Donaldson Tan
There have been acts of mis-information over Thio Li-Ann’s decision to cancel her visit to New York University (NYU). Particularly, Thio Li-Ann’s supporters attempted to demonise the lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender (LGBT) community and their supporters by categorically stating them as an intolerant lot – an abuse of the vernacular term tolerance on top of the unspoken conflation between the Singaporean and American LGBT communities.
The Princeton Wordnet defines tolerance as “permissible difference; allowing some freedom to move within limits”. Clearly, tolerance does not mean no disagreement and hostility but being able to accommodate the disagreement or hostility of others regardless of others’ triumph. Moreover, it is naïve to demand people to solely rebut Thio Li-Ann’s arguments and opinion on LGBTs when these people do not necessarily share her access to the major public platforms and policy forums in Singapore. Reasoning alone is insufficient.
The crux here is what is considered permissible and what isn’t. The fundamental liberties guaranteed under Part IV of the Singapore Constitution are the freedoms of movement, speech, assembly, association and religion. An individual does not necessarily operate alone and he may use his freedoms to promote a particular opinion and persuade his target and opponents to accept this opinion.
However, these freedoms are subject to restriction by law. For example, religious liberty is curtailed by the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act while free speech is curtailed by the Defamation Act. Similarly in the United States, these rights are guaranteed by the United States Bill of Rights and they are also subjected to restriction by federal and state legislation.
Ronald Wong wrote to TODAYonline: “I think it is one thing to hold an opinion and tolerate others who have their own, and another thing to hold an opinion and then persecute others who disagree, in the name of non-discrimination.” Such a statement is symptomatic of “constantly shifting the goal posts” because no person holds the same criteria on what persecution is and there is no mechanism to ensure that this personal criteria is a fixed one. As a commonly accepted standard, the law sets the bar for what is considered as civil or illiberal and how opposing camps operate.
Christian Blogger Alastair Su wrote: “By intimidating professor Thio out of her appointment, they have essentially silenced someone in the name of freedom.” While suppression is illiberal, there is a need to differentiate between suppression and competition in the marketplace of ideas. In suppression, one’s liberty is taken away forcibly. In competition, one’s ability to exercise liberty effectively is damaged. The fact that Thio Li-Ann’s letters are published in the mainstream media is testimony to the fact that she retained her liberty but lost an international platform to propagate her views on LGBTs.
Going beyond permissible limits in Singapore and America is not only illiberal but also criminal. So why are there people mislabelling civil means to express disagreement and hostility as illiberal? Petition and boycott are democratic means to either express disagreement with policies or sway policies towards a particular direction. This is democracy at work. Rejecting democratic means to achieve result is surely illiberal and this embodies a tinge of dominionism.
A petition with 887 signatories questioned Thio Li-Ann’s suitability to teach “Human Rights in Asia” as a visiting professor at NYU. The signatories include NYU alumnus, faculty, students and other LGBT Supporters. The low registration rate of Thio Li-Ann’s classes also suggests boycott and a legitimate scepticism of her candidacy. Heartland Alliance also wrote to NYU to inform the university’s administration that they would boycott NYU’s future fund-raising events. The LGBT association NYU Outlaw also sought a Town-hall style meeting with the university’s administration to clarify the situation on Thio Li-Ann’s appointment.
An important thing to note is that the petition and boycott are targeted at the administration of NYU and not Thio Li-Ann herself. In a letter to TODAYonline dated 27 July 2009, Thio Li-Ann wrote: “To say I was ‘disappointed by the hostility’ minimises the virulence of the attacks I received. A cursory glance at the invective online explains why many friends worried for my safety.” Avoiding unnecessary risk is prudent but it is paranoia when she and her friends assume the LGBT Community in New York are not law-abiding citizens. By voluntarily resigning from NYU, she had missed out on a good opportunity to learn how LGBTs are just as human as her, how LGBTs can be just as conservative as heterosexuals in terms of public display of affection, and how LGBTs support family values..
Last but not least, is there a need for her to invoke nationalist sentiments in defending herself? She wrote in the aforementioned letter: “This was just one of the hostile, often vulgar messages I received, some insulting my intellect, gender, ethnicity and country.” Our national pledge emphasises “to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality”. Invoking nationalist sentiments in Singapore to resent democratic manoeuvres in America runs contrary to our national pledge and this begs a question: what is she really up to?
—-
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
Since the issue is about demonization of GLBT lets bring back the discussion back to the topic.
I disagreed with the Chewing Gum analogy from Gemani; let me offer another one for comment instead.
To me the GLBT community is no different than the segment of our society that appreciates and practices the ‘Body Art’ (tattoo).
Cultural origins, checked.
Many cultures practices tattooing either as rite of passage to manhood, indication of bravery/achievement and some even have spiritual purposes.
Stigmatization, checked.
Still remembered all the lectures from my own mother, that all people with tattoos are either gangster or deviant. Avoiding them at all cost is the only right course of action.
Fear of Discrimination, checked.
I do know some of friends that feel they need to hide their tattoo in the office or to the more conservative friends.
However, as an adult, I learned that not to discriminate or see them with prejudiced eyes. I also realized that not everything my mother said is right or necessary true. Furthermore I realized all my irrational fears are baseless. It’s nothing more than the fact that we are all different yet the same. I learn to appreciate the beauty of tattoo. But will I get one? I would honestly say no. Simply because it’s not me, being very ticklish and have phobia of needles. (also the fact being very fickle-minded will never be able to decide what to tattoo or its location even if I managed to muster enough guts to do it).
I learned to see those who embraces tattoo as fellow human beings no different than myself without the stigma. I don’t not have to wait for them to show me that they are model citizen before I would embark on this realization.
Despite the above similarity, GLBT has different set of problem. They are being criminalized for their private practices. They have no legal voice, and unable to form support group to help their less fortunate ones that’s in need (whether physically or mentally).
I too agree with Zef, the media tends to sensationalize any news regarding GLBT, therefore the stigmatization remains. To the point that we forget, same vice that’s associated with GLBT exist as long as human being exist, be it the GLBT community or the mainstream society.
In Gemani’s separate post, he stated that the biblical stone has been dropped. But I feel that only by the repeal of 337A that ‘stone’ can then be truly be considered dropped. The GLBT community whom no longer has to fear criminalization and can then be dare more visible (and perhaps they will even tell you what they have achieved, if you have the ears to listen).
Kezu,
I am not sure if you can call it an ‘immovable’ object. That is being very pessimistic. Perhaps your mind is still tuned to changing the minds of the ‘fundies’. If this is the case, then you are most certainly correct to say that it is unmovable.
However, if you pause to think for a moment, about the other segments of society, those who are not so rigid in their stand against the homosexual lifestyle, those who think that the act of brotherly love supersedes the rigid interpretation of any religious manuals; you will realize that there are enough of these who will not hesitate to stand side by side with you to help you realize your cause.
Take a look around the comments in TOC. How much support do you see coming from non-gays, as opposed to the gay speaking up for himself? Surprising isn’t it? There are so many heterosexuals speaking up for the gays. What is even more intriguing is the various compositions of these supporters. There are Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists – some of which we know are very pious, religious and staunch in their beliefs too.
These are the ones I am asking you to score brownie points with. These are the ones who will help you break down the barriers that stand in your way.
The chewing gum analogy is to help you understand that you are up against some very uncompromising elements of society – elements that are impossible to break especially with those who believe that they are there for the greater good of society. The religious fanatic falls under this category.
Kezu,
Tattooing might not be an apt comparison.
Firstly, I do not know how you can checked ‘Cultural Origin’ as if to say that being gay can be traced back to some distant culture. Unchecked.
Second, I agree that there is a degree of stigmatization associated with having a tattoo, but the stigma is gradually eroding away and tattooing is now seen as a fashion statement. So your reasoning, using tattoo, to describe the stigma of being gay is too simplistic. Unchecked.
Third, discrimination. Perhaps 10 to 15 years ago, I would have readily agreed with you that there was a huge discrimination against anyone having tattoos. Again, as in point 2, discrimination was associated closely with the stigma of one with tattoos. Being a fashionable trend of late, it is not surprising to see workers with tattoos, and showing them off even, in almost every industry. Unchecked.
Just opposite my office are a group of ladies with tattoos on their arms, legs and shoulders, and they have no qualm in displaying them with clothing to match. What makes them different from the gay – in terms of being accepted as opposed to being rejected?
It is because they are able to show us that having tattoos is not a frightful thing. That there is beauty in tattoos where in the past there was violence and even death associated with it.
It’s the way forward for the gay. Let you beauty flow out for all to see. Don’t even think of it as having to proof to the mainstream. Let it be the natural thing to do and the rest will flow more smoothly than any confrontation. Let your true human self emerge so that others may see that there is nothing so terrifying in your behaviour, that the only difference is what you do in your private space – just like anyone else.
Gemani #205
I think you are truly missing the point of that post.
The point of Origin, Stigmatization and Discrimination is only to illustrate the similarity between the two segments of our society.
That the ‘Fear’ of GLBT is akin to what you have stated, in our ‘not so distant past’ fear of a person with tattoo which ideally should be baseless.
However the fundamental difference between both of them, it never translated to criminalization that GLBT is facing now.
(or how the basic human rights are actively denied to them by the campaigns from the likes of TLA).
As for the cultural origin point, please do a check in Wikipedia (homosexual in culture).
There are list of record from ancient China to ancient Peru, not to mention ancient Greece/Roman.
(You may unchecked it in your mind, but the facts remain so).
For the issue of stigmatization, that you conveniently unchecked;
There are other countries that are more progressive than Singapore in term of GLBT rights i.e. Denmark/Sweden/Canada etc where the mind set has changed tremendously.
Please do a check in Wikipedia on ‘gay rights in the world’.
(Again you make uncheck that in your mind, but the facts remain so.)
However despite all that, am very aware of the supporters for the GLBT causes in TOC.
(having followed this and other treads since beginning of Aware + TLA saga).
It’s very heartening to note, and also your indication in your post #204, the number of supporters of GLBT cause comes from diverse backgrounds. Perhaps this helped to illustrate an obvious point?
That the true issue with GLBT is never with religion unlike what’s promoted by the fundies?
Regardless of which side of the fence we stand in this debate, I always believe we should make the effort of understanding where each other comes from prior to drawing a conclusion? It would be a real treat to see the ‘fundies’ point of the true reason of this demonization of GLBT.
And that’s fundamentally why I seek to engage you in this tread the most.
Strength in numbers. IMHO, the reason why the fanatics have their way is not because they are numerous, or, God forbid, right, but they are more driven.
You have rationality on your side and yet the argument couldn’t be won, because, in the absence of a judge, there can be impartial party to declare the winner.
So no need to argue.
What’s important is to stand up and be counted.
And that’s where we often fail. Our convictions are often coupled with weak knees.
The day we match our knees with our convictions is the day things will change.
Donaldson (#171),
Can you stop discriminating against Theology? It is as valid an academic discipline as any other.
Buda, Gem, Zef, Kezu,
I thought this thread had closed already? Lol, who resurrected an old thread?
Hi Arix #208,
Is Astrology a valid academic discipline?
Yay! Everyone is back!
Kezu (#206),
1) The only basic human right Dr TLA does insist on taking away from homosexuals is the Freedom of Movement, since she endorses jail terms under 377A. But otherwise, saying that she works to deny homosexuals basic human rights is unwarranted hyperbole.
Marriage and Adoption Rights are not under Basic Human Rights. Both have conditions placed on them even for heterosexual couples, for instance marriageable age.
2) The problem is that our identification of “historical” homosexuals is based on observations of their behaviour. Behaviour is not only from instinct. Perhaps those historical persons who reputedly were homosexual merely exhibited the behaviour for pure recreational purpose (i.e. they were not homosexual in the sense that today’s LGBT Lobbies claim they are.)
5-6) The problem is not with the LGBTs per se. It is with the fundies who think every sinner – except themselves – should be destroyed and the Atheist Left that has infiltrated the LGBT Lobby earlier on.
There is also a secondary problem stemming from certain words/terms that have unfortunate connotations due to their historical and sometimes social context. The cardinal example is the word “disorder”, which still conveys the image of strait jackets and wackos and so on, worsened in this instance by the genuine fundies’ appetite for hell fire.
It is also true that there are some shocking – sometimes literally – methods of reparative therapy used that leave bad taste, and unwarranted socioeconomic oppression of homosexuals. (Incidentally, there is also the “pity” problem faced by the physically-disabled, even here in Singapore.)
However, the Atheists – as part of their other agenda – blur the line between moderate religion and fundie religion, deliberately cutting off any productive conversation between the moderate and the LGBT. I – and possibly gem too – see that even here, and in my case I note that the writer of this article is one of these kinds of Atheists, as he has already made clear in #171.
Donaldson (#210),
Theology and Astrology are different, brother. I hope that you can see the distinction.
Hi Arix #213,
I hope you will not remain blind to the lack of differences between theology and astrology.
Plus, Theology is a recognized Academic Discipline, even at Cambridge.
Donaldson (#214),
I would ask you to consider the converse. Astrology is merely speculation; Theology provides arguments for the existence of Divinity; at least the monotheistic faiths and Buddhism do.
Of course. The original theology course was set up during the time the Church was an all powerful entity in Europe and England. Circumstances favoured such development. Besides, such theology courses doesn’t reflect whether it is an academic discipline. After all, religious organisations also set up their own schools to train clergymen and research & develop on religious doctrines. That’s how the Trinity Theological College and the Singapore Bible College came about in Singapore too.
Read here:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/reason.html
“ I – and possibly gem too – see that even here, and in my case I note that the writer of this article is one of these kinds of Atheists, as he has already made clear in #171” : Arix.
Yup, agree with you. It is why I did not attempt to discuss the written article, even though Donaldson suggested that he had tried to keep religion out of his thoughts. One can clearly see and conclude that using Thio LA as the backdrop to argue the cause of the GLBT is nothing but a subtle strategy to keep religion (Christianity) at the back of the mind while pretending to keep it out.
Can the gay or his supporter confirm that gayism can be traced back to ancient China, Peru, Greece and Rome as what Kezu is arguing? That is is a cultural thingie? If this is true, then gays can be converted since it does not involve biological science. So Thio and gang are correct then?
Kezu,
How wrong you are. Did I not agree with the similarities of the three areas you pointed out – only that the ones having tattoos have already made inroads and have become an accepted part of our society – very unlike the way you are currently viewing them?
You may think that having tattoos “never translated to criminalization” but I suggest you go ask the older folks whether this is true. Having tattoos was like living with the ISA behind your back. Whenever trouble broke out, the ones with tattoos were the first to be rounded up. I know, because I was constantly stopped by the police whenever they saw my tattoos. This was only twenty years ago.
Anyway, what I intended to put across, using your example, was that this criminalized and discriminated people was able to gain acceptance into mainstream today. Did they do it by confronting those who discriminated against them? No they did not. They just went about changing mindsets; that having tattoos is not a dreadful thing and that they are just as loving and kind as anyone else. They got rid of the stigma by being themselves – no need to confront anyone or any group.
Hi Gemami,
Kept religion out of my thoughts? You are completely mistaken.
Arguing online will not change the perception of Christians.
Things must be done in the physical world.
Hi Donaldson,
No offence but surely these words are familiar to you: “There is no room for theology in any rational debate.“. Did I read incorrectly or am I wrong to assume that ‘theology‘ here implies ‘religious theology’?.
I you have allowed religion to influence your thoughts, then does it not seem clear to you that you have been given in, by your own decree, to being irrational, since you are now saying that it was never out of your thoughts?
Hi Gemami,
I read up theology to figure out how and what my opponents are thinking.
I would be a real fool if I don’t spend time to find out what they are up to.
Gemani #219
GLBT do not need to prove what’s already very well documented. Its up to you to see
(and whether you so choose to believe it),
here the link from Wiki (I hope a commonly acceptable source)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history#Ancient_Greece_and_Rome
How does this relate to conversion? And with Biological science and TLA’s gang in the context of my prev post?
My intention is merely to state the existence of GLBT in ancient cultures (and therefore not an invention of modern society).
Arix.
TLA seek to retain Section 337A. don’t you think that encroaches into the ‘Equality before the Law’.
Correct me if I am wrong (that is a basic human rights, no?)
Donaldson
I know it will not change the mind of the fundies, but for it’s for personal understanding.
Like I said to Gemani before, to argue objectively one must learn to to see from both sides of the fence.
Gemani #220
When I said criminalization, perhaps I should be more specific (legally criminalized).
I don’t disagree at all that they were discriminated against, but is it legal to persecute them in the first place?
Then answer is no.
The tattoo analogy’s point is mainly to respond to your method of statement on how GLBT can gain acceptance in mainstream society. The similarities between the two are many. I could also list down prohibitions from religion (body modification is not allowed in Bible, old testament, Islam etc).
But there is a fundamental difference. Without enforceable criminal law on practices of tattoo, it’s a case of sooner or later for the stigma to subside.
In this one cannot deny the fact that the media played a big part in moving this along too.
Featuring celebrities with tattoo (ms Jolie to mr Bourdain), documentary featuring the origins of tattoo (Nat Geo) and also from LA, Miami to London Ink. (need I say more?)
With the retention of 337A, tell me if GLBT can have the same fate in future?
When you label a segment of society as criminal, do you honestly expect them to step out naturally?
Basically what you are propagating for GLBT to do is ‘be a good human being for all to see, but remain INVISIBLE and be keep QUIET about it’. (Perhaps then the mainstream majority can accept you as what they want you to be, but not what you truly are).
What a joke don’t you think???
Hi Donaldson,
As much as I respect your sense of deliberate preparation that went into your writing, I must add that reading up theology – or any other subject that occupies the transcendental realm – is never enough for one to have a full grasp of what they truly mean. Many have tried to do this with the thinking mind but failed.
I have the highest regard for anyone who spends time, meticulously pouring through books and archived documents, to help them speak their minds but sometimes these are never enough when the audience is as diverse and extreme as black is from white.
It is made worse by a hidden agenda, to purposely portray only one side of the story without any attempt to give adequate coverage of the opposite. Worse if there is pretension. No matter how disgusting it may be, it is still fair to give a balanced account of both sides of the story. Your persuasion would have been more credible.
To give you some honest feedback, I was really put off by the title of your article. The wording of the title told me all I wanted to hear without even having to read your article because I knew instantly that it would be slanted toward the line of persuasion that your title suggested.
To be fair, I will also be put off if the title reads like this:
Mis-Informed demonization of the Christian.
Kezu,
Well, you did say there was a ‘cultural origin point’ in post #208) Kezu on August 12th, 2009 6.58 pm – “As for the cultural origin point,….”. So I took it to mean that you were saying that Gayism is a cultural thingie.
Good that you have now made it clear that you were trying to point out that gayism has an ancient history. Now would you consider for a moment the history of religion. By what ever name you may give to it, religion existed right from the onset of time.
If you are talking about Christianity, it took on its modern-day name because of the teachings and acts of Jesus the Christ. It was persecuted worse than any gay had been persecuted. They survived, got stronger and today, they look out for themselves better than any other groups on this planet. They continue to be persecuted to no end, and just because they come out to defend themselves, they are being labeled ‘fundies’. Are they the fundies, or are the ones criticizing them the real ‘fundies’.
Now take a look at gayism. You mentioned its ancient history and yes, it was first documented as an erotic partnership between an adult male and a boy – for pleasure. The various references lead along the same line, that it is a purely sexual partnership aimed at self-gratification and at times purely sadistic.
Compare the two and you will see the vast difference in the two camps striving for acceptance. Majority can sympathise with the Christian struggle but few can do the same for the gay struggle, why?
You tattoo example is too simplistic. How many will relate to such an argument?
But if you must, why not go get some gay celebrities to come out and promote the gay like the tattooist have done so. You see, you have options available to you but you only want to go after the Christian – because without the Christian, you have no case.
Where then is your objectivity?
Gemani #226
When I started responding to you on this tread, I was only trying to understand what lies in the psyche of a typical Fundie. Now I beginning to understand and agree with Zef on the matter.
Good that you finally acknowledge that GLBT has an ancient history.
‘By what ever name you may give to it, religion existed right from the onset of time. ‘
Are you referring to Christian timeline when you talk about onset of time?
Or are you referring to the scientific beginning of time?
Regardless, who can say if there are any religions when our ancestor lives in caves?
(please don t drag this into creationism vs evolution debate, another tread is going on if I am not wrong)
What I find extremely offending is the way you belittle the struggle of GLBT. It only shows the lack of knowledge on the matter and yet seek to argue for the sake of argument.
(see History of Gays during the Holocaust for more information). Conditions for gay men in the camps was especially rough; they faced not only persecution from German soldiers, but also other prisoners, and many gay men were reported to die of beatings. German soldiers were also known to use the pink triangles that the men were forced to wear for target practice with their weapons.
You still don’t get what I am trying to get at. The only thing that stand in the way of ‘Standing out proud and show you what GLBT are respectable human being is the Section 337A’. And you ask me what’s my objectivity?
Sigh. I think my simplistic tattoo analogy is truly wasted on its only intended audience.
Really do not want to go into a debate Christianity vs GLBT. I have nothing against religion but a lot against the hypocrisy of men (and what they do in the name of religion).
What you call confrontation from GLBT, can’t you see its nothing more than ‘Pot calling the Kettle Black,’ scenario.
For as long as this stalemate continues, I am afraid the only side that truly benefited is the media.
Hi Gemami #225,
I am glad you are put off by the title but I am calling a spade a spade. To do less than that would be dishonest. I don’t intend to be dishonest by pretending that the Christian viewpoint is defensible or hold any degree of truth in the first place.
If you want coverage on Christian view points, you can find plenty at The Christian Post. I am merely exposing the hypocrisy of some Christians. I simply refuse to join you in this act of dishonesty. If you are uncomfortable with that slant, go pick a fight with your fellow Christians who created the situation in the first place. I don’t want to participate in dis-informing the public that Christians are victims.
Kezu,
If you want to join in an argument, you have to first of all come in with an open mind. By your own admission, you have stated quite clearly your preconceived notion that I am a ‘fundie’ and have labeled me thus. By the label, I assume you to mean a ‘Christian Fundie’. How and in what way did you even begin to hold this slanted notion is beyond comprehension. Like you, I have been asking for a non-religious approach to the issue. Have you not read my opinions in the many threads here?
This is precisely what I had anticipated, that you have no case when it is stripped of the religious argument, and the next typical course of action is to attack the character of your opponent.
You failed to address your own notion that gayism has a cultural origin, refusing to refute my assertion to you that if this is the case, then a gay can be converted, because he is not biologically borned into gayhood. Do keep in mind that this is the result of your notion.
No use bringing in the debate on creationism and evolution (Cathlocism have not rejected the theory of evolution). No use talking about the gays of the holocaust also, because the Jews and Christians were also persecuted the same.
You want to stand out “proud” for your gayhood, and you want to show the rest that you are a group of respectable human beings, but you fail to get a grasp of your own understanding – that the gays themselves have left behind a trial of negative behavioral traits throughout the centuries – and then expecting everyone else to conveniently forget what these were, and to accept the gay for all that they are now. You surely know the scientific law that there will always be an ‘equal and opposite reaction’. The negative notion of the gay took centuries to take its form, you expect this to simply go away with a few arguments here and there?
The only thing that stands in the way of 377A is no one but yourself. Change your mindset, your approach and give yourself a new outlook that is more in line with the masses.
History is there for you to learn from, not for you to use it to nitpick on others.
Hi Donaldson,
I do not blame you for writing with honesty – even though your understanding of the Christian viewpoint is limited to those Christian opinions that fit your argument. One cannot hope to make sense of an argument by scolding his opponent’s father and mother.
You claimed to have read theology in preparation for a debate. It clearly underlines your intent – that you read theology for rebuttals, not for understanding. This is where you have erred, IMHO.
Perhaps I have over-read your intention, that your target is Thio LA – but if that is the case, then you should not have used her to represent the Christian viewpoint. I am sure you know the many Christian denominations there are – and the many that do not hold the same viewpoints as hers. Why then put them all into the same pot?
You continue to err in your judgment, by confining the Christian viewpoint further – to that expressed in the ‘Christian Post’. Notice how you switch ambiguously from (i) Christians in general to (2) some Chrsitians to (3) all Christians. Pray tell then what exactly do you mean when you mention all these?
Finally, I understand fully your intention to keep the debate focused on Christianity. Other than the Christian issue, there is nothing for the gay to rely on to argue and advance their cause.
I have said all there is to say. Adding more will only be repeating them. My parting shot is this: that the gay stop playing the innocent victim and get real in a world that is never fair, and will never be fair. Learn from the other discriminated quarters of every society and deal with unfairness as they do.
Hi Gemami,
No. I don’t read to prepare for online debate. Like I had mentioned before, online debates are insufficient in changing public attitudes. I am interested in keeping religiously-motivated political activism in check. It is our patriotic duty to Singapore to ensure political activism do not manifest along the fault line of race and religion.
Hi Donaldson,
Agree with you completely. This is why I feel it is best not to be too opionated toward one end while neglecting the other – the key word here is – Balance.
I understand well enough that many were left disgusted over the manner in which the Aware saga unfolded. It was because of this that the current numerous online debates that sprouted from the saga have only one mode and one area of contention – the Christians.
Surely you agree with me that over-the-board anti-Christian opinions are aplenty too. Do I hold these as the true representation of the gay view? I don’t, because these have a hidden agenda against the Christians – some do not even care about the gays and the gay cause.
Likewise, I was hoping that one as wise as yourself would be able to address such issue with balanced deliberation and honest contemplation. It may be hard for you because you have already pictured the spade before you. But did you even try? You agree you have been biased haven’t you?
I hope you realise by now that a person adopts a completely different personality when it comes to advancing or defending his or her religious values. That is why we must never underestimate the creeping influence of the Christian Dominion Theology and Political Islam in Singapore and Southeast Asia..
Hi Gemami,
This is an issue of difference in moral values, not whether I am biased. I don’t find homosexuality immoral. However. I find it is immoral of Christians to propagate the teaching that homosexuality is immoral. What some Christians find is moral, I find it immoral.
In my opinion, Thio Li-Ann was immoral in objecting the repeal of S377A and what she said particularly in her fateful parliamentary speech. What does a moral duty of every person? To minimise the likelihood of others to commit immoral acts.
In fact, just look at the TOC thread on supporting the “No to Rape” Campaign. There is a conservative backlash because there are groups that refuse to acknowledge marital rape as immoral.
Gemani
Perhaps I think this will be the final post in reply to yours for me.
You claimed that I did not read all you opinions in many treads here. Perhaps not in other treads, but in this one (yes I have read each and every one). You claimed I did not come in with open mind, I did.
My perception about Christian has yet to change. Like what I have stated in my last post, it’s the hypocrisy of men (and what they do in the name of religion) is what I am against.
For your info, I did not form the idea that you are Christian Fundamentalist until I saw your replies to Zefly
(that fateful dropping the biblical stone analogy).
On your statement that I have failed to address my own notion on gayism’s cultural origin?
My contention is to point out that GLBT has existed in ancient culture simply by records left behind
(pottery, painting, fresco etc).
Whether they can be converted back in those days?, I don’t know because there are no records indicating likewise.
Creationism and evolution issue?
“By whatever name you may give to it, religion existed right from the onset of time. “ Gemani #226.
You have yet to clarify what you meant by ‘onset of time’, and I did not bother to insist on one.
My response is merely I did not want the topic to degenerate into a debate of the definition of “Onset of time”,
is it the moment of Big Bang? or when Christian God creates the world in 7 days?
And the example of gay in holocaust. You did not see what I want I am trying to get at.
True, Gays were persecuted along side of Jews and others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust
But what I wanted to point out, that persecution comes not just from German soldier, but from the fellow prisoners.
Unlike other prisoner, after the war gay concentration camp survivors are not recognized as victims.
What is even more painful to read, is with Germany anti-gay laws (akin to 337A) these survivors could be re-imprisoned as ‘sex offender’ or forced served out imprisonment despite survived the concentration camps.
Now do you understand why color pink has special meaning for GLBT?
Contrary to the common misconception, not all of them share the same color sensitivity with Hello Kitty.
Please elaborate how I have attack your character?
(I did not use the word bigot or hypocrite many other words typically used when confronted with fundies.).
And finally, am glad that we have do an agreement. History is for ALL to learn from.
Hi Donaldson,
I am grateful that you are taking the trouble to help me understand your position. I shall respect it – but at the same time, I would like you to see how it looks like from the other side, of one who does not support Thio LA’s views but also yet to understand the gay cause fully.
About moral values; perhaps the opposite is also true. What the gay claims to be of moral value, the Christian finds immoral; and I am only limiting it to the Christian camp. You do know that some of the Christian views on homosexual practices are shared by non-Christians too, especially when you group them by culture, race and one’s own sense of values that govern morality.
Your opinion of Thio LA may be that she is immoral for standing in the way of 377A and that any person with the right morals ought to do his duty and stand up against her. That is your prerogative. However, the balanced view has to take into account that she has her supporters, with their own sets of moral values, who will fight back. Who then is right and who is wrong? More importantly, what does it do for the gay by standing up against her? Worse, for lumping all Christians along with her. Is this fair? To trample on even the bystanders just so that you can get at your enemy.
Are we all not governed by our own sets of values? We do good because our faith teaches us to do good. We do good because we were taught by our parents to do good. We do good because we mix with good friends. What difference does it make where we learn to do good?
Likewise, we counter our enemies because our faith teaches us to, because our parents taught us to and because we mix with friends who egg us to. Who then becomes the judge to who is right and who is wrong? Is faith the right arbitrator, or the parents or the friends?
Hi Gemami,
That’s why we engage in politics and politicking. In the end, it boils down to number game and disrupting how the opponents organise themselves. Political activism that manifests on the stress line of religion is illegitimate. You, as a Singaporean, should do your patriotic duty to eliminate religious-motivated political activism. Remember, you are Singaporean first. All other identities are secondary.
Hi Donaldson,
That is a very strong line of argument – the patriotic duty. I gather from your suggestion that you believe being Singaporean means being secular. It may be the ideal, but surely not practical. No matter what, the influence of religion, race, culture and even superstitions must become a part of our secularism first (?). Strange though it may sound but it has to be the only way for our society to truly harmonize and move forward.
Perhaps we should create a new identity to include rather than exclude – maybe something called INsecularism? Then our duty to Singapore would be better served, since we are now an inclusive society rather than an exclusive one. We bicker to include, not to exclude. Won’t this be great!
Anyway, your recent comments could make a good article on the topic of religious harmony. It shows up the fault-lines of our superficial harmony.
Gemani
Cant help but notice the interesting snippets of ‘wisdom’ you have posted again.
You stated , for the society to truly harmonize and move forward is to embrace religion with secularism? what a crazy idea and a disastrous one.
Who to say which religion to include, or are you advocating to include all?
if so, when one religion refuse to participate in .. say National Service, or swear loyalty to the country because its against their belief?
Is it then a so simple a issue that can be resolve by bickering?
Kezu,
I am talking about the INFLUENCE of religion, race, culture and superstitious beliefs. Trust you to pick out only ‘religion’ to distort my comment. Can one ever, truly and honestly, discount these influences – no matter how secular we think we may be? For this reason, I suggested an inclusion rather than excluding them. Just a thought, my friend.
Gemani
My apologies if you think i have distorted the meaning of your post.
If i read correctly, what you are saying since religion, race, culture and superstitious belief (regardless how many and how diverse) are undeniably linked with our society. Therefore to create a secular society, its better to include than exclude their influences. Am i right?
One question, what does secularism meant? Isn’t it means separate from religion? (Do you see why i picked out religion in your post?)
So do you see the ironic logic of your suggestion?
Kezu,
That’s why I redefined it as INsecularism. You have to pay extra carewhen you read, if not, it is going to be quite difficult to share opinions with you.
Hi Gemami,
I hope you are not trying to re-define secularism. In fact, being progressive is not an excuse to legitimise religiously-motivated political activism. Being inclusive means we all adopt a common identity – Singaporean first.
Besides, religious groups have privileged channels to address public policies, such as the Presidential Council of Minority Rights, the Presidential Council of Religious Harmony and the Bioethnics Advisory Committee. If you wonder why not every Christian can access such channels, blame it on your bishop excluding you.
Secularism in Singapore does not mean zero participation, but religious groups can only express their opinions on public policy through these channels. They are not allowed to compete in the public sphere for influence. That’s the whole point for legislating the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act in the first place.
Gemani
Its not that i did not read your new term, INsecularism.
It just that when you have influence of religion included in secularism, the word secularism has no more meaning, no matter how you defined and redefined.
I support the Donaldson statement above, that we should be Singaporean First before we are anything else. (be it race, culture, religion and superstitious belief)
Just a thought my fellow singaporean, i hope.
Hi Donaldson & Kezu,
I am talking reality as opposed to dream. Therefore I ask, is secularism possible? It may be the ideal. We have heard it being preached as the only mean by which our society can live harmoniously. It may be the best model for a multi-mix society like Singapore, but for as long as the influence of religion, race and traditional & cultural practises exists, can we truly hope for a fully secular society? Hands to heart and answer honestly.
Do you not see that being secular is to embrace atheism? On the one hand, secularism is asking that all these influences be kept away. On the other hand it is also telling these influences to adopt a God-less, Race-less and Cultural-less society. Do you honestly think these influences would gladly embrace such understandings with open arms? Logic cannot over-ride reason under such circumstances.
The closest we can ever hope to becoming secular is by being tolerant – to tolerate the whole embodiment of each other. This is our model of secularism.
That’s why I proposed the radical idea of being inclusive rather than exclusive. Can we not find some common grounds to work on? Let’s forget the extremes like Thio and her church. Let’s work with the people that matter, the true representatives of religion, race and culture.
Perhaps when we have ironed this out can we then talk about an identity that is Singapore-first; because most do not even know what being a Singaporean is, without the influences of race, religion and culture.
Gemani
Hands on my heart, yes it is possible. Look at where we are now.
When all segments respect the law and each others’ space to coexist peacefully, why not?
Secularism is never about atheism.
Although it means religion cannot influence or be allowed to compete in the public sphere, but it allows for them to co-exist along side within their own space & sphere of influence.
The aim is to give all religion an equal footing. (without one or any to gain unfair advantage). Nitpicking history, with dominance comes oppresson.
Unfortunately it’s precisely because of Thio and her gang that we, as singaporean has to be extra vigilant to not let religion extremist to unravel the fabric of social harmony that the goverment and people of singapore worked so hard to maintain.
I am shocked that you claim you do not know what being singaporean means.
Please read our PM LHL speech and you will get a good idea.
Kezu,
Good for you then if you truly believe we are co-existing harmoniously just because we have been living peacefully. I shall grant you your honesty.
“…it (secularism) means religion cannot influence or be allowed to compete in the public sphere…” : Kezu.
Read these words: “I know”.
What I am asking is this: “Is this expectation real?”
Even the PM acknowledged this last night, that the whole package of human nature cannot be void of this influence. The influence will always be there.
This is why I am saying that instead of excluding them, why not include them. I am not asking for total inclusion for this is ridiculous to say the least. I am talking about identiying common grounds that can be an included as part of being secular. Maybe we should not even call it secularism. Maybe another term or another defination. Maybe we can coin one that more aptly describes our form of harmonious and peaceful society.
Now, now, did I claim I do not know what being a Singaporean is? I merely suggested that most would not know how to be a Singaporean without the influences of religion, race and culture. tsk.tsk.tsk. Most would not even know how to be human without all or some of these influences.
Gemani
Good that you clarified that you understand the term secularism.
Appreciated it too that you know what it means to be singaporean under the current societal ideology.
I dont deny the influence of race, religion and etc in our daily life.
But what i wanted to say is that religion as a common denominator is absolutely impossible.
Each religion is as diverse in belief system and practices than each other.
To find a common ground based on it is a task i dont foresee a possible solution.
Why cant we live with the secular system that we have now?
Religion, race and culture lives along side, separate but co-exist?
I disagree that most singaporean would not know how to be human without influences, race and culture.
There’s still such things called law, justice and human rights that guide us all.
Perhaps that should be the common platform to unite us as citizen of Singapore before anything else. (be it race, religion, culture and superstitious belief)
Just a thought my fundamentalist friend.
Kezu,
“Why cant we live with the secular system that we have now?
Religion, race and culture lives along side, separate but co-exist?”: Kezu.
Well, that kind of utopia does not exist in the real world my friend. I have already elaborated, that to do so would be asking the races, with all their cultures and religious beliefs to uphold Secularism as their new god, their new race and their new culture. This is the reality.
We believe we are secular, and yes we are, in name, but how secular are we in practice? This is the divisive question that we must not sweep under the carpet.
Hi Gemami,
Precisely because the influence of religion in society cannot be contained perfectly in the personal domain, that’s why secularism is promoted as a counter-balance ideological force to manage religiosity. This is a dynamic management model, not a static approach towards managing religiosity.
Gemani
My greatest fear of what you are proposing is where do religion’s influence in politic, law and etc ends?
Majority votes in multi-religious council?
One terrifying scenario, if the enough of the major religions voted to have say Circumcision to be compulsory. What happen to those that disagree?
Do you not see the problem this kind of inclusive society will be to Singapore?
Regardless of issues debated, be it GLBT rights to secularism. It always SEEM to boil down to religious fundamentalist perceived threats from rising altheist movement. (if there is such a movement).
Question to ponder, is the concept of altheist so terrifying to the fundamentalist, that everything altheist agree with must naturally be wrong?
Is this the true war that’s being fought?