate and are symptomatic of the absolute lack of maturity Singaporeans have when discoursing controversial issues. Not to say that their lack of maturity is entirely their fault either, itself being a result of Government Policy that sought to de-politicise the people and promote unthinking Government Syncophants.
I really wish Singaporeans would be more civil. Either way, sending Death Threats at the New Exco was not a particularly socially acceptable move.
And one more thing – My academic style ideals are not obsolete. They retain their influence in the more developed Western Democracies.
Jackson (#52),
an Astute observation.
“While the Religious Right should not force its views on others, nonetheless Society needs some kind of absolutist morality to keep on surviving as society. A morality that’s purely relativistic is one which is anarchic. The goalposts may be altered, but there must still remain goalposts.”
hey stop the circular confusion, ok. should not force its view on others, but need absolutist morality – whose absolutist morality ? society ? don’t you think we are THE society with different ‘groups’ fighting for this ‘moral space and influence’.
We need goalposts but this can be altered (shifted) and so at the end we have shifting goalposts. You may want to tell this to Manchester Ferguson who may probably bench you for life after making him giddy.
I agree with ‘Where is Ferguson”. Somehow, Arix’s idea of society’s requirement for “absolutist morality” and “goalposts [that] may be altered” does add up or make sense. We do know through history that “goalposts” do adjust and move. Attitudes and moral standards modify with the times. So morality is relativistic.
Ferguson (#566) and boxer (#37),
What I mean is that society requires a common set of goalposts in order to retain cohesion. In a fully relativistic society, where each and every player has his or her own goalposts, our epitome Mr Ferguson would get crazy trying to coordinate a team, and deciding on their strategy to play the next Man-U game. haha.
(#56), I meant that Society needs a common moral standard, an “absolutist” standard if one may call it. That standard is a standard which society agrees on, either through majority vote, or whatever method is chosen in that particular period or millieu.
Just because you don’t understand me, doesn’t mean that I am engaging in “circular confusion”.
Errata – Ferguson (#56)
Arix – I have been misunderstood. Relative morality does not mean a free for all, that society cannot have a common sense of morality. It is simply that the common sense of morality adopted by society changes over time. Society is still united and cohesive in moral views. Let’s use homosexuality as an example.
Relative morality:
Singapore society of 2009 generally thinks it is wrong.
Singapore society of 2030 generally thinks it is ok.
Therefore, homosexuality in Singapore is wrong in 2009 but ok in 2030.
Whether homosexuality is moral or not is essentially derived from social views.
Absolutist morality:
Singapore society of 2009 generally thinks it is wrong.
Singapore society of 2030 generally thinks it is ok.
Bible/koran/FSM says it is wrong.
Homosexuality from 1 BC – 3000 AD will always be wrong.
Whether homosexuality is moral or not is essentially derived from religious authority, divorced from what society thinks.
Relative morality is the suitable paradigm for a secular society because the source of moral legitimacy for a policy or law is society itself.
For absolutist morality, the question is still “what source”. If your answer is “society”, then we are basically in agreement but our terminology is different. If your answer is “bible/koran/pastor/monk etc”, then that would be an imposition of religious views on an unwilling and unbelieving society.
Hi Arix #53,
Firstly, isolate, divide and conquer are no dirty tactics. They don’t impose any views on anyone or trample anyone’s right to free speech – these tactics are meant to ensure that nobody hears the opposing camp. If one disagrees with an ongoing trend in consensus building, then of course the logical step is to isolate the leading protagonist, divide his band of supporters and win over his spectators.
Secondly, these tactics don’t spoil any debate but enriches the political process as it intensifies the competition among different school of thoughts. They are not symptomatic of any lack of maturity but rather opposing camps do not share the common definition of civil engagement. The different school of thoughts in Singapore are civil in their own ways, but not civic according to the standards of their opponent camp.
However, in no way, the Secular Camp actually condones the death threats sent to Josie’s Committee. Your feeble attempt to throw a straw-man fallacy really stands out while associating the death threats to the Secular Camp is merely an act of self-fulfilling prophecy to create the illusion of the militant secularists (credits to Thio Li-Ann’s imagination too).
Thirdly, when you mentioned your academic ideals still influence western democracies, are you referring to the religiously-motivated academic ideals or the secular academic ideals? Last I check, the Queen, the Labour Party and the Conservatives still maintain an isolationist policy towards the British National Party (read “British Nazi Party”).
Fourthly, all the sound argument from the Religious Camp does not come from the Religious Right. They come from the Religious Centre and Religious Left. For example, Dr Gwee Li Sui does not credit himself as a Religious Right. Do you see anybody here condemning moderate Christians? I don’t see any, do you or are you imagining things, such as hearing voices in your head which claims to be of the Heavens?
Wow, you claim you don’t meddle with other people’s lives while you merely advise. To meddle is to intrude or interfere unwantedly in other people’s affairs. Unsolicited advisory is still meddling. This is why religious values cannot and should not be legislated because this opens up social space for people who rejects religious values.
What is wrong with being a fundamentalist? It merely means that you do not compromise the fundamentals.
62) Stranger on June 5th, 2009 10.38 pm
What is wrong with being a fundamentalist? It merely means that you do not compromise the fundamentals.
There is nothing wrong when one is enforcing such fundamentals within his personal space. The issue only surface when fundamentalists want to enforce those fundamentals in public domain.
There is room and proper way for fundamentalists or any religious individuals to project their fundamentals or religion in public space. When they live out a life abide by their religion fundamentals, their deeds serve as living testimony and will influence others to respect their religious fundamentals.
63) sarek_home
well said.
one can be an “anythingist” s long as one keeps it to ones personal space.
60) the game
///Absolutist morality … from 1 BC – 3000 AD ……moral or not is essentially derived from religious authority, divorced from what society thinks///
Can we be sure even from 1BC to 2009AD that morality defination by religious authority have not changed?
63) sarek_home
well said
I don’t think it’s fair to state that the religious leaders represent their groups. I can assure you that even within religious groups, diverse views and opinions exist. We have our own minds and understanding of faith, don’t we? Also, we do not elect our religious group representatives. These spokespeople are ultimately not accountable to their flocks for their opinions. When they speak, they merely provide their expert theological opinions. However, it is not accurate to say that they represent the views of those who identify with the faith or religion. Within each faith, there are disagreements on moralistic issues, like homosexuality – in fact, we see that this very issue has split churches in the US and UK.
@KopitiamApek on June 5th, 2009 11.34 pm
Of course not. New Testament vs Old Testament – the goal posts have shifted. Women and slaves – issues that had to be kept silent on in modern times. Nothing is as absolute as we’d like to them to be. That’s why religions are finding themselves less and less relevant, their grasp on people are loosening by the days. Homosexuality is the second last defence that religions are holding, which judging from current developments, is a losing battle. The very last line of defence will be creationism/genetics, probably not in my life time, but the day when Science unravels all these mysteries, marks the total bankruptcy of religions.
KopitiamApek #64
You’re quite right. Religions themselves evolve and are no less diverse than secular society. A few generations ago, masturbation was condemned as sin. Recently, I read this article that stated that certain churches themselves taught that masturbation is useful if it prevents premarital sex. Not to mention the homosexuality issue, gay bishops and Free Community Church and whatnot.
So if even religious authority, which fundamentalists often postulate as divine, immutable, inerrant, eternal etc, itself changes over time (perhaps slower than secular morality), what are the chances of defining, much less adhering to “absolute” morality, which teaches that A and B are wrong forever.
game (#60),
I stand corrected. You are right; it is a difference of terminology.
All in life is transient.
smallvice (#61),
1) Do you not see the contradiction in your own argument? So, silencing your opponent is not trampling free speech? Very interesting logic.
2) Competition is good, but only when it doesn’t degenerate into combat. Combat is when common rules of civil discourse are not upheld, eg when death threats are sent to any camp in an argument. The crux is not on the *content* of the arguments each side presents, but their *presentation* of it. Competition in politics is beneficial when it is over ideas and policy; it is harmful when it is against people.
3) Straw Man? I pride myself – and have a reputation – for removing all the fallacies in all my posts and articles. The Death Threats were real, and clearly the people who sent them were uncivil, whichever camp they were from. (Although, I believe personally that it is more likely that they came from the Secular Camp.)
4) The Queen is not particularly important in the actual policy-making, but I am interested to hear from you what is the nature of Labour and Tories’ “isolationist” policy.
5) How rich, coming from someone who wants to stop the “undemonising of Christianity”. And you are wondering who is condemning moderates. *shakes head* The arguments of the Religious Left may be sensible to secularists like you, but you shouldn’t make the mistake of thinking that their ideas are sensible to moderates.
The Religious Right, Religious Moderates and Religious Left are not distinct groups. Left-Right is a continuum, not a fence. They do share common beliefs with each other, even amongst their differences. So if you attack too much of the substance of the Religious Right, you will find yourself attacking the Religious Moderates as well.
Dr Gwee is clearly a member of the Religious Left, so obviously he doesn’t credit himself for being a member of the Religious Right.
6) I agree with you partially on this point. Religious Values should not be legislated, because this would permit the Clergy to force their views on others, views which may not necessarily be accurate. But the same should apply for Atheist/Liberal/Secular Values. A Fascism is not much better than a Theocracy in terms of peoples’ lives and liberty.
In fact, I believe that a government should not be legislating on values at all, and should restrict policymaking to structures and procedures, where it is able to use almost-purely quantitative measures to determine the forms of these policies.
However, I disagree with you that advisory is meddling. Advisory can be accepted or rejected by the recipient, after all.
Your essay contains the following fallacies:
Fallacy 1: ‘Vocalness’ is good!
Being vocal just means being loud and persistent. What’s important is the rightness of what you are saying, not the volume of your voice.
Fallacy 2: The majority of Singaporeans are conservative and therefore Singaporean society should remain so.
Our society should be led by enlightened leaders who can persuade the people to become more progressive. It cannot afford to be stagnated by the intellectual inertia of the majority.
Fallacy 3: The religious view on social and political matters is valid because it coincides with the view of the majority of the people.
The religious view is conservative because, by definition, religions are based on fixed doctrines and therefore necessarily non-progressive. The majority view is conservative because they neither have the capacity nor the inclination to abandon their apathy and complacency. That’s the reason why the religious view and the majority view appear to be on the same side of the fence. If logic and reason are to be the final arbiters of justice, then only secular opinions should be entertained.
I believe in the system
All of you are missing the eye of the needle. The article here is about segments of society vocalising their beliefs to gain acceptance for those beliefs. And, when one reflects deeper, one would realise that it will be always the minority in any composition, be it business or society, on any platform where ideas are put to the test, that has its job cut out for them. They can be loud but not too loud. It’s as simple as that.
Likewise, in a society like Singapore, where the larger group belongs to those who hold conservative to moderate beliefs, the job then falls on the minority to state their case to gain acceptance. I do not see, how some have argued, that the mainstream society is at fault for the minority being so isolated. There must be a degree of alignment, the same kinds of alignments that are necessary even within the mainstream composition. These alignments can then be reviewed from time to time according to the acceptance level of society. It is the way society at large works.
What he gay lobbyists are attempting to do now is to copy the progress made by western countries (specifically) and implant it onto a society that is not ready to accept such ideologies. It will not work. Alignment first, Intergration will follow.
I agree with “co” (#67). The views of religious leaders do not necessarily reflect the sentiments of their respective believers, and extrapolating that the majority are therefore “conservative” becomes an assumption. Amongst believers themselves, there are people who are for/against/indifferent about abortion, premarital sex and alternative lifestyles. The only way to find out will be an unbiased census of our population.
“Fallacy 1: ‘Vocalness’ is good!
Being vocal just means being loud and persistent. What’s important is the rightness of what you are saying, not the volume of your voice.”
I feel that you can be debunked.
1. Vocalness is Good – nothing wrong in this statement.
2. You said vocal = loud + persistent. Where did you get this definition? from yourself dictionary?
Let me help you a bit. Being Vocal can be good if it is done properly. It need not be loud and persistent when someone vocal says it amicably and clearly using a microphone and public address system. Words need not be loud. Its the message that counts.
regards
myth debunker
[ Christians are perceived to be the most vocal group is because of their mastery of the English language ]
Just more of the ‘Christians are superior people’ bovine excrement.
I have to disagree with this article because its argument is fallacious.
If we want a an healthy public debate for issues, it does not necessarily means that religion should be the driving force behind achieving this end. It would become a debate of value systems rather than a discourse on public issues.
Hence a public discourse can be just a veil for imposing values on the rest of population and never really tackled substantial issues the nation is facing but instead escalate into a “religious” war.
“Christians generally share the same values as the majority in a multiracial, multi-religious society” => this is an extremely sweeping statement because although most religion generally do not condone certain acts but the meaning imposed onto these “taboo” acts are different. Let’s not confused the act from the value derived from the act itself.
Regards,
Eugene
Arix #51,
Whatever goalposts we might need to flourish as a society, thank goodness we don’t derive it from holy texts. Leaving aside the glaring problem of which religion (i.e. which God’s divine plan), which text and which “official” interpretation, it is a fact that WE (as a society) pick and choose what works for us. If it is in the holy texts, it is only incidental. Independent of holy texts, our sense of morality, justice and fairness changes over time.
Take for example that the part of the Bible that says that homosexuals are an abomination. In the same patch of verses, we also find that the Christian God orders devotees to stone their rude children. I think that we can agree that present day Christians simply ignore the latter. There is a sizable list of those by the way. It follows that a case can be made that derivation of absolutist moralities from holy texts impedes moral progress.
Ravi, You only touched the surface.
I have seen two types of christians, those who don’t meddle with other people’s way of living, religion etc. and are just like us (broadminded)
The other type, is the vocal type you mention. No, these people are not just vocal about their beliefs. They have been brainwashed / infected and I have heard the following from such christians:
- You are living in darkness. You need to be saved ( BTW, I am a Hindu on paper but am an atheist / humanist). I gave up my friendship with this person. How dare these people make such statements?
- Yoga is devil worship
- Christians should not practice Taichi, because it is against christianity.
- The usual boatload of crap about Evolution vs ID.
- I was invited to some healing sessions / experience God sessions etc, I did not go
- Have you ever seen the flyers, door-to-door campaigning by these nuts? Maybe next time I will file a police complaint for harassment.
Do you seriously believe they are just vocal? I think not. They want to convert every gullible person out there to christianity.
They put down all other religions. If matters continue in this fashion, I worry Singapore may be thrown in religious strife.
Well written passage. I agree in most part but I must add that if we go deeper it is always the attitude problem. I remembered when the truth that no matter what the government is still going on with the casinos is out, I was in different churches hearing ans seeing the Christians still not accepting the fact of the decision. They prayed as a church or in a group that the whole plan will failed and the organizations involved in the project will go bankrupt and the government will learned it lessons.
I know I am touching ground of some very sensitive issues with the Christians but I do believe that the truth is the truth and nothing that is done in secret will not be exposed.
I am a Christian myself but we still have to respect the choice of another who have chosen a different believe systems. I think the main problem is not that Christians are usually more vocal but they are more evangelical. Nothing wrong with that, but when a christian continues his persistence evangelistic persuasion on another when he/she has expressed refusal, then it turned into a controlling manipulation.
I have recently been visited by a friend who is a bible scholar and he happily told me that WHITESAND is going bankrupt …. and the IR is now facing great peril…. I do not understand what is it that is so happy about.
Isn’t it the aspiration of every evangelistic christian to convert his/her whole office/class/factory/neighborhood/country/government to christianity? If that is their attitude, then there is always a tendency that they will impose what they believe on others.
Bottom line, Christians must learn when to back off and respect the free will each individuals have. Christian also have to learn to be sensitive towards the choice of others and do not throw anyone to HELL before he even leaves the EARTH.
Like I mentioned I am a Christian too but I believe that in Singapore we need to accept people who have other views, lifestyle and believes. Many Christian cannot identify as being a Singaporean because they belongs to a higher nationality and that is HEAVEN …. But if we cannot accept one another, and live harmoniously on this earth, we will surely create divisions and sactism in heaven.
LEARN TO ACCEPT and NOT TO CONDEMN. LOVE is more effective than FEAR and HATE.
Arix,
Since we are on the topic of drawing absolutist morality from religion to the betterment of society, there’s a study you might be interested in, from the Journal of Religion and Society: “Cross-national correlations of quantifiable societal health with popular religiosity and secularism in the prosperous democracies.”
Its conclusion: “There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms.”
HI Arix #72,
1) Speaking out and getting heard can be mutually exclusive. All I am really saying is: please stop paying attention to the advocacy of the Religious Right. Were you silenced? Nobody is silenced at all, not even you.
2) Competition in politics is beneficial when it is over ideas and policy; it is harmful when it is against The People. Stop accusing the Secular Camp of death threats. There is no conclusive evidence known publicly that the death threats originated from the Secular Camp.
It could as well be a deliberate ploy to play victim card by an uninformed Christian. The Secular Camp is innocent until proven guilty. We should not let the public debate to degenerate into an armed struggle and death threats are still short of an armed struggle anyway.
3) Pride? Proverbs 16:18-19 read “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall. Better to be lowly in spirit and among the oppressed, than to share plunder with the proud.” Even the Bible says it is better to be oppressed than to be prideful.
4) The Queen is not important? Come to the UK and say this loudly. You will find yourself being publicly lynches by the UK society at large. Recently, the Queen invited the London Assembly for a Royal Garden Tea Party.
The London Assembly consists of mostly Labour, Conservatives and Lib-Dems politicians. But among them is one BNP politician called Richard Barnbrook who insisted to bring along BNP Chairman Nick Griffin to the party.
Following the Queen’s public rejection of Richard Barnbrook’s guest to the tea party, senior politicians from Labour, Conservative and Lib-Dem joined in the condemnation. It was unfortunate that the Archbishop of Canterbury joined in the condemnation because no clergyman should participate in politics. On 27 May 2009, Nick Griffin announced that he is not attending the Tea Party.
On top of that, BNP members were regularly convicted on a series of hate crimes while the media continues its highlight BNP’s agenda of bigotry. No right-minded politicians would want to be seen associated to criminals and bigots. Let alone even share public debate with one.
Hi Arix #72,
5) By claiming that anyone from the Secular Camp who wants to stop the undemonising of Christianity, you also implied that Christianity is being demonised. But this is not true. Christianity has not been demonised. What the Secular Camp has been doing all along is calling a spade a spade.
For God’s sake (no pun intended), stop pretending to be a moderate. Yes, it is true that the Religious Right, Religious Moderates and Religious Left share common beliefs with each other, even amongst their differences, but they are smart enough to discern bullshit and identify who the Secular Camp is targeting. Please don’t apply false label on the Religious Right or look down on the intelligence of the Religious Left and Religious Centre.
6) Religious Values should not be legislated not because the Clergy may force their views on others. But should that be the only reason for keeping the clergy away from the Executive Branch of Government? If religious people should not play Government, who should?
The answer is obviously non-religious people. Why? Because Singapore is anti-theocratic but not anti-theistic. If Singapore is anti-theistic, there will be zero social and religious space for Christians.
Secularism is not about whether an atheist Government does a better job than a religious one but whether secular governance creates adequate social space for all religious groups and whether secular governance creates adequate political space for all secular interest groups.
Don’t confuse the issue with Facism or Atheism. To claim the lack of religious conviction is the cause of aggressive conduct by any Government towards the People not only indirectly credits religious institutions as the sole vanguards of morality, but also to overlook the history of aggression by religious governments towards the People.
Last but not least, we agree to disagree that unsolicited advisory is meddling. But who do you think is the one of rightful position to make the claim that meddling has occured? The person being meddled or the person meddling.
Sliim (#83),
I am interested to find out more on that study. Could you kindly email the link to me? Incidentally, I don’t support what the US Evangelicals do, despite what Smallvice likes to claim about me.
Smallvice (#84),
1) *sigh* Well well, who is sounding cornered now, huh? Guilty conscience much?
2) Did I accuse the Secular Camp? I merely observed that sending death threats is uncivilized behaviour, which I am certain most people here will agree. I try to keep my speculation down to a minimum, unlike you.
3) Lol, you are lecturing me on the Bible now? “pride” as a verb means different from “pride” as a noun, FYI.
4) Don’t Duan Zhang Qu Yi. I didn’t say that the Queen is not important in UK politics per se; I said that she was unimportant in day-to-day policymaking, as she is after all a figurehead, although somewhat less so than our President.
The Queen is free to invite whoever she wants to her Tea Parties. If the BNP is Racist and she doesn’t like Racists, she has the right not to invite the Chairman to the Tea Party.
However, the BNP still exists, so clearly the “conquer” part of “divide and conquer” has not been effected in the general British political scene.
As for the Archbishop’s Statement, I would see the content of his entire statement before deciding whether his condemnation was appropriate or not. Labelling all statements he makes about public affairs in the UK as “inappropriate” is what I consider as trying to silence the voice of religion.
Smallvice (#85),
1) Haha, do you have such a short memory. the “undemonising of Christianity” quote is directly quoted from you. Why don’t you scroll through your posts on the other threads again?
2) I am a moderate. If I wasn’t, I would be flaming you right now.
As far as I can remember, you are the one coming up with all the labels, and I am the one trying to respond on your terms. So don’t be hypocritical please.
I do not look down on the intelligence of anybody. I come here just to clarify any misrepresentations of Religious Tradition. Whether that Tradition is accurate or not, we can leave for another time to debate.
Besides, I didn’t say anything to insult their intellect. Sensibility is a matter of subjective opinion. Two smart people can think that each other are non-sensible on certain issues.
3) Are you deliberately quoting the opposite, or did you accidentally add in the “not”?
Anyhow, please don’t fuddle the issue. “Religious People” include members of the laity as well. I use the exact term “Clergy” because if you were to exclude the laity, then you are really cutting out their voice from the public sphere, which is undemocratic.
Singapore is not anti-theistic, but some people like you and HT and (to some degree) Alex Au want to make it so. And that, I will not tolerate. As I told you before, I am dead against anything resembling Richard Dawkins’ Bus Campaign in London and Spain. (Although, since I am objective, I am also against Evangelicals using Bus ads to spread their faith.)
4) I have to say, I don’t appreciate the subtle discrimination here. Are you implying that Religious Groups are second-class to Secular Interest Groups? That is why Religious Groups are entitled only “social” space, whereas Secular Interest Groups are given “political” space? Why not have adequate BOTH social and political space for BOTH Religious Groups and Secular Interest Groups?
Anyway, how much difference is there between Society and Polity?
5) Apologies, but you picked up on the wrong argument.
The argument was that Governments with a lack of religious conviction have as tainted a record as Governments with Over-bearing Religious Conviction.
“A Fascism is not much better than a Theocracy in terms of peoples’ lives and liberty.”
Does this statement say that a Theocracy is better than a Fascism?
6) Neither. The best one to make a claim would be an independent Third Party. The person meddling may be ignorant of his or her own behaviour, and the person who is meddled with may simply be over-reacting.
Stranger (#52),
The problem with “fundamentalists” is that their Fundamentals are not really Fundamentals.
Truthseeker (#81),
1) “broadminded” is okay – to a certain degree. After that, being broadminded starts to mean selective rejection of passages in the Bible that reject worldly trends, in the abstract sense. Then, it is very hard to decide whether such a person can still be considered a Christian or not.
2) “living in darkness” is a claim made by all Christian Denominations, except that some (evangelicals) are more forceful than others.
3+4) There is, unfortunately, a confusion in some Christian circles that the “Energies” harnessed by Yoga and Taichi come from Evil Spirits. Of course, these concerns are probably irrelevant in the New-Age variant of these treat them as mostly just physical exercises.
5) The Evolution vs ID debate is too complex to get into here. But suffice to say, it is just like the Homosexuality Debate – both sides are extreme and refuse to compromise. The ID side attempts to reject science wholesale and ally itself with the Creationists, who confuse essence with substance. The Evolution side treats the Theory of Evolution as an unassailable Divine/Natural Injunction, and in so doing sacrifice their normal scientific skepticism and refuse to acknowledge the logical boundaries of Science. (If I may, you seem to be on the Evolutionists’ side.)
6) Well, I guess those depend on whether you believe in them or not, but don’t slime them just because you didn’t go to them. (Just mere speculation, but if you were a Hindu on more than paper, you might have gone for those services. But you gave up your own religion, so well…)
7) That is extreme, I admit.
8) What makes you think only “gullible” people convert to Christianity. Christianity in history has produced some of the greatest minds in History, who are respected even by secular society.
9) Seriously, all religions do so in one way or another. It is only that the Evangelicals’ are more obvious, since
Interestingly, why did you choose to give up Hinduism?
Arix,
This is the link: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
I also am an Atheist and extremely curious as to how you would justify suggesting that Atheism is “warped” and on another thread, something that is degenerated to.
On your comment to stranger #89, insistence aside, by what barometer can anyone ever tell whose Christian Fundamentals are inerrant?
Arix #90,
“The Evolution vs ID debate is too complex to get into here. But suffice to say, it is just like the Homosexuality Debate – both sides are extreme and refuse to compromise. The ID side attempts to reject science wholesale and ally itself with the Creationists, who confuse essence with substance. The Evolution side treats the Theory of Evolution as an unassailable Divine/Natural Injunction, and in so doing sacrifice their normal scientific skepticism and refuse to acknowledge the logical boundaries of Science. (If I may, you seem to be on the Evolutionists’ side.)”
1) ID didn’t ally it self with Creationism. It IS creationism. There’s hard evidence that the word “Creator” simply replaced the word “Designer” in ID texts. There is a PBS doco on the Dover trial (available online) that can tell you this and more. There you will also find one of ID’s strongest proponents Behe redefining science to include such rigourous “disciplines” like Astrology.
2) The Theory of Evolution is not unassailable to all challenge, just fantasy ones. Also, the Evolution side neither sacrificed any scientific skepticism nor refused to acknowledge the logical boundaries of Science. These are just empty charges from an impoverished understanding of what science is. It is precisely because they are “scientifically skeptical” that they don’t make things up (like ID, for example). When they reach the boundaries of current scientific evidence; they just go “I don’t know.”
3) There isn’t an Evolution side per se. Evolution is validated by REAL scientific fields across the board, Cosmology, Biology, Paleontology, to name a few. I believe that’s called consilience. Which is what a really good scientific theory aims for.
funny ravi should quote funny buddhist views.
i have unequivocally heard of people mention that buddhism is NOT against homosexuality.
to quote that it is, somewhat disingenuous, no?
Buddhism says we must break from all world desires to free ourselves from the cycle of misery. Sexuality, whether straight or gay, is basically a worldly desire.
Hi Arix,
I ask you to stop un-demonising Christianity because Christianity was never demonised or even falsely demonised in the first place. The Secular Camp has and always been calling a spade a spade. Stop speculating about the Secular Camp.
No guilty conscience about stating facts about the anti-People and seditous nature of religious groups. Neither was there any attempt to silence any Opponents. For people who can’t differentiate between speaking out and getting heard, I can only sympathise their dogmatism.
You said in another thread that Alex Au is a biased party so his words cannot be taken seriously. Are you tainted with biasness to speak for your faith? Perhaps you should consider an aethist third party to speak out for Christianity.
However, if the aethist gets converted in the process, his arguments would be just as tainted as yours. Perhaps you rather we accept your religious propaganda at face value.
Even Thio Li-Ann said in her response to the 2009 Presidential Address that “the Singapore model of secularism is anti-theocratic”. The very fact that you contradicted her on this aspect reveals you are even more extreme than a well-established Christian Right individual than her.
Moreover, moderate here has nothing to do with you flaming or not because (1) nobody is flaming anyone and (2) we are questioning your political persuassion within the Religious Camp.
Blatantly denying your political inclination towards the Religious Right while putting in effort to substantiate Religious Right arguments while little effort in substantiating arguments from the Religious Centre and Left . Are you really a moderate? Calling me hypocritical only re-affirms your true allegiance to the Religious Right.
Only the Religious Right is dead against anything resembling Richard Dawkins’ Bus Campaign in London and Spain. In the UK, the law allows religious and aethist groups to propagate their beliefs and disbeliefs. It works both way. The Religious Right publcly puts up bus-ads about the Bait-And-Switch Alpha Conversion Course, It is highly commendable of Richard Dawkins to restore balance through his bus ads.
Hi Arix,
Conquer does not necessarily entail destruction of one’s opponents. The Allies didn’t order the massacre of Germans at the end of WWI and WWII. In the game of politics, moral high ground is a crucial strategic advantage, so conquering opponents cannot include their destruction but it has to entail substantial damage to prevent or minimise future participation in politics.
Regardless of content, the Archbishop should make no statement as he is participating in politics – something that all clergymen must steer clear off, even if anti-BNP politics enjoy popular support. It is his role to support the religious life of the United Kingdom, not its politics.
Nobody is trying to silence the voice of religion. There is no discrimination of religious groups too. Religious leaders are appointed as life members in the Presidential Council of Minority Rights where they can address public policies and scrunitnise the ascent of any bills. Moreover, the religious feelings of religious groups are protected by the law – something that other social groups do not have.
Secular interest groups are the one being 2nd class here. Unlike the religious groups, secular interest groups have neither direct access to policymakers nor their emotional committment to their cause protected by the law. Fortunately, this is balanced by the fact that Singapore politics. You want adequate social and political space for religious groups in the public sphere? Sure.. withdraw all the privileges of religious groups granted by the Constitution and the Law first.
You support that clergymen should not pariticipate in the executive branch of Government because they cannot be trusted with such power. If highly regarded clergymen can’t be trusted, what can be expected by lower ranking non-clergy members of the Church? Why would non-clergy members who are just as religious as clergymen be any different in handling executive power? I want to cut out the political participation of lay disciples who are just as religious as clergymen.
Arix@89; Strange that you would dictate what would be the fundamentals and what should not.
sliim (#92),
1) Okay, sorry, I just needed to clarify if you were using the narrow definition of Intelligent Design, or the wider definition of Intelligent Design. Since you are using the narrow definition, I feel free to concur with you.
2) Are you aware of the Scientific Process? There are 3 stages: The Hypothesis, The Theory and the Law. Evolution is considered a Theory because it hasn’t yet been verified to the degree where it can be called a Law like the Law of Gravity.
Yep, I was right, you are on the Evolution Side. Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but it is very unscientific to say that “The Theory of Evolution is unassailable, except to fantasy”. Those are the words of a zealot, not the words of a Scientist. No rational scientist would even say that to something much more well-established like the Law of Gravity.
The first rule of Science – to mainstream scientists – is to maintain a questioning mind about everything, to always be ready to adjust scientific theories to meet new discoveries. The Evolution Side of the Evolution vs ID debate is as dogmatic as its opponents, except that their Dogma is based on faith in the Big Bang.
Good Scientists say “I don’t know” when they really don’t know stuff. The Evolutionists say that “I don’t know, but definitely it must be explainable through the Theory of Evolution!!!” Not only do they reject Creationism, but also any other scientific alternative that might be proposed. (Or then, it would be most convenient for them to label all alternative arguments as “Creationism”, just like their opponents would label alternative arguments as “heresies”.)
3) It takes two hands to clap. Simple logic.
smallvice (#95),
1) Don’t try and hide behind your “Secular Camp”. This aspect, it is about you. It kind of doesn’t make sense: Why would you ask me to stop un-demonising Christianity if you thought it wasn’t being demonised? If you really thought that Christianity wasn’t being demonised, you would consider my arguments as explanations of Christianity, which was exactly my intention in the first place. So you contradict yourself.
2) “seditious nature of religious groups”? Please justify your widespreading claim.
3) Again, misquoting me. (You seem to do that very often.) I said that we need to take his points critically, and take into consideration his bias. In Mr Au’s case, his bias is that he is a homosexual, so he argues from any side that benefits the pro-Gay Lobby. I believed that you would get this point, since after all you are the self-proclaimed expert on politicking strategies.
Well okay, I am biased. But I have been relying solely on logic to prove my case, in contrast to Mr Au who has been using several Appeals to Emotion. Anyway, you believe yourself so supremely unbiased?
4) An Atheist would not be a good judge, because he/she is already biased against religion. The best judge would be a Pure Freethinker, who approaches everything objectively, with equal appraisal and skepticism.
5) Please kindly show me where I contradicted her on that point. I have stated clearly that I am anti-Theocracy. Now you are really floating straw-men.
6) Wow. Ad hominem. Such a cool argument. I only reveal as much of my opinions and perceptions of religion in this debate as is relevant to the point; I don’t share any other points. So it is very premature of you to conclude anything about my “political inclinations towards the Religious Right”.
For instance, I support the repeal of S377A. You seriously think that the Religious Right would support that? My support of TLA’s ideas does not extend to her proposals or her attitude.
If you really bothered to discourse religion and secularism with me, you would find most certainly that I deviate from the Religious Right on many points, too many to list here. In fact, I do possess some somewhat heretical thoughts.
But then, talking to you is like talking to a wall, since you don’t bother to talk at all, except as part of your “isolate, divide and conquer” strategy.
7) Au Contraire. An extremist would be flaming anyone who goes against him or her. That is what extremists do. Don’t you know politics?
8) Like I said, I don’t support the Religious Right’s Bus Ads either. But the Religious Right’s Bus Ads were present only in England, and possibly only in London, which is the most cosmopolitan of UK cities. I don’t remember hearing that Spain had any such Bus-Ads.
In England, anyway, the strongest critic was not any of the Evangelical Churches. It was the (moderate) Church of England, that is one of the Cultural Centres of the UK. Or are you going to say that the Church of England belongs to the Religious Right too?
But anyway, my point is, the argument that Dawkins was restoring balance applies only to England, and not to Spain (or Canada). Plus, there were other ways to restore balance without inflaming anyone else.
I seriously hope FTR4 isn’t one of the buses carrying Dawkins’ ads.
This thread is in danger of degenerating into the usual bashing of each other.
If this carries on, this thread will be closed for comments.
Please read this if you’re not familiar with our policy on comment posting:
http://theonlinecitizen.com/moderation/
And Arix,
Pls keep your comments to within 500 words.
Thanks.