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
100) theonlinecitizen on June 7th, 2009 10.02 pm
///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://///
Thank you TOC for upkeeping the standard.
Arix #98,
“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.”
1) What’s this “broad definition of ID” you are on about? I gave the precise definition and source of the ID that is involved in the debate.
“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.”
2) What’s your point? I didn’t say Evolution is a scientific law. Sure, Evolution is a theory just like The Atomic Theory, The Germ Theory, The Theory of Plate Tectonics, The Theory of Quantum Mechanics, and last but not least, Gravitational Theory.
“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.”
My exact wording was “The Theory of Evolution is not unassailable to all challenge, just fantasy ones.” You changed it and left it in quotation marks. That’s kind of dishonest, but I am sure being religious (and a moderate to boot) you didn’t mean it :)
Anyways, without legitimate evidence, ANY contesting “theory” (ID or not) is considered fantasy. The flat earth “theory”, for example, is considered fantasy by the scientific community not because they are zealots but because there is no good evidence to support it.
Arix #98,
[Continued]
“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.”
3) Here you are broadening your attack on science beyond simply evolutionists. In spite of your self-avowed relative knowledge of science, you don’t seem to know that. You can find out more by goggling The Big Bang and finding out which fields of science drive the theory. Your take on Evolution, to put it kindly, is breathtaking. To not feel so victimized by evidence you can refer to Francis Collins and/or Kenneth Miller, scientists who are also religious (available online). They can give you better understanding of what Evolution really is.
Faith has ZERO role in science. Period. If there is no good evidence for something its garbage, fantasy, and nonsense. Scientifically speaking. What you are suggesting i.e. “faith in the Big Bang”, is that there is a massive conspiracy across scientific communities, across the world, across multiple scientific disciplines to somehow allow a major scientific theory to do faith-based work unawares. To illustrate the scientific method, unless you have evidence of this ongoing phenomenon, your “theory” is sheer fantasy.
“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”.)”
4) Again, you conception of what is Science is just mind-boggling. What’s so scientific about Creationism? ANY alternative can be proposed provided that there is good evidence. Can you also provide evidence to substantiate the spectacular claim that Evolutionists also reject “any other scientific alternative that might be proposed”? The operative word being scientific, of course.
Having said that, The Theory of Evolution (presumably so is the Big Bang Theory) is being taught in Singapore. Intellectual honesty and all, have you considered writing in to ST or MOE to address the issue?
And out of curiousity, where exactly are you getting your information on Evolution?
theonlinecitizen (#100 and 101),
Well that is the fault of SmallVice585 then. But alright, I will take into consideration the word limit.
Hi Arix #99,
No secularist is banding together under an alternative front, but that’s what Religious Right does – they hide behind the Church instead of standing proud as the Religious Right. The Secular Camp has and always been calling a spade a spade. Nobody here is promoting the complete elimination of Religion. If you feel that Religion should preserve any morsel of dignity, I implore you to stop spreading your religious propaganda here.
Clarification? Nice attempt to get me banned by pretending to ask me to substantiate the “seditious nature of religious groups”. Fortunately, I spotted your reverse ploy to bait me to break TOC’s moderation rules. However, promoting one religion is unquestionably insensitive to another religious group. Harp your ware somewhere else – don’t break TOC’s rule and blame me for it.
This isn’t the first time I observed a biased person preaching about objectivity. First you omitted the privileges granted to religious groups by the Constitution and the Law, then you pushed for more social and political space for religious groups. If this is not pushing for religious hegemony, what are you up to? You can have one but not the other.
I urge you to give up your agenda on converting Singapore into a theocratic state or a near-theocracy. The Religious Right’s Cultural Mandate is one step short of bombing Changi Airport or Yishun MRT Station, but it is just as seditious and threatening to Singapore.
I understand your need to revise your position so as to avoid being identified as a religious extremist. You can say all you want and practise your revisionist ploy, such as falsely supporting the repeal of S377A while refusing to recognise that homosexual behaviour is neutral. What a wonderful rhetoric to reaffirm your support for the substance of Thio Li-Ann’s proposals.
I am here to discuss religion and secularism but I discovered religious propaganda and attempts to eradicate healthy skeptism. You have not made any attempt to discuss because you didn’t question your beliefs. Even the Religious Centre and Religious Left would find some members of the Religious Right as pure heretics. Stop trying to wriggle your way out.
Richard Dawkins restored balance in Spain and Canada too. In these countries, religious groups put up other ads too for a variety of Christian festivals and other religious outreach events. You said, “Plus, there were other ways to restore balance without inflaming anyone else” Sure, ask the religious groups to stop putting up all ads in the public sphere first. Atheists have never put up ads regarding religious beliefs until Richard Dawkins.
You committed a package deal fallacy in misrepresenting the Church of England as the Religious Right. You are an individual. Unlike you, the Church of England is a body of individuals whose opinions and political inclination are as diverse as the species found in the Amazon Rainforest.
As the head of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot state the Church’s official position solely on his own opinion. He has to reflect the opinion of the Religious Right and other political fractions. The same Religious Right fraction also campaigned against Tony Blair to install the heads of other established religions to seat equal with the Archbishop of Canterbury in the House of Lords.
Correction to last paragraph in Post #106:
As the head of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot state the Church’s official position solely on his own opinion. He has to reflect the opinion of the Religious Right and other political fractions. The same Religious Right fraction also campaigned against Tony Blair who wanted to install the heads of other established religions to seat equal with the Archbishop of Canterbury in the House of Lords when he was Prime Minister.
100) theonlinecitizen on June 7th, 2009 10.02 pm
This thread is in danger of degenerating into the usual bashing of each other.
Hi TOC,
I don’t think there is any “bashing of each other” more than each party attempting to state its case strongly. The debate here his allowing me to learn so much more than any intellectual readings I can get elsewhere. The sentiments expressed are sentiments at ground levels and they clearly portray the general quarrels we have at ground level.
I ask TOC to exercise a higher level of tolerance and to allow the debate to continue. On the other hand, I implore the debating parties to keep to the points of their arguments and to use persuasion to argue their case. For observers like me, there is a lot to learn here.
Keep the peace, please ;)
“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.”
“Just because you don’t understand me, doesn’t mean that I am engaging in “circular confusion”.
Your post in 51) Arix on June 5th, 2009 5.57 pm was a circular confusion.
Your post 58) Arix on June 5th, 2009 8.28 pm just made it slightly better (just slightly) after the clarification. that is the beauty of language with many layers of interpretation, deconstructionism ?
Mr. Ferguson (being the person weilding the big stick), within the smaller subset of Manchester itself, himself is also excercising a relativistic approach in the manner which he uses and changes players when the situation suits him.
While he would like to keep a lot of things fixed (absolute) like goalposts & fancies of players, he would want to have the flexibility of options (relativistic) needed to operate as far as the choice and strategic placement of the players are concerned.
In life, as in football, different groups of stakeholders will always vie (need to vie) for the type of space (call in rights, interest, etc) necessarily for his own survival (be in their own literal lives, ideals, dreams, etc). And this is either achieved through the use of stick or harmful actions (where some ruthless dictators / anarchists may prefer to use) or through a more democratic process (where words of mouth, however vocal & needlessly noisy, are employed).
Agree with 108) gemami on June 8th, 2009 8.16 am
This is a good debate, both sides have been civil enough, although not necessary ‘nice’ to each other. If you believe in vocalness, this is just it. We must not be afraid of confrontation, as long as we confront each other in a civil manner..
100) theonlinecitizen on June 7th, 2009 10.02 pm
////This thread is in danger of degenerating into the usual bashing of each other.////
People,
do pause a moment in this very interting discssion and give some thought to this ancient Chinese Saying:
“There are many paths to the top of the mountain, but the view is always the same.”
-and-
“One moment patience in anger, will save you a hundred days of sorrow.”
Arix #51,
“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.”
1) Could you provide me with a concrete example of an absolutist morality you are referring to? Can you also clarify what exactly do you mean by “absolutist”?
2) Does this “absolutist morality” has anything to do your conviction that Values are “derived from one religion or another”, that “common sense” and “established practices” come from religious spirituality, and Morality comes from Religion? (By the way, this sounds like something the Religious Right in the US might say)
(Source: http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/05/the-emperor%e2%80%99s-new-clothes/)
3) It would also be nice if you could respond to my comment at #91:
On your comment to stranger #89, insistence aside, by what barometer can anyone ever tell whose Christian Fundamentals are inerrant?
Hey moderator,
could you please approve my #105 post. I think it has been up for long enough already.
Nvm, I shall re-post #105:
(Part 1)
Smallvice (#96),
1) Great theory. That doesn’t come across as what you are trying to do, unfortunately.
2) Is the Archbishop any less a citizen of the UK than any other citizen?
Anyway, religion is much more than a set of rituals and prayers. Those rituals and prayers would have no meaning if one could not adhere to their promises in public. And that includes all religions, not just Christianity.
3) Well, Dawkins, Hitchens, Brown and Pullman are, although fortunately none are Singaporean. You are straying far too close to being that yourself.
The PCMR uses the formal definition of religion, which lacks the “daily life” portion. And I will ask for clarification on “religious feelings” because I am unclear what that refers to.
4) Well, to be objective, it is clear that the “emotional commitment to their cause” of the evangelizers are not respected by Either Constitution or the Law, not apparently are the “emotional commitment” of those running Boys’ Brigade CE classes. Nor was the “emotional commitment” of the Catholics arrested under Cold Store in 1987.
“Direct Access”? Well, Secular Lobbies are permitted to write petitions and call the Government as well, similar to the Religious Groups. I don’t see where they have “direct access” to policymakers. The most direct access they have is in Special Circumstances like the Casino Debate, otherwise they don’t. And even consultation sessions are .. well .. indirect. The Government’s decisions and choices are not influenced by any religious groups.
Also, unlike Malaysia, Saudi Arabia or Tibet, Singapore doesn’t have a State Religion. So where is the Constitutional Privilege of Religion?
5) Stop twisting my words. The issue is not about power. The issue is about conflict-of-interest.
The Role of the Clergy is to preserve the Moral Authority of the Religion. This mainly means – contrary to what you may think – preserving and promoting the moral values of the religion. In order to achieve that, the Clergy (theoretically) must be fully open to Revelations from Heaven, which might come from any source, ranging from the highest royalty to lowest peasant/worker. This is so that the Clergy can have the most accurate (by Divine Standards) compilation of moral teachings.
Politics, as you know so well, is about maintaining a facade of openness whilst “isolating, dividing, and conquering” (IDC) your opponents. If a Cleric becomes too drawn into IDC, then his (or her) moral judgement will be impaired and he or she will fail to exercise proper moral discernment. The Christians’ example of this would be the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus’ time, who were corrupt and caught up with Roman political intrigue that they forgot the welfare of ordinary Jews. Further on, there is Papal entanglement with the Houses of Europe (vis-a-vis Crusades), and later Muslim entanglement with Arabian Royal Blood. (Sunni vs Shiite was about peasant vs Royalty as leaders of Islam.)
(part 2)
For the politician, Moral Authority is his or her currency. For a Religious Leader, Moral Authority is his or her identity. Therefore, a Clergyman or Clergywoman must stay clear of worldly affairs (read: politics).
Part of this Moral Authority consists of defending certain policies and practices. These policies and practices may sometimes not cohere with what Secular Lobbies would prefer. The proper Cleric (theoretically) should be open to suggestions of change, since they might come from Heaven. When a Cleric immerses himself or herself in politics however, the Cleric becomes dogmatic in refusing to accept all other opinions, because he and she is compelled by the world to enter into IDC mode. This means that those policies and practices will not receive sufficient scrutiny.
Sadly – and I agree with you on this – historical entanglements between religious groups and political factions have made the Religious Clergy dogmatic and unyielding to calls for change. That is a problem which needs to be solved but will not be solved by IDC methods.
The Laity of Religious Groups are citizens as much as the Atheist, Agnostic or Freethinker. As such, they possess the same Constitutional and Legal Rights as Atheists, Agnostic and Freethinkers. Democratically, they have as much right as anyone else to participate in the social and political life of their country, including running for office.
They are free of the compulsion that the Clergy have to bear, and thus are capable of exercising executive power in the most effective way possible. Religion gives them the obligation to practice the values of the faith, but exercise discretion over the implementation of the policies and practices promoted by the Clergy. Since after all, the Clergy are humans too, and all humans can err.
Your definition of “Religious” must be objective enough; it is very intolerant to simply label as “Religious” any opinion that you don’t approve of. There are, after all, famous religious people like Mother Theresa and Martin Luther King Jr who acted from religious convictions.
In your opinion, it would be wrong for Mother Theresa to criticise Indian Slums or Martin Luther King Jr to carry out a protest against racism? I think several Indians and African-Americans will bash you up if you tried to say that.
smallvice (#107),
1) I am going to state it clearly one more time: I AM NOT SPREADING ANY PROPAGANDA.
2) Lol, I was genuinely requesting a clarification. I did not know that that happens to breach TOC’s moderation rules. If it does, then I am sorry. But then, Atheism doesn’t contain any religious beliefs, right?
3) Once again you are misrepresenting me. I was not pushing for anything. If I was pushing for anything, I would write a full-length proposal and post it up as an article, instead of mentioning it in a discussion thread.
I was simply querying as to the consistency of inequality between secular and religious groups with democratic ideals.
4) *Sigh* I have repeated myself about three times over or more in this thread and others that I am AGAINST THEOCRACY.
Okay, to be diplomatic – although you are stretching my tether here – I shall consider the possibility that we are using different definitions of “theocracy”. My definition of Theocracy – which is the Catechism’s offical definition – is one where the Organs of the State are run by Religious Clergy.
5) I SINCERELY support the repeal of S377A, and yes that position is Revisionist on traditional Christian – both Catholic and Protestant – attitudes. I support the repeal of S377A on 3 grounds:
A. It is utterly unenforceable unless Singapore wants to become a police-state. An ineffective law makes a mockery of the legal system behind it.
B. I am aware that the Religious Right and Religious Conservatives are using S377A to bolster their position. Contrary to what you think about me, I agree that the Right and their Conservative counterparts are using S377A as a legal shield to keep themselves from having to deal with homosexuals as people. They cannot keep on doing this because they are hiding from the truth.
C. I believe strongly that the government hangs on to S377A so that it can avoid the cumbersome task of providing moral leadership, which anyway it is hardly good at. The PAP seriously needs to revise its leadership qualities.
However, to me a repeal of S377A is a tool to bring both the Right and the (Pink) Left to the discussion and resolution table, not a means of opening the Floodgates for the Left.
As you know, I do not follow your “cease-and-desist” policy as I feel that it will only lead to more resentment and fortification, which will not be beneficial to social stability and harmony.
And I also believe that decriminalization and neutralization are two different things. You shouldn’t throw a cancer patient in jail for being cancerous, but you should not try and pretend that cancer is not an anomaly either. Similarly, throwing homosexuals in jail or confining them in asylums is inappropriate, but so is ignoring the obvious biological-psychological disconnect in homosexuality.
The Religious Right cannot attempt to solve every problem by treating it as a crime. However, neither should the Secular/Atheist Left attempt to ignore every problem by treating it as a fact of nature.
That is my full view on the matter. Clear now?
6) I came here to discuss secularism and religion, but instead discovered that some secularists merely like to throw straw-men at religious individuals. I found out, in particular, that there was one secularist who dismissed every argument made for the religious side as “religious propaganda”, while trying to shove his beliefs down his opponent’s throat.
You demand that I question my own beliefs, but yet you refuse to question your own. I hope you realize that the only thing worse than a liar is a hypocrite.
Anyway, the role of each side in a debate is to question the beliefs of the other side, and defend one’s own beliefs. So your claim makes absolutely no sense at all, just like all your other claims about me.
7) Yes, the religious groups in Spain and Canada put up ads, but I doubt any of them put up ads on buses. Canadian Law explicitly forbids promotion of sectarian beliefs on their buses. Spain is a Catholic Country, and so the Church does not need to advertise on buses to promote itself and its events. So what balance was Dawkins achieving in Spain and Canada? Or was he trying to secure favour for Atheism at the expense of Religion (and not just Christianity)?
And remember, the Catholic Church is not part of the Religious Right.
8) Hahahaha, you are so talented, I admire you. I was pointing out that YOU committed the package-deal fallacy with the Church of England.
9) The Archbishop speaks the official Doctrinal Position of the Church of England. Since he heads the Church of England, he decides the Church’s Official Position. Therefore, his Opinion is the Opinion of the Church of England.
Once again, you have demonstrated your ignorance of how Organized Christianity Works.
when it comes to a person’s values, faith or belief. no words can win critics over like living & breathing it.
my personal opinion that words do get in the way of promoting a civil society where diversity should be embraced. especially when 2 oppsing sides keeping looking for & pointing out differences to hair splitting detail.
the good that came out of such debates is to prove there are people who cannot get alone with others who are different from themselves. with that “truth” out in the open, we can now all see it plain & simple. the next step is to think of ways to make the 2 sides co-exist in harmony, not just barely tolerant.
mice is nice (#118),
Finally… someone who sees the light! We need to move beyond tolerance to embrace an integrated harmony.
You guys should read a Theory of Everything.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT
“What I’m saying is, if God wanted to send us a message, and ancient writings were the only way he could think of doing it, he could have done a better job. “[Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985), p. 164.]
“The Christians, in Alcatraz, according to the Natives lied. “We (Indigenous Indians) came from the sunrise, they (Christian Invaders) from the sunset; we healed the sick, they killed the sound; we came naked and barefoot, they clothed, horsed, and lanced; we coveted nothing but gave whatever we were given, while they robbed whomever they found and bestowed nothing on anyone.”
This was what the Indians said of the Christians.
Page 128 – Cabeza de Vaca’s “Adventures in the Unknown Interior of America” (Zia Book)
Alvar Nunez Cabeza De Vaca
Buy the book :
http://books.livingsocial.com/books/25596-alvar-nunez-cabeza-de-vaca-cabeza-de-vaca-s-adventures-in-the-unknown-interior-of-america-zia-book
“The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the sun, in which they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and pay him the adoration originally paid to the sun.”
Thomas Paine
1737-1809
“100) theonlinecitizen on June 7th, 2009 10.02 pm 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/”
Sir/ Madam,
This is the REAL world, This is exactly what is happening in the world today!
But, don’t despair, through chaos will come order and then vice versa. This is what makes the world go round!
MAN IS A POLITCIAL ANIMAL!
If you guys could pick up a copy of TIME’s most recent magazine (June 15 edition), there is an article there titled: ‘GOD – Decoding God’s changing moods’ – you will see some similarities in the exchange taking place here. Pay attention to the writer’s definitions for ‘zero-sum’ and ‘non zero-sum’ as his hope for reconciliation and religious harmony. The word being tossed about here is ‘absolute’ or ‘absolutist’. Very interesting comparisons.
Basically what it means is that for religious tolerance to be successful, there has to be a non zero-sum (non-absolute) acceptance or tolerance of each other’s position. If one side is unyielding (zero-sum or absolute), tolerance will become impossible.
Like mice is nice, I too, see that if society is able to work on a non zero-sum or a non-absolute playing field, it will be the first step toward tolerance (religious or otherwise) and toward co-existence and harmony. It is necessary that both sides consider seriously where this non zero-sum meeting point is in order to move forward.
“There are many paths to the top of the mountain, but the view is always the same.”
ya lo and you are telling us. And some paths are deemed talented path and much rewarded leh.
“One moment patience in anger, will save you a hundred days of sorrow.”
Ya lo. why not you try provoking your higher mortals and you shall see how they will manifest their patience into you – and hopefully your hundred days of sorrow will be saved.
Got the feeling that this thread is hijacked by personal agenda.
Simply put, this World is populated by different people with different ideas and trying to influent others is itself imposing on others.
Let’s have this thread close, for it is going to lead to nowhere.
Dearest Ah Soh,
Take a deep breath. In time you will start to recognise some of these pesky types and learn to ignore them.
#124)
there is no such thing as no agenda in this world.
ah soh (#125),
Yep: Smallvice’s agenda
I wasn’t referring to smallvice.
Let’s have this thread close, for it is going to lead to nowhere.
Hi Ah Soh,
Thank you for understanding my plight.
Hi Arix #114 & #115,
Unlike you, my views are not clouded by religious doctrine and/or persecution complex. I am not here to eliminate religion – if I intend to do so, why do it online?
With regards to the Archbishop of Canterbury, a typical UK citizen is not bounded by clerical duties. The same can be said for Mother Teresa and Martin Luther King Junior – while I agree with their causes, I disagree with their participation.
Clerics should not participate in politics. You also wrote: For the politician, Moral Authority is his or her currency. For a Religious Leader, Moral Authority is his or her identity. Therefore, a Clergyman or Clergywoman must stay clear of worldly affairs.
Thank you for finding me comparable to Richard Dawkins – an esteemed biologist and full professor from Oxford University. I find it puzzling that you find secular lobbyists comparable to evangelicals.
Please don’t compare an apple to an orange. Evangelicals promote evangelism while secular lobbyists don’t promote secularism. Secularism is merely rules of engagement for all to observe. So what happens to evangelicals when they fail to observe secularism?
Please stop trying to deny the existence of direct access when it is clearly codified in the law. That is just reaffirming religious hegemony. State religion is the ultimate privilege of privileges. So where does your objective end? Singapore practises positive secularism (“secularism with a soul”) which recognises religion as an asset.
Btw are you suggesting there is no conflict of interest if a Christian Prime Minister implements Christian principles that are not shared by other faiths and faithless groups as public policy? Since when I said anything about power – if a highly regarded cleric cannot manage conflict of interest, what more can I expect of a lay disciple of the same faith and just as religious?
I agree that the Laity of Religious Groups are citizens as much as the Atheist, Agnostic or Freethinker. As such, they possess the same Constitutional and Legal Rights as Atheists, Agnostic and Freethinkers. But they have to participate politics on a secular multi-religious multi-racial platform. The Laity cannot participate politics on a religious platform. Nobody is stopping them from participating in politics on other platforms.
hi Smallvice585,
i largely agree with you on
////while secular lobbyists don’t promote secularism. Secularism is merely rules of engagement for all to observe. So what happens to evangelicals when they fail to observe secularism?////
except for “secular lobbyist”. is there such a term? it’s new to me…
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
is this kind of religious tug-of-war contributing more stress than welcome? i really wonder.
i know most S’poreans are competitive in nature, but please respect others’ need (not privilege hor) for personal space.
Hi Arix #116,
Let’s leave it to readers to judge who is spreading religious propaganda. I don’t think TOC will publish any written article with a religious overtone. That’s why you are mentioning it on the discussion thread. There is no inequality between religious and non-religious individuals, so stop resonating with the persecution complex.
The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is not a Religious Right. His acceptance of homosexuality almost led to the divide of the Church of England when he wanted to install an openly homosexual Bishop. At the 2008 Foundation Lecture of the Royal Court of Justice, he said:
“I proposed that the criterion for recognising and collaborating with communal religious discipline should be connected with whether a communal jurisdiction actively interfered with liberties guaranteed by the wider society in such a way as definitively to block access to the exercise of those liberties; clearly the refusal of a religious believer to act upon the legal recognition of a right is not, given the plural character of society, a denial to anyone inside or outside the community of access to that right. – Quote(1)
The point has been granted in respect of medical professionals who may be asked to perform or co-operate in performing abortions – a perfectly reasonable example of the law doing what I earlier defined as its job, securing space for those aspects of human motivation and behaviour that cannot be finally determined by any corporate or social system. “ – Quote(2)
Tsk, tsk, homosexuality is not an anomaly. Nobody is shoving any beliefs down anyone’s throat. What you observe is a reflex action to the religious camp trying to re-define secularism. Quote (1) is applicable to both homosexuality and abortion too. Btw stop treating Atheism as a religion so it can’t be regarded as anything sectarian. An ad is an ad – it doesn’t have to be a bus ad to stand out. Would you rather outlaw invitation cards to Christmas Concerts held at Churches?
hi mice is nice,
Secular lobbyist refers to lobbyists from secular interest groups. The group is secular while the interest itself can be anything – from environmentalism to human rights.
Hi Gemami;
Your advice will be heeded and thank You for it.
hi Smallvice585,
thanks for your answer. i din know that. i guess if 1 side got lobbyist, the opposing side will form another to counter the initial group.
in life things will always seek a balance? is that forces of “nature” or what?
o.O
Hi mice is nice,
Yes, the opposing side will form a counter, but secular lobbyists don’t lobby against religious groups because they don’t share the religious conviction of the religious group. Both camps only lobby against each other when their specific causes contradict each other. For example. there are some secular pro-life groups who advocate against abortion too. Do note that religious individuals can join secular interest group to support the group’s cause.
smallvice (#130),
1) Whether religious doctrine is a cloud is your opinion. I could very well say that liberal-democratic doctrine is a cloud too. (In fact, I said that of the Pink doctrine.) As for Persecution Complex, well … aren’t you the one saying that secular groups are sidelined? My argument is that Secular Groups are trying to sideline religious groups, not that they are acting to preserve the sidelining of religious groups.
Don’t misinterpret me, please. (I wonder how many times I have said this already.)
2) Well, good that you see that the Archbishop is not a member of the Religious Right. But then, you consider the Anglican bishops who re-joined the Catholic Church as members of the Religious Right?
3) We should stop discussing homosexuality. I cannot help you if you cannot see what is in front of you. Ditto for abortions. You watched the recent video on TOC? I wonder what good abortions did for “Sarah”? It is videos like this that vindicate the Religious Groups’ stance on abortion, although admittedly their policy proposals and responses need improvement.
Atheism isn’t religious by itself; it is anti-religious. But Dawkins’ New Atheism contains a great deal of Religious Zeal. So New Atheism is prone to Fundamentalism as much as Evangelicals.
(Note: I didn’t coin the term “New Atheism”.)
Your analogy of the bus ads with Christmas Concert invitations is disingenuous. Christmas Concert invitations invite people to enjoy a public event; the bus ads were set to persuade people to endorse a specific – in this case, anti-religious – opinion.
smallvice (#136),
Traditional Lobbies don’t. But the New Atheist Lobbies led by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Phillip Pullman and Dan Brown do. In case you are ignorant, that is precisely the purpose of those bus ads.
Hi Arix #136,
Do you really know what secular groups are? I name you a few examples – AWARE, Maruah, NTUC, PAP. These secular groups promote their individual political causes on a non-religious platform. They neither promote secularism nor sideline religious groups. Should you find them offensive, it is because they practise secularism.
Look! While we may contend where morality orginates from, Can’t you see that the value of morality comes from free will? What’s the point of morality if you cannot choose to commit a moral act?
New Atheism is not anti-religious. It is a response to religious fundamentalism entering mainstream. Atheists do not propagate atheism, but when the presence of religious fundamentalists in mainstream sector force atheists to band together. Atheists are sidelined by religious fundamentalists while the rest of the religious camp seat quiet and observe. However, if religious fundamentalists don’t observe secularism, people will speak out against religious fundamentalists.
So only religious people have the monopoly of being offended? While religious people should not be offended by Dawkins’ Bus Ads, are you suggesting that atheists should not be offended by religious ads or invitations to religious events?
I remembered when OBAMA was standing for election, a lot of the churches was praying against him. One reason is that he is a democrat and democracy is not a acceptable system for Christians. Come on!!! Cut out the craps… We all know the churches were not and will not be ran democratically. It is basically a autocratic ran organization. D you actually elect the president or even the board or treasurer? It is given to the members and they just follow the constitution and nominate in actions. The senior person in charge (senior pastor, bishop …. etc) do not need to be nominated at all.
My pastor used to call democracy, …. democrazy …. for he do not believe that democratic is good for the church and the society. Put a Christian (Fundamentalist) in power in Parliament and you will see him finding ways to propagate Christianity and the law will geared towards the laws of the bible. Look at all the different muslim countries.
Look at NMP, Dr Thio L. A . … Has she shown any consideration for people who may not share her believes systems? What has she done or spoken for the society that her own value disagreed with? What will happened if she became the PM?
Unless we understand that others has a right to live their own lives and also deserve equal rights whether they are majority or mainstream or religious or whatsoever…. We remain a close-minded society and we will not go forward and will extinct eventually.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not against Christianity or religions. We can believe and practice the religions we want because of our free will but if one decided he will not believe in anything that is his choice.
Arix,
Are you unwilling or unable to respond to my posts #103 and #104? In any case, I hope you gained a better understanding of what Science is and isn’t.
Creationism isn’t science and faith is anathema to the scientific method (“Show me the evidence”). I would think (and hope) most religious moderates, such as yourself, in Singapore would find some Creationists’ claims downright hilarious:
1) Dinosaurs co-existed with Man peacefully.
2) They were all vegetarians, you see, before The Fall.
3) They wore saddles.
I think what Thio Li Ann (“Secular fundamentalists are oppressive where they seek to mute religiously informed convictions in public debate…”) and to some extent Arix (“absolutist morality”) is advocating, is a privileged class of discourse. One based less on evidence and sound argument than emotional appeal and faith.
Do we really want that in parliament?
Divisiveness could be a problem. Tribalism is a component of religion; there always seem to be Good in-groups and Evil out-groups. In a heartbeat, pretty much anything can be charged with immorality or at least, as persecutors. “Secular fundamentalists”, for example.
One might say that scenario doesn’t apply to non-crackpots. But level-headed and even-handed “religiously informed convictions” can be an oxymoron. Fueled by faith, nothing is too absurd in even sharps minds:
“Thio Su Mien (Su), who is gifted in prophetic intercession and healing. She shared about some of the things going on in the area of Indonesia before the tsunami. She explained how the SARS virus hit Singapore a year prior to the earthquake/tsunami. The Lord alerted the intercessors and told them that if they did not get on their faces and repent on behalf of their nation’s involvement in abortion as the contraceptive of choice, that the land would suffer from His hand of judgment. Because they saw how devastating the SARS virus had been, the intercessors immediately took action to seek His mercy and forgiveness. Singapore was not touched by the earthquake disaster. The Malaysian intercessors joined them in diligent prayer and also opened healing rooms in Kuala Lampur. The area on the Northern Coast of Malaysia was hit hard. It was the prayers of the intercessors that had saved the disaster from affecting an even larger area. She emphasized that the intercessors crying out with repentance and asking for mercy, along with declarations of the Word of God over the land (both written and rhema), released the curse upon the land and the people were spared. It was a plea for intercessors to step up to the plate and continue to press into God for mercy from judgment coming.”
(Source: http://www.elijahlist.com/words/display_word.html?ID=2997)
Objectivity is compromised. The ability to reason logically becomes impaired (After all, God is a premise). Then there’s the seeming inability to doubt or question religious authority of one’s faith.
Also, Alex Au brought up a very good point on his blog. What are the implications if TLA and Arix get their way? Au brought up the ID vs Evolution debate (by the way there isn’t a debate in the scientific community per se; it’s more a case of the religious pestering the scientific community and impeding science education).
Atheism is a position on a single issue: a lack of belief in the existence of a God or Gods. That’s it.
There is a difference between “a lack of belief in the existence of a God or Gods” and “a lack of belief in God or Gods” (which presumes, a priori, the existence of those God or Gods). The ignorance of that difference (or the exploitation of the ignorance of that difference) generates such pulpit spin with emotionally-charged words like “reject” and deny”.
Some atheists sometimes go as far as saying God(s) doesn’t exist. Strictly speaking, this position is untenable. Then again, strictly speaking, no one (including theists) can make an ironclad case that garden fairies don’t exist.
sliim (#142),
I was of the opinion that this thread was closed – in fact I think it was closed – that is why I didn’t respond to you. Or maybe, it was another thread.
And IMHO, I do not endorse (Narrow) Creationism and its “Scientific” counterpart, Intelligent Design. I endorse what the Catholic Church endorses, which is Theistic Evolution, and that is a totally different position from Creationism and ID.
sliim (#143),
1) I am not in any way advocating a “privileged class of discourse”, and neither I believe was Dr TSM. Well, maybe she might have been – I confess I can’t read her mind – but certainly I wasn’t. I believe though that what Dr TSM meant was that an opinion should not be silenced just because it comes from religious conviction; examine it if you must, but first give it a fair hearing. I think that is democratic enough?
I support evidence and sound – logical- argument any time. What I do not support is re-hashed claims about already-countered arguments, which is what the New Atheist Lobby likes to give.
All my “Absolutist Morality” is actually is the desire to have one common standard that achieves balance in physiology, psychology and spirituality. And to clarify: I see homosexuality as an “imbalance” between physiology and psychology, albeit a subtle one.
3) Tribalism is a feature of Narrow Religion, but not of Deep Religion.
FYI, “Secular Fundamentalists” is a term that came from the Agnostics first, before the Theists.
4-5) Well, I don’t believe that; I am not from COOS, to remind everyone here.
6) Objectivity is compromised when God becomes a shield to hide yourself away from criticism. The Defensive God is a political misappropriation of theology.
That is one of the reasons why Christ came, to correct the Jews’ Defensive God posture, which led them to discriminate against Samaritans (their bastard cousins) and Gentiles.
7) Note: ID was proposed by a scientist. So there was/is a scientific debate over ID and Evolution. But this is separate from the actions by Evangelical Communities to get ID and creationism into the syllabus.
Although, I have to say, I don’t believe it is wrong to maintain that ID is “an alternate theory”; after all, students in a secular – not Atheist – system are supposed to be exposed to different opinions. Just my speculation, but I wonder if the Atheist community would have been more tolerant if ID was presented as a debunked or “doubtful” theory just like the Caloric Theory is presented in physics textbooks. (FYI, Caloric is the old theory for explaining Heat Energy. It was debunked early in the 20th Century.)
By the way, can you be clear on exactly what is “[my] way”? Even I have no idea; ironic, huh?
Arix #145,
“I am not in any way advocating a “privileged class of discourse”, and neither I believe was Dr TSM… but first give it a fair hearing. I think that is democratic enough?”
1) Not every religious conviction is worth hearing out. Take Christian Reconstructionism for example. And if it is a rational case worth hearing out, there is no need to throw the weight of whosever’s god behind it. “Because God said so” doesn’t a rational argument make.
Any crackpot group can also cry “fair hearing” and democratic” process, so those don’t hold up.
“I support evidence and sound – logical- argument any time.”
2) Does that mean I should expect a non-evasive response to #103 & #104? I can also dig up a separate list of bald assertions you made without evidence or argument on request.
“What I do not support is re-hashed claims about already-countered arguments, which is what the New Atheist Lobby likes to give.”
3) That’s a pointless statement which gives a one-sided impression. The religious does the same. Both sides have pet arguments.
“All my ‘Absolutist Morality’ is actually is the desire to have one common standard that achieves balance in physiology, psychology and spirituality. And to clarify: I see homosexuality as an “imbalance” between physiology and psychology, albeit a subtle one.”
4) Anything can mean anything by that frou frou babble. I can, for example, simply assert that you are psychologically stunted and spiritually inflated, therefore you are wrong.
It’s also little disingenuous when physiologists and psychologists don’t see “homosexuality as an ‘imbalance’”. As for raggedy individuals (sometimes with religious convictions) insisting otherwise, see the next post.
Also, according to smallvice, you define God as “the balancing force in achieving Physiological, Psychological, Emotional and Transcendental equilibrium”. Is this true?
“Tribalism is a feature of Narrow Religion, but not of Deep Religion.”
5) The last I heard, there are hundreds of Christian denominations. I am sure all of them claim to be in the vein of Deep Religion, and others Narrow Religion.
Christians have been playing this “My Christianity is True Christianity” for ages. How is Narrow/Deep Religion not a re-packaged version of that? (The same goes for sub-sects of other religions).
Aris #145 [continued]
“Well, I don’t believe that….”
6) I didn’t claim you believed that or are from COOS. My only claim is that religious convictions can warp even sharp minds. I take it that you agree?
“Objectivity is compromised….”
7) You lost me at “God”, the first one, not the second “Defensive” one.
“Note: ID was proposed by a “scientist”. So there was/is a scientific debate over ID and Evolution….”
8) You don’t find being disingenuous uncomfortable huh? By your usage of the term “debate”, there is also a debate over whether Aids is sexually-transmitted, whether the Holocaust occurred, so on and so forth. “Scientific debate” is spin used to suggest there is serious controversy within the scientific community. There isn’t.
“Although, I have to say, I don’t believe it is wrong to maintain that ID is “an alternate theory”; after all, students in a secular – not Atheist – system are supposed to be exposed to different opinions….”
9) You are fudging “theory”, as used in common parlance, meaning speculation, with “theory” as it is used in Science. I can’t tell if it’s intentional. Because I have already pointed out to you that Michael Behe (ID) conceded, by his definition, Astrology is also a scientific theory.
As for exposure to opinions, should they also be exposed to the whole range of Creation stories? Old-Earth, Young-Earth, Flat Earth, other religions’, extinct religions’, evil intergalactic warlord (Scientology)….
Those students are free to be exposed to non-science outside of the science classroom. In fact, why bother with ID? Go straight, if not closer, to what is really intended, and have flood geologists (the Deepest of them all) teach them about Noah’s Ark.
10) You way: “the desire to have one common standard that achieves balance in physiology, psychology and spirituality.” You might have accidentally left out a “transcendental” factor. It’s a magic quadrant, right?