Main Stories - Written on Friday, July 10, 2009 1:50 - 387 Comments
Thio Li-Ann at center of controversy in New York University
Darren Boon
“Crazy times” was what Leigh Pasqual described Dr Thio Li Ann’s appointment as visiting professor at New York University (NYU) on a Facebook note.
Dr Thio, 41, an ex-Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) will be teaching ‘Human Rights Law in Asia’ during NYU’s Fall 09 Semester under the faculty’s Global Visiting Professor of Law programme.
Dr Thio’s biodata on the National University of Singapore Faculty of Law website lists one of her teaching subjects as ‘Human Rights Law in Asia’. She has a keen research interest in ‘Constitutionalism and Human Rights in Asia’ and ‘International Human Rights Law and The Rights of Peoples’, and has written extensively on the issues of human rights.
Ms Pasqual, a Singaporean living in New York put up the note on her Facebook page after receiving a forwarded email about Dr Thio’s appointment sent out by OUTlaw. OUTlaw is an organisation for LGBT students as well as for LGBT supporters and friends, and “actively promotes queer visibility on campus and acts as watchdog for LGBT issues arising within NYU and across the globe”.
OUTlaw issued a board statement to condemn Dr Thio’s parliamentary speeches over her support to keep 377A as “intolerant” and “reprehensible”. Her statements raise “serious questions about her fitness to teach a course on human rights”. Yet OUTlaw also notes Dr Thio’s contribution to the field of academia and to her being “a fierce defender of minority rights”.
At the same time, OUTlaw has urged the law faculty to issue a statement to condemn Dr Thio’s comments in parliament and reassert the faculty’s commitment to diversity. However, the Board hopes to engage in “respectful and productive dialogue about the boundaries of human rights” instead of fighting Dr Thio’s offensive views by silencing her.
Meanwhile Ms Pasqual has through her Facebook note urged “any self-respecting NYU student” to question the appointment of Dr Thio by writing in to the Vice Deans of the faculty.
“I hope you will question this appointment of someone who openly supports the criminalisation of gay people, who professes to be an expert in the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) but fails to practise what it preaches, and who uses her evangelical beliefs to colour her application of the law,” Ms Pasqual wrote.
Ms Pasqual also highlighted Dr Thio’s mother Dr Thio Su Mien’s as the “mastermind” of the failed “coup” at AWARE.
Calling Dr Thio’s appointment an oxymoron, Ms Pasqual said that one could not be a good human rights lawyer while espousing the opposite of what human rights are about.
“As I said she also professes to be an expert on CEDAW. And one of the key elements of CEDAW is to ensure that countries’ constitutions adequately reflect the rights of people, including women and gay people,” Ms Pasqual said.
A lively exchange ensued over Ms Pasqual’s Facebook note. Nick Lum was one who defended NYU’s move. He argued that Dr Thio’s appointment was made possible because institutions in the United States favour a variety of dissenting views, arguments and perspectives to allow students to have a “full flavour” and understanding of different perspectives.
Mr Lum wrote: “To be fair, Dr Thio is a rather known human rights lawyer. It is only the one point on homosexuality that she allows her religion to cloud her rationality.”
He later added that it would be better to challenge Dr Thio’s faith rather than her credentials during her lectures so that she would be “able to see the light and contradictions in her actions”.
Tris Xavier, 25, doing a law pupillage said: “Dr Thio might be the closest thing we have to a constitutional law advocate in Singapore. Her view on constitutionalism comes the closest to the US view on it.”
Mr Xavier told Ms Pasqual: “I’d advise you to alternatively not allow your view of her religion-imposing, wrong as she was, to colour your view of her teachings.”
When queried by The Online Citizen over Dr Thio’s appointment, Jason Casell, Public Affairs Officer, School of Law, said that Dr Thio had been selected for the appointment based on her published academic scholarship, and not on the basis of her parliamentary statements in her capacity as an NMP.
“We believe that she will make a valuable contribution to our Global classroom and to intellectual life of the law school when she is here this fall,” Mr Casell said.
Noting that the Law school has a long record of opposing discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and for being supportive of the GLBT community, Ms Casell believes that there will be members of the faculty, staff and student body who will disagree with Dr Thio over the content of her speech.
“We expect a dynamic exchange on these issues. This is what makes institutions of higher learning so indispensable to our society — the ability to provide a forum for these kinds of exchanges,” he added.
Cary Nelson, national president of the American Association of University Professors, said that he would not advise NYU to rescind the invitation to Thio to teach there. But he said that it would be legitimate to raise questions about whether she should be teaching human rights.
“Academic freedom protects you from retaliation for your extramural remarks, but it does not protect you from being prohibited from teaching in an area where you are not professionally competent, and there are doubts on whether she has the competency in human rights,” Nelson said. He said that there is in fact an “international consensus, save a few countries like Iran” that gay people should not be treated as criminals.
——
Excerpts from Inside Higher Ed:
Should someone who teaches human rights back human rights for all people?
That’s the question being raised by some students at New York University’s law school, who are upset that a visiting professor in the fall semester, slated to teach human rights law, is Thio Li-ann of the National University of Singapore, an outspoken opponent of gay rights. Thio has argued repeatedly and graphically that her country should continue to criminalize gay sexual acts.
NYU OUTLaw, a group of gay and lesbian students at the law school, last week sent an e-mail message to all students drawing attention to Thio’s statements, saying that it was crucial to “raise awareness of anti-gay statements made by an NYU visiting professor” because “it is important for LGBT students and allies to be aware of her views in order to make fully informed decisions regarding class registration.”
Read the full article here.
From Above The Law:
Academic freedom is a beautiful thing, essential to our nation’s celebrated system of higher education. And, to borrow the words of Dick Cheney on gay marriage, “freedom means freedom for everyone” — including people whose ideas we might not like, or even find repugnant.
How far should academic freedom extend? That’s an issue being faced right now at NYU Law School. The following message went out to the law student community last week:
Related posts:
387 Comments
I do believe that she can teach the aspects of human rights law not related to homosexuality. To put things in perspective, LGBT rights is not a large component of Human Rights. If NYU Law students feel so strongly about her visit – although it seems to only be NYU’s Pink Lobby that seems to feel queasy – then she should just be told to leave the teaching of LGBT rights to other lecturers who can deliver the politically correct version desired by this Lobby.
How can someone who didn’t even fight for human right in Singapore blatantly and in action tell the world what to do ?
Why did she close one eyes to Dr Chee’s case ? Isn’t Dr Chee human ? Please she is not even fit to become a human right lawyer if she couldn’t even do what she preach in her own country. Only talk academically but no action, what use of this high-paid elite ?
Daniel,
she is being called to teach lessons, not deliver a political manifesto.
She should be allowed, nay encouraged to go to NYU and face REAL student protest and a free(ish) media. That way, we’ll now how good she really is…I mean this woman could actually make arguments with no legal or scientific basis and still get her Law Degree – let’s see her try that outside of Singapore’s shores.
Let’s congratulate Thio Li-Ann on her appointment at NYU. She will be exposed to informed and well-meaning academic discourse over a diverse range of human rights issues.
“she is being called to teach lessons, not deliver a political manifesto.”
Whether political, whether about worker’s plight, it is still about human right. How can people even respect her if she could only talk but cannot deliver and has no known track record other than been of lackey of the establishment ?
“She should be allowed, nay encouraged to go to NYU and face REAL student protest and a free(ish) media.”
Well, I’m waiting for her to scream at her Ang Moh student and ask them to “SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN” just like her pappy master teach her.
hi Daniel,
that’s a good one! :)
she’s just a small fish in the ocean in NYU… :P
LGBT rights is not Human Rights…it is sickening the way these twisted LGBTs like to always twist words or terms to their advantage and think the whole world owes them their disgusting, wayward and freaky practices!!
Hi Xiao Mei #10,
Do you know that LGBT rights is not a new set of rights?
It is about achieving equality with heterosexual people:
1. Decriminalisation of sodomy [right to have sex]
2. Equalization of Age of Consent for hetero- and homo- sexual sex
3. Anti-discrimination law & public policy
4. same-sex marriage or civil union
5. homosexual parenthood and adoption rights.
Great job, Thio Li-Ann, I hope you will be strong and steadfast in teaching what real human rights is all about, and at the same time, expose and oppose the devious and shameful acts of these LGBTs and stopped them from further poisoning our next generation.
You will have many supporters in the States, and do not be fooled by these shameful LGBTs that they are a force to be reckon with…THEY ARE NOT, as the vast majority of Americans still support the “one Man, One Woman” family nucleus!!
Having the rights to reject the disgusting practices of LGBTs is our basic human rights as well, and no one can take that away from us under the disguise of linking LGBT rights with HUMAN RIGHTS!!!!
10) Xiao Mei,
Your remarks have already, proven yourself to be a tyrant apologist incapable of conscious thought. Your opinion, ergo, carries no weight.
Your remarks have already, proven yourself to be a hypocrite, typical of LGBTs, and incapable of understanding and realizing that it is also my basic human rights to reject wayward and unnatural sexual practices that seeks to poison my next generation.
Your crooked opinion is of the minority, and carries no weight at all in a society where the majority are thinking straight!!
The desire for abnormal, unnatural and freaky LGBT practices is not HUMAN RIGHTS! What’s next? Will BESTIALITY be consider human rights as well???
Xiao Mei, are you saying that gays are not human?
Stop being so narrow-minded. What you consider ‘abnormal, unnatural and freaky’ will eventually be recognised as normal. I hate to break it to you, but it WILL happen. It’s not because LGBTs have an ‘evil’ agenda, it’s because what they advocate is RIGHT.
Just like how the blacks were doing nothing wrong in fighting to be treated equally, because they were and are also HUMAN. Just like how women also fought to be treated equally, because women are human too.
I cannot blame or hate you for being narrow-minded, because you were born with it. Just like I cannot and will not hate anyone for being born the way they are, be they tall, short, fat, skinny, straight, gay, bisexual or transexual. We are all human.
Like mother like daughter. What does she know about human rights? What has she contributed to Human Rights in Singapore?? No one should pay ANY attention to her. Religious fanaticism have no place in civilised society.
The USA is failed and bankrupt nation. Congrats for her to go the a land of that flowed in blood, when countless millions of indigenous Indians have beeen slaughtered by European invaders over the centuries. It was pogrom, it was savage massacre. What abou the the US/Uk invasion and murder of millions of Iraqi and Afghanistans amongst others?? If she has any sense at all, she should be fighting for the rights of the American Indians and all oppressed peoples of the world and to stop the American empire from doing evil deeds.
“The christians, Alcaraz, according to the Natives lied. Best quote: “We came from the sunrise, they (the Christians) from the sunset; we healed the sick,they killed the sound; we came naked and bare foot, 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.” page 128.
Cabeza de Vaca’s Adventures in the Unknown Interior of America (Zia 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
#5 Tang Ling, great comment!!! I really love what you said. Hit the nail in the bud. :-)
New York! Of all places to put her there! Ha, I wonder how she’ll react when confronted by openly gay people in the most diverse part of America.
Liverpool in Singapore 26 July
I think the discourse will make her dig deeper, entrench her more in the ways of the Bible ;)
She is teaching Human Rights Law in Asia. No one will argue against Human Rights, the issue here is what should Human Rights cover. She will serve as a good representative of Human Rights from an Asian prospective.
It will be meaningless to have someone who is conform to the western views of Human Rights to go to NYU as visiting professor. It will not provide the contrasting view intended to highlight the gap between the West and Asia.
It may give Dr Thio a cultural shock and open up her mind to different views on various issue.
While I find it an irony of the highest measure, true academic discourse is about engaging all views of the spectrum.
In this case, I believe it will be a positive engagement for both her and the NYU faculty.
I think it is good for NYU to appt TLA as a visiting professor. In a place like NYU, she will have to assert her pov and belief not just based on religions grounds. In SG, she can get away with such line of arguments because there are many MPs who share the same religions with her and the Christian rights are very vocal and supportive of her pov. However, outside SG, the view pt is very diff. And religious view has no standing or merit by its self. So I think this is a good move.
ahhh, what these american students don’t know is that our thio li-ann is perfectly capable of teaching human rights — from a Singaporean perspective.
yup. she can explain
-> why CSJ shld be persecuted vigorously
-> why a gathering of four people, oops, i mean ONE person now, shld be illegal
-> why we shld have only “objective and factual” political films
etc etc
Xiao Mei, you certainly have a right to reject others (in this case, LGBT), just like others can reject your views. Be that as it may, how would you like to be discriminated, harassed or denied opportunities for being who you are – a conservative Singaporean?
The majority-wins argument is a dangerous and (if I might add) lazy line of reasoning. It has been used for decades to justify slavery and misogyny (and increasingly, towards LGBT individuals). Following the majority does not give a person the moral authority or turn misinformed opinions into universal truths.
You may be disgusted by the thought of same-sex love but there will be those who find your cynicism equally disgusting.
to Arix
this is funny. so thio li-ann is not there to “deliver political manifesto”. neither is she advised to touch on LGBT’s rights.
gee, what is there left for her to lecture?
Ooh I would love to watch the students at NYU debate her. Sure, there were online rebuttals of her infamous speech but no one challenged her face to face on her arguments as yet. Love to see how she would defend herself.
Please post on youtube y’all! or at least post some transcripts…
26) CO2 on July 10th, 2009 10.08 am ,
I wonder if you are called to fight for the right of those people who have incestous or bestilaity sexual oreintation.What will be your response? Or you might have someone in the family who has such oreintation.
H2O, using bestiality and incest to equal LGBT issue is an old wife tale tactic. Surely we have evolved such line of argument by now hvg so many yrs of debating on this issue.
Get ur facts right. Countries such as UK and Germany that legalises same sex marriage does not legalises the practises of bestiality and incest.
There is no basis on your argument except to evoke disgust and irrational fear among readers. And TOC readers are much smarter than that. Practise this to your grandmothers. It will work better. Not on TOC platform. THese are smart/mature ppl we are talking abt.
btw people, please spread this link around. Say no to marital rape
28) Jc on July 10th, 2009 10.33 am ,
Is it not about right? Sure , you have evolved into a LGBT and that explains why you are defending your right. My point is that all activists have self interest, agenda and you too.Talking about maturity you are certainly NOT.The reason is not enough pressure is put on the german and the uk to legalise incest and bestiality. I am surprised that you would oppose it if there is such activism. Rights!!! you talk cock and anus and soon you will will be advocating the incest because suddently if you have that oreintation. Check your home in case ther is one lurking behind your back
haha…sorry no one will touch my anus. Thks. Very ‘mature’, ur speech. very good. Continue ur old wife tale then. Grandma. By hvg a certain pov does not mean I am a lobbist or advocating something. It is informing others that there are others with a different ideas and pov. And asking you to substantiate with facts on ur old wife tale is the only right thing to do here. And so far, I hv yet to find any news that anyone will lobby for bestiality and incest. So ur argument that there is no ppl lobby for that is fallicious once again because even the LGBT will agree with u that Bestiality and incest are wrong. Come up from your cave la.
Guys… lets set aside LGBT issue and concentrate on this issue proper… It is about her appointment as a human rights lecturer.
I suppose, the parliament is the best place and platform to get your voices heard and felt… voicing an issue once in parliament is 100 times stronger than ranting in public or any other platform.
However, during her time as NMP, did we ever hear Thio speak up on human rights before? I believe she didnt, and this goes to show that she does not have any passions at all for human rights… nor advocating human rights part of her agenda as a NMP.
It would be interesting what answers she will give when she is enquired during her lecture on her failure to touch on human rights issues in her 2.5 yrs time as a NMP.
to H20,
Hey bro… I think ur views are too extreme.
You seems to think that those who are not dead against LGBT (like you yourself) must be an advocator or even a LGBT. Hey thats too narrow minded man.
Many people are neutral about it… and i suppose… many of these people speak up for LGBT is because they cannot stand the unrelentless and illogical bashing on LGBT by people like you.
Bro… learn to take things easy la… extreme ideology will lead to hatred which in turn will lead to violence… furthermore… we are talking about human rights here… there is no place for extreme ideology in human rights.
It is like preaching others the sin of slaughtering cow when she still openly practicing beef cuisine because that was her family favourite dish,
The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 10 Jul 2009
[...] AWARE Aftermath: Theology Goes to NYU – Inside Higher Ed: Rights for Some People [Thanks Vampyre] – Above the Law: NYU Professor of Human Rights: Not a Fan of Gay Rights? Also: Is anal sex like ’shoving a straw up your nose to drink’? [Thanks Vampyre] – the kent ridge common: Reactions on Professor Thio Li Ann’s appointment as a Visiting Professor at NYU – Random Thoughts Of A Free Thinker: NYU students vs Professor Thio Li-Ann – Sam’s thoughts: McCurley’s open letter to Thio – TOC: Thio Li-Ann at center of controversy in New York University [...]
32) Bird man on July 10th, 2009 11.18 am
I hope the students will debate her, and we will get a video/transcript of that debate.
Message from the Dean of NYU School of Law, Richard Revesz (sent 9 Jul 09):
TO: NYU School of Law Community
FROM: Richard Revesz
RE: Visiting Global Law Professor Li-Ann Thio
DATE: July 9, 2009
A number of students, alumni, and faculty have contacted me about the appointment of Li-Ann Thio as a visiting professor in our Hauser Global Law School program this fall. I want to take this opportunity to reaffirm the School of Law’s commitment to our lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community and to our longstanding policy of non-discrimination, and to share with the Law School community some thoughts about the appointment.
We are rightly proud that NYU and the School of Law extended partner benefits to gay couples long before New York law mandated such benefits. We are rightly proud that in 1978 NYU Law School became the first law school in the United States to deny its career services to employers that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and that in 1990 the Association of American Law Schools required accredited law schools in the U.S. to follow our practice. We are rightly proud that NYU Law School students and faculty were leaders in the suit by the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR) to challenge the Solomon Amendment, and that NYU Law School was one of the first law schools to join the FAIR litigation, and to do so publicly. We took these positions because as an institution we believe that a society that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, or that tolerates such discrimination against qualified people, is not just.
We are also proud that we took these actions despite the fact that many individuals and institutions, at home and abroad, disagree with them. This point brings us to the appointment of Professor Li-Ann Thio under the auspices of the Hauser Global Law School Program.
The Hauser Program grew out of our early recognition that the practice of law has escaped the bounds of any particular jurisdiction, and that legal education must take account of the intertwined nature of legal systems. As with our institutional stand on LGBT rights, the program has made us a leader in legal education. At heart, the program seeks to expose our community to legal scholars who come from and have been shaped by their experiences in different countries, regions, and cultures. Needless to say, the value of the program would be seriously diminished if the visiting scholars all thought of legal issues in the same way. Much of the benefit of engaging with the world lies in confronting profound differences in viewpoint and experience. We can learn from these visitors, and–we hope–they can learn from us.
Whatever their areas of expertise or views, Global Professors’ appointments are decided on their record of distinguished scholarship and teaching and their ability to contribute to intellectual exchange within our community. So, while many in our community sharply disagree with, or are offended by, Professor Thio’s 2007 remarks to the Singaporean Parliament, it is important to bear in mind that she was appointed as a visiting professor based on her published scholarship, not on views she expressed as a legislator.
To be clear, the Law School categorically rejects the point of view expressed in Professor Thio’s speech, as evidenced by our early and longstanding commitment to end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Yet we believe academic freedom requires that this disagreement express itself through vigorous, civil debate, rather than an attempt to suppress those views. We fully expect that Professor Thio will embrace the values of academic freedom as well, and be open to the kind of respectful conversation that marks a great institution of higher learning.
@Bird man (#32),
Actually, she did touch on human rights / constitutional law issues quite frequently during her NMP term — of course, much less than the prolific Siew Kum Hong.
For instance, she weighed in on the debates over the Films (Amendment) Bill and the Public Order Bill (the right to free speech/association), over the proper counter-terrorist responses as regards ‘Internationally Protected Persons’, over the rehabilitation of destitute persons under the Destitute Persons Act, over Singapore’s treaty obligations under CEDAW, over the current wage gap between men and women and Singapore’s obligations to the ILO Convention, over the setting up of an ASEAN Commission dealing with women’s and children’s rights, etc.
There is also little doubt that she is probably the leading local constitutional law scholar of the past 1-2 decades, and one of the key public international law scholars in Singapore as well (possibly the only one specializing in human rights law).
On the one hand, we assume that she will experience ‘real’ debate and will not be shielded artificially. But I think she will go there, live in her bubble, think everyone is stupid, then come back and continue with her nonsense. The problem I see therefore is that her profile would be raised but she would not have taken away the valuable learning points of such an experience.
Thus, I hold the view that bigots should not be offered any platform – big or small, and someone who allows their personal religious philosophy to transcend into whatever professional office they hold should never be taken seriously.
At the end of the day she’s not much different from an online troll who registers himself on a forum just to go in and talk crap about his pet peeve and diss a particular group of people. Just as how we ban and ignore trolls (specifically, we SHOULD NEVER engage them in dscourse), so should we ignore/ban her.
Let’s put our hands together to welcome , Birdman, Jc, La nausete and all other LGBT activists , all hailed from Singapore, to the podium to show us their LGBT antics uniquely Singapore. Of course, they will also deliver the keynote on human rights of the LGBTs. And, annnnnnnnnd, also the rights of the ‘less known sexual deviationists…..sorry not deviationists, my apology . people of other sexual inclination but certainly of some sexual orientation that deserves our empathy and consideration.
Being inclusive the club is open to anyone of any sexual oreintation. I emphasise , any sexual orientation. claps claps claps for our brudders from singapore.
41) H20 on July 10th, 2009 1.22 pm
“…I emphasise , any sexual orientation…”
well, you are certainly 100% correct, when you mentioned that it is ‘I’ (namely YOU) that is open to ANY sexual deviancy. lol
Jonah (#25),
Lots of things. She can still talk about Dr CSJ – would be interesting to hear her opinion. It is quite a jump, I have to say, to conclude that she supports the imprisonment of CSJ when we have hardly heard her views on the matter. Or is there any proof for that assertion.
There is always economic and social rights. She could talk about how China abuses labour – perhaps throw in a few things about Singapore’s oppression too – or about sweatshops in India. Job discrimination as well: hey, this happens to heterosexuals too.
How about having identity cards? (Americans and Brits are very touchy about having NRICs.)
SHe could talk about Burmese Junta gunning down Buddhist Monks. Or even Pharmaceutical Patents.
Honestly, the topic of Human Rights is so broad. To think that without LGBT rights, she would have nothing to lecture about, is really nonsensical.
la nausee (#39),
I think that the record you just cited is proof of her qualifications to lecture as a Professor of International Human Rights Law.
Birdman (#33),
FYI, the bashing goes both ways. *Sigh*
Hopefully, we can see some of the debate and comments in the debate. I too will find this very interesting. As mentioned, i am looking forward to TLA’s appt at NYU. And i do agree that everyone has a right to free speech. At the end, it is the basis that most oppose to.
Well H20 can hv his/her basing….jsut that none cares what he/she is contributing as it is baseless and just make him/her look bad. So let’s move on and ignore her and get to the issue on hand. As an academic, I do not think u really need to practise what you lecture. But you need to be objective when you lecture, for that is being professional. I used to have a Christian that teaches buddism for my RK. And she is professional and teaches with as much zeals as she can despite the fact that she is a christian. And that is true freedom but it is not as ‘free’ because the ownership is for TLA to show that she does not abuse it.
46) Kill-netizen?? on July 10th, 2009 1.39 pm ,
it is like asking me to explain the logic of LBGT sexual oreintation So you agree that such oreintation was there long time ago. Does it exist to day? Should we go out there and approve such orientation in the name of human right because there is such a thing? Surely , you guys have some kind of value system formed and influenced, shaped by you know what and who.
Against this system you judge behaviours, to decide whether it is right or wrong.
Your views are a result of this or you are not sure.
ASk God why there were not burned,.I don’t know. Ask MJ why he looked like a gay or rumoured and yet he fathered a few children.
Law and Justice may and may not necessarily be one and the same.
Moreover, how many people can “walk the talk” in real life; especially in the “political” arena in Singapore.
will wonders never cease?
and soon we’ll have loansharks teaching values of patience and forgiveness.
might as well hire hitler to teach basic human rights while they’re at it.
Arix, you’re missing the point. just because she can teach about everything else under the sun besides LGBT rights does not make her a qualified human rights teacher. Human rights law is a unified area of law that encompasses the rights of minorities, a subset of which is the homosexual rights movement.
It’s not about quantity of human rights knowledge li-ann has. It’s about a qualitative flaw in her grasp of human rights that allows her to claim that she’s a proponent of it while supporting the imprisonment of homosexual people. She is essentially claiming that these people are not people, and not deserving of the same rights and protections as anyone else. In fact, they need to be persecuted.
That she holds this one aberrant belief makes her unqualified to teach the human rights law, the fundamental tenet of which is that all men are born equal in dignity.
Can an excellent historian be a holocaust denier?
And honestly, you asking her to talk about the Burmese junta and pharma patents is just dumb. do you have any understanding at all about her academic writings? They have nothing to do with what you raised.
Instead, in a recent article for the singapore journal of legal studies, she has chosen to rehash the 377A debate in the context of limiting free speech on the internet.
I mean, how detached from reality are you exactly, that you want her to talk about everything that has nothing to do with her scholarship and strongest convictions?
“45) Arix on July 10th, 2009 1.38 pm Birdman (#33),
FYI, the bashing goes both ways. *Sigh*”
Look Arix, how old are you exactly, 15? If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Ever been in a Cambridge debate before? Trust me it’s bruising and you’ll look a right twat with your whining about being “bashed”.
My frank opinion of your views is that they are poorly formed, simplistic, and naive. I’d like to see your reply to comment 51.
Let’s not let this opportunity pass, forget about her anti-gay stand. Let the students grill her on her take on human right in her own country before she preeches to the rest of the world. Students should start preparing, research the poor human rights record of Singapore and ask her what she is doing about it.
51) James
If you went to one of the links in the article, there are some comments from the students there (NYU). It’s not so much her belief that is the issue, it is her push for the criminalization of homosexuals that is the problem.
As a comparison:
- Arix actually supports repealing 377A, but has his/her negative perception of homosexuality.
- TLA supports 377A AND has negative perception of homosexuality.
The first is free speech, the latter … could well be classify has hate speech?
to Arix
perhaps I shld have elaborated.
there are many kinds of practices over the world that infringe upon human rights. however in this sunny island from where thio hails, the examples you brought up don’t apply.
it is very obvious to the international community that there are two glaring areas locally in which human rights are consistently trounced: politics & LBGT. imagine if thio makes a scant study of these, how is she going to gain credibility or respect?
it’s like if you are not even an expert on what’s going on in your country, why shld you be commenting on the other countries? a bit too rich, don’t you think?
but you’re right on this one. we shld hold back the horses wrt CSJ until we hear from the horse’s mouth.
peace!
#48 H2O
Please answer the question , do not side-track by asking another question.
What is the Bibilical value on Incest??
Please direct your answer with respect to the biblical passage on Lot, and the cities of sodomy and gomorroh. This is the central passage to condemn the gay behaviour.
#47 H2O
i shall give you a demonstration about how a question should be answer (rather than evading the question by asking another)
You wrote :”So you agree that such oreintation was there long time ago. Does it exist to day? Should we go out there and approve such orientation in the name of human right because there is such a thing?”
Yes, such orientation was there long time ago.
Yes, it still exist today.
We should go out and be tolerant, let them do what they like, because there is such a thing.
Now, can you answer a question : Is God condoning Lot’s incestious sexual act with his TWO daughters ?? (not even a one-off event)
Do christian learn from this passage, and condone incest?
I would encourage NYU faculty and its students to allow TLA to go for it (at least this is to demonstrate the essence of true freedom of speech and expression). I believe it will be a good cause to allow the chance for proponents and opponents to state their case in a less “politically correct” control environment.
Never mind about her credentials and her perception during the parliament debate on 377A. I believe whatever took place in that NYU lecture hall (if it materializes) will be publicized and I believe it will be proven to be an invaluable lesson on civil rights course for the lesser exposed. Why deprive someone to speak their mind?
True democratic country does not criminalize a person for speaking out albeit you may not approve of their views. True democratic country too does not advocate unjust criminal laws.
Sincerely,
Observer (SG-HK)
Do check out Thio Li Ann’s reply to an open letter under the comments section of the Inside Higher Eduction artlicle listed above…. its truly ironic…and funny!
Dear Mr. Jim McCurley a Response to your open letter
Posted by Dr Li-ann Thio , Professor / Law on July 9, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
Dear Mr McCurley,
Arix:
This is the dumbest statement I’ve read.
“I do believe that she can teach the aspects of human rights law not related to homosexuality. To put things in perspective, LGBT rights is not a large component of Human Rights.”
LGBT are still part of the human race right? how can they not be excluded from Human Rights?
In other news, Hitler was given a doctorate of human rights since he’s an advocate of Human Rights for all humans except Jews.
Makes sense?
~ beerdrunksoul.com
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!Someone who served as NMP from a virtually one-party state want to preach HUMAN RIGHTS???
If she preaches the Kangaroo Rights, at least the world will respect her.
@James (#51), actually, if you’re talking about international human rights law, Thio Li-ann is eminently qualified to teach it.
From a legal perspective, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is still the focus of considerable interpretive controversy. None of the major human rights instruments (the UDHR, the ICCPR, CEDAW, CRC, etc.) reference sexual orientation specifically (and besides, Singapore is not a party to the ICCPR); in fact, the UDHR and the ICCPR lend themselves to pro-conservative interpretations, given that they reference the fundamental importance of “the family”.
GLBT rights are also very far from being established as a customary norm of international law binding on all States: while the European Court of Human Rights has held that section 377A-like laws are incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights, that applies to States Parties only; there has also (to my knowledge) never been an official UN declaration or resolution on sexual orientation (the Yogyakarta Principles, which do deal with the issue, emerged as part of a non-official Track II process among academics, activists and retired officials only).
Also, on her recent free speech article, she only cited the 377A debate in the context of a broader argument about how government restraints on Internet speech can actually facilitate deliberative democracy. I disagree with that two-faced argument, that restraints on speech can be used to facilitate speech. But that’s beside the point. If it’s the quality of her scholarship at issue, then there’s no denying that she makes a logical and potentially persuasive case.
Yeah so funny, intolerant bigotry gays and lesbians accusing normal people of bigotry and also accuses others of being discriminating against gays and lesbians when it is the gays and lesbians who are the real bigots and discriminating against normal people with normal views of ways of life by attacking others for normal views.
Farcical of her to teach or preach human rights or even utter these 2 words – even an idiot has deeper understanding human rights than her ……..
Wow. We have a winner, and it’s 65) Waste of time to argue on July 10th, 2009 5.26 pm
On a more relevant note, I think it’s a good thing for all of us to learn from Dr Thio’s experience at NYU,and NYU’s experience of Dr Thio. There’s a lot that everybody can gain from this, participants and observers alike.
#66 Waste of time to argue:
Do YOU think : Dr Thio discriminate against GLBT?
Do GLBT think : Dr Thio discriminate against GLBT?
Do the society think : Dr Thio discriminate against GLBT?
Does what Dr Thio do and preach, actually discriminate against GLBT?
When you wrote: ‘intolerant bigotry gays and lesbians accusing …..’
Please be specific, which group of gays and lesbians are intolerant and practise bigotry? The GLBT in NYU? The GLBT worldwide? or The GLBT in singapore??
Thio Li-ann can have all the knowledge in the world but if this knowledge is not based on a foundation of compassion and wisdom it will be a great loss, not to anybody but to her own ignorant self.
human rights never include gay rights, political rights and abortion rights. stop condemning dr thio li-ann. she is just articulating her religious viewpoints in the parliament. it is her human rights to do so. you cant have everybody to tolerate gays, sex changes and abortion. 3 wrongs doesnt make a right..
she is not an mp anymore and doesnt need to account for anything she said in parliament years ago. why still exist childish people who condemn just dr thio li-ann when there are leaders from other religions who dabble in politics also. because people who are enthusiastic about Christ like dr thio li-ann now are being sidelined by a secular society who doesnt appreciate our efforts to correct social and ethical values.
she’s escaping from the small minds of our small city-state to live in one of the world’s most exciting cities where extraordinary diversity requires extraordinary tolerance… maybe she should take her mother and a few million other singaporeans with her for a lesson in humanness…. and maybe they can also learn a little humour while they are…. new york wit (or, on second thought, any kind of wit!) is something that is sorely needed to make our singapore rudeness a little more entertaining… even posters like arix and H2O might be more likable if they could muster an ounce of wit to flavour their venom
i do agree that despite her peculiar views on homosexuality she is well qualified to teach a course on human rights at NYU… i’m sure that not many of her future colleagues have been on the denying side of human rights…. her experience as an advocate against rights is a necessary part of the equation for those who need to know how best to advocate for such rights
James (#51),
1) As la nausee reminds us in #63, the status of LGBT in international law is still a hot debate, unlike what the Pink Lobby wants us to think. So clearly, it is not yet an established position that all of LGBT rights, in particular same-sex marriage, are incontrovertible rights in the first place.
2) Well, actually TLA has never made her stand on the legal aspect of the law, although she has made lots of comment on the moral aspect. I suppose it’s a valid inference though.
Interesting question: would there be less fuss if the penalty was a fine, rather than a jail term?
3) Wow, that’s a jump. Yes, the Human Rights paradigm is that all men (and women) are born in dignity. TLA’s claim – as far as I get – is that homosexuals are deliberately devaluing their own dignity by engaging in homosexual behaviour.
4) No, but then we have lots of evidence for the holocaust. Conversely, even the APA admits that there is no evidence for the existence of a Gay Gene. “Belief” is jargon for “I don’t know”.
5) Well, I was covering possible aspects of human rights she could touch on. Perhaps you could give me a list of her specialties?
6) Actually, I agree with her on that point. Honestly, just look at what smallvice is trying to do to me – evidence to support Dr TLA’s point of view on censorship. I expect she is saying this in response to people who wrote letters to the Straits Times urging the “Removal of religious voices from the public sphere”. That is kind of an attack on free speech.
Aside – I do feel that Web 1.0 hyperlinks and Web 2.0 RSS are under-used as a medium of connection. The Web has a great potential to connect, but also the great potential to segregate. Compared to blogs and websites, I believe Second Life is more neutral.
7) I expect that she is smart enough to know how to engage academically. It is possible, after all, for her to say that; “these are the following views on LGBT rights … [list] and I support this particular view, although I can’t force it on any of you”. I think such a format would be sufficient for most people, although not for the Pink Lobby Zealots who cannot accept the presence of any other view as legitimate.
This format would preserve her right to free speech, while ensuring academic neutrality.
For goodness sake, she is a PhD! (Even Richard Dawkins knows how to appear professional, why not Dr Thio?)
gays are abnormal, fall from grace sinners, no dignity. cant multiply for pete’s sake. so not humans. why something not human can have rights?
Poo Arix (#52),
Cambridge Debates have moderators. This particular one doesn’t.
Anyway, I was just reminding people here that both sides bash each other up. After all, I am being bashed by Smallvice (and quite openly too).
I am 21, incidentally.
‘pink lobby zealots’ is well said. ‘butchers of strange flesh’ i say. yucks.
Jonah (#55),
1) yes.
2) What is your “international community”?
Anyhow, LGBT rights is problematic.
Protecting LGBTs from workplace discrimination, from lack of access of housing, and from rape; these are worthwhile defenses of human rights. So if an LGBT says that “i can’t sit on a bus because I am LGBT” or “I am forbidden from studying in a Philosophy Department because I am LGBT”, then that is a violation of human rights. I would agree that any law that does that needs to be repealed. I will not comment on whether TLA and TSM would agree, because I don’t know what they actually think over that.
Same-Sex Marriage and Adoption Rights are a different ballgame altogether.
In Same-Sex Marriage, you are asking not only a society to change its social bearings, you are also asking religious groups to change their implements. The latter can be argued to be a violation of religious freedom. The former is likely to engender more family divides between members of the family who are Pro-Gay and those who are anti-Gay. Same-Sex Couples don’t exist in the vacuum.
In Adoption Rights, there are at least 3 major issues:-
(1) Parents’ rights vs Children’s Rights. We have a famous example of this in Singapore’s own history with the (heterosexual) case of Maria Hertogh, who just died yesterday. The Maria Hertogh Case was about whether the adoptive parents had the right to determine their ward’s religion as against her birth parents’ rights to set her religion. The Hertoghs argued that the Muslim family had no right to allow Maria’s conversion to Nadra.
Imagine the pain of a birth-parent who cannot associate with his or her own child. No matter what label of “homophobia” you cast on that parent, it will not diminish the pain.
(2) The societal context for adoption. Are we to preserve adoption specifically to cater to homosexual couples? Or should we be combating the root causes that force parents to give up their children for adoption in the first place?
(3) The effects on the child, which is a very controversial issue.
@Arix, you said: Well, actually TLA has never made her stand on the legal aspect of the law, although she has made lots of comment on the moral aspect. I suppose it’s a valid inference though.
Actually she has: she argued in her 2007 Parliamentary speech that 377A is constitutionally valid. Also, she has identified herself with the views of her colleague, Asst. Prof. Yvonne Lee, who last year wrote a full-length article defending the validity of 377A under both constitutional law and public international law.
The point, though, is that the law is at present still open-textured enough to reasonably accommodate both the pro-repeal and pro-retention arguments. Hence, Thio Li-ann arguing for one side does not show her up as ‘incompetent’.
#75 Arix /// I am 21, incidently /// ;;;;Hi Arix;;;; Now that you have revealed some personal details, won’t you reveal a bit more; like whether you are male or female;;;;I am sure if you are female most of the ‘Arix bashing’ will automatically subside over a short period of time;;;;If you are male, then, just pull a fast one.
evidence homosexuality IS a choice.
http://www.lovewonout.com/
We are having some ‘icky’ and ‘yucky’ gay-bashing on this thread, haven’t we;;;;Ok, lets analyse the following (1) sex (2) shit (3) anus , for the benefit of these people, who i think lack some essential knowledge;;;;;(1) sex— just some skin rubbing on skin; rub your right hand on your left and fantasize, and you can have some good one-man(woman) sex. (2) shit—- just some food we eat which is mixed with some stomach acids and is then excreted through a cavity (3) anus—- just a cavity through which ‘food+acids’ are excreted; and this particular cavity is not much more ‘dirtier’ than any other cavity we have for eg. the mouth,ear,nose etc etc. Does that enlighten you somewhat, my ‘icky’ and ‘yucky’ friends.
la nausee (#77),
Oh, thanks for enlightening me on that point. Still well … has she ever cited exactly what punishment should be given to homosexuals, or is this “imprisonment” thinggy a stab in the dark by the Pink Lobby?
On my own views, if it would help defuse the tension significantly, I would support lessening the punishment in 377A to a fine to compromise with both sides. I naturally prefer an abolition of S377A, of course.
buda,
As much as I thank you for standing up in my defence, I am not sure that bisexuality as a “middle way” is in tune with the Buddhist concept of the “middle way”, which is more philosophically abstract.
You forgot about beastiality.
It’s only a small group of NYU GLTBs.
We see GLTBs here but not in heaven.
The gates of heaven will not open for GLTBs.
They will never be redeemed.
Who gets the last laugh?
three (#84),
You would profit by being a little less judgemental.
#83;;Hi Arix;;The middle-way expounded by the Buddha is profound; He discovered it through his own exertions, through ‘inward looking’ akin to what Jesus said ” Know thyself” . Quantum physics have found out that the whole universe is finely balanced, in perfect equilibrium, meaning that even an atom out of place and the whole universe will collapse either inwards or outwards. Buddha’s middle way is akin to this knowledge that was discovered by science. It is a promise made by Buddha that whoever exerts himself like the Buddha did will discover the same profound middle-way through which he will have knowledge of any phenomenena in the universe;;;; So all phenomena has at its base the ‘middle-way’ to function in perfect unity, equilibrium and peace;;;So homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality are all various phenomenas which are all in various states of non-equilibrium due to the fact that they produce disharmony anger and discord among the various participants. And in between all these is a middle way which in my opinion is bi-sexuality. Once all participants agree that bi-sexuality (like Freud himself discovered) is the natural-way, all discord between the various participants will dissipate. Thus my linking of the middle way of sexuality to Buddha’s profound middle-way.
@Arix (#77), well, by arguing for the retention of 377A on both moral and legal grounds, she’s necessarily endorsing for criminal punishment (up to 2 years’ jail), isn’t she? And this is clearly shown by what she said in her 2007 speech:
“The real question today is not “if” we should repeal section 377A now, or wait until people are ready to move. This assumes too much, as though we need an adjustment period before the inevitable. The real question is not “if” but “should” we ever repeal section 377A. It is not inevitable; it is not desirable to repeal it in any event.”
“Sir, the power to legislate morality is not limited to preventing demonstrable harm. The Penal Code now criminalises the wounding of both religious and racial feelings. 377A serves public morality; the argument from community reminds us we share a way of life which gives legal expression to the moral repugnancy of homosexuality. Heterosexual sodomy, unlike homosexual sodomy, does not undermine the understanding of heterosexuality as the preferred social norm. To those who say that 377A penalises only gays, not lesbians, note there have been calls to criminalise lesbianism too.“
Our BNP members are not discriminated against when they apply for jobs un the UK
i am proud that a singaporean has been selected to be a visiting professor to teach at the NYU. shame on whoever this “Leigh Pasqual” is, purportedly a singaporean living in ny, seeking to diminish her accomplishments. if she is a singaporean she should be proud and not raise hackles about her suitability. if she thinks she knows better than the panel who selected her, she should be there among them! lots of sour grapes around.
here again is an example of the homosexual lobby trying to impose their will on society for no other reason than she is not a homosexual. this is the reason why they MUST not succeed in legalising their movement.
i am proud of dr. thio li-ann and wish her the best when she teaches there. no doubt she will face a lot of protests, resistance etc. but i am sure she will be able to overcome the lot of them in an open debate.
TOC has certainly arrived when ST reports contain wholesale chunks of its articles. 4 out of 11 paragraphs in the article below comprises material directly from here. Wow, it must be real easy being an ST journalist these days – just read TOC…
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_401355.html
***Interested
Just as you can choose to b proud of TLA, others can also choose to be dismayed by her selection by NYU. And for those who are dismayed, Leigh Pascal is a brave person who by her actions has ignited a media storm over this issue. This is just the start. Lets see where all this is headed to and see how proud u will be of TLA at the end of this saga.
Btw, shame on you for being proud of TLA! Whats good for the goose…..
oh and i love the letter by the editor of Alumnus, NUS, which is posted as a comment in Inside Higher education article
dr. thio had did a great job during her stint as an elite NMP and in her lecturer duties in NUS law faculty so far. that was why she was chosen as a representative to represent the voice of Singaporeans overseas.
it is her glory and our honor for her overseas deployment. unfortunate to say, the homosexual lobbyists are up in arms against this prodigy of human rights. straws in their noses must have made these lobbyists and homosexual empathizers desperate to repeal 377A.
dr. thio had won another battle while the God-forsaken homosexual lobbyists have lost another one.
Ever heard the line won the battle but lost the war?
TLA can certainly represent High Council but pls she certainly does not represent all singaporeans, not mine and many others
sloo, it is because some people have yet to establish a relationship with God yet and therefore are misinformed and misguided.
OH. PLEASE. Do Not Bring Religion here.
I won’t even bother to reply to your irrational post
la nausee (#87),
1) Well, she is endorsing punishment, but she hasn’t made clear the kind of punishment she favours. Would fining be more acceptable to you and the other guys on this thread?
2) I get your drift here.
3) Her grounds is “public morality”, not “demonstrable harm”, as she makes clear. So she is arguing for the retention of S377A for the sake of making a moral stand, not for the sake of enforcing it against homosexuals. She also focuses on the “moral repugnancy”.
She is interested about the moral point that Section 377A makes, not in the punishment that it metes out to homosexuals.
Although, I personally have issues with the sin-crime equivalence.
high council (#95),
you and others who make statements like this should remember the parable of the pharisee and the tax-collector and the story of Jesus and the adulteress.
sorry sloo and arix. i was wrong.
Apology appreciated
# 27) H2O on July 10th, 2009 10.22 am
“I wonder if you are called to fight for the right of those people who have incestous or bestilaity sexual oreintation.What will be your response?”
You poor pathetic sod……..
Go read your first book of the Bible………God created ONE man and subsequently created ONE woman, Eve.
If there was NO INCEST, how did YOU and Billions of other human beings got to populate the earth.
AND it is repeated many times over, HOMOSEXUALITY law like S377A involving CONSENTING ADULTS should be repealed.
Beast cannot consent.
Budamax1952,
What load of crap you expounded. What middle way? You mean middle hole, Centre of gravity, the equilibrium will come harmony..It is more like satay or kebab on a stick. Why not all sexual, multisexual. It is getting out of control.
@Arix (#97), if Thio marshaled strong arguments in favour of keeping 377A, and failed to consider what sort of criminal law response might be (more) proportionate, then the inference is irresistible that she supports a jail term.
Imposing a fine would probably be marginally more acceptable than imposing a jail-term, just like being slapped in the face is marginally better than being kicked in the balls.
Whatever form it comes in, the use of the State’s coercive force is always in need of justification, since it inflicts a prima facie wrong. This is irrespective of whether the coercion is in the form of a jail-term, a fine, caning, a Corrective Work Order, detention without trial, etc..
As a liberal, I do not think it’s ever justifiable for the State to enforce a moral ‘way of life’ as comprehensively as Thio desires it. The State ought to focus only on basic questions of fairness and justice, and leave as much room as possible for individuals to develop and revise their own ethical conceptions. This translates into a ‘right to privacy’ and/or a ‘right to freedom of conscience/religion’, which makes any 377A-like law illegitimate.
Alternatively, even if we can justifiably legislate public morality, I nonetheless believe (as Thio and Yvonne Lee deny) that Prudence counsels us otherwise. Even assuming that homosexual sex is wrong (for the sake of argument, since I do not believe that), the stigma of criminal law is never a good instrument for moral education. It will only frustrate the aims of people who wish to ‘repair’ homosexuals, since having a criminal law directed against them will likely make the GLBT community more intransigent and insular. It will also drum up added sympathy for the GLBT movement, by portraying them as a minority oppressed by a draconian State. Lastly, by giving people an authoritative legal reason not to engage in homosexual sex, it fosters indifference to the underlying moral question why homosexuality is or is not wrong.
Hi Arix,
I read in contempt of your religious propaganda here. You claimed in #72 that I am trying to censor you. No. The fact that you continue to slander me here without restraint is evidence that there is in fact no censorship but uninhibited free speech.
Religious motivation has no role in setting the moral tone beyond the realm of believers and you are trying to assert how non-Christian LGBTs should behave. This is where you have crossed the line.
You arguing here what TLA should teach and do at NYU is quite pointless. There may be a controversy behind TLA’s appointment at NYU but I am pretty sure NYU has already evaluated her academic scholarship and has made up their mind on what her roles and responsibilities are at NYU. This is a done deal. I also don’t think you should be ordering how LGBTs should engage TLA at NYU.
What differentiates marriage from civil union in that the former was solemnised on religious basis while the latter was solemnised on secular basis. That’s why I don’t support same-sex marriage but I support same-sex civil union.
If homosexual believers want to solemnise their relationship under secular law, will religious authorities dispatch evil henchmen to kill them? Only you know better – you represent Oppression and Hatred.
While same-sex marriage changes the religious bearing of society, same-sex civil union doesn’t. What same-sex civil union really does is to ask religious group to stop their discrimination.
That’s why you argue that homosexual discrimination is an act of religious freedom and stopping homosexuals from entering same-sex marriage protects religious freedom.
Just like any oppressor, you continue to fearmonger in #76: same-sex marriage is likely to engender more family divides between members of the family who are Pro-Gay and those who are anti-Gay.
Hi Arix
[Continuation of Post #105]
Some might wonder if it’s consistent that Christian LGBTs should be subjected to religious discrimination while non-believer LGBT should not be subjected to religious discrimination. The physical limitation of enforcing anti-discrimination policy is that nobody can stop anyone from voluntarily signing up to be discriminated. This is how religion poisons the mind of homosexual believers.
Civil Union or Marriage exists because people desire it and the community, working through the government, helps ensure that married couples are able to do what they need to in order to survive. At no point is religion needed or necessarily relevant. Religion is co-opted in marriage because it is easier to find a highly respected individual among beneign religious groups to solemnise the marriage.
Same-sex civil Union is a social contract between two persons entering into a strong, committed relationship with one another. The goal of civil union is to be awarded the same legal rights granted under marriage. If we take a close look at those rights, however, we find that most are about helping couples care for each other. Individually, the rights help spouses support each other; taken together, they help society express the importance of being a spouse and the fact that marrying changes who you are and your status in the community.
Society is therefore justified in not granting legal recognition to a class of relationships that will predictably be less faithful, less committed, and more fragile. By denying homosexuals civil union or marriage, less beneign religious groups are forcebly trying to weaken the relationship between 2 homosexual persons. Same-sex civil union also simplifies a lot of legal matters on issues such as inheritance, joint ownership of residential properties in time of death or divorce/separation and sharing of liabilities. Perhaps religious bigots are scheming to steal their homosexual relatives’ properties.
Same-sex civil union also gives legitimacy to homosexual relationship. Why are religious people so adamant to deny homosexual relations any legitimacy? Arix mentioned in #251 of the “India decriminalised gay sex” thread: Moderates argue that homosexuals can ‘repair’ themselves; Fundamentalists try to do the ‘repairing’ themselves i.e. reparative therapy. Giving homosexual relations legitimacy reduces the incentive for homosexuals to “repair” themselves. Conversely, Arix had re-labelled the slightly less extreme elements of the Christian Right as the Christian Moderates.
Nowadays, with the advance of science and secular politics, the less beneign religious groups are fighting hard to hold on to every scrap of societal infrastructure to fortify their position in society. In another words, such religious groups view homosexuals as pawns in their power struggle. This is a natural extension to their opinion that homosexuals are “damaged” (by virtue of the need to be “repaired”). Naturally, these religious groups are disgusted by atheists providing genuine aid for their homosexual friends.
103) H20 on July 11th, 2009 12.41 am
“101) Genesis on July 11th, 2009 12.31 am ,
why are you not lobbying for the right to practise incest? Why anal sex only? You must be the product of an incestous act.”
Truly pathetic, the sod you are.
Why should I do what you suggest?
I may speak out against the oppression of the gays as I would on the oppression of the minority in general, but that does not make me a lobbyist
You should go ask your pastor or Thio Su Mien, Thio Li Ann or whoever in religious authority of the Bible to explain why INCEST is a SIN considering my post to you rather than show up your bigotry, ignorance and being an ill-bred.
“
la nausee (#104),
1) okay.
2) Agreed. Well, at least it would moderate the zeal on both sides a little.
3-4) I agree with you. The State should not be interfering in private affairs. To me, the State’s primary responsibility is economic, property-distribution. It should have no say on how the property should be used by an individual, except where it directly harms another individual.
But, lex legata, Dr Thio is accurate.
5) Congratulations! You nailed the problem!
I did make mention of that earlier on another thread. Section 377A is an unhealthy focus of zeal and anger on both sides. It needs to be removed so that both sides can calm down and look at the issue more objectively. (And of course, to prevent ‘foreign’ interference.)
The only party that the Religious Right might listen to are the Religious Moderates. But if the Religious Moderates continue to be alienated by the rhetoric of “rights”, they are not going to be able to foster constructive reformist dialogue with the genuine Right.
On the other hand, people like Dr Thio are stressing the sin-crime connection too much. Every crime is a sin, but not every sin can be considered a crime. The Religious side needs to start emphasizing on love rather than judgement.
107) Genesis on July 11th, 2009 1.00 am
I find you despicable , biforked tongue, boneless swept by the mainstream, what oppression you are talking about.LGBT minority being oppressed? What crap you spewed. I suggested that you take up the cudgel for incest which you said you were born out of incest because of adam and eve, did you?
smallvice (#105),
1) Sure, you are free to read in contempt whatever you want. That is free speech. But still, the undeniable truth is that you were making personal attacks on me, and slandering me.
You, on the other hand, have to prove the ways in which I have slandered you. As far as I know, I haven’t done so. Where is your evidence?
2) Well, that is your opinion, not mine. I would argue that Atheist Motivation has no role in setting the moral tone and practical agenda within believers who are non-LGBTs. That is where you are crossing the line, my dear little friend.
More seriously, you misunderstand the role of religion. The role of any religion is to offer a moral tone for all of society, unless it be a cult like Jehovah’s Witnesses. After which, the believer or non-believer can choose to accept or reject that tone.
3) Well, we are still free to express our opinions on what they should have done, right? And just which post did I order how LGBTs should engage TLA? No doubt it is another one of your fanciful imaginations. FYI, I scrolled through all my posts so far and saw none in which I did as you claim.
4) Oh. That is a really lousy reason, though. But I suppose it fits in with your extreme bias against religion. I wonder, what in your experience of Anglicanism made you come to hate religion so much?
5) More slander. Let your conscience guide you on this one, if you have any left.
6) Of course, it does. The same-sex civil union people still interact with other people in society, other people with a religion, and probably people in their own religious group too.
Same-Sex Civil Union is a means for the government of the day to bury its head in the sand and ignore its role in moral leadership.
I have stated on the India thread that same-sex Marriage or Civil Union goes beyond human rights, because it touches on social and familial relations. The “discrimination” rhetoric surrounding Same-Sex Unions is just that – rhetoric from a self-centred group that does not care about anything else or anyone else except its “rights”.
Why a civil-union still has impact on religious groups is because it is a new social form. This new social form cannot simply be forced down people’s throats the way the Pink Lobby wants to. We need to assess first how that social form will affect society, and society – whether you like it or not – includes religious groups.
7-8) I am not fear-mongering. It is a logical extrapolation from the fact that many parents are uncomfortable on hearing that their children are homosexual; so certainly they would be even more perturbed on being told that their child is to enter a same-sex civil-union.
Even if the parent accepts the reality out of love, the relationship is already strained. Is there any concern shown toward such a parent by the Pink Lobby? Not that I have heard of so far.
Hi H2O #110,
Your very reply is the evidence of oppression. :D
smallvice (#106),
1) When will you stop denigrating believers? If religion is the opium of the people, Atheism is the Depressant of the Individual.
2) Religion was not co-opted into marriage. Marriage/Wedding ceremonies exist in the first place because religions required the dedication of the union to respective deities. Religion may not be necessary (perhaps?) but it certainly is relevant to marriage. Religion offers a set of norms for behaviour between husband and wife (or husband and wives). It does so because all religions seek to promote certain forms of social relations, and that includes the social relations within a family unit.
Civil Unions is the result of the State co-opting the convention of Marriage established by religion in antiquity into its policy structure in order to avoid dealing with moral debate by appeasing the Pink Lobby.
3) There are many ways of establishing a “strong, committed relationship”; marriage is not the only one. Yes, the legal rights in marriage were established to help couples care for one another. But the problem is what “spouse” means.
From wikitionary:-
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spouse
“”"
Old French spus m./spuse f. (or Anglo-Norman espus m. /espuse f., by aphasis), from Latin spōnsus (“‘bridegroom’”) m./spōnsa (“‘bride’”) f.,
“”"
See how the origin and meaning of “spouse” is heterosexual?
4) No,the moderate religious groups are just advising that relationships between members of the same sex should be carried out on different terms that do not involve sex.
5) It is Atheists like you who over-stretch the boundaries of the “Christian Right”. To you, there is only “Right” and “Left”, no “Center”.
6) Yes, but don’t you see your mischaracterization of religious groups marginalizes and alienates the moderates as well? The moderates support legislation for the equal rights in almost all aspects of civil life for homosexuals, but are simply requesting for the need to examine the issue of same-sex marriage and adoption more carefully instead of legislating based on popular fervour alone.
I myself started out as a silent supporter of the Pink Lobby. After looking at the Church’s brochure, I couldn’t accept the conclusions they drew about the origins of homosexuality. Yes, I do not believe in all that same-sex, different-sex parent mumbo-jambo. But after a great deal of reflection, I realized that the Church’s generic point of view was accurate, even though its details are in need of updating. (That I attribute to religious groups’ lack of interest in genuine sociology within their borders.)
Poo Arix (#113),
I guess the word “legal” wasn’t a good word. By “legal” aspect, I meant how the law should be enforced in a court.
Hi Arix #111,
I see more of your Bible-inspired Victim Card Strategy. The way to save you is to convince you to abandon your faith entirely, but the question remains whether you deserve to be saved, unless atheists decide unanimously to grant you grace. What is the Bible really good for? Advising Christians how to wage war? I rather the religious camp consists of benevolent elements instead of oppressive ones.
la nausée wrote in #104 that is not justifiable for the State to enforce a moral ‘way of life’. He goes on to say that the State ought to focus only on basic questions of fairness and justice, and leave as much room as possible for individuals to develop and revise their own ethical conceptions. This translates into a ‘right to privacy’ and/or a ‘right to freedom of conscience/religion’.
You wrote: the role of any religion is to offer a moral tone for all of society. Religious group oppresses by setting the moral tone for all of society. They knows no boundary because they tend to see God in everything or at least all aspects of human life. Religious oppression manifests itself by intruding on the right to privacy and the right to freedom of conscience. That’s why atheists seek to contain religious motivation within the realm of believers.
We are defending the freedom of conscience against religious oppression. Let religious institutions exercise moral authority on believers; let secular institutions exercise moral authority on non-believers. Non-believers can organise themselves to decide what is moral and what isn’t. Unsolicited meddling is unwarranted for. Religion is not an open license to poke into non-believers’ affairs. Live and let live. Abandon your ways of oppression, my little fiend.
You claimed that same-sex civil union is a means for the government of the day to bury its head in the sand and ignore its role in moral leadership. Moral leadership is not the role of a secular government. Moral leadership is the role of a theocratic government. Please don’t confuse between the two, unless your true aspirations lie in wiping the secular foundation of our nation. Such misconception is hardly surprising since you enshrine homosexual discrimination as religious freedom.
Your “wonderful trick” has evolved to new stage. Now you are employing delay tactics to unjustly side-track the issue of same-sex civil unions. You wrote: We need to assess first how that social form will affect society, and society – whether you like it or not – includes religious groups. This is an extension of religious oppression because you think that approval of all groups in society is required. If remedying a right requires general consensus, then popular discrimination would never be outlawed.
Dear Christians and Muslims,
Please beware of blindly pledging your support for Arix. As a religious heretic, he wrote the following in #305 of “the India decrimanalising Gay Sex” thread:
(1) I believe that all religions – including Christianity – should aim back towards First Religion;
(2) I believe that the role of the Pope and Curia in the Roman Catholic Church should be re-evaluated and re-examined;
(5) I believe that there should be talks of integrating the Koran into the Bible;
(7) I believe that The Church and other religious groups need to be open to re-examination of their own social-administrative structures.
Please pause and think for a while – Who are your real enemies? Atheists defending minority rights? Or heretics denigrating religious structures and beliefs?
Arix, on your point about the lack of concern shown to parents of LGBT. I agree that it’s an issue.
[I know this is a little out of the point, as this forum is about TLA's appointment at NYU, but I can't help myself]
I came out to my parents a year ago because I couldn’t lie to them any longer. The pretence was getting in the way of what could’ve been an honest relationship with the two people that I love very much. It didn’t feel right to lie to them each time they asked why I didn’t have a girlfriend, why I didn’t want to marry…
I had spent weeks researching on the issue and I had also spoken to some friends for advise before I finally decided to out myself. This was done to prepare myself emotionally for the risks of rejection. I was terrified that by being honest, I might actually end up losing the people that I love.
Anyhow, I was so caught up with preparing for my own big announcement that I had neglected to consider that my parents didn’t have the privilege of preparing themselves for such an announcement.
They grew up at a time where gay people would simply keep their sexuality in the closet, continue to marry, have kids, keep a same-sex partner at the side, etc (see: The Wedding Banquet). Because they’ve never met openly gay people themselves, they believe that gays only exists in show business and as sidekicks in the movies.
As I had expected, they were taken aback and disappointed. Most parents would be. Their reaction — how could their son, a man who doesn’t walk around with a limp wrist, conduct himself femininely, or like women’s clothes, possibly be gay? Since I didn’t possess any of the stereotypes that they were familiar with, they immediately concluded that I was simply confused. To them, I couldn’t be homosexual because I didn’t seem like one, or rather, one that they could relate to.
I’ve opted to share this personal story because I’ve witnessed the pain and confusion that parents go through when they learn that their child is gay. They may hold a religious view on the issue (my parents are conservative Christians)… but things aren’t so straightforward when someone you love comes to you with such news. It demanded that they think deeply and carefully about how they could possibly reconcile the love for their child with their own spiritual beliefs.
I think we can agree that no heterosexual set of parents will wish for their child to turn out gay. (Even homosexual parents in some western countries have indicated that they don’t wish for their children to turn out gay) Yet, this is something that happens for reasons that nobody can explain.
Call it deviance, rebellion against nature, a genetic foul-up, a socially conditioned trait, a result of child abuse, broken families, or whatever you will. The only fact that we can work with is that despite our individual beliefs, homosexuality exists and our society is ill-prepared to discuss this openly and rationally (just look at all the hate speech in this forum!).
But that is precisely what we need – for more people, straight and gay, fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, to talk about the issues rationally, to share their stories openly. (I certainly wish my parents had access to more localised resources) People might think that Singapore’s way too conservative to allow for such stories to be shared. However, I think it would be a pity to let our conservative nature get in the way of learning from one another.
My parents and I are closer than ever today because the pretence is gone and so has the barriers to open, honest communications. They still don’t quite understand why LGBT people are the way they are, but they have learnt to live with some ambiguity. They know that their son loves them, and for them at least, that’s what matters.
Dr Thio is certainly confused between her religious beliefs and academic orientations. Mixing the two without the understanding of the greater society and the democratically institutionalised structure of the Western world is going to be the greatest hurdle she has to overcome. I do believe it is not the right time for her to be offered this opportunity to lecture in NYU.
Singapore PAP is not practising democracy or rather dynastic rule. One person and his institutions with the greater part of the society not fully involved in the governance of the State. Not surprising China is very interested in this deviant model of a so-called democratic system. And PAP is actively acting as consultant to China in the field of governance. Imagine if this model is being championed as the Asian model of democracy for all Asia what kind of world will we be in? The West better wake up to the fact that Lee Kuan Yew is challenging the Western model of democracy without understanding the divine covenant relationship a very dangerous act of all. The West better bring Lee Kuan Yew to task before his influence take hold of greater Asia. That will spell the end of DEMOCRACY!
New York, New York – as an Ah Pek, i still have not made it there.
Congratulations to professor TLA – soon as the song says – you can make it anywhere else! You are really a Singaporean going places and getting top attention. Obama and the Clintons are also reading and knowing about you. Wow, you put many of our cabinet ministers out of the league.
Best wishes from a fellow Singaporean.
Hi Corners #119,
Thank you for sharing your story. I hope Arix now can put down his prejudice and realise that when it comes to parents acknowledging the homosexuality of their son/daughter or society acknowledging homosexual relations, it is a matter of managing sensitivity and not about denying LGBTs’ right to be themselves.
The online citizen is again trying to flame the issue of christianity against homosexuality. When is TOC going to stop? Dr Thio is not courting any controversy rather TOC is. If she can get a job there at NYU, i am happy for her as a singaporean. I think many homos out there are trying to make her lose her job just like the Miss universe who spoke out against homo got the boot with homos planning her downfall. When are the homos going to stop? Didn’t a threesome news recently with one dead and one nearly died as a lesson to for them to learn?
#102 H20;;;;;Hi H20;;;;Everybody have the capability of being hetero or homosexual even if this trait does not present itself in the current circumstances, and Freud said people remain bi-sexual all their life and that everybody’s libido is distributed between objects of both sexes IN A MANIFEST OR A LATENT FORM. So everybody have to accept the fact that we are inherently bi-sexual— you can’t run away from this fact even if you want to. Accepting the fact that we are bi-sexual doesn’t mean that if you are a male you rush off to look for a male partner and if you are female you rush off looking for a female partner. Its simply accepting our ‘fluid’ nature and accepting that our sexual orientation is not fixed and that it hovers in a cintinuum between hetero and homosexuality and that it can manifest when the ‘conditions are right’;;;;Societies are divided; look at one prime example America, 350million people divided along dogmatic ideals; Democrats supporting gay rights, pro- abortion etc etc and Republicans anti gay, anti- abortion etc etc. This is a very abnormal situation and it is filtering down to Singapore also. These are, simply put, extremist positions picked up by the opposing parties. Thus one very good way to resolve these differences is to accept that inherently all of us are bisexuals, which is in manifest or in latent state. This is the ‘middle-way’ of sexuality which i am advocating.
Quote:
“For goodness sake, she is a PhD! (Even Richard Dawkins knows how to appear professional, why not Dr Thio?)”
But this woman comes from a virtual one-party state, how can such a person even talk about human rights? She should be preaching how to preserve single-party rule instead!
120) budamax1952 on July 11th, 2009 9.48 am
Who is Freud? Is he a Freak? or Is he a Fraud? What he spewed was from a deranged mind and you swallow every word , hook line and sinker.Come on, Buda, you got mind of your own, don’t quote from this freak. I am monosexual. I am only attracted to an oopposite and it seems you are not but bisexual and soon you will be multisexual. it is frighetening, isn’t? Imagine the world full of you. it is confusion and confucius will turn in his grave and even Buddha.
The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Weekly Roundup: Week 28
[...] AWARE Aftermath: Thiology Goes to NYU – Inside Higher Ed: Rights for Some People [Thanks Vampyre] – Above the Law: NYU Professor of Human Rights: Not a Fan of Gay Rights? Also: Is anal sex like ’shoving a straw up your nose to drink’? [Thanks Vampyre] – the kent ridge common: Reactions on Professor Thio Li Ann’s appointment as a Visiting Professor at NYU – Random Thoughts Of A Free Thinker: NYU students vs Professor Thio Li-Ann – Sam’s thoughts: McCurley’s open letter to Thio – TOC: Thio Li-Ann at center of controversy in New York University [...]
Isn't it obvious the homos are the real intolerant people and the real bigots.
Isn’t it obvious the homos are the real intolerant people and the real bigots. They cannot tolerate Dr Thio from having differing viewpoints. Just look at that Miss America gay judge who doesn’t seem to be able to tolerate a contestant who has differing views. This raise serious questions on that judge fitness to be a Miss America judge. Very weird to have such an intolerant gay person in America which is so diverse and tolerant of others. We must therefore examine the accusers who accuse others of being bigots for they may be the real bigots.
well actually i dun think comparing a Miss California is not winning i quite in the sam category as denying people the right to live their own lives without branding that as criminal and immoral (according to their own religious viewpoint).
By branding gays as criminal, you are dehumanising them, opening them to imprisonment and making them vulnerable to violence. And you want to compare this to a sniffling girl who did not win the Miss Universe Crown.
And by the way, look up the term bigot in the dictionary. Gays do not discriminate or deny straight people their rights in any way in any society. How could we be bigots?
In fact Dr Thio started the ball rolling when she advocated not only the retention of a law that defines LBGT as criminals (for what they do in the privacy of their rooms) but also to expand that law to include lesbians as well.
Now tell me who is the bigot? Th one denying rights to gays or the one who is fighting for the their rights to live as who the are.
what is OUTlaw and its members afraid off? She is one female among the so many in New York. I thought they want diversity of views over there in America.
Or are they just showing off how tough they are?
125) sloo on July 11th, 2009 1.50 pm
No one is discriminating against you LBGT. You have every right to live like a normal human being . But if you don’t behave like a human being and do what normal human being would not do, openly or otherwise then your behaviour has offended the morality of normal human beings. I use normal but there are humans who are not normal. These humans may accept your behaviour and take up the cudgel for you for they are already showing sign of mutating. They disguise themselves as human rights activists. They are like wolves masquerading as sheep but claiming fighting for sheep’s rights. Beware of these people. Whatever they say or tell you take it with a drum of salt to make yourself numb to their beguiling propaganda .Sloo , don’t get slewed.
haha this is ironically more hilarious than when arafat won the nobel peace prize
#48 H2O
You are evading question by asking another irrelevant question, and you evade , now i am asking you again,
Is God condoning Lot’s incestious sexual act with his TWO daughters ?? (not even a one-off event)
What can christian learn from this passage, ?
129) Kill-netizen?? on July 11th, 2009 7.00 pm
Since you insist , here is my answer to your question. It is obvious that God spared Lot’s daughters even it was against the norm or morality of the time . It was out of mercy. God was and is sovereign . He does whatever he wishes. No one questions him.
What can Christian learn from this passage?
God is Sovereign.
Yes it is crazy times !! we can also have an engineer by training with no financial background who is allowed to manage the country’s billion dollar reserves, and subsequently lost billions of our citizens’ hard earned money !
No wonder they called themselves temaSICK. They are really sick !!
5) Tang Li is so right. On the one hand, I hate to see her making Singapore look foolish overseas (most people are shocked that a supposedly modern country like Singapore still lives in the dark ages and criminalises gays in this day and age), but on the other hand I’m glad that she has to defend her homophobic opinions without all the support she gets in the press here. But one thing’s for sure…she certainly shouldn’t be lecturing the Americans about human rights. But maybe/hopefully she’ll learn a thing or two about humanity (although I doubt it).
#131 H2O
If god can be merciful, cant you learn from that lesson?
#131H2O
God was and is sovereign . He does whatever he wishes to the GLBT, it is none of your business.
132) starch on July 11th, 2009 8.51 pm
Sodom and Gomorrah were modern cosmopolitan cities of that time. Gay and homosexuality were daily staples. It was the in thing, chic, stylo. Straights were abnormal, old fashion and of the ‘dark ages’.The cities were starchy.
Even God was shocked at the sight. Lot was asked to evaucuate pending a a colossal disaster.
The rest is history.
#131 H2O
God is omnipotent too, and he has his own timing and mind. So dont think you are God’s equal that you can help god to decide what is best.
#136 H2O
God’s idea of a holy person (like Lot) is one who commit incest with TWO daughters??? Can you explain the morality behind the decision.
136) Kill-netizen?? on July 11th, 2009 9.09 pm
#131H2O
God was and is sovereign . He does whatever he wishes to the GLBT, it is none of your business.
Absolutely!!!! it is none of our business. We didn’t stop the IRs from being built, did we? We voiced our concern. Likewise, we cannot do anything if homosexaulity is to be legalised. We won’t go out there to loot, burn and destroy and beat up LGBTs.
This is discriminatory .
139) Kill-netizen?? on July 11th, 2009 9.15 pm
That is the most wonderful thing about the Bible, nothing but the truth, no censor.No so called scripture comes near it. I can write a scripture , do you beleive it. Not diffiecult, right? You can too.Everybody can and make claim that is of divine revelations.
In the Bible you get anything, the good and bad and the ugly ,and so much so that people use them to question GOd. How ccould this and that happen. What if the bible is removed of those bad things and only gives what you guys like to read? Is it possible? Sure. God isn’t afraid what you think of him. He is transparent, full disclosure, caveat emptor.!! Without you He is still GOd. Why God allows LBGTs there is no answer.It is like asking why God allows sins, wars and FIs and RMs to rob the poor investors of their life saving. God could have stopped and cleansed the whole earth of pestilence and H1N1.
#140 H2O
For a start, can the author of the Bible make up their mind (4 sources of J E P D) that, the genesis flood, how many of each species of animal are brought into the Noah’s ark, two or seven?
#131 H2O
You dont question God, but care to explain, in what way is Lot consider as holy by having incestious sex with his 2 daughters??
smallvice (#112),
1) I seriously advise you to open a bible and read it from cover to cover. If you still cannot get the Bible’s central message that GOD IS LOVE then there is only one appropriate response to you, and it is found here:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/facepalm.jpg
2) I agree with la nausee on that. That is why one of my reasons for abolishing Section 377A (which I am certain you just happened to miss out) is:
I believe that the State should respect free choice of its citizens. So if people choose to be homosexual – consciously or subconsciously – the State should respect this choice.
(India thread, #244)
I agree, Ethics should not be defined by the State. The Officials of the State have no right to impose their view of morality on others. The only “fairness and justice” they should be entitled to is over property rights and human injury.
But the fact that you are still harping on this shows that you have been ignoring the development in this thread. I am no longer talking about criminalizing homosexuality, but why people should not be homosexuals.
So as usual, you misrepresent me. *Sigh* what is new?
3) I said “offer”, and you re-quoted it as “setting”. Totally off, but what more could I expect of you? Yes, they see God in all aspects of life, as you “allege”, but the moderates acknowledge that God gave man free choice. So, they give people advice and let people decide for themselves. I accept though, that the Fundamentalists do not understand the concept of free choice.
4) Do you realize what a hypocrite you are?
Freedom of conscience, my foot. You refuse to permit believers to act out their conscience, and then claim you are defending the freedom of conscience. I’ll tell you straight in your face exactly what you are defending: the freedom of no conscience.
Paraphrasing from the Bible: Take out the Tyranny in Atheism before removing the Oppression in Religion.
5) Your logic is best expressed here:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/facepalm.jpg
Moral Authority is what gives governments legitimacy to rule, and laws to function, whether these governments are theocratic or secular. Moral authority is the integrity of the government and the trust of the people that the government of the day is right in its decisions.
Moral Leadership is the leadership that the government has in shaping the ethos of the country. The reality is that people expect government officials to set moral example and the moral tone for the country. The effective government is supposed to intervene decisively in a social conflict.
Whether you like our government’s decision on S377A or not, you cannot argue that it is not decisive. It has made the clear stand of retaining S377A.
[Aside - This makes me remember an earlier statement by you that I shouldn't be talking about what NYU's policy toward TLA should be, because it has already been decided by NYU. So then, why are you still talking about S377A since that has already been decided by PAP?]
Likewise, the countries around the world that have legalised same-sex marriage as same-sex marriage have made an equally-clear stand, and are decisive too. I do not approve of their stand, but I respect them for the strength which they put into it.
States that legalised Civil Unions on the other hand, are trying to be politically-correct by not intruding on the religions’ traditional role in holding weddings and dedication ceremonies, and at the same time not looking oppressive to the Pink Lobby. They are artificially trying to segregate two familial forms from each other.
That obviously cannot be done, because homosexual families still have to interact with heterosexual families. It is a solution that doesn’t solve the problem; it is a solution that seeks to avoid having to deal with the problem directly. That is why I say that they are burying their heads in the sand.
If removing social stigma is the aim, Civil Unions will not do the job. The Religious Moderates will simply treat them as an inferior variant to marriage, and the Fundamentalists will treat these as the “work of false prophets and idolaters”.
And if as la nausee mentioned previously, the State believes it more pragmatic to support heterosexual couples (in order for eg to boost the birth-rate), then the Same-Sex couples will be back on the streets agitating against discrimination.
At the end of the day, Same-Sex Civil Unions do not really benefit anybody.
Or rather, they do not benefit anybody except Militant Atheists who are manipulating the grievances of the Pink Lobby as a Red Herring to distract people from their ploy to destroy all the world’s religious institutions.
6) It is not solely about approval. It is about the actual effects that will come to pass in the society, and on everyone in the society. I am sorry, you really cannot worm your way out of the reality that same-sex union is a genuine new social structure, and its impact on society has yet to be assessed. The reason why such assessment is not occurring is because the Pink Lobby has put up pickets against it.
There is nothing discriminatory about researching the sociological effects of homosexual families on society; it is just that such research might show up defects in the arguments forwarded by the Pink Lobby.
Plus, the term “Religious Groups” is misleading because most people profess a religion. “Religious Divisions” might be more accurate, to indicate that we are talking about population segments, not isolated clusters.
You can throw away that errant piece of pineapple on top of your pizza, but you would be wasting your money severely if you threw away an entire slice of pizza, on the basis that it was “intolerant” to your taste.
Hope that I have finally got through to your thick head.
Will you finally cede to admit that your agenda is not homosexual equality, but the destruction of religious institutions in Singapore so that you can promote your materialist, self-centred atheism?
smallvice (#113),
Are you to embarrassed to concede that I am a Religious Progressive? After all, only a Progressive could be logically construed as a threat to the faith, because only a Progressive is “heretical” at all.
Anyway, you picked the wrong 4 points. Only point (1) can be rightfully considered to be possibly heretical in any sense. And whether it is a heresy can only be confirmed by the details of my explanation, which I did not provide on that post.
Point (2) is not heresy; it is schism. And even so, only a mild one.
Point (3) is contentious, until Christians have come to a full understanding of what the Koran actually says.
Point (4) is already occurring in almost every denomination. So it is not heresy per se.
Anyway, you as a Atheist are not qualified to judge on what constitutes heresy, and any right-minded believer, Christian or Muslim, would immediately reject your claims outright.
My piece of advice to Dr.Thio is,don’t go to NYU.If you insisted,here are some of the
things you would be confronted with:As you have know better,NYU is a very liberal
university and occupied by very radical staffs and students.They may claimed that
its has academic freedom in the campus.In reality,free speeches or actions are
allowed,only if they agree with you.Conservative thinkers and fair minded people
like Dr.Thio will be targeted because you are opposed to their far left agendas,like
promoting world liberation of homosexuals,bisexuals,trans-sexuals or liberalization
of the Palestinians from the “oppressive Israel state”,or women issues like abortions and women freedom to choose.Be prepared for the disruptions of your class
lectures,name callings like Christian bigot or homophobic,vandalisms to your
personal property and they may even spatter your office with human excrement.All
these fascists and femin-nazis are a world unto themselves.If you think that I am
a little too far fetched,please consult USA Fox news on what I have written.In closing
I sincerely like you to fight your social causes for us in Singapore rather than in a
declining society like America which I believe it is beyond redemption.
corners (#114),
Ignore whatever smallvice says about me. He is saying this out of prejudice against religions which he doesn’t even understand. And he is more interested in finding ammo to silence religious institutions than in defending the right of LGBTs to be themselves, although he has tried to persuade everyone here otherwise.
Firstly, I would like to thank you for sharing your personal story with us. Perhaps it would be nice if you could write it up for TOC. It is a very refreshing personal take to be given in a thread that is mostly made up of armchair critics typing away at keyboards. (I would admit that I myself am mostly an armchair critic too, but not quite. I bother to read up on stuff.)
1-2) What you did was wise and the correct thing. It is not correct to lie, or to persuade somebody to lie, even about feelings. I do not like MOE’s policy that bars homosexuals whole-sale from coming out.
Incidentally, I know Otto Fong personally; he was my teacher once. I was slightly stunned to learn that he was a gay, but that didn’t affect my views with regard to the quality of his lessons or anything else. (He was teaching maths. He was also holding a workshop on drawing comics.)
I wish to clarify: I am not against homosexuals. The real difference between me (and the Moderates) and the Pink Lobby is that I believe that homosexuals would be able to lead a more fulfilling life if they could somehow be rid of their homosexuality. However, I would not force homosexuals to do anything they didn’t want to do.
3-4) Indeed. Your story mirrors those that I watched on Ophrah. Some of course were more dramatic – such as that of the mother who discovered her daughter sleeping with her girlfriend; that mother was not sure whether to be more horrified over teen sex or lesbianism.
5-6) Indeed. There are some extremist parents certainly who would throw their children out of the house – just as there are some muslim parents who would disown their children for converting to christians (although christians are People of the Book too) – but most would love their children too much to simply chuck them out of the house.
However, it is good that you are sensitive towards the feelings of your parents, unlike some nuts here who would be firing salvos at your parents for being prejudiced. I hope that they have managed to come to terms with you and are not blaming themselves for how you turned out.
I also praise you for your ability to see where your parents are coming from. I am sure that your parents are proud to have a son like you, even if they still have some qualms over your homosexuality.
7) Indeed.
8) *Sigh* If people like you were leading the discussions, I believe that there would be far less hate speech.
There would be far less hate speech from the Pink Lobby and the Militant Atheists because the power of your personal testimony triumphs over any of their telescopic political ideologies.
There would also be less hate speech from the Religious Right because the moderates would be given the opportunity to show their compassion and concern for homosexuals by responding directly and personally to your testimony. In the course of doing this, they would be able to issue a condemnation against the True Right for distorting religion and religious principles for the self-righteous purpose of bigotry.
I propose that we need more dialogues based on personal testimony, and less on political posturing. I will admit, religious authorities are more equipped at this point of time to deal with people on a one-by-one basis, as opposed to as a collective.
9) Indeed, we need that. But it takes two hands to clap. You need two parties for a dialogue. And we need to cut out the extranaeous third party from the discussions.
The Singapore Government needs to be more bold in approaching the issue. Although it has taken a decisive stand, its decisive stand is a passive one. Basically, the “Conservative” rhetoric espoused by the Government derives from its obsession with stability (and FDI). It is trapped in the slippery-slope argument of FDI gushing out of Singapore each time a conflict occurs.
The Government’s Social Contract with the citizens in the 1960s to now was Social Conservatism (ala Asian Identity) in exchange for Economic Development (ala Capitalist Lifestyle). You don’t need to be a genius to see how unstable this configuration is, that one part will necessarily “leak” into the other.
As for the cause of homosexuality, I have my own theory. And I find that my theory – which I haven’t expressed yet – manages to cover the maximum number of dimensions in this debate.
Would you like to hear (read) it?
10) I am glad that you and your parents are able to live harmoniously with each other. Keep up the good work!
Once again, it has been a great pleasure and a great opportunity to read your sharing. Keep well and God Bless (I hope you are not against that)!
Aside – Are you still a Christian, incidentally? (meaning, do you still believe in Christ and the Bible, not do you still go to Church?)
I think if she has the guts, she should repeat what she said about the disgusting straw down her throat at New York University.
See whether they will shuff it in her throat to silenced her !
Arix,
Out of curiousity, what do you think of H20 as a Christian?
sliim (#147),
I think that H20 is a Fundamentalist even worse than the 2 Dr Thios.
He is not demonstrating the Gospel of Love at all. Sodom and Gomorrah were punished, it is true, but they were punished for far more than just homosexuality. Plus, their homosexuality is of the orgies kind. (yes, I know that there are some Pink Lobbyists who would defend orgies in the name of “freedom of choice”.)
The passage on Lot’s daughters referenced to “men” which included women too. Basically, I think that there would be moral justification in punishing the kind of moral licentiousness in Sodom and Gomorrrah.
But making false associations of Sodom and Gomorrah with today’s homosexuals is anachronism, and H20 should keep away from that, if he wants to keep on the straight path.
The second problem with Sodom and Gomorrah is that the sexual environment in both cities is so complex; it is not only those who would be considered today’s “homosexuals” who would be engaged in homosexual behaviour, but also heterosexuals having homosexual sex just to assauge lust, which is wrong in any case. (I disagree with any proposition that says that Sexual Pleasure should be made the primary goal of sex.)
In short, H20 is merely being a pharisee.
So many comments condemning Thio’s appointment as visiting professor. Has anyone here read all or most of Thio’s published works, so that he / she can objectively conclude the Thio is totally unqualified to teach about human rights in Asia ? I note (but have not read) that Thio has written (at least) the following articles / books :
“Pragmatism and Realism do not mean abdication” : A critical and empirical enquiry into Singapore’s engagement with International Human Rights Law (2004)
The Right to Political Participation in Singapore : Tailor-Making a Westminster-modelled Constitution to Fit the Imperatives of ‘Asian’ Democracy (2002)
The Constitution as ‘Comforter’ : As assessment of safeguards in Singapore’s Constitutional System (1995)
The Impact of Internationalisation on Domestic Governance : Gender Egalitarianism and the Transformative Potential of CEDAW (1997)
Principles and Practices of Voting : The Singapore Electoral System (1997)
The Virtual and the Real: Article 14, Political Speech and the Calibrated Management of Deliberative Democracy in Singapore (2008)
Trends in Constitutional Interpretation: Oppugning Ong, Awakening Arumugam? (1997)
Recent Constitutional Developments : Of Shadows and Whips, Race, Rifts and Rights, Terror and Tudungs, Women and Wrongs (2002)
Reading Rights Rightly: The UDHR and its Creeping Influence on the Development of Singapore Public Law (2008)
The Secular Trumps the Sacred: Constitutional Issues Arising From Colin Chan v Public Prosecutor (1995)
Constitutional ‘Soft’ Law and the Management of Religious Liberty and Order: The 2003 Declaration on Religious Harmony (2004)
Constitutional Law in Singapore and Malaysia
Hiho. Here’s my collage of gay american perspective about TLA venture into an american on God, gays and an incovenient thing called rights. Enjoy.
Before you get to NYC you might want to try coming up with newer, more exciting reasons to be revolted by gay people. From what’s available online, it looks like your arguments against homosexuality are pretty much the standard general, vague, negative, hate-blinded conservative straight person garbage we have been dealing with in the USA for years. You carry on about how gays are trying to oppress you by taking away your God-given right to vilify and oppress them. You dehumanize, degrade and insult gay people and then cry that you’re being persecuted when they protest. The fury evident in your online diatribes is very telling. What happened that makes you so extravagantly disgusted by gay men? Perhaps you will get what you deserve and marry a closet case.
It is beyond my comprehension why NYU has chosen to invite Ms. Thio as a guest professor to teach a course on a topic for which she has a bias and political agenda. It is not a question of silencing her, by all means her opinions fall well within the range of consideration under the syllabus for such a course. It might be a stretch, but perhaps understandable to invite her as a guest lecturer, but to invite her to be the instructor flies in the face of common sense. I suggest it would be equivalent to inviting a Taliban cleric to teach a course in Women’s Studies or a Ku Klux Klan leader with a history of political activism in the cause of the Klan to teach a course in African-American Studies. Or how about an official from Mauritania who lobbied its government not to abolish slavery (which it only did in August 2007) to teach a course in the history of law and slavery or let’s have a political activist creationist teach courses in evolution.
If she’s too stupid to separate the act of anal sex from the concept of a homosexual orientation, she doesn’t deserve to be a professor _anywhere_.
I agree with the NYU lesbian and gay law students. They must engage this academician and not let her hide behind accumulated credentials. Bigotry exists in every stratum of society. She is not the only highly educated person with bigoted views. The fact that her area of expertise is human rights is disturbing and even hypocritical. Is she suggesting that heterosexuals are not engaging in anal sex? Does she believe in the right to privacy?
Human Rights in Singapore is an oxymoron. Who selected this homophobe from a police state to teach the subject?
Love how she uses the exact same “it’s not a settled matter” lingo the flat-earthers use to deny science. Because um yeah, no heterosexual people have ever had sex any way other than missionary style :) Bet that “respectful dialogue” will be a short conversation. Then can we send her packing?
She’s a visiting professor, and a former government official from a Police State. Of course she has a warped view of human rights. Perhaps sticking a straw up someone’s nose and forcing them to drink from it is another form of corporal punishment over there…
I don’t think that drinking through a straw in your nose should be against the law either,Or that people who do so should not have equal protections, is that her point?
If anal sex isn’t your preference, professor, perhaps it is not what you should be doing. Why are you concerned with my preference?
@Mel (#149), Thio is probably one of the most prolific Singapore legal academics (if the most prolific) of the present generation in any sub-field of law, having in the span of a little under 2 decades published dozens of journal articles and book chapters, and written/edited about a half dozen books. I’ve read maybe 20-30 of those (although more on constitutional law rather than international human rights law). But it’s safe to conclude that she’s no academic/intellectual lightweight.
P.S. “Constitution as ‘Comforter’” was not written by Thio, but one of her students at the time.
la nausee (#151),
Do you realize that you, me and mel are about the only people who think of her in this way on this thread? Even her ’supporters’ don’t think of her in this way.
I have been contemplating on and off if I should sign up for a JD with NYU – with the recent appointment of Dr Thio – has help me in making my decision. The answer is No I do not think I want to be associated with NYU at this stage.
I am not confident law faculty is able to use the best judgment as this appointment of having someone who is supposedly teaching human rights law, regardless of the location, be clouded by her religious belief.
At the end of the day students of NYU has a choice – vote with the classes you are signing up for since you are going to have to pay the tuition fees / loan.
While I understand that homosexuality may be a small part of human rights as there are bigger topics but when does one get to choose which part of your body / organ is more important?
They and I, them gay haters will kill my soul
Edging me out into oblivion while we are on the same spot, on the same street, trying to live
And living means so much than just to exist
I cannot live without showing the fact that I am different, and that I need to live that difference
And living means having a presence, so much more than just to exist
They shut us out when we protest, “too much, intolerable…” they say, when we are screaming that it is they that are too much. We can’t live like criminals, we don’t have a right to love, to express love, we can’t live like this. We scream, against the things they dismiss us, lie about us, into. Take your pick: recession, moral decline, sodomy, sodom and Gormorrah, perversion, hell, sin, etc…
Age is ticking away, I accept that I am different from them. While they can/ may/ will hurt me when I step out into the world being true to myself, this is it, this is what different means. The BIG boulder crushing little stones, grinding, pulverising.
But then there is the TRUTH – the story of our plight. Who can we tell our story to? Perhaps God is watching. I believe a Higher Power is watching, and give thanks that life is indeed short and death is only the beginning. NOW who has the last laugh?
I am ready for my place in that Story.
Tim (#153),
Why don’t you browse through some of the books listed by Mel in #150 before coming to a conclusion?
I posted this on one website below when TLA made her speech on S377A in 2007…take a look at it.
Thio-Li Ann’s speech, I presume arises from her deeply held convictions about christianity.
It would thus be prudent to establish morality based on the bible itself. The bible to me, is the word of God but human interpretation can be fallible. The basis of the anti-repeal camp’s belief is that homosexuality is categorically a sin, perverse, deviant etc.
However, after a thorough examination of the bible, I’m not too sure if it is really sin and we need to re-examine our interpretation.
We can see how morality has evolved within the bible itself.
1) After the fall of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen19), Lot and his daughters commit incest to perpetuate reproduction when Lev 18 and 20 clearly prohibit it. (Gen 19:31). Eventually, this incestuous relation spawned a tribe of Moabites (Ruth). From Ruth’s union together with Boaz (son of the prostitute Rahab) came David and later Jesus.
2) Women were regarded as chattels/property as evidenced in several of God’s laws in the Old testament. Eg when a woman was raped, the rapist had to marry her after paying a sum of money to her father. Women were also regarded as vessels of reproduction. (There was a law in which a widow who had no son had to marry the second son in line to sire a male.) Many of the men in the Old Testament had several wives, Abraham, Issac etc again for the purposes of reproduction. It was only when Jesus came that adultery was sanctioned and the status of women was elevated.
3) Slavery was allowed in the olden times but it is now clearly “abominable” and “criminal” as is incest and rape.
When the bible is read, it has to be interpreted within its proper context which includes the following:-
a) the point in time in which the book is written;
b) the history, literature and philosophy employed by the writer;
c) the audience that the writer is addressing etc.
In my view, there is a distinction between absolute morality and contextual morality ie you cannot simply superimpose what is infinite onto what is finite.
Most Christians assume that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah represents God’s wrath against homosexuality. Unfortunately it is not so.
Ezekial 16: 49 reads: Look this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom. She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy, and they were haughty and committed abominations..and so I took them away as I saw fit.
Zephaniah 2:8-11: I’ve hear the reproach of Moab…. With which they have reproached my pple, & made arrogant threats against their borders. …..Surely Moah shall be like Sodom, & the people of Ammon like Gomorrah…..because they have reproached & made arrogant threats against the people of the Lord of Hosts” (pride, arrogance and inhospitality but not homosexuality)
Matt 10:11-15: “Now whatever city/town you enter, inquire who is in it is worthy & stay there till you go out & whoever will not receive your words, when you depart that house/city shake off the dust from your feet….Assuredly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the Land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!” (Jesus’ words of inhospitality but not homosexuality, see also Mark:6-11, Luke 10:10-12, Luke 17: 26-29, Lamentations 4:3-6,Isiah 13: 11-19 etc)
There are a total of 29 verses pertaining to Sodom and Gomorrah and nowhere is homosexuality mentioned. Hence, christians who maintained that it does have according to the bible, gotten the Gospel wrong.
Interestingly is the parallel story in Judges.(Read Judges: 19:11-30)(Gen 19:29). There, the men in Gibeah similarly demanded sex from a travelling Levite who took refuge in an old man’s house. In Gibeah, the men too were offered women which they first spurned but later raped & killed . The offering of women by Lot and the old man was obviously a diversionary tactic and if the men were really gay, then it makes no sense to offer women to them just for them to spurn it. The difference between the two stories is that the travellers in Sodom were angels who blinded them while the Levite in Gibeah was only an ordinary man. Otherwise the men in Sodom would have raped Lot’s daughters. The Levite in Gibeah subsequently chopped up his raped and dead concubine into pieces and distributed them to other people. (This again emphasizes how low the status of women was in that society). Later, the Levite, with the help of the Israelites and God, too destroy the city.
The sin in Sodom was inhospitality, not homosexuality. In the olden times, the ancient code of hospitality was sancrosant ie, when a foreigner seeks refuge in your home, you cannot let anything happen to him and this stems from Jesus’ second commandment of loving thy neighbour as thyself. It is repeated several times in the Old Testament:
And, if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. The stranger who dwells among you……you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God” (Lev 19: 33-34, See also Ex 22:21, Deut 14:29, 24:14-22, Rom 12:6-15 etc)
In the olden times, there were dangerous places in various lands & wars and the winner often raped the defeated male enemy for to treat them as women would make them feel inferior. Lot & the old man in Gibeah were merely abiding by the ancient code of hospitality by extending a roof over the angels and Levite (travellers seeking refuge in a foreign land)
Christians who assume that the sin in Sodom was homosexuality have equated the homosexual act/ rape with homosexuality. However, there is a fundamental difference between the two; one is merely an act while the other is a sexual orientation/preference/inclination (whether biological/psychological). As in heterosexual unions, it is not the sex that governs the relationship but the mind and emotions of gay people that governs it. The question is whether the writers at that time had a concept of sexual preference when they penned down God’s word.
Another salient point is that Jesus said nothing on homosexuality. Jesus had plenty to say about adultery but mentioned nothing on homosexuality. If it is really that evil, perverse or dangerous, then it is odd that he said nothing about it. Christians who take that stand have to address this point.
In Matt 19:11-12 Jesus makes the following remark:
All cannot accept this saying but only those to whom it has been given..For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, & there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men……He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.
In the old testament, eunuchs were mentioned several times in Esther & Isaiah. (The prophet Daniel too was a eunuch). The king in olden times used to get eunuchs to look after his concubines. These men were either castrated ones or born eunuchs who were the homosexuals….(Others though, take the view that born eunuchs are men without testicles). Whatever Jesus meant, it is unclear. However in Isaiah 56:4-8, it is prophecized
To the eunuchs who keep my covenants…I will give in my house…a name, better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be taken away.
There were apparently also intimations of homosexual relationships in the bible.
See 1 Sam Chap 18-20, 2 Sam I:26 for the relationship between Jonathan and David:
“…the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, & Jonathan loved him as his own soul…” (1 Sam 18:1)
” Now Jonathan again caused David to vow, because he loved him; for he loved him as he loved his own soul” (1 Sam 19:17)
“I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me; Your love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women” (2 Sam:1:26).
Depending on the version used (the one I quoted above is NKJV), the depth of the relationship differs– the NIV version claims that it was a relationship between best friends. Whichever it is, it begs the question of what exactly about homosexual relationship is prohibited.
I have heard different interpretations of Lev and Romans but will not propose to address them here. Contrary to what anti-christians may think, the bible is actually a moving account of love, compassion, inclusiveness and humanity. The underlying theme from the Old Testament to the New Testament is encapsulated in Jesus’ words:
Matt 22:36-40: Teacher what is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul & with all your mind This is the first & great commandment. And the second is like ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these 2 commandments hang all the law & the Prophets. (Both christians, non-christians, aethists or agnostics may refer to the bible and see if all that I’ve said is true).
I think that before we stand up what what is right and just, in particularly for christians, we have to establish that what we stand up for is indeed the truth. I am not saying that the above is the truth but in the light of so many questionable points, it is really impossible to make a clear stand on this matter.
Finally in Rom 12:9-21 of the behaviour of a christian is stated thus:
“…Be kindly and affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honour giving preference to one another…Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion…If it is possible, live peaceably with all men…Do not be overcome with evil but overcome evil with good.”
To :
#156) Christianity Revisted on July 12th, 2009 9.40 am
Can anyone even prove that a person known as “Jesus The Christ” ever existed?
Learn more about the truth of Christianity, amongst other religions.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/
Interesting quotes on religion:
“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 major religions on the Earth contradict each other left and rightYou can’t all be correct. And what if all of you are wrong? It’s a possibility, you know. You must care about the truth, right? Well, the way to winnow through all the differing contentions is to be skeptical. I’m not any more skeptical about your religious beliefs than I am about every new scientific idea I hear about. But in my line of work, they’re called hypotheses, not inspiration and not revelation. [Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985), p. 162. ] “
Hi Outrage #150 and Tim #153,
I apologise for my fellow Singaporeans for the anti-gay hate speech found here. However, I assure you that Dr Thio Li-Ann is well-qualified for her teaching stint at New York University. She will be teaching “Human Rights in Asia”.
A brief review of Dr Thio’s publication reveals that she is well-informed of how Asian countries uphold and interpret human rights. This is where her expertise lies. I believe this is what her class “Human Rights in Asia” will cover.
There is no universal interpretation of human rights. I admit that the current Asian states’ interpretation of human rights contradicts Western states’ interpretation. However, the interpretation of human rights evolves with time in every country in the world.
NYU Law School is an excellent institution of higher learning in its own right. Its reputation and brilliance is built on the liberal tradition of its students and faculty. One bigoted female Christian Conservative is insufficient to convince NYU Law School to abandon its tradition.
Nevertheless, I urge you guys to be wary in engaging her. Dr Thio’s mom was involved in orchestrating the steeple-jacking of a feminist organisation in Singapore. The apple doesn’t fall too far from the tree. I sincerely hope that her stint at NYU will enlighten her world view on the LGBT Civil Rights Movement.
I do not believe that the homophobic trolling of various posters on this discussion board deserves to be dignified with any response. Clearly the next step forward is to persuade as many of our friends and family as we can that such people are merely bigoted and hateful. The ludicrousness of homophobia can be illustrated to many people by pointing out various other bigoted arguments which have been made in the past to discriminate against people on the basis of gender, race, religion or disability. This is helpful, since many homophobes would otherwise be disadvantaged if not for protection under the law. Ask them how they would feel if people still took seriously arguments such as “a woman’s testimony in court is worth only half a man’s, since women are irrational” or “certain races are inferior, and cannot therefore have voting rights as citizens” etc AND applied them in law. Point out that gay sex is different from bestiality or pedophilia, since the latter two involve acts with people or animals who cannot consent.
Hi Outrage #150 and Tim #153,
If you guys are curious about the failed steeple-jacking by Dr Thio Li-Ann’s mom, please refer to http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/05/all-about-aware/
#157)
#157 To borderless,
To me Christianity is my belief. Just as we can’t prove that Christianity is the one true religion, we can’t prove the same for other religions. I believe that there are many ways of worshiping one God-) religious pluralism. Faith is something that is intangible and experiential.
What I am trying to point out is the fundies who claim that homosexuality is wrong have not gotten the bible right. They simply cherry pick some parts of the bible to justify their stance against homosexuality, while ignoring the rest. The reading of the bible has to be accompanied by sound historical , cultural and theological knowledge to arrive at logical, objective interpretation which is severely wanting in the fundies, It is not meant not to cater to man’s prejudices and what they want to believe in.
I have highlighted some of the above points to my christian friends and they were unable to provide an answer at all and were quite defensive in fact. Since they are using their religion to justify the continued marginalization of GLBT, then the onus is on them to give a proper explanation of the above.
Christianity is above love=) loving thy neighbour as thyself which is the bedrock of our christian faith
To #156 Christianity Revisted,
Ditto.
Thank you for taking the time to collate this. A very good read!
To #156 Christianity Revisted
Ditto too!
#151 Outrage;;; Your excellent perspective is spot-on;;This surely will provide some soul-searching in those who base their assumptions on ancient religious texts and those with fixed views derived from these texts, and who are so illogically attached to their views originating from these texts that they will cling-on to their views like suffering from some paranoia of the mind.
Hi Christianity Revisited #156,
You wrote: Christians who assume that the sin in Sodom was homosexuality have equated the homosexual act/ rape with homosexuality. However, there is a fundamental difference between the two; one is merely an act while the other is a sexual orientation/preference/inclination (whether biological/psychological).
As in heterosexual unions, it is not the sex that governs the relationship but the mind and emotions of gay people that governs it. The question is whether the writers at that time had a concept of sexual preference when they penned down God’s word.
I am curious whether you view the homosexual act in Sodom as sin because it was rape (ie. no consent) and it was done to deny hospitality to the travellers. If that is the case, why the does Bible describe marriage as a union between a man and a woman? This description effectively denies the possibly of same-sex marriage and creation of kinship between practising homosexuals.
Anybody can see that the behaviours of that Miss America gay judge was not very tolerant
Anybody can see that the behaviours of that Miss America gay judge was not very tolerant towards that contestant which describe a normal human being answer of what constitutes a family in her opinion. Isn’t bigotry defined as intolerant towards others? From this, we can see that gay people like her are the true bigots. Ordinary people are sick and tired of gay activists tactics of accusing others of being bigots and bigotry when they are the ones who are truly bigots. TOC have removed a few times such honest opinions of people who are sick and tired of being accused of bigotry by gay activists. Be impartial, TOC.
Dear moderator / theonlinecitizen,
Arix exceeded the 500 word limit in #145. The total number of words in that post is 900. Please remove that comment.
#166
Hi Small Vice
From the research on sexual ethics in the bible, the sin in S & G was inhospitality. Homosexual rape was just one of the ways they did it during the culture of their time.
If you think in terms of our modern day context, the inhospitality would be slavery, apartheid etc. The behaviour of TSM and the “new” exco during the Aware saga was the personification of S & G
True the bible states that marriage is a union btw men and women but it has never stated homosexual unions are prohibited. You cannot read into something when the bible has never specifically said it
For eg, there are people who are hermaphradites (born with two organs), genetic anomaly (when the doc tests the sex of the person, it is a male but the person has no male organ at all, only female organs and vice versa) For people like that since we cannot even determine their gender, do we then deny them the right no marry? In such cases, the parents decide the gender of the poor person. Most of them depend on hormone pills for the rest of their lives to suppress the development of the other organ, FYI there is also homosexual activity among animals
I think there are many things in life that we cannot explain. God is so so big while each of us are one tiny part of him and we can never fully understand why he allows such things to happen. If we have an answer to everything in life, then there would be no need for God at all since we would be God ourselves
God bless=)
135) H20 on July 11th, 2009 9.11 pm
Where you there? Is that what God told you? Whatever it is, Thio is a particularly inappropriate choice to teach the Americans about human rights in Asia because her views on the subject, and the laws of Singapore, are completely out of sync with almost all other Asia countries, which don’t criminalise gays. On the other hand, she’d be ideal to lecture teach the Americans about human rights in Victorian England — that’s where she wants to take us back to and where beloved 377A came from.
150) Outrage on July 12th, 2009 1.12 am ,
If you cannot agree with her appointment, you can fxxx out of this lecture and all lectures instead of ranting on your idea of what credentials a visiting prof. should have. Bigots like you who purportedly support freedom of expression are denying freedom to people just because you are intolerant of alternative views.
Just stay at home and do what ever with your LBGT partners in privacy and don’t contaminate others. They stink.
172) starch on July 12th, 2009 3.12 pm
Americans should be taught animal rights. What humans? Are there humans?
Soon they will romping the streets like dogs doing on the street dividers.Modern? Progressive? Decadent more like it.
imo, TLA is a most worthless of all NMPs for her batch.
From their actions, it is hard to deny that the gay people are not bigots
Yes, totally agree, the real bigots are the gay people who are intolerant towards the views of Dr Thio. They even gather suppport to question her fitness as ……
If the gay people are really tolerant and not bigots then why did they bother to gather support to question her fitness to lecture just because of her views and opinions on homosexuality.
From their actions, it is hard to deny that the gay people are not bigots when it is pretty clear that they are very intolerant towards ordinary people who don’t subscribe to their homosexuality viewpoints.
From their actions, it is hard to deny that the gay people are not bigots
ha ha, mightmouse, you miss out Siew Kum Hong, majority of normal people will say Siew Kum Hong is the NMP they won’t miss having around, in fact, his name seems to have disappear from TOC, wonder how come his name is missing from TOC after appearing so often earlier??
172) H20 on July 12th, 2009 5.52 pm
If you don’t even know if gays are human or not, then there’s nothing to discuss. Your comments say it all…and what they say about you is rather frightening.
Dear H2O,
Please, for the sake of all of us here, refrain from the vulgarities and vitriol that is so prevalent in your posts. Please present your views in a more civilized manner. Arix, at the very least, takes care to be respectful, and Christianity Revisited chooses to support his points. In the absence of either, your points are pointless.
Just one thing at Arix: please don’t generalize atheists either. I am one, and whether I fit your conception of what an atheist is like is up to you.
Peace on earth and goodwill to Man.
observed (#177),
Are you an atheist, really? Or are you rather a mild agnostic who thinks that he/she is an atheist?
Anyhow, I was deliberately referring to a group of Militant Atheists, who even other fellow atheists have criticized.
Christianity Revisited (#162),
1) The sin in S & G was far more than just inhospitability. There was sexual activity involved. Although, what kind is very vague. Most likely, it was orgiastic.
2) The Bible does not talk about homosexuality, but it does speak out on homosexual behaviour. Saint Paul mentions as much in Romans:-
“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them” (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).
3) Hmm, “marginalization” can sometimes be taken in an overly-wide manner
The banana is the atheist’s worst nightmare!
It is:
1. Is shaped for the human hand
2. Has a non-slip surface
3. Has outward indicators of inward content:
Green — not ripe enough
Yellow — just right for eating
Black — too ripe
4. Has a tab for easy removal of its wrapper
5. Is perforated on the wrapper for easy peeling
6. Has a biodegradable wrapper
7. Is shaped for the human mouth
8. Is pleasing to the taste buds
9. Is curved towards the face to make the eating process easy
The conclusion: obviously the banana was designed by “Almighty God” for the benefit of human beings.
Video PROOF of God’s existence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4
Just to wrap up the whole religion/atheism debate on this thread,
Arix: yes. I would be Dawkins’s bulldog if given the chance. But I sincerely respect your cool-headedness.
sllim (#180): I have no idea if you meant it that way, but that makes for brilliant tongue-in-cheek. hohoho.
To Arix (#145),
I have read some of your entries, and I must say that I do enjoy reading them. (I’m not being sarcastic) It is very refreshing to read well-thought responses in this forum, and God knows (pun unintended) It’s beginning to look like a playground brawl between primary school children.
On that note, could you help me clarify what you meant when you mentioned “I believe that homosexuals would be able to lead a more fulfilling life if they could somehow be rid of their homosexuality.” in post #145? Are you refering to the LGBT culture per se, or to specific fulfilment of certain nationalistic agendas (e.g Bringing the population to 6.2 million by 2012)
Arix at # 108 – here you go again! We’ve been through this at length in the other thread (“The Emperor’s New Clothes” – 27 May).
“The role of any religion is to offer a moral tone for all of society……..”
This is complete and utter nonsense. Who gave religion the authority to speak for all of society??
And religion is fiction anyway. If you choose to believe in it, that’s fine but do not presume to think for all of us. In any case, its forbidden by the constitution so no amount of pleading on this thread or elsewhere will get anywhere, so far as the laws of the land are concerned.
With regard to your 142 (2) (“ Ethics should not be defined by the State”), the state does, in fact, set the moral tone for society but this morality does not have its origins In religion. It is the collective weight of the views of legislators, past and present, that are reflected in the laws as they stand (and don’t tell me these views are all shaped by religion).
We can intellectualise this subject ad nauseum but the evidence before our eyes tells us that religion is the source of major conflict the world over. No amount of pseudo-intellectualising will take away from this (in the other thread you claimed that violence was caused by “politics”, whereas religion is the source of all good things such as morality) . We do not have atheists killing religious people or other atheists but we do definitely see religious people destroying each other on an almost daily basis, just as they have done throughout history.
TLA might be an expert in her chosen field (I have no doubt that she is) but that does not give her the right to bring her religious views into parliament. And no, this doesn’t mean I am promoting “schismatic” thinking. It just means we need to be civilized towards our fellow men and that means not thrusting our views on others.
Finally, regardless of what you say, the world is not about to implode into hedonism and moral decay just because atheists are becoming more assertive. (Contrary to what you believe, atheists are not amoral). And what’s wrong with militant atheism anyway? There is a long and hallowed tradition of militancy that has been laid down by (mainly) Christians and Muslims. Atheists are only following in their footsteps (although they have not killed anyone in the process).
observed (#181),
I respect your cool-headedness too. However, I find it ironic that you should be consenting to be someone’s “bulldog”. That isn’t a particularly autonomous or equal position.
And sliim…
How many times do I need to tell you, I do not support Intelligent Design.
Illuminati (#182),
2) I refer to the personal life of the individual, meaning that the individual would be able to live a more holistic life.
Guys – let’s give the girl her due. She’s doing Singapore proud by showing off a national talent that no one else can achieve.
I mean if you look at this woman’s speech during the 377A debate she did something amazing….she ranted and raved for a while and made no common sense, let alone make a case from a legal, medical or scientific standpoint and managed to convince parliament, filled with bright and intelligent people that she was correct.
I don’t particularly care for the LGBT movement (though I did help the Old Guard during the AWARE saga) but this woman and her family really are special. Aren’t you proud of her?
PS (#183),
1) I felt that I needed to clarify my stand, since smallvice keeps misrepresenting me everywhere.
2-3) God did . ;-)
Seriously though, I wonder why you guys don’t also ask: who gave MNCs the authority to offer us advertisements telling us what we should buy?
4) No, religion is not fiction. But that is too long to debate here.
5) You already made an assumption here, so what is there to debate? Yes, the view of legislators are shaped by religion, even those who claim to be ’secular’. And remember, my religion here is “Religious Spirituality”.
6) Organized Religion is the cause of the conflict; the “Organized” part of Organized religion is infected to some extent by politics. The exact extent differs among the religions, and even among each denomination within a religion.
Oh, and as an example of a violent atheist, we have the Cambodian Dictator Pol Pot.
7) Nothing about schism. But more about violating her Right of Free Speech, and lessening the diversity of opinions in Parliament.
8) Atheists steal their morality from religions, and then claim that it is their own. As for the “long and hallowed” traditions of militancy, there has also been an even longer tradition of peace and friendship. Christians started off as being persecuted by both Jews and Romans/Pagans/Secularists. The first few “wars” that the Muslims fought were not really wars – they were marching onto battlefields and intimidating the enemy into surrender. The Prophet promoted inter-racial and even inter-religious tolerance (between Muslims, Christians and Jews).
Hi Arix #142,
If you believe the Bible’s central message is LOVE, why do you continue to argue that religious freedom includes homosexual discrimination? After all, you are the one arguing why people should not be homosexual.
I am not ignorant of the development on this thread. I didn’t miss out the part that you claim the State should respect free choice of its citizens. Since you postulate that people choose to be homosexual – consciously or subconsciously – why should only the State practise this “respect” and not the religious and conservatives?
How does religious institution set moral tone for non-believer? By offering the moral tone. This is a case of the might of an institution versus the conscience space of an individual non-believer. That’s why “offer” and “set” have the same practical effect.
Unlike me, you prioritise religious freedom over everything, ie. religion is an open license to poke into everyone’s affairs. If mildly, this is religious meddling. If heavy-handed, this is religious oppression.
You claim I am advocating for no freedom of conscience for believers, and therefore hypocriscy. However, What really happens is that I am resolving the conflict of freedom of conscience between 2 different groups.
A boundary is established so that conflicting parties can maximise their own freedom while minimising on interfering other people’s freedom. Nobody’s freedom is absolute (especially you). It’s time that you accept that religious motivation has no role in setting the moral tone beyond the realm of believers.
You asked: [Aside - This makes me remember an earlier statement by you that I shouldn't be talking about what NYU's policy toward TLA should be, because it has already been decided by NYU. So then, why are you still talking about S377A since that has already been decided by PAP?]
Unlike TLA’s case at NYU, we have stakes in this country as citizens, thus we are entitled to talk about S377A regardless of PAP decision. Just like why NYU students, faculty and alumni are entitled to discuss TLA’s appointment at NYU.
Hi Arix #142,
[Continuation of Post #188]
What gives governments legitimacy to rule? It is hard power (the military and the police), not moral authority. Without hard power, governments cannot enforce or remedy its decision / policy. Moral authority is secondary to hard power, and is co-opted under pragmatic governance.
Moral authority cannot replace hard power as the basis of government. The role of moral authority is to win as many hearts and minds possible to support government’s policies so as to minimise social instability.
Running public ammenities such schools, sewage system, health infrastructure, dispute resolution centres further boosts the legitimacy of the government by creating the need for government among the People. Without this need, would the people have looked up to government officials to act in a particular way?
Even if government officials choose not to act in that particular way, the People would still be feeling that need. You have confused this need as moral leadership. The effective government is supposed to intervene decisively in a social conflict to maintain its rule over the people.
Hi Arix #179 #187,
Since you quoted Romans 1:26-32, why do you not interpret the text as it is a sin for heterosexual man to engage in homosexual act, but not for homo- and bi- sexual males to engage in homosexual act? Are you assuming that all male are borne heterosexual?
I never mis-represented you. Merely calling you a spade a spade by providing a mirror to reflect your misguided bigotry. If you see God in everything you observe, obviously the problem lies in you and not God.
So now you compare religious institutions to MNC? Thanks for validating the case of the might of an institution versus an individual. Two wrongs don’t make one right, but we make concessions to achieve harmony. Nobody benefits from long term attrition.
I had mentioned that religious motivation cannot enter the realm of non-believers, but you should know better concession for mild violation is usually implied and violators have to exercise propriety in order not to abuse this concession. This is in essence how harmony works. It is not a system where things are differentiated clearly between black and white.
Haha.. more ludicrous accusations. You wrote: Atheists steal their morality from religions, and then claim that it is their own. We have already been through that in the “Emperor New Clothes” Thread. I want to know how you conclude how an event is not war if the event involves soldiers marching into the battlefield and intimidating the enemy to surrender. This is bordering doltish.
Hi Sllim and Rwkc,
The banana looks tasty. In fact, I bought a bunch of bananas after watching the Youtube video on the Religious Banana as proof of God. I now have 5 Godly banana in my fruit basket.
Just look at how the Religious Right is attempting to skew and muddle policy debate at Congress in the USA. This is an excerpt from a recent news report (9 July 2009) from MSNBC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI84QIda6fc
The above is a good example of how religion can cause “fault lines”. Especially when it’s used as an excuse to vilify and persecute others.
Just her middle name;;Thio Li (lee)-an;;is reprisentative of you she is representing when she heads to New-York….like daddy like daughter
No one – absolutely NO ONE can prove that GOD exists. That goes for all the gods – Judadism, Islam, Christianity.
Everyone can prove HE DOES NOT EXISTS.
Right now, try talking to GOD. He is not there. Call him up now. Why doesn’t he answer you? In reality, he only exists in your mind.
I have lived in the West for along time and now coming back to Asia, I am surprised that Christianity is attracting a lot of converts! one of the reasons for that is that they want to be seen as being “Western”… Hahaha..In the West, this is fast becoming a failed religion. In some Western countries, if you declare you are a Christian, they will think you are freak. Of course you have the fanatical diehards who will continue to do what they have been doing and making $$$$ out of it!
The worship of “God” was really the worship of the Sun. The Sun became a God.
Learn more about the truth of Christianity and the origins of other religions, thanks to the scholarly works of Acharya S.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/
More interesting quotes:
“You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to believe. [Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985]”
“You see, the religious people — most of them — really think this planet is an experiment. That’s what their beliefs come down to. Some god or other is always fixing and poking, messing around with tradesmen’s wives, giving tablets on mountains, commanding you to mutilate your children, telling people what words they can say and what words they can’t say, making people feel guilty about enjoying themselves, and like that. Why can’t the gods leave well enough alone? All this intervention speaks of incompetence. If God didn’t want Lot’s wife to look back, why didn’t he make her obedient, so she’d do what her husband told her? Or if he hadn’t made Lot such a shithead, maybe she would’ve listened to him more. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn’t he start the universe out in the first place so it would come out the way he wants? Why’s he constantly repairing and complaining? No, there’s one thing the Bible makes clear: The biblical God is a sloppy manufacturer. He’s not good at design, he’s not good at execution. He’d be out of business if there was any competition. [Sol Hadden in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985), p. 285.]”
“One prominent American religion confidently predicted that the world would end in 1914. Well, 1914 has come and gone, and – whole the events of that year were certainly of some importance – the world did not, at least so far as I can see, seem to have ended. There are at least three responses that an organized religion can make in the face of such a failed and fundamental prophecy. They could have said, Oh, did we say ‘1914′? So sorry, we meant ‘2014′. A slight error in calculation. Hope you weren’t inconvinenced in any way. But they did not. They could have said, Well, the world would have ended, except we prayed very hard and interceded with God so He spared the Earth. But they did not. Instead, the did something much more ingenious. They announced that the world had in fact ended in 1914, and if the rest of us hadn’t noticed, that was our lookout. It is astonishing in the fact of such transparent evasions that this religion has any adherents at all. But religions are tough. Either they make no contentions which are subject to disproof or they quickly redesign doctrine after disproof. The fact that religions can be so shamelessly dishonest, so contemptuous of the intelligence of their adherents, and still flourish does not speak very well for the tough- mindedness of the believers. But it does indicate, if a demonstration was needed, that near the core of the religious experience is something remarkably resistant to rational inquiry. [Carl Sagan, Broca's Brain]“
observed #181,
Arix: “On Dawkins: His campaign is to get people to abandon religion, that’s why religious people are adamant against him. It’s not an issue of their faith strength; it’s an issue of ensuring that Dawkins’ lies do not pollute people’s minds.”
[When asked to list a few in direct quotes] “If I listed to you the number of lies, I would need too much words for a single post.”
[When asked again] No response
Source: http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/05/the-emperor’s-new-clothes/comment-page-5/
#184 Peter Sellers;;Re:Arix// ‘The role of religion is to offer a moral tone for all of society’;;;;This is quite a fair statement to make;;There is no doubt that religions have caused a lot of havoc, but there is also the good side of religion which tries to lead man away from his negative impulses. There is no universal definition of religion and it is basically an abstact set of ideas, values and experiences and a believe in God is not compulsory. Nobody can make anyone believe in God or not believe in God. Everybody has a mind to think out the implications. Therefore to totally reject religion is extremist in nature, although at the other end is the opposite extreme where you carry your religion on your head wherever you go which means you are too attached to it. Therefore the wise thing to do is to accept the fact that there is always a middle-way. The middle-way is not easy to identify or locate, but once you can identify the extremes then your job is much easier. The wise man is not attached to any views. Life is a journey of experience and views can change many times and having fixed views is a fetter, a shackle that you wear.
hi budamax1952 #196,
Arix said: the role of religion is to offer a moral tone for all of society.
You have fallen prey to Arix’s flowery rhetoric. How does religious institution set moral tone for non-believer? By offering the moral tone. This is a case of the might of an institution versus the conscience space of an individual non-believer. That’s why “offer” and “set” have the same practical effect. You really believe the individual can reject the institution’s moral tone without consequences?
The other problem with Arix’s statement, as Peter Sellers and I had highlighted, is the “all of society” part. We have no problem with religious institutions setting the moral tone in society because believers is a component of society. Religious institutions are welcomed to set the religious tone among believers. But to assume religious institutions have an open license to poke into everyone’s affairs, that is religious oppression without a doubt.
Peter Sellers #183,
As it turns out, surprise surprise, Arix’s religion isn’t as abstract (as possible) as the discussion we had at “The Emperor’s New Clothes”; To crib Orwell, some religions happen to be more equal than others.
He mentioed something about Christianity absorbing Islam in another thread. Arix, perhaps you care to reproduce that quote?
Arix #184,
Good question. How many times did you tell me you don’t believe in ID?
All I keep hearing is ID rhetoric:
“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.”
“The Evolution Side of the Evolution vs ID debate is as dogmatic as its opponents, except that their Dogma is based on faith in the Big Bang.”
“Good Scientists say “I don’t know” when they really don’t know stuff. The Evolutionists say that “I don’t know, but definitely it must be explainable through the Theory of Evolution!!!”
“Not only do they reject Creationism, but also any other scientific alternative that might be proposed.” [Creationism is scientific]
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/06/vocalness-–-an-effective-tool-in-the-battle-of-belief-systems/
Hey Arix, if you’ve got two hours-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg&feature=related
ID just got debunked.
Good point, now that it has been highlighted, it does look like the gay community in NYU is not that tolerant and accepting towards others who don’t agree with their homosexual opinions.
Such behaviours of the gay community doesn’t exactly show similar sensitivity to the gay community by common people in fact, their actions appear to be selfish and insensitive towards the feelings of others who don’t agree with their views.
Did Dr Thio say “free thought” and by implication “free speech”? How novel! Dr Thio is on some other planet or fed herself too much funny mushrooms.
Post 200#
If only people like Good points would stop at agreeing, but gay haters do more than that. AWARE is a recent example. So stop lying and being hypocritical.
Smallvice585
Straight prejudiced trash like Arix (posts……yawn) are plenty of ammunition to justify why gay people need to protest. His speaks no flowery rhetoric but vile labelling and accusations garbage that people who do not share like him are bullies, thiefs, etc…E.g #187 – Atheists steal their morality from religions. And he is a hypocrrite, stating his bigotry as facts.
To smallvice and others like Peter Sellers, Christian Revisited, thanks for your posts. I actually saved some of your writings as resource to counteract the poison of gay haters like the ones found here.
To gay haters: If being gay isn’t you, you should not be doing that. But why are you so concerned with my sexuality? I, as with those you oppress, will engage you till the day you stop bullying people. BTW, I don’t belong to the so called Pink Lobby, where are they at?, but we speak up for the same issue.
So Get the f***out of my space, have you no decency to respect privacy of others?
Hi Arix #142,
[continuation of post #189]
You wrote: The Religious Moderates will simply treat them [same-sex civil union] as an inferior variant to marriage, and the Fundamentalists will treat these as the “work of false prophets and idolaters”. Thank you for admitting that you have put the Christian Right and the Christian Centre under the same band of oppression.
You have confused the issue of social stigma with equal rights for LGBT. Social stigma can only be overcome by repeated engagement and increased visibility. You are trying to prevent engagement and to conceal the visibility of same-sex civil union in society. You are also denying LGBTs the right to create kinship with the people they love. There is one familial form and both same-sex and hetero-sex union/marriages belong to it.
The real concern for the religious camp is that family units outside the religious norm challenges the relevance of religious authority in modern society. This is on top of growing realisation in society that morality is not a religious invention, and of course the existing threat by modern gender identities that invalidate the normative gender roles prescribed by religious authorities.
la nausée had mentioned that the State believes it more pragmatic to support heterosexual couples (in order for eg to boost the birth-rate), but you have misconcrued as it as rejection of same-sex civil union. The insecurity of religious groups have spilt over to vocal objection and oppression against feminists, atheists and LGBTs who do not submit to the authority of religious instituions or subscribe to practises promoted by religious institution.
Will you finally concede and stop promoting bigotry?
HI Sllim #180,
The 5 Godly bananas (see #191) I bought are unfortunately unripe. I asked one of my religious friends to pray for their quick ripening. No results so far.
This edit is a better version of the Youtube Video on the Godly Banana.
202) Lee Ping on July 13th, 2009 10.40 am
Just to point out that Good Points is refering to NYU gay community.
“it does look like the gay community in NYU is not that tolerant and accepting towards others who don’t agree with their homosexual opinions.”
Don’t see anything wrong with that agreeing. Anybody with impartial views will view the same.
By the way, where is the lying and hypocritical?
Anybody can accuse. Very easy to accuse others. Shame on you for using such accusing tactics to defend gay causes.
on a lighter note- 102) la nausée on July 11th, 2009 12.46 am
“being slapped in the face is marginally better than being kicked in the balls”
heh heh heh.
smallvice585 #204,
Blasphemer!
But I don’t hate you. I just hate your sin—so damn much—I just wish your sin is jailed. It’s too bad you have to join it there.
To put things in perspective, morality is subjective. So to quote a book or a particular religion and claimed that to be the model morality that everyone must follow is not only imposing one’s values on another, it is BARBARIC….
Hi Zefly #199,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg&feature=related
Your youtube video link is an entertaining talk by Ken Miller (Biology Professor at Brown University) on Creationism / Intelligent Design as a pseudo-science. He is a Roman Catholic, just like Arix. At least we know that not all religious persons are bigoted.
Hi Arix #184,
If you need assistance to counter my arguments, please consider this youtube video. It details 54 strategies on how you can prove me wrong.
Hi Sllim #198,
You wrote: He [Arix] mentioned something about Christianity absorbing Islam in another thread. Arix, perhaps you care to reproduce that quote?.
I have re=produced that quote in #113.
corners #114,
To learn more about Arix’s theory, you can refer to:
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/07/india-decriminalises-gay-sex-singapore-shown-to-be-a-fool/
Some choice quotes from him:
“It’s like “We love the thief, but hate his theft” or “We love the cancer patient, but detest the cancer”. You are not against either of these, right? Phobia only exists when we attempt to shun both the thief and the cancer patient. I think that Homophobia needs to be defined more specifically.”
“Oh, and for people who still wish to think that there is some invisible Gay Gene, well … there is such a thing called a genetic disease too, and genetic diseases are not diseases because they are infectious.”
Arix, your response at #187:
“Atheists steal their morality from religions……” is bunkum. Pure fiction.
In the 1970s, Singapore’s legislature passed laws legalising abortions. So which religions did this piece of “morality” come from, since you say that legislators’ views come from religion?
Abrahamic religions are the problem, not “organised” religion. Hinduism, Buddhism etc have not indulged in wars of aggression. We have been through this before. Don’t again try to appropriate what is “good” for religion while disregarding all the unsavoury consequences of it.
Pol Pot (and Stalin and Hitler) did not commit their atrocities in the name of atheism. Religion did and continues to do so. We have also been through this before.
It is religion (through advocates such as you) that is trying to inhibit the right to free speech (and free thought) by occupying all the space, not the other way around. You are not allowed to do this by LAW.
Shot through the heart and you’re to blame, Arix
You give God a bad name
(guitar riff intro)
212) Peter Sellers on July 13th, 2009 4.51 pm
“Pol Pot (and Stalin and Hitler) did not commit their atrocities in the name of atheism. Religion did and continues to do so. We have also been through this before.”
I want to say two things.
1. Hitler is religious.
2. The saying goes something like this:
“With or without religion, Good people do good things and Evil people do evil things”
this latter part accounts for Pol Pot and Stalin who may be classified as Evil.
“Only religion can make a good people do evil things”
This is sort of the part which I associate the homophobic people who are here bashing gays.
*Sigh*,
It does seem that the “Smallvice” virus has infected more than one person on this thread…
‘Plague’, Arix, ‘plague’.
No only homophobic people who are here bashing gays, there are many gay people who are the real bigots and are taking bigotry actions against ordinary people. Just look at the actions of gay people in NYU, questioning the fitness of Dr Thio to be ……, just because of her different views on homosexuality. Gay people have themselves to blame for others to feel that they are real bigots since they are so difficult to ordinary people just because ordinary people have different views from them.
Peter Sellers #212,
There’s something about Buddhists vs Hindus in Sri Lanka that is worth a look at.
“Religion is a disease born of fear, and a source of untold misery to the human race.”
– from Bertrand Russell, Why I am Not a Christian
Atheists do not go around drumming loudly
Arix on July 13th, 2009 2.22 am
“Atheists steal their morality from religions, and then claim that it is their own.”
Please would you be kind enough to let us know the date when morality began life (date of birth). And by whom (humans leaning of some reli***** ? with self-centred vanity) that morality arose.
At least most (if not all) atheists do not go around making claims unsolicited about morality which some others may do threading on some very abstract line bordering on some supernatural concept.
Do you want to see a group of bigots who claim absolute ownership of the air that we breathe in and have that inner smug sense of arrogance towards others of “stealing” it which is inhaled by all without any second thought.
She’s teaching a course, not going to lecture morality lah…..and she should remember this too.
smallvice (#209),
Well, I guess I can’t have expected anything else from you. I do agree with Ken Miller’s views, and I SHARE THE SAME VIEWS as him. I have already previously stated that I am against Creationism, and Young-Earth Creationism. I belong to the same strand as Miller: Theistic Evolution.
Have you lied about me so much that you are beginning to believe in your own lies?
A review of Miller’s book “Finding Darwin’s God”:
http://energion.com/books/reviews/finding_darwin.shtml
“”"
In essence, the God Miller believes in is a God who loves freedom enough to create a material universe separate from his moment by moment control, which allows real choice to His creatures at every stage of the game. The freedom is not a trick; it’s real. The God Miller believes in is not truncated or limited; he believes in the traditional God of Christianity.
“”"
Smallvice (#188),
1) Well, I couldn’t have expected anything else from you, I guess. My answer is simple: Because some of what you count as discrimination is not what me (or my religion) counts as discrimination.
2) The State’s role is to handle economics and societal structures, for the purpose of maximising free choice. If the State – through any piece of legislation – attempts to curtail that free choice, it is overstepping its boundaries by restricting free choice. Also, the State needs an independent third-party balance. This is part of why Section 377A should be repealed.
Where the State’s role ends is where the role of the Religious Groups starts. The role of the Religious Groups is to act as an alternate conscience by advising on how that free choice should be exercised. Religious Groups should not compel people to exercise choices in a particular way, because that is crossing the boundary of their role, and impairs their role as neutral assessors. Religions have their own check-and-balance from Theology Research and from Visions and Prophecy.
I do admit, however, that the check-and-balances instituted by the religious groups have often fallen short on many counts, due to internal politics within those groups. But it doesn’t mean that we need to ditch the whole of them; we just need to reform them somewhat.
3) Apologies, but I didn’t seem to see anywhere in your posts where you showed recognition of that in your posts, at least not until someone prodded you (if I remember correctly).
4) Religion offers and says, “take it or leave it”. It does not compel you to accept it. “set” and “offer” are not the same, because “Set” is “Take it or else…”. It is as mice mentioned aptly in the Constructive Disharmony thread.
5-6) Please give me evidence where I promote “poking into everyone else’s affairs”. Or else your statement here really makes no sense.
7) If I say that my friend is studying at NYU, does that give me license to talk?
Arix (#185)
“I refer to the personal life of the individual, meaning that the individual would be able to live a more holistic life.”
Again, just to clarify, what do you mean by a more holistic life?
## 202, Lee Ping,
//So Get the f***out of my space, have you no decency to respect privacy of others?//
I agree….but you don’t do it on the street divider, in the lift, at the viod deck, staircases, back alley ….these are not private places but public places, Get into your bed room and do wahtever you like and dont’ contaminate the places where decent humans live.
I think Arix should seriously be checked more rigorously than Solo Bear. Just because someone is more eloquent and vocal doesn’t mean he makes more sense.
@H20 (#225): so, only homosexuals fornicate in public places, eh?
Apparently not:
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_402430.html
Frankly, plopp, I think H2O is the one who needs checking. Up there. I’m sorry.
H2O, redirecting you to comment no. 177. We are all very tired of your useless ranting.
“A review of Miller’s book “Finding Darwin’s God”:
http://energion.com/books/reviews/finding_darwin.shtml”
thanks Arix for the recommendation. Not sure if they sell at Borders or Kino, but I’ll prolly look for it.
228) observed on July 13th, 2009 10.42 pm ,
Ranting, eh? it caught your attention,eh.? I just don’t understand what you guys or gays have been bigoting. This thread is about whetehr Dr, Thio is qualfiied to teach on the subject, Human Rights and you gays highjacked and turned into Thio bashing and Christian bashing thread, The same guys and same gays jumped on like leeches anyhting that is christian or the Thios. I am sick of those fossillised craps that some of you dug up in the cyber realm . They have been debunked long time ago until you smart alek gays ressurected them.
I am not only tired but puke at your baseless and phoney intellectual pretense.
One word to describe all of you., crap.
Interesting but Irrelevant Observation: The link provided in H20’s nickname suggests that an old nemesis from the AWARE-related threads has returned in a different guise, but with the same warped views.
budamax1952 at #196:
We had a long discussion on this on The Emperor’s New Clothes thread.
I have said previously that I have no problems with people believing in religion and practising it privately, if it gives them comfort. My objection is to religion, through advocates such as Arix and TLA, insisting that the whole of society should subscribe to their views. This is akin to practising moral hegemony ie spreading intolerance.
sllim at #198 : Thanks.
I have no issues with Arix’s views on religion. He has declared himself to be a religious moderate and in favour of religious spirituality, as opposed to slavish obeisance to scriptural religion. If he has proposed Christianity absorbing Islam, that is radical and truly progressive. He should be congratulated. There would be one less conflict to worry about although, of course, ideally we should do away with all religious conflict by scrubbing them all entirely.
My objection is to Arix’s insistence on _everyone_ following the moral tone set by religion.
Your post at #218:
The Sri Lankan conflict was an ethnic conflict centred on race/language.
India and Pakistan have a long-standing conflict the roots of which are in religion and the inability of the two people to live together. They have fought three wars so far.
Vietnam was reunited and so was Germany because there were no religious issues dividing them. Korea will also ultimately be reunited for the same reason.
However, Northern Ireland has been simmering for three hundred years, Palestine for over 60 years (2000 actually, if we want to be accurate) and India /Pakistan for over 60 years. There is no solution in sight for these three, all because of the divisiveness of religion.
Lobo76 at #214
Hitler was a Roman Catholic to the end of his days but his atrocities were committed mainly for reasons/ideas of racial superiority, rather than religion.
The actual quote you are looking for is from American Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg who said “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion”.
rwkc has submitted this quote previously.
Hi Smallvice at #197:
Although you have qualified your remarks in para 3, in case anyone misunderstands your sentence “We have no problem with religious institutions setting the moral tone in society because believers is a component of society” I would suggest a small correction: “We have no problems with religious institutions setting the moral tone _for their own believers_”
The unspoken part is “but for gods-sake, don’t thrust it down everyone else’s throat”.
Arix at #215 with a * Sigh * : “It does seem that the “Smallvice” virus has infected more than one person on this thread…”
In case this is a reference to me, do remember that on the “Emperor” thread, my objection to your assertion on morality was posted long before Smallvice raised his, so please don’t blame Smallvice for your inability to prop up your own arguments or offer proper rebuttals for those offered by others.
observed, la nausee and plopp,
I don’t particularly agree with H20 but I do agree somewhat with his assertion that this thread, like some others, has turned into Thio-bashing and Christian-bashing threads, especially after smallvice entered the equation.
Thio Li-Ann must be so happy if she know her news “inspire” others to voice their opinion, to carry on where her mum left off…
at least she is not teaching in a local university. good riddance!! :)
A digression here but
To assert a point why LBGTs are ‘abhorred’ , not because of themselves but the activities and behaviour they seem edicted and the kind of wild tendency they display.These are what people frown at. They are seen as sexual perverts and orgy craving . To accept same sex marriiage is something unthinkable. To talk about union or marraige it is about two opposite sex and leading to procreation but same sex or same sex marraige leads to no where except social catastrophy.
The report below attests to the facts
“Private drug and sex parties have been a popular alternative to gay saunas and discos for many young gay men for nearly a decade; and mixing drugs, including alcohol with sexual activity has been shown to substantially increase the risk of transmitting HIV as safer sex practices are abandoned along with inhibitions. In the light of this, even if consenting individual gay men were not charged under Section 377a, so as not to send a ‘wrong message’ to the LGBT community, should not such group drug and sex orgies be targeted by the police and especially by the AG chambers to test how this particular law will be applied by the courts here to them?”
“226) plopp on July 13th, 2009 10.20 pm I think Arix should seriously be checked more rigorously than Solo Bear. Just because someone is more eloquent and vocal doesn’t mean he makes more sense.”
Both Arix and Solo Bear should be allowed here. Disagreement is normal and they have a role to play as far as the other side of the picture is concerned – at least this kind of discourse (at times abuse) cannot be degenerated into physical violence in the strict sense behind this virtual world.
@H20 (#236), try to set aside your bias for a moment and see where logic takes us.
It’s an anecdotal fact that the GLBT community (gay men in particular) tend to be more promiscuous than the heterosexual population. Alex Au himself readily acknowledges this (link).
But the issue then is how we deal with that promiscuity. A criminal law aimed specifically at gay men, even if enforced, is likely to backfire. We will alienate the gay population if we merely condemn what they do, and threaten them with imprisonment… the orgies and sex parties are driven underground, and become even more reckless.
The far better way to deal with promiscuity is through awareness campaigns. But such public education is precisely what’s being hampered by a criminal law. The government can’t promote or sponsor these programmes without indirectly aiding and abetting a 377A offence. And as mentioned, gays will be far less receptive to any efforts at public education.
You say promiscuity is one reason for denying them same-sex marriage or civil union. The reverse seems to be the case. By setting up an institution of same-sex civil unions, the State would be encouraging homosexuals to settle down into stable, monogamous relationships. One of the causes of rampant promiscuity is that homosexuals have no formal way of ’settling down’; the current legal arrangements, by tarring all homosexual sex with the same brush, in fact promotes promiscuity.
Hi H2O #235,
la nausée made an excellent point in #237 that the denial of same-sex marriage or civil union leads to homosexual promiscuity. I had also mentioned in #104:
Society is therefore justified in not granting legal recognition to a class of relationships that will predictably be less faithful, less committed, and more fragile. By denying homosexuals civil union or marriage, less beneign religious groups are forcebly trying to weaken the relationship between 2 homosexual persons.
What’s interesting is that the religious camp is also behind the very same problem they complain about homosexual parenthood and adoption rights. This is otherwise known as self-fulfilling prophecy. In prudence, Singapore can learn from the pioneering experience of other countries that legislated same-sex civil union and homosexual parenthood and adoption rights.
Here’s some excerpts from the CNN news article ‘Gayby boom’: Children of gay couples speak out
Some gayby boomers say they are tired of hearing that their family isn’t legitimate. It’s an argument many have heard since they were children. They learned that they didn’t fit the definition of the “right” family, and worried how others would react if they found out about their parents. The result: the children of same-sex couples often lived lives that were more closeted than their parents.
This CNN article also touched on the topic whether homosexual parents produce homosexual children:
According to the American Psychological Association, numerous research shows that most kids of same-sex households describe themselves as heterosexual in roughly the same proportion as conventional families. The association also says that homosexuality is not deviant behavior but a normal expression of human sexuality.
The APA also concludes that gay parents are just as capable as straight parents, and that laws barring same-sex couples from adopting have no scientific basis.
Hi Arix #222 #223 #233,
I read in interest that you feel pressured in defending the indefensible. How can mere words intimidate you when you’ve conviction backed by faith? Are you no longer confident of your value system? If your value system is indeed questionable, why still keep it?
I didn’t participate in Thio-bashing in this thread despite that she deserves it (see #1, #6 and #159). Christian-bashing is such an inaccurate term because the Christian Community is not homogeneous in terms of political, social and religious beliefs, values and aspirations.
If not so, why differentiate the Left, the Right and the Centre? If not so, why differentiate the non-denomination groups and the denomination groups? You are bashing the Christian Community by claiming all of them are just as bigoted as you.
Religious freedom is not absolute. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) makes that point very clearly. Religious freedom is not an open license to do anything you want, especially in a secular country such as Singapore. You wrote: what you count as discrimination is not what me (or my religion) counts as discrimination.
Let’s assume that homosexual discrimination is legalised (for discussion sake), does it pass the Lemon Test? The Lemon Test consists of 3 parts: First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion.”
Even if you answer Q1 “yes”, there is no way you can justify the answer “yes” for Q2 and Q3. In another words, homosexual discrimination cannot be counted as a secular value. Thus homosexual discrimination that cannot be validated by secular values cannot be claimed as a valid act of religious freedom. In another words, advancing homosexual discrimination is a ploy to close the separation between the Church and the State.
You also claimed that Religion is a neutral assessor of morality. How is neutrality possible when morality is intrisically subjective? You wrote in #34 of the “Emperor’s New Clothes” thread: They [religious institutions] have equal moral authority as any “Secular” Institution. This contradicts your statement: Where the State’s role ends is where the role of the Religious Groups starts. You rejected the role of secular institutions in setting the moral tone in society.
You wrote: Religion offers and says, “take it or leave it”. It does not compel you to accept it. Are you really that naive or just bigoted? If it’s indeed religion that offers the moral tone, then there would be no consequences. However, it is religious groups that offer the moral tone and rejecting the religious group’s moral tone leads to consequences. Homosexual discrimination is one good example of such consequence.
You wrote: I belong to the same strand as Miller: Theistic Evolution. Last I check, you were defending intelligent design. The evidence lies in #98 of the “Vocalness – an effective tool in battle of belief systems” thread. I don’t think you know what Theistic Evolution (TE) is. For starters, TE is not an alternative scientific theory to Evolution. TE is an interpretation that sees the role of God in Evolution, just like how the Bible authors sees the role of God in the history of Jew.
Hi guys,
Please refrain from personal attacks and stick to the issue.
Otherwise, you will be put under moderation.
Are we just using words gratuitously now? Is calling out bigots “bigotry”?
illuminati (#224),
“holistic” means “with all opportunities available”.
#242 sllim /// Is calling out bigots “bigotry”?///;;;Hi sllim;;; Of course calling out bigots is not bigotry but then you must remember that we on TOC are not out to hurt each others feelings (everybody’s got feelings, and some are more sensitive);;Surely we can get our POVs across without being harsh to each other right;; We have to build up a brotherhood in TOC where everybody respects each other and this way we will attract thousands of new members who will feel confident to contribute their best for the battles we have to fight for the betterment of humanity.
Budamax1952,
that is very subtle statement of brotherhood with hidden agenda, rallying call to unite against you know who.. That is dishonest, disgusting and bigotry; better for who? That is a battle cry and not a truce.
39) la nausée on July 10th, 2009 12.31 pm
“Actually, she did touch on human rights / constitutional law issues quite frequently during her NMP term — of course, much less than the prolific Siew Kum Hong.”
With less passion and vehemence compared to her speech decrying attempts to repeal S377A
smallvice (#239),
1) As usual, your prejudice causes you to misunderstand me. (I am not talking about prejudice against homosexuals; I am talking about your prejudice towards religion.) I feel “pressured” not because of the case I am defending, but because I have to deal with so many people at once on many different threads, and at the same time deal with your consistent personal attacks on me.
2) Nobody deserves to be bashed, no matter how disagreeable their views might be. Bashing simply shows immaturity on the basher’s part.
As for Christian-bashing, you are guilty of Christian-bashing if you specifically hit out at any core doctrine of Christianity as it was set out originally. The liberal christian groups that you would probably use to side your claim are not part of either mainline Catholicism or mainline Protestantism.
Anyway, using your logic, I could say that “anti-gay” is also a very inaccurate term because there are some homosexuals who accept the religious side. The homosexual community also has varying social, political and religious beliefs, values and aspirations. In fact, unlike the Christian Community, who are all Christians, the homosexual community is more diverse and includes Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists and Hindus as well.
Not all homosexuals support your liberal, atheist views. After all, there are people like Leslie Leung. Call him a deranged idiot if it makes you feel better, but you can’t deny the fact that he is a homosexual. And he embraces the reparative therapy that you hate so much.
So who is being anti-gay now?
3) “Left, Right and Centre” are not terms evolved by the Christian Hierarchy, but by your fellow Atheist friends. If you wanted to use Christian terms, “Lapsed, Faithful and Fundamentalist” is more accurate.
Christian Denominations arose because the Protestants split off from the Catholic Church, and then from each other. Splits are over ecclesiastical authority and differences in doctrinal details.
Non-denominational groups arose among the Protestants to try and re-create Christian Unity.
Number one, I am not bigoted. That is a label that comes from your prejudice. Number two, I never claimed that all Christians think like me. I was stating the Christian Orthodoxy.
4) You are waffling. My meaning was that it has not yet been confirmed that all of what homosexuals claim to be discrimination is in fact discrimination.
5-6) Your logic is peculiar. If homosexual discrimination is not “legalised”, then why are you grumbling so much about it on this thread and other threads?
Yes to Q1 for many reasons. One, Equality of Opportunity (wait, that might not be secular enough). Two, increase the birth-rate. Three, ensure social stability.
Yes to Q2. Lemon vs Kurtzman was talking about the State explicitly favouring an institution run by a Religious Group (the Catholic Church) through an Act. The point was that the State explicitly favouring a particular religious denomination would end up neglecting all other groups in society.
Lemon vs Kurtzman hence has no relation to the legalisation of homosexual discrimination. Legalising homosexual discrimination is providing one more option, albeit one that might not be so appropriate. It is not an option that has to be exercised, but one that may be exercised, lex legata in your hypothetical situation. It does not improve the financial standing of any Church or Religious Group, nor does it extend the authority of any Church or Religious Group to any Institutions not previously under its umbrella.
Legalising Homosexual Discrimination also does not prevent Atheists from being Atheists. Thus, a law legalising homosexual discrimination passes the Lemon Test Part Two.
For Q3, likewise yes. “Entanglement” refers to Government Institutions getting meshed up with Religious Institutions. As long as the law legalising homosexual discrimination does not create a new Body of Elders in parliament or something similar, there is no “entanglement” with religion. There would only be entanglement should the Government choose to subsidise Individuals or Institutions that engage in homosexual discrimination. Otherwise, the law passes Part Three, and hence the Lemon Test.
(Incidentally, the “separation of Church and State” was first used by Jefferson in an address to a Baptist Convention; where the phrase was used to guarantee them that the State would not interfere in their religious practice, as was occurring in England at that time. The Crown was jailing non-Anglicans, and people who missed Sunday Mass.)
Anyhow, as I stated before, I do not discriminate against the homosexual person; I just disapprove of same-sex mariages and civil unions. And I support the repeal of Section 377A!)
7) Morality is not subjective; it is an objective fact. There is a most-balanced or balancing position in every situation. This balance occurs on all levels, external and internal and between external and internal.
Naturally, there are also individual Ethical positions taken by each person or each group of persons that try to approximate this Balance. Few people reach that balance, and even fewer manage to sustain it. Each of these ethical positions are the “intrinsically subjective” morality that you refer to.
And you misunderstood me yet again.
The first quote and the second quote do not contradict each other. My first quote referred to “moral authority”, or the authority to guide the community in moral and ethical matters. The second quote refers to functional roles, that is the exact activities each should be permitted to do.
My stand though, is that the State alone is amoral. The moral authority the State has is the moral authority that is licensed to its officials – directly or indirectly – by religion through the citizenry.
Direct Licensing is where there is a “divine right” in operation, or when a Religious Council actually supervises Parliament, like in Iran. The Direct approach can of course be too formal.
Indirect Licensing is much more common. Indirect Licensing is where “culture” and “common sense” are used as substitutes for a Religion that is dead in practice. It is also where secularists have usurped religious values to overthrow clerical hierarchies, and changed those that they didn’t like.
As for this “moral tone” debate, my position is, and has always been,
“Religion offers the moral tone, but it is the State and Citizenry who decide whether to follow that tone or choose something higher or lower.”
8) I would prefer to be considered naiive, because that designation at least allows for me to be willing to pick up new knowledge.
Religious Divisions offer a moral tone, but don’t compel anybody – not even their own followers – to accept it. Whether they accept or reject it, there are consequences, and in this world as well.
In Mainline Christianity (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican) , there is both rejection of same-sex marriage and rejection of socio-economic discrimination against homosexuals. Physical Discrimination of homosexuals – which does not include points 4 and 5 in your Homosexual Civil Movements agenda – is a rejection of the moral tone of the Church.
9) Me? I have not defended Intelligent Design before. I support Theistic Evolution, and will continue to.
I reject Young-Earth Creationism and Creationism in general, because it is too reductionist. I approve of the idea that God is involved in the creation of the Earth, which is the Theistic Evolution viewpoint. I believe in evolution; in fact, I am a fan of all the stuff on the dinosaurs and the Eras and all that.
You misread me in #98 (as usual). My “wider definition of Intelligent Design” encompasses Theistic Evolution. In that same post, I denounce both Creationism and Evolutionism (not the Theory of Evolution) as dogmatic.
Evolutionism is the application of Evolution to explain the genesis of everything, including the human soul or human character. Evolutionism excludes the role of God completely, because it is an atheistic philosophy. Evolutionism is the philosophy that uses Evolution to prove the non-existence of God.
Theistic Evolution, on the other hand, interprets Evolution as a tool used by God to create man and animals and plants, but maintains that human souls are not a result of evolution. Your interpretation of TE is a little off-the-track.
Hi theonlinecitizen #240,
If you really want to moderate, demonstrate by removing Arix’s latest comment #246. It consists of 1,362 words, a violation of TOC’s moderation policy on the 500-word limit.
“If you really want to moderate, demonstrate by removing Arix’s latest comment #246. It consists of 1,362 words, a violation of TOC’s moderation policy on the 500-word limit.”
For those who don’t have time to read 1.362 words, I have, after a quick glance, summarized Arix’s points, which are largely directed to Smallvice585, as follows-
Smallvice585,
1) You don’t like me.
2) You childish
Leslie Lung makes you feel better.
3) I am not bigoted.
4) You are a waffle
5-6) Your logic is a peculiar Lemon
7) You misunderstood me again
8) There is no 8)
9) Me? You misread me (as usual). In fact I am a fan of dinosaur stuffings.
I hope this had been helpful, and I pray that everyone demonstrates the same brevity of reply. :)
Curious… I wonder how that (>1000 words post) got past the mods.
Anyway…
246) Arix on July 15th, 2009 1.47 am
“7) Morality is not subjective; it is an objective fact. There is a most-balanced or balancing position in every situation. This balance occurs on all levels, external and internal and between external and internal.”
I disagree. Everything (include Morality, but excepting physical facts) is subjective. Despite your claim, you actually agreed with me as you qualified your position that there is a ideal position for every situation. Thus morality is subjected to that situation, is it not? Moreover, the ‘ideal’ position is depending on the interpretation of what ‘ideal’ is, isn’t that so?
p.s I sub your “most-balanced or balancing position” for “ideal”, so tat I don’t have to type so much everytime I need to refer to it.
But not all are fooled by gay bigotry actions.
You guys are really deviating from discussion. It is very clear that the actions of some of those gays in NYU are very intolerant towards others who don’t agree with their views such that they are willing to raise issues or create problems just because others have make a strong opinion against their gay views. The extend of their actions goes beyond and into unrelated topics of any person who dare to make a stand against their gay views. If this is not bigotry at the clearest, then what is bigotry? Gays are the real bigots here, some kind hearted people believing in human rights are fooled or are chickened out when accused by gays to be bigots but not all are fooled by gay bigotry actions. Gay Steeplejacking perhaps?
246) Arix on July 15th, 2009 1.47 am
# Morality is not subjective; it is an objective fact. #
Is this a mere personal opinion, or intended to be a statement of fact? If the former, how is this opinion arrived at? If the latter, what’s the supporting evidence for it?
#Naturally, there are also individual Ethical positions taken by each person or each group of persons that try to approximate this Balance. Few people reach that balance, and even fewer manage to sustain it. Each of these ethical positions are the “intrinsically subjective” morality that you refer to.#
The use of the upper case ‘Ethical positions’ and ‘Balance’ suggest that these are defined terms. Where can the definitions of these terms be found?
Sorry if the answers can be found in the earlier postings, but I just chanced upon this thread and have not had the time to trawl through it to search for them.
Without much further elaboration, let me state that I agree with Arix’s position in post #239. Specifically I concur with these points:
(1) Criminalizing homosexual sex has been justified on secular grounds, namely, public health and public morality (i.e. a shared morality common to all society regardless of individual religious persuasion). Whether you find these secular justifications persuasive is another matter.
(2) Morality is objective, in the sense that a moral statement is either true or false. (“Killing a non-combatant during wartime is wrong.”) However, due to epistemological constraints, we are not always capable of accurately evaluating the truth-value of moral statements (“Killing a 8-week-old human embryo is wrong.”) Such uncertainty offers one reason why the State should refrain from dictating controversial moral issues (in other words, ‘neutrality’ or ‘tolerance’).
(3) Every religion makes a claim to correctness: it’s not just about me preferring vanilla while you like peppermint. Hence, every religion attempts to set the moral tone for society (and for the world).
(4) It is the job of the secular State to resist these totalizing attempts, without itself becoming totalitarian in the opposite, anti-theistic direction. My views are reflected in the ‘Wet Market’ analogy I developed further in the ‘Constructive disharmony’ thread. So long as State policies do not prefer one religion over another (and ‘religion’ includes atheism and secular humanism), the principle of Church-State separation is not breached.
(5) I also agree with smallvice585’s point, however, that in trying to ensure equal treatment of all religions, the State must be sensitive to the historical, cultural and institutional contexts. It’s possible for a religion with a large following, important socio-political status and heavy-duty institutional machinery to edge out of public debate entirely a minority religion. (This is why ‘offering’ a moral tone may be synonomous with ’setting’ the moral tone.) Herein lies a thorny problem: can the State ensure equality among religions by applying otherwise-discriminatory policies? Can it, for example, more closely moderate the practices of ‘large’ religions in order to provide ’small’ religions with sufficient breathing space?
la nausea #252,
“Can the State ensure equality among religions by applying otherwise-discriminatory policies? Can it, for example, more closely moderate the practices of ‘large’ religions in order to provide ’small’ religions with sufficient breathing space?”
Sure it can. Just chuck out the muddying, divisive, authoritarian business of morality and deal in the language of ethics, reason and whenever possible, evidence.
If a sound case can be made, it can be made via the latter. If not, as it is often the case, the former is invoked. Doesn’t that speak to the superiority of the latter model?
Can you imagine otherwise? I stand to be corrected.
“It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” ~ WK Clifford
lobo76 #249,
“I disagree. Everything (include Morality, but excepting physical facts) is subjective. Despite your claim, you actually agreed with me as you qualified your position that there is a ideal position for every situation. Thus morality is subjected to that situation, is it not? Moreover, the ‘ideal’ position is depending on the interpretation of what ‘ideal’ is, isn’t that so?”
Amen!
Hello Arix at #246:
I note you have now changed your position from “religion is the source of all morality” to “religion offers the moral tone”. This is much better. In fact, it would be even better worded as “religion offers _a_ moral tone”.
By the way, the reasoning in your penultimate para is very confused, “gabra” in local parlance: You say “Evolutionism is the philosophy that uses Evolution to prove the non-existence of God”. You cannot “prove” the “non-existence” of something that doesn’t exist in the first place. The closest “non-existence” comes to is a vacuum. One can _demonstrate_ a vacuum exists by showing the absence of any other matter in an enclosed space. This is what the theory of evolution does. You are, of course, free to choose to believe it or not, just as non-believers are free to choose to follow or not to follow the moral tone offered by religion.
LM at #251: Arix has said at #187 (2-3) that “god” is the source or authority that says all morality springs from religion!!!
So effectively Arix’s stand is subjective too….As mentioned morality is subjective. Even the interpretation of the scripture is subjective. It used to be that woman cannot be leader or speak in public as mentioned by Paul. now we have TCC that has woman as top pastor and leader….SUBJECTIVE.
Zef (#248),
Apparently Smallvice has run out of arguments, so he is resorting to attacking my post length, how totally disingenuous.
What do you mean by “dinosaur stuffings” anyway?
Lobo (#249),
I specifically made a distinctions between Ethical Positions and Morality. I didn’t want to get too complex, but basically there is a Moral Ideal that includes expression of the Ideal Situation. And this Ideal Situation is 1 Ideal Situation, not many.
This Ideal Situation contains an Ideal Societal Context, which includes Ideal Government, Ideal Economy, Ideal Education System and so on, even Ideal Business and Ideal Money, as well as Ideal Scientific and Ideal Spiritual Knowledge.
Because Societal Context has not reached the Ideal State yet, therefore there is an Ethical Ideal for each of the Pre-Ideal Societal Contexts, depending on the structural and knowledge constraints that the person within the Context has to deal with.
However, very few people hold on to even that Ethical Ideal, therefore we have a variety of Ethical Positions around that Ideal.
The solar system is a perfect analogy. The sun is at the center of the solar system, and the planets revolve in eliptical orbits around it, and in turn a moon or a few moons revolve around each planet, in varying orbits. Sometimes the orbital position is closer to the center, other times apart. But there is still a center.
So to analogise, the Moral Ideal is the sun. The Ethical Ideal is each planet that revolves around the sun. The Ethical Position is the position of each moon that revolves around each planet.
Do you understand the picture?
The position of the moon doesn’t change the position of the sun and the earth. Similarly, the various Ethical Positions do not alter the Ethical Ideals and the Moral Ideal.
258) Arix
We get your picture, Arix, but what you just described is a metaphor for what you believe as an Absolute Morality.
I do not disagree that there could be an Absolute Morality out there, but how can you be sure that the Absolute Morality that you seem to be so in touch with, IS the ABSOLUTE Absolute Morality? What about mine?
In other words – IT IS STILL SUBJECTIVE. Unless you can state categorically that your radar is more tuned to the Absolute Absolute Morality than mine is.
And by ‘dinosaur stuffings’ i mean
Arix,
I tried to learn more about what you meant by “evolutionism”, because, honestly, I have never heard of such a term. Here’s the info from the first link [wiki] google threw up:
“The Institute for Creation Science, however, in order to treat evolution as a category of religions, including atheism, fascism, humanism and occultism, commonly uses the words evolutionism and evolutionist to describe the consensus of mainstream science and the scientists subscribing to it, thus implying through language that the issue is a matter of religious belief.[5][6] The basis of this argument is to establish that the creation-evolution controversy is essentially one of interpretation of evidence, without any overwhelming proof (beyond current scientific theories) on either side. Creationists tend to use the term evolutionism in order to suggest that the theory of evolution and creationism are equal in a philosophical debate.”
You also mentioned evolutionist in another thread.
P.S. The banana video was actually meant for H20; I thought he/she might find it compelling.
Arix #258,
Your proper nouns sound very distinguished indeed.
But what does it mean in reality? Would it be premature or a foregone conclusion to guess at what position absolutist morality might take on such issues as abortion, homosexuality, secularity, sex education, science education (Evolution/Big Bang)?
Arix #246,
“Evolutionism is the philosophy that uses Evolution to prove the non-existence of God.”
This sounds quite ridiculous. And inane enough to be something creationists with persecution-complex dreamt up to accuse atheists of having (namely a “philosophy that uses Evolution to prove the non-existence of God.”)
I would love some evidence of atheists utilizing that “philosophy”, if you don’t mind. It’s just so darn silly.
budamax1952 #243,
“…we on TOC are not out to hurt each others feelings (everybody’s got feelings, and some are more sensitive); Surely we can get our POVs across without being harsh to each other right”
“Surely we can get our POVs across without being harsh to each other right”
“We have to build up a brotherhood in TOC where everybody respects each other and this way we will attract thousands of new members who will feel confident to contribute their best for the battles we have to fight for the betterment of humanity.”
I disagree, disagree, and disagree.
Hi Arix #246 #257,
I sense arrogance and intolerance. Your intolerance is demonstrated by your definition of Christian-bashing – “you are guilty of Christian-bashing if you specifically hit out at any core doctrine of Christianity as it was set out originally.” Your arrogance is demonstrated by implying any core Christian doctrine is perfectly infallible. Stop crying wolf!
So you finally admit that you’ve been mis-identifying the Christian Moderate all this time? You wrote: “Left, Right and Centre” are not terms evolved by the Christian Hierarchy. Nobody said these terms are Church-speak. Left-Centre-Right represents the continuum of political opinion within the Christian Community on how “Christian” a country should be. The most fanatic would be the far Right who would go as far as possible to establish a Christian theocratic state.
Christian-bashing is an inaccurate-term in the sense that you were trying to project me as someone who is attacking every Christian out there. I don’t deny that I am targetting a specific Christian group/cluster. This is different from being “anti-gay” which refer to the tendency to reject LGBT gender identities that do not conform what the group regards as norms.
I wonder how Leslie Lung would have felt if he learned you called him deranged idiot. According to this TOC Interview, Leslie revealed that he is comfortable with his gender identity despite repressing his attraction to males. There is still a partial rejection of his gender identity, so the “anti-gay” label still applies. Moreover, Leslie embraces reparative therapy as religious counselling. You are promoting reparative therapy as medical treatment.
Hi Arix #246 #257,
[Continuation of #264]
What a nice red-herring: it has not yet been confirmed that all of what homosexuals claim to be discrimination is in fact discrimination. Discrimination refers to distinction, exclusion or preference based on class and not individual merit. By pronouncing homosexual behaviour as immoral, this promotes negative behaviour and negative attitude towards homosexuals instead of considering their individual merit. Yet at the same time, there is no unanimous agreement in society that homosexual behavior is immoral.
You find my peculiar lemon distasteful? I am merely demonstrating that laws which promote homosexual discrimination cannot meet up the standard of secularism. This begs the question whether homosexual discrimination can be considered as practise support by secular values. Religious freedom is not an open license to do whatever you want, especially when religious freedom is used for promoting a practise that contradicts secular values. A good example is religion contradicting secular values is Jehovahs’ Witness members getting jailed for refusing to enlist in SAF for National Service.
It is hard to accept that you don’t discriminate homosexual persons when you reject their gender identity. You don’t think they should be able to express their attraction or engage in an intimate relationship with another consenting adult. Plus the reason you support the repeal of S377A is that to bridge the conservative-liberal divide and not actually supporting the right of homosexuals to engage in consentual sex.
Let’s see what you have written so far on the State, Government & Religion. You wrote in #34 of the “Emperor’s New Clothes” thread: They [religious institutions] have equal moral authority as any “Secular” Institution. You wrote in #233: Where the State’s role ends is where the role of the Religious Groups starts. You wrote in #246: The moral authority the State has is the moral authority that is licensed to its officials – directly or indirectly – by religion through the citizenry.
Utter rubbish! Singapore’s secular foundation dictates that where the State’s role ends is where the role of citizenry starts. Not all citizenry is backed by religious motivation. The authority of the State / Government comes from its ability to enforce / remedy its decision. This has nothing to do with moral authority in the first place. You are also arguing for the case of religious groups as the rightful and sole source of indirect licensing of moral authority to government. Public morality is the result of competition between religious and secular groups in setting the moral tone of society, and this competition is moderated by the Government. In another words, the Government is the sole gatekeeper to public morality, not religion.
Theistic Evolution is not a subset of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is also not a subset of Theistic Evolution. Don’t pretend what you don’t know. A very simple question will indicate whether you are confused between ID and TE. In your opinion, is your [whatever] theory a scientific theory and whether it seeks to replace Evolution? If the answer is yes, then it cannot be TE and this means you did not reject ID. If the answer is no, then it shows you are not confused. Please don’t create pseudo-science by merging science with theology.
Is this Christian-bashing?
“If it isn’t Roman Catholic then it’s not a proper Church, Pope tells Christians”
Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2056515.ece
smallvice585
“By pronouncing homosexual behaviour as immoral, this promotes negative behaviour and negative attitude towards homosexuals instead of considering their individual merit. Yet at the same time, there is no unanimous agreement in society that homosexual behavior is immoral.”
What you talk? If it is not talk cock then it is crap.If it is not the behaviour that determines the morality of the homo then is it their appearance? What merits? Merits don’t give liberty or right to display of unbecoming behaviour. A person is judged by behaviour and behaviour reveals the true character of the person.
Come on ,it has be known that
“Private drug and sex parties have been a popular alternative to gay saunas and discos for many young gay men for nearly a decade; and mixing drugs, including alcohol with sexual activity has been shown to substantially increase the risk of transmitting HIV as safer sex practices are abandoned along with inhibitions.
252) la nausée on July 15th, 2009 11.17 am
#Morality is objective, in the sense that a moral statement is either true or false. #
It would be more appropriate to state that ‘a moral statement is either right or wrong’, rather than ‘true or false’. Note that both examples given by you refer to ‘wrong’, rather than false. e.g. killing a non-combatant in war is wrong. Since notions of right and wrong differ among different societies, cultures and religions, morality can hardly be said to be objective.
255) Peter Sellers on July 15th, 2009 3.05 pm
#Arix has said at #187 (2-3) that “god” is the source or authority that says all morality springs from religion!!!#
As others have pointed out here, we have through this in ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’. Arix stated there that morality originated from religion, because ‘religion is universal’, or something similar. His ideas about the universality of religion is apparently culled from articles on the Internet, one by, of all people, a Professional Engineer (http://custance.org/old/evol/2ch1/2ch1.html), and another (http://www.worldspirituality.org/primitive-monotheism.html) by someone who did not even bother to publish his credentials!
Wow, H2O, what rooster toking you? Liddat then Hetrosexual behavior is also immoral because it is straight people who chiong KTV and go Geylang jio kok-kok-gey leh? Some more, never pang long leh! Because shiok mah!
#267sllim///”If it isn’t Roman Catholic then it’s not a proper Church, Pope tells Christians”///;;; This confirms that the organised Christian religion has gone to the dogs;;; This is the 21st century for f@#& sake;; can you believe the headman of the RC church making such statements;;This is arrogance, pride and lust for power of the first degree, if you ask me.
@LadyMadonna (#268): The truth or falsity of a moral statement is the reason why it is ‘objective’, and is distinct from what is being claimed in that statement (‘right’ or ‘wrong’). The distinction is between ethics (what’s right or wrong) and meta-ethics (the status of claims about right and wrong). For example:
(1) The statement “Wearing black socks is wrong” is false.
(2) The statement “It is right to punish a person who recklessly endangered another person’s life” is true.
(3) The statement “It is right to punish a person engaging in homosexual sex” is probably false.
You said, “Since notions of right and wrong differ among different societies, cultures and religions, morality can hardly be said to be objective.”
I do not think this philosophy is sustainable. Firstly, I’m not sure anyone will seriously contest the meta-ethical claims made in (1) and (2). This shows that there is at least a core of settled, objective morality: some acts are clearly right, and some clearly wrong. Shooting someone for wearing black socks is clearly wrong, for example, and I’m not sure anyone can and will in all honesty defend the contrary position.
If you go the full distance with the subjectivist/relativist perspective, then there’d be no basis at all for making a claim on someone from another culture, or for expecting that they listen to your arguments. We’d be left unable to criticize undoubtedly abhorrent practices like female genital mutilation, public cruxificion, ‘ethnic cleansing’ (justified on the basis of one culture’s claim that it’s superior), and so on. And if you do criticize such practices, then you’re not really a relativist (or not a consistent one).
Furthermore, relativism is often invoked in order to urge tolerance for other cultures (e.g., ‘Right and wrong are subjective, and our version should not be imposed on others”). But that principle of tolerance cannot be defended unless it’s an objective moral principle. If it isn’t, why should Culture/Religion X, which believes that all persons below a certain height should be killed, tolerate us, if its own culture does not endorse any principle of toleration for alternative ways of life? A more realistic example is that of religions advocating theocracy of some sort; if we go entirely by their internal logic, there’d be no basis for us urging them to tolerate our culture or religion.
Zef (#259),
The Moral Ideal is a balance point. So I believe that at least on the issue on homosexuality, I am closer to the balance than you are.
And what do you mean by “dinosaur stuffings”?
Sliim (#260) and smallvice,
Note: Wikipedia classifies Theistic Evolution as a form of creationism.
Sliim (#261),
Absolutist Morality takes on anything the Absolutist wants it to be. The Moral Ideal may or may not cohere with the Absolutist’s views, because remember – it includes Societal Context.
sliim (#262),
Simple: Just read “The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins.
sliim (#263),
This is what qualifies you and smallvice as Militant Atheists.
smallvice (#264),
Some more ranting from you. I think there are some others who are starting to tire of it too – gemami, mice and even la nausee. Really, you should get a life, or attack H2O instead. He/she has much more ammo of your kind.
1) No, I do not believe that any Christian Doctrine – even core ones – is infallible. That is why I am interested in religious integrationalism: to iron out any inconsistencies. On the other hand, unlike you, I do not think that the Core Doctrines are absolute trash. That is the attitude that a Christian-Basher takes, particularly an Atheist Christian Basher, and especially a Militant Atheist Christian Basher.
2) Hmm, slight correction: it represents the opinion of the outside world on what the continuum of political opinion within the Christian Community is.
3) Your “specific” group is so large that it practically includes most Christians. If you want me to rescind that label, then provide me a clear distinction between your Christian Left and your Christian Moderates/Centre.
4) Don’t you dare twist my words (although that is painfully common)! I didn’t call Leslie Leung a deranged idiot; I said that the content of your posts imply that he is a deranged idiot.
@Arix (#246, 274), you said: “Evolutionism is the philosophy that uses Evolution to prove the non-existence of God.”
As I’m sure sllim etc. will point out, the theory of evolution (‘ToE’) does no such thing. It seeks neither to prove nor disprove God’s existence, only to explain life as we know it. And it develops a strikingly accurate explanatory model within which ‘God’ and ’soul’ are unnecessary concepts. ‘Theistic Evolution’ (‘TE’) as a scientific model violates Ockham’s razor, by positing these extra concepts with their added complications. The burden of proof is not on ToE to prove God’s non-existence, it’s on TE to show that those extra concepts are necessary for a complete explanation of life’s origins on Earth.
smallvice (#265),
And the ranting continues…
1) *Sigh*. I already stated before that I am categorically against that type of discrimination i.e. points 1-to-3 of the Homosexual Civil Rights Movement Agenda. The fact that you still think that I support that shows that you have not been listening attentively to what I am saying.
And as I have posted in #258, My Morality is not the sin-is-a-crime type of morality. So your point doesn’t apply to me. Exclusion and etc are the result of the responses to homosexuality being regarded as immoral, not the result of homosexuality being regarded as immoral in itself.
And on the social response, I would vouch that except for the small minority led by Alex Au, most people still support the retention of S377A and the notion that homosexuality is immoral. There is no evidence to the contrary.
2) FYI, Human Rights Organizations like Amnesty International regard the jailing of Jehovah’s Witnesses as the Jailing of Prisoners of Conscience. That is the concept that you have not touched on: Conscience. Theoretically, the State is not permitted to make you do anything against your Conscience. And Conscience is involved in many aspects of religion, especially the moral aspects.
Anyhow, you haven’t offered a rebuttal to my cross-examination of your Lemon Test. (Incidentally, the Lemon Test has not been decisively re-affirmed.)
3) Again, a misstatement. I believe that there shouldn’t exist a need for them to express their attraction or engage in an intimate relationship with another consenting adult of the same sex. However, I respect that as long as there is no discovered and proven method of removing this need, they should either be permitted to do whatever they need to do, or be persuaded to voluntarily restrain themselves. For that reason, I am ambivalent towards the idea of permitting adoption, in addition to the already-existent issues pertaining to adoption which I have listed in a previous post.
Yes, I support the repeal of S377A to bridge the liberal-conservative divide (and dilute the influence of Militant Atheists, don’t forget). But I also support the repeal of S377A because I believe that the State should not interfere in Citizens’ private affairs. So yes, I support the “right” of homosexuals to have consensual sex as far as the State is concerned.
But to me, the “right” to homosexual sex is like the “right” to have cancer (and no, I am not equating homosexuality to cancer) and keep from taking medicine. So sure, Neither the State nor the Religious Divisional Leaderships has executive authority to force a cancer patient to take his/her patient, but so what?
4) Firstly, I am not “dictating” anything. I am stating how things actually operate, “Secular” foundation existent or not.
The ability of a government to enforce/remedy its decision comes from its moral authority. If it has no moral authority, nobody will listen to it over the long term. Military Force and Brute Strength is Hard Power. A Government with hard power has enforcement authority for the short-term. But eventually the citizenry will revolt or agree to be martyred if the Government can’t convince the Citizens that it possesses moral authority; i.e. “soft power”.
A Government without hard power is like a gunship without guns; A Government without soft power is like a gunship without a rudder. Which do you think is more serious?
I didn’t talk about religion has the rightful source of moral authority; I talked about it as the de-facto source of moral authority. Religious Groups offer the moral tone, which is then manipulated by the “secular” groups to determine the final outcome. Whatever morals the “secular” groups claim to have are appropriated or derived from religion either directly or through the Indirect Licensing through “Culture” and “Common sense”. The central idea of Right and Wrong itself comes from religion.
5) My “theory” is Theistic Evolution, so it does not seek to replace Evolution, but to complement it. I never pretended “what I don’t know”. I base my comments on logical analysis and my own empirical observations and third readings.
Aft) Seriously, you might find it more profitable attacking H2O.
la nausee (#277),
Evolutionism does not refer to the Theory of Evolution itself. It applies to the use of the Theory in an invalid context.
As for Theistic Evolution, the question lies with … Evolution itself. Can Evolution evolve itself? On Common Descent: How do plants and animals sharing a Common Descent enable survival of a species? (Or more crudely, how is “Cannibalism” promote survival?)
la nausee (#277),
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
“Evolution cannot explain why Common Descent took the paths it did.”
buda (#270),
This is one of the historical controversies around Christian Unity. On one hand, the Catholic Church is the “proper” Church because it is the Church that has direct descent from the Apostles as mentioned in the Book of Acts in the Bible. On the other hand, it may not be the “proper” Church in terms of Theology or Policy.
Arix, in continuation of my post at #255:
You say at 187-5 that “the view of legislators are shaped by religion, even those who claim to be ’secular’” and “The moral authority the State has is the moral authority that is licensed to (ie vested in) its officials – directly or indirectly – by religion through the citizenry” (246). You preface this by saying “the state alone (ie on its own) is amoral”.
And yet, I note you have chosen not to answer my post at 212 “In the 1970s, Singapore’s legislature passed laws legalising abortions. So which religions did this piece of “morality” come from, since you say that legislators’ views come from religion?”
Lets face it, legislators views and attitudes to public morality come from their perception of the public good. What is good for the public at large (and this includes considerations of economic good) may not necessarily coincide with what is considered good or moral by religion. In fact, the state often takes a position that is contrary to positions taken by religious institutions, such as those on abortion, euthanasia, organ donation and so on.
la nausée, I’m not sure I understand your concept of absolute morality (am I correct in assuming that an “objective” view of morality is the same as an “absolute” ie universal view of it?).
Concepts of morality change over time and also vary between cultures as you have yourself pointed out. For instance, slavery was once considered “normal”. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were both slave owners. During their time, the “objective’ view would have been that it was quite moral ie acceptable to own slaves. This view has changed. Likewise, there are societies where animal sacrifice for religious purposes is still practised. In other societies, this is considered barbaric. So, if the concept of morality changes over time (Dawkins calls it the changing Zeitgest), how can we possibly take an “objective” view of it at any time?
Although there is a core of settled, objective morality (ie settled at any point in time), with clear rights and wrongs, it is what falls in between, the large grey area, where problems arise.
Taken over time, concepts of right and wrong move as in a tidal wave. It is the views of society _as a whole_ that, in my view, determines what is or is not acceptable at any point in time (and no, Arix, these views are not determined solely by religion :) )
hi la nausée,
on July 11th, 2009 12.46 am
////@Arix (#97), if Thio marshaled strong arguments in favour of keeping 377A, and failed to consider what sort of criminal law response might be (more) proportionate, then the inference is irresistible that she supports a jail term.
Imposing a fine would probably be marginally more acceptable than imposing a jail-term, just like being slapped in the face is marginally better than being kicked in the balls.
Whatever form it comes in, the use of the State’s coercive force is always in need of justification, since it inflicts a prima facie wrong. This is irrespective of whether the coercion is in the form of a jail-term, a fine, caning, a Corrective Work Order, detention without trial, etc..
As a liberal, I do not think it’s ever justifiable for the State to enforce a moral ‘way of life’ as comprehensively as Thio desires it. The State ought to focus only on basic questions of fairness and justice, and leave as much room as possible for individuals to develop and revise their own ethical conceptions.////
i agree with your point above.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
hi Arix,
post #108 on July 11th, 2009 1.45 am
////The role of any religion is to offer a moral tone for all of society, unless it be a cult like Jehovah’s Witnesses. After which, the believer or non-believer can choose to accept or reject that tone.////
that is the sort of world view that does not sit well with everyone who does not share such views. its plain obvious people who are vocally trying to claim moral high ground will be viewed with suspicion & may not be welcomed to offer any moral tone.
will the religiously devoted take it as a sign & step back? or will they try al ways & means to push forth their agenda? reality itself (locally speaking) offers clue to what that answer may be. do not put the responsibility squarely on the “audience” if more than minor persuasion is used. there is nothing to really stop vocal & dedicated people from proselytising till some relent.
Arix,
“So I believe that at least on the issue on homosexuality, I am closer to the balance than you are.”
So at the end of the day, after all those 10,000-word arguments, your point is still – I believe I am right because I am closer to the Moral Ideal than you are. Ie – ‘Because my God says so’ – even if it’s a moderate (but lengthly) strand.
How is that different from any of the tired arguments we have heard so far?
And I can’t tell you what Dinosaur Stuffing is. It will be what you want it to be.
All of you have until 22nd July to tear each other up. The end is near and is here.
Watch this video http://www.hercolubus.tv The great debate, the great sages, the gay activists, lobbyists your Sodom and Gomorrah is here. Repent.
La nausee, Arix
On the other hand, I do agree that too much of a relativist/subjective approach can lead to the condoning of all sorts of evil in the name of subjective morality.
As for the point of ‘Absolute Morality’, this is my take, and I hope it’s more rooted in both Science and Religious History than Arix’s theology-
From Richard Dawkins, we have the claim that ‘morality’ comes from ‘Altruistic genes.
From religions, morality comes from the Divine. (Jehovah, Yahweh, Allah, The Void, Shiva, The Flying Spaghetti Monster)
Let’s no argue where Morality comes from, but just, agree there is an Ideal.
Now if you do comparative studies of religious history, you will notice the unmistakable EVOLUTION of Moral Thought. Ie – Regardless of whether there is an Absolute Moral Ideal, Man’s awareness of that Ideal grows over time.
Even if you believe that the Truth or Word of God exists since the Beginning of Time, or that it exists in Homo Sapiens in the form of the Altruistic Gene, the fact remains that it takes a bloody long time for Man to become morally conscious.
The ‘universal’ concepts of morality – that to get to ‘Heaven/Nirvana’ you first have to be a moral person, as opposed to being merely a pious one – only began to emerge during the Axial Age (roughly 500BC) – which is the time of Confucious, Buddha and in the Middle East, the return of the Jews from Exile and the codification of the Law of Moses.
Jesus took the idea further with his teachings, and because many of the things he preached are accepted as ‘common’ morality now, we tend to forget how revolutionary the idea of ‘do unto others what you want unto yourself’ was. BUT EVEN THEN, slavery was still accepted – the only requirement is that slaves be treated well.
And even from then on, until only recently, war wasn’t as universally condemned, as we can see many religious teachings merging with military ideology – such as the absorption of Zen into the codes of Bushido.
The idea that ‘We’re one but not the same’ on a GLOBAL SCALE only begun pretty late, I would say, at the beginning of the 20th Century. Which of course led to the Civil Rights Movement, Live Aid etc etc…
It’s just a very sketchy summary. But you can study it for yourself to see if it makes sense.
So what I want to point out is this – regardless of origin, scientific or otherwise – Morality evolves – and we can see that ‘Altruism’, that sense of recognizing Them as Us, grows from seeing only the Family/Clan unit as Us, to the neighboring tribes, to people in the region, to people from other nations, to people of other colors, gender orientation etc.
It is a ‘Progressive’ evolution.
So any argument that says that if Morality is subjective/relative, then nothing is truly immoral, has to take the Progressive nature of Moral Evolution into account. Shooting an un-armed person regardless of color or gender orientation for example, would be considered immoral however-way you wanna argue it.
Arix would like to believe that he had arrived closer to the Moral Ideal – which somehow still includes the baffling view that homosex is immoral.
I see that as Regressive.
And we can also see that H2O is still stuck somewhat in 2000 BC during the time of Arbraham, morally speaking.
Arix
#273,
Again, what does that mean in reality?
#274,
“The Blind Watchmaker” takes on the argument from design (which you supposedly disagree with). In itself, natural selection doesn’t and cannot disprove the existence of any Gods, or leprechauns or garden fairies, again it just takes on the argument from design.
Evolution by natural selection is science not philosophy. It is by the way currently contested as the driving force of Evolution. None of the contending scientific hypotheses has to do with God. Do they also represent Evolutionism?
#275,
How so?
287) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on July 16th, 2009 9.27 am
You are becoming a great sage with crappy philosophy. You can start a Newer Age movement . Save humanity before they destroy themselves .
On second thought, rope in la nausee, sillm, that smallvice fellow and there you are , you have first council members to preach your craps to your beloved LGBTs.
#282///This is one of the historical controversies around Christian unity///;;;With a Christain population of 2.03 billion Pope Benedict could have avoided causing much offense and divisiveness among the Christians;;His ultra-conservative views really belong to the middle-ages and are out of place in this modern world;;3 years ago he did the same irresponsible thing and caused much unhappiness and offence to the 1.2 billion muslims when he said that Islam is basically a war-mongering faith;;;Compare the record of Pope Benedict with the previous Pope John Paul 2 and you see a world of difference.
H20,
Did you find the banana video compelling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4)?
If you don’t like fruits, there is also the peanut butter proof of God: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504&feature=related
#285,
Does that mean you will stop posting after 22nd July? What is it with Christians and doomsday prophecies? Why do some of them have such hard ons for death?
H2O
“You are becoming a great sage with crappy philosophy. You can start a Newer Age movement . ”
Knowledge of things beyond the Book of Genesis isn’t being New Age-y my Abrahamic friend. It’s simply being well-informed. Besides, you HAVE to be well-informed in order to be a sage. How else do you think Jesus keeps winning the argument against the Pharisees?
Go do some reading. Go. Shoo.
budamax1952 #290,
Not to mention his take on condom use (“condoms make Aids crisis worse”). You just wonder how many will be killed by his words.
Arix #280,
Are you serious? Simply pointing out that “Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did” doesn’t satisfy the burden of proof. If it does, all doors to all creation stories are opened. In fact, we can create, pardon the expression, a few now.
In any case, I knew theistic evolution is creationism (no duh). By the way, talkorigins is a great site for you to learn about science and evolution.
“Evolution cannot explain why Common Descent took the paths it did.”
At least, evolution does not pretend to know what it does not know.
About Matryoshka doll, can you perhaps let us know under which layer mankind is residing in the bigger scheme of things of the larger cosmic Matryoshka doll.
To analogize, men are just like fish trying to speculate something beyond their natural water environment, sometimes having a chance to see real humans swimming under the water.
@Arix (#279-280),
Can Evolution evolve itself?
Evolution works predominantly by natural selection, the two-part process of random genetic mutations and non-random selection. If some other mode of evolution exists, we haven’t observed it yet, and our scientific model need not accommodate it (just as it does not accommodate the possible discovery of fairies on 26 September 2034).
On Common Descent: How do plants and animals sharing a Common Descent enable survival of a species?
If you’re asking how the first microbe on Earth managed to survive despite being sui generis and thus more susceptible to being eliminated through natural selection compared to a whole species or genus, the anthropic principle explains that. If our common ancestor hadn’t survived, then we wouldn’t be here to ask your question.
Lastly, in Post #280, you have paraphrased the quotation from:
“Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.”
to
“Evolution cannot explain why Common Descent took the paths it did.”
The original quote reveals more clearly the creationist overtones of TE. Like other creationist theories, it looks at Life from a prospective angle and concludes some element of design is involved to get from Point A to Point B, when the proper approach is to view things retrospectively, accept that Points A, B, C etc. did in fact occur, and try to explain the overall process.
#294 sllim/// Pope Benedict–”condoms make Aids crisis worse”;;;;Agree; When world leaders lack wisdom and are attached to ‘fixed-views’, this is the source of millions of the world’s innocent dieing;; Fortunately we have an ‘Obama’– like they say, there is always a silver lining in the clouds.
@Zefly (#286), that would precisely be my stand. The correct response IMO to Arix or anyone else who says “Homosexual behaviour is wrong”, is “You’re mistaken”, not “There’s no such thing as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’”. The latter response is incorrect because we use concepts like ‘right’, ‘wrong’, ‘just’, ‘unjust’ all the time in order to evaluate our own actions and those of others.
Of course, homosexuality (like abortion) is a far more contested area than the core, settled area (e.g., murder, rape, genocide, torture and degrading punishment, slavery, racial discrimination, etc.). And even the ’settled’ area can be deeply contested: Is caning prescribed by law a form of ‘cruel and inhuman’ punishment? Are affirmative action policies a form of racial discrimination?
So this state of uncertainty about an objective morality offers another reason for a ‘minimalist’ State: as far as possible, the State should legislate only the reasonably settled areas of morality, and even so only enough to set up a framework for a peaceful, cooperative society, where each member is allowed to develop his or her full (or ‘maximalist’) conception of morality.
Let’s go back further than evolution and look at the physical world. It came from the Big Bang? Started as a very tiny “particle?” held together by four forces. The forces decided not to cooperate causing the Big Bang.
Q – Where or what was this “particle” in? Empty space? How big was the space? How did this particle come about? Anyone with answers?
Well one thing then is for sure – this physical world is not eternal, it had a beginning.
Homosexuality, on its own, and as argued by those who support it, is not wrong. Just as chewing gum is not wrong. However, like the ban on chewing gum, which is for the larger good of society, considerations must be given to ensure that this greater good is protected. I know, I know, you are going to start over again on your point about discrimination and equal rights. But I urge you to pause here a moment and consider this.
Chewing gum is discrimination too isn’t it?
So. What is for the greater good of the society? So far, we have been given the impression that gays are as human as the person standing next to us, when stripped of his sexual inclinations and preferences. But the fact remains that many cannot bring themselves to see them beyond their nakedness. Yes, yes, you are going to say this is discrimination and unequal rights and must be put right. I agree with this. Unfortunately, before we can get to putting things right, we have to first correct the other supposed wrong, which is, to make people see beyond the nakedness of the gay person for who they truly are.
I have said this earlier; that this is a work-in-progress. And to make this process fruitful, it is fundamentally important that the gays understand not only the mindsets of the non-gays but also seek ways to address these mindsets. What they should not do is to adopt a confrontational approach, the way the Western liberals have done so. With all their might, the fact remains that, for example, in the US, the conservatives outnumber the liberals 2 to 1 – in a poll conducted earlier this year.
To the gays, I have one question. What is your greatest fear? And please do not ask me back the same question because it does not matter what I fear. I am not the one being discriminated against. You are. So what is your greatest fear? That you remain on the outside of society like lepers? That must be it, right or wrong? What then is your greatest desire if not to be counted among the humans of society, right? Work towards it then, in the most productive and effective manner, which surely does not include confrontation.
It is no use bashing someone like Thio who surely must have enough people who would listen to her as there are the detractors. You will only set your course backward more than it would forward. Just look at how this article has deviated as an example. We are now even talking about the Big Bang! Geez!
B-b-b-but every argument can be traced back to the Big Bang!!!! (pouts)
“Like other creationist theories, it looks at Life from a prospective angle and concludes some element of design is involved to get from Point A to Point B, when the proper approach is to view things retrospectively, accept that Points A, B, C etc. did in fact occur, and try to explain the overall process.”
Now, scale down to your bodily cells for example.
Can you decide which cell on a minute level should go (die) and say (live). Do you consider this process as some element of design. If it is, which element is doing the designing (if this can be called a very controlled way of designing – you the bigger part with head, body & legs and hands or the smaller individuals cells inside your flesh & blood body.
The BIG BANG occurs when 2 pairs of balls collide or clash during a stormy night.
Can I suggest that you debating creationists and evolutionists bash your heads against a on coming train. Some can lie on the tracks to test both theories to see which is true.What I can see is body parts fly.You bunch of boh liow
Mike2cts #299,
you can ask all manner of those sorts of questions, as Arix did in #279, and come back with the response “I don’t know” from those in the relevant field of study. You can proceed to get creative with answers you would like, but those are not answers, they are wild speculations.
Back in the day, they used to ask those questions to the question “what is the shape of the Earth”. Because nobody knew the answers, they referred to the Bible and came back with the answer: flat. (which is wrong by the way)
Not knowing now simply means not knowing now, and not “God did it”.
“303) H20 on July 16th, 2009 2.12 pm
Some can lie on the tracks to test both theories to see which is true.What I can see is body parts fly.You bunch of boh liow”
So why are you here listening to boh liow theories.
Body parts fly apart from live parts to dead parts and then to decaying stuff eventually blending & breaking down along the train track if they are left there long enough without anyone bothering to clean them up.
Like in everything, just one state to another state given long enough time, as in half-life of any atomic element. What do you call this, H20 theories.
#301 gemami;;;Hi gemami;;; Your arguments are based on false premises that we have gays and non-gays;; is this the true state of affairs;;This psychological dichotomy is a ‘construct’ of your mind;;; I will quote an example from the past to clearify ;;; Guru Nanak (1469-1539) the founder of Sikhism, after observing the enormous destruction and annihiliation produced from religious warfare in Moghul India came up with this gem ” There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim” and with just that teaching he created a brand new religion, Sikhism, which was essentially a ‘middle-way’ that solved a lot of problems between the muslims and the hindus;;; Similarly, like Guru Nanak, i propose that “there is no gay, there is no non-gay”;;; The true state of affairs where human-sexuality ( like Freud found out, after a lifetime of clinical observation and study) is that we are all bi-sexuals all our lives, and that this sexuality is in manifest or latent state;;;A lot of people who are brought-up on false views and fixed views don’t realise that they are heading towards a dead-end;;;Therfore, my advise is, we must relinquish these wrong views.
gemami #300,
that’s a loaded question. You are assuming their “agenda” is fear-based. A fairer question to the point might be: “what do you want to achieve?”
budamax1952 #306,
Psychology has come a long long way since Freud.
budamax1952,
What can be more false than a society that is not made up of gays and non-gays, black (now coloured) and white, male and female? Your reasoning is from a minority’s angle, that’s why your notion of the middle-path will not take off with the majority. It will be a futile attempt to link it to the gay’s fight for non-discrimination and equal rights, because they too, belong to the minority. And with reasoning like this, even the gays will look at you with averted eyes – simply because you are attempting to make a minority into a majority. It won’t work.
Furthermore, to debate your comments adequately, I will have to go into the religion realm. I won’t do this. God is someone whom mere mortals should not discuss. We don’t even know where we will place our next step, yet we want to understand the Omnipotent, Everlasting and Almighty God. We simply can’t, not with all the human intellect and writings put together.
sllim,
Yes, the insinuation is fear. It may be a presumptuous insinuation but when one reads the postings from the so many threads here, the impression cannot be lost on the reader. The fear to be continually discriminated against, the fear that their fight may not produce the desired result, these are sentiments that are being expressed over and over again – described in many forms and styles.
However, you are also right that the more important question would be: “what you want to achieve?”. I think I made this clear enough in my concluding remarks in the earlier post – the desire to be counted among the rest of society – as equals.
Gemani,
If I’m hearing you right, you feel that a ’softer’ approach might be necessary.
What I don’t understand is this – there are enough examples to show that the gay community is not a monolithic bunch of hedonistic sex-and-drugs-starved people. Thio Li-Ann herself did talk about the gay friends she disagreed with, and I would assume that she could also see that those friends of hers are capable of monogamous ’stable’ relationships. I’m also assuming that they would be pretty intellectual and reasonable given the circle she walks in. And – barring the GLBT issue – she would need to be someone of not too low intellect to be an academic. And yet she remains unpersuaded.
So how would the ’softer’ approach work?
Gemami #309,
The fear-question is misleading not only because it is a loaded question that assumes that implies that’s all there is to it, but it is ultimately irrelevant. I could easily ask, to use your example, what do the people who were against the chewing gum ban fear? Isn’t that just ridiculous?
I haven’t seen a good secular anti-gay argument since the AWARE fiasco. Scratch that. I haven’t seen one ever. There’s religion (“God hates fags”), xenophobia and the ick-factor. I mean come on, what else is there? Can you really blame them for being confrontational? What will you have them do? Beg for acceptance for who they are? (Some of them do, I am sure.)
Correct me if I am wrong. I am under the impression that your rationality is convinced that homosexuals are right in the equal-rights fight but you still have a problem with homosexuality. If this is indeed the case, can you explain why?
And on the back of Zefly’s question: what softer-approach do you think will work on those not amenable to reason?
I know! I know!
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I do see a link between a patriachial mode of thinking, and the marginalization of gays.
I mean, isn’t one of the misconceptions about gay people is that they are ‘faggots’ – ie feminine?
So, the gay community have to masculinize the concept of ‘gay’ in the popular notion to get the majority’s acceptance – the way Gemami suggests.
Let’s start with the tagline-
How about…
“Man Enough To Be Gay” ?
Gay people, are you taking notes yet?
Gemami #309,
“God is someone whom mere mortals should not discuss. We don’t even know where we will place our next step, yet we want to understand the Omnipotent, Everlasting and Almighty God. We simply can’t, not with all the human intellect and writings put together.”
That doesn’t work. It is internally inconsistent; you applied human intellect to a concept which you then declare is above the human intellect. Any magical creature can be invented thus.
We might as well say 1+1=banana (no relation to Ray Comfort’s Proof of God), then turn around and declare by fiat no amount of arithmetic can disprove this, because a banana is above the realm of arithmetic.
Zefly #312,
If I am not wrong, gay beefcakes are called “bears”. As though homophobes are not adversed enough, they have to go bulk up like crazy. What are they thinking?
Maybe “bears” buy into the misconception as well.
I know Sliim #314,
Not to mention they have a hegemony on style and creativity… and eloquence (try debating with a gay person), and what more, them butches stole our bitches!
Come to think of it, I should be fighting on the OTHER side!
Dr Thio! Where are you? Space for a new member?
zefly 315,
Congratulations on having the first good (is good the right word?) secular anti-gay argument.
The Not-fair-please-look-at-me-I-talk-good-too-them-bitches-are-mine-plus-I-am also-very-creative argument is at least empirically verifiable, I think.
271) la nausée on July 16th, 2009 12.20 am
#(3) The statement “It is right to punish a person engaging in homosexual sex” is probably false# contradicts your earlier assertion (#252) that “Morality is objective, in the sense that a moral statement is either true or false.” If a moral statement is either true or false, there shouldn’t be any ‘probably’ about it.
However, glad to note that you now agree (#298) that there is no ‘objective’ morality and that morality is in a constant state of evolution towards a Moral Ideal. Whilst I agree that morality does evolve (whether progressively or regressively is moot, it depends on which region or area we are referring to and against which set of moral principles), I am not too sure that it is towards a Moral Ideal. It would be ideal if it were. My point however is that in the absence of an ‘objective’ morality, morality must necessarily be subjective.
As for your argument on the distinction between ethics (what’s right or wrong) and meta-ethics (the status of claims about right and wrong), it seems specious but is fallacious. Take your example:
The statement “Wearing black socks is wrong” is false.
Question: Would this statement still be false if the wearer was required to be in uniform which stipulated that only white socks be worn? I would agree that shooting a person for disobeying dress codes is a little extreme, but there are other forms of punishment other than a capital one. Moreover, what if he were a soldier and instead of wearing camouflage he wears black socks and this endangers the lives of his platoon? Should he not be punished? In an earlier age, he might conceivably be shot.
In a nutshell, one cannot make absolute statements like the example given by you above. Also, theories on subjectivity/relativism aside, the absence of an absolute morality does not mean that there cannot be common ground on what constitutes ‘right’ and ‘wrong’; however, our rationale for arriving at a common right or wrong may differ.
306) budamax1952 on July 16th, 2009 2.40 pm
another middle roader theory, bisexual. Who are you trying to please? La nausee, slim or zefly? That Freud guy is a fraud. You have swallowed line ,hook , balls and sinker.You can be a fraud too. You make more sense if you keep away from the fraud pyscologist. He needs a pyschatrist. Send him to IMH and you can keep him company so that both can have a bisexual discourse.
PS (#282),
1-3) I feel too exhausted to re-iterate my view again. Please read my replies to smallvice, the parts on the direct and indirect licensing.
Quote from #246,
“”"
Direct Licensing is where there is a “divine right” in operation, or when a Religious Council actually supervises Parliament, like in Iran. The Direct approach can of course be too formal.
Indirect Licensing is much more common. Indirect Licensing is where “culture” and “common sense” are used as substitutes for a Religion that is dead in practice. It is also where secularists have usurped religious values to overthrow clerical hierarchies, and changed those that they didn’t like.
“”"
Does the part in italics answer your question?
6) What society does depends on politics and religion (spirituality).
mice (#283),
Well, there is a role for everything, whether these people like it or not. There is a role for the State, and a role for Organized Religion, and a role for Religious Spirituality.
On the other hand, perhaps how the religious divisions offer their moral tones can be changed somewhat. That would still be a WIP.
Zef (#284),
Not quite. What I have tried to do is to analyze why God says so. (And not my God, because that implies polytheism.)
I have been trying to work out a theory of morality/sin that goes beyond the “Sin is a crime against God, that is why it is wrong” argument.
Zef (#286),
3) And I would ask Dawkins where his genes come from. :D (I wonder … how to do emoticons?)
6) Agree; but it is not necessarily linearly progressive. However, man does progress closer to the Moral Ideal each time new knowledge is found. Yet, because there are so many dimensions for the Ideal, Man might gravitate closer on one dimension and further on another. (My solar-system analogy is somewhat reductionist in this aspect.)
7) Indeed.
8) This part of your history is flawed.
The purpose of the Classic of History was to record tales of morality from before Confucius. As Confucius himself states in the Classic of Rites (I read the English Translation), the moral sense of the Chinese People exists since the time they lived in caves (Paleolithic Era). That would be 5000 BC?
(You can find the translations on http://chinese.dsturgeon.net)
Jewish Morality doesn’t mysteriously appear during the return of the Jews from Exile. It is a tradition handed down from at least Abraham, if not Noah and Seth. Abraham’s culture is datable to around 1900-1800 BC. The Mosaic Covenant resembles other covenants in 1400 BC in the Near East.
(For more on this, read K.A. Kitchen’s “On the Reliability of the Old Testament”.)
Your Axial Age Theory – that sounds like it is from Karen Armstrong – is somewhat flawed then.
9) Just because Rome approved of slavery, doesn’t mean Jesus did.
10) The merging of religious codes with militancy is an unfortunate thing, but that doesn’t indicate that religion is inherently militant.
11) What exactly is that idea?
12) The Progress of Morality does involve the increase in altruism, as you define it. But it also includes the Growth in Moral Sense. Moral Progress is in 2 steps: Recognizing the Them as Us, and Us all growing together toward the set-up that is the Moral Ideal. And there is only one Moral Ideal, not a cluster. You missed out the second step.
13) For full progress to occur, the Progress must be both horizontal and vertical, becoming wider and deeper. You are over-concentrating on the horizontal aspect, and neglecting the vertical aspect. As Ken Wilber says, one must not forgo Growth Hierarchies because one hates Dominator Hierarchies.
14) Not if you are on the lower end of the scale.
15-16) Ah, but I approach immorality in a different way. At least you should be able to see that my approach to immorality is some steps up from the Fundamentalists’ “jail all homos” approach advocated by TSM (I guess).
Let’s look at the “highland”, instead of the flatland, okay?
Zef (#287),
Yes, but a definitely at a lower level than the Patriarch.
Sliim (#288),
1) It means exactly what it says.
2) Ahh, but Dawkins takes on the “wide” definition of ID. He writes a book with the thesis that Evolution can explain away God. So that is Evolutionism.
buda (#290),
That article is from 3 years ago.
Anyhow, he is technically correct in a historical sense. On a Moral sense, more dodgy. He doesn’t have the diplomatic calibre of John Paul II.
sliim (#293),
In the long term, His Holiness is correct. Of course, as Lord Keynes said, “In the Long Term We are All Dea.”, so…
sliim (#294),
so go on!
Mat Doll (#295),
Your question is only answerable if we knew the total number of layers in the doll.
La Nausee (#296),
1) That is not an answer to the question. The Question is really, “What is the origin of Evolution itself?”
2) No, you got the question wrong. The question is:-
Take Organism A to be the Common Ancestor of both animals and plants. Animals eat plants. Natural selection is a mechanism meant to ensure survival of the species. How does animals eating plants ensure the survival of both animals and plants?
3) Common Descent is not just a theory about the past; it is also a theory about the present and future. It is supposed to be able to continue to occur even today, so prospective logic is not irrelevant to the question.
sliim (#311),
2) That is because you have chosen to stereotype religious views.
LM (#317),
2) Evolution has a start stage A and an end-stage B. So, there must be a Moral Ideal that is targetted in order to cause change in Moral Perceptions. You can’t eat a non-existent cake.
6) Unless there is an absolute, there cannot be a “common” anything.
Arix #324,
And what is this “wide definition of ID” that he takes on? Direct quotes from him and IDers, please.
(Am I the only person wondering if Arix is just making things up as he goes along?)
# 318 H20;;; The bi-sexual theory is not just a theory it’s an actuality meaning it is the true state of affairs where our human sexuality is concerned. So why should it need support from the gays or non-gays to stand up on its own. It is complete in itself and can be proven true, through individual experience when there is no repression in our thinking and when we are not attached to any wrong views. I have to reiterate that accepting this theory doesn’t mean that if you are male you rush off looking for a male partner and if you female you rush off looking for a female partner. Don’t worry about that. Just be natural. You just have to accept that our sexuality is fluid in nature. Nothing to be ashamed of right. We are the way we are built. Its no big deal. Just like we have 2 hands and 2 feet, its natural. Why get uptight about it. Relax brother.
Arix #324,
Can you provide an example?
Arix #326,
How so? Not by evidence, I presume.
Abstinence works 100%, no doubt. But it’s just fatuous to think abstinence-only programmes/education work likewise. There’s a decent amount of evidence pointing at the abject failure of those. Outside the Vatican, in the real world, people enjoy having sex, I have no problem considering such misinformation “evil”.
Arix #327,
Go on what? Talkorigins? I know a fair bit about Evolution and science. Fair enough, at any rate. It’s really meant for people who know very little about Evolution and science.
Arix #330,
I was quoting Fred Phelps. Fine, not all Christians think that, some also think God really really loves them, just not not as they are, so they must change-or else.
Arix #331,
“Evolution has a start stage A and an end-stage B.” Back this up. Not by your own “theory” please, real stuff from biologists.
hi Arix,
post #320 on July 16th, 2009 8.44 pm mice (#283),
////Well, there is a role for everything, whether these people like it or not. There is a role for the State, and a role for Organized Religion, and a role for Religious Spirituality.////
state is Big Bro, Religion to you also is Big Bro (no. 2)? how can the role of religion be dictated by men? besides there are many religions, there is no good reason for a “few” vocal & religious people to make bold claims for all religions.
////On the other hand, perhaps how the religious divisions offer their moral tones can be changed somewhat. That would still be a WIP.////
there is a difference between offering views & clamouring to drown out of people’s views that differs from 1’s own. also, tact is required on when & where to offer such views, simply because of it’s sensitive nature.
slim #304
You contradict yourself. Not knowing now means “God did it” is a possibility?
@Arix (#329),
1) The Question is really, “What is the origin of Evolution itself?”
This is exactly the same type of question as, “What is the origin of the laws of physics themselves?” As I said, the anthropic principle explains why evolution and the laws of physics are the way they are, without needing to posit an uncaused First Cause which significantly complicates the overall theory.
2) How does animals eating plants ensure the survival of both animals and plants?
You have a way of framing questions strangely (!). ‘Eating’ (heterotrophy) occurs because it is the most efficient way of obtaining the necessary carbon-based compounds and (together with energy) producing energy). Heterotrophy begun even from viruses and bacteria, and in fact preceded autotrophy (through photosynthesis) by plants, since light was in short supply in the Earth’s earliest days.
The reason why heterotrophy is feasible is explained by predator-prey interaction theory. Simply put: if X eat Y, and too little Y are left, many X will die of starvation; in the meantime, the population of Y recovers. So it’s a self-correcting mechanism.
Also, didn’t you learn in primary school that animals and plants share a symbiotic relationship through the nutrient cycle? In that sense, plants benefit from animals eating them.
3) Common Descent is not just a theory about the past; it is also a theory about the present and future. It is supposed to be able to continue to occur even today, so prospective logic is not irrelevant to the question.
See above.
Sorry, in #337, I meant, “(together with respiration)”.
Mike2cts #336,
“You contradict yourself. Not knowing now means ‘God did it’ is a possibility?”
I’ll repeat myself: Not knowing now simply means not knowing now, and not “God did it”
Another way to put it is: not know now doesn’t mean “God did it”
Get it?
#322 Arix,
I did mention it’s a very sketchy picture because I do not intend to write lengthly thesis’s, so I do believe you are splitting hairs.
By ‘moral evolution’ I mean in on a social scale. Of course at any given point in history or even prehistory, there would be individuals who ‘arrived’ pretty close to the Ideal – even the most famous Buddha we know of- Siddhārtha Gautama- mentioned that he wasn’t the first Enlightened One.
8 ) We’re talking about the codes, norms of morality being adopted/institutionalized on a much larger scale than there was before – so what you disagreed on isn’t facts, but semantics.
9) Jesus is largely silent on slavery – but we can take it that he doesn’t approve of slavery. And yet his silence on homosexuality is argued that since he is a Jew, he would share the stance as the Jews. How so?
10) Splitting hairs, dude. My point was that even if a Highly Realized Individual understood fully what the Ideal is, it would take ages for the rest of us mere mortals to catch up.
11 – 12) I dun quite get you on the Moral Sense thingy.
slim#339
I understand the “now’ scenario. Is knowing “God did it” a possibility in your consideration?
Do we know ourselves? In the movie “The Matrix”, the “world” was the reality of all the human brains kept alive and functioning in jars of nutrients. To stretch it further, why the need for the brains & jars of nutrients?
Could we be just virtual data processing units exchanging info with other units?
When our “hands” touches something, when our “mouths” tastes something, when our “eyes” sees something, when our “ears” hear something & when our “noses” smell something , we affirm the physical world. How can we be sure it’s there since all of us operate in the same way? Or maybe none of you are reading this is real?
Big Bang theory can be explained in this scenario cos it’s all data! A superdense particle containing all the material in the universe would just be … data.
@LadyMadonna (#317), you said:
“I would agree that shooting a person for disobeying dress codes is a little extreme, but there are other forms of punishment other than a capital one. Moreover, what if he were a soldier and instead of wearing camouflage he wears black socks and this endangers the lives of his platoon? Should he not be punished? In an earlier age, he might conceivably be shot.”
in the first place, by asking, “Should he not be punished?”, you are making the objective moral claim that “A soldier who endangers the lives of his platoon should be punished”. You’re not in fact denying objective morality, you’re simply saying that objective moral standards may generate differing conclusions according to the particular circumstances to which they are applied. For example, an autocrat who decrees a law that “Every person seen to be wearing black socks in the streets will be shot” clearly acts wrongly. A military commander, faced with mutiny amongst his ranks and a dangerous enemy, and who proclaims that “Any soldier wearing black socks will be shot”, is less clearly wrong.
It is also no good answer that “[i]n an earlier age, he might conceivably be shot”. Citing an historical or empirical fact does cannot falsify a moral judgment: “We shoot people” doesn’t imply “We ought to shoot people”. The correct response is that our ancestors were mistaken in believing that the appropriate punishment for wearing black socks is to be shot.
Subjectivism is a wearisome distraction, especially because no one is ever a consistent moral subjectivist. The typical skeptic rants on like this: “Hey, you claim that your religion/morality has the correct answers. But there is no such thing as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’; it’s a matter of individual opinion, and no one can say that the other is mistaken. It is wrong for you to impose your beliefs on me. It is wrong for you to criminalize homosexual sex when it’s such a controversial issue. It is wrong for religious believers to attempt to convert non-believers. It is wrong for you to restrain me from disagreeing with you.”
Notice how the skeptic immediately contradicts himself or herself by making several moral claims which are held out to be objectively true (i.e. which purport to apply universally). So all that tosh about there being no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ is meaningless filler, a distraction from the substantive and objective moral statements being made.
A JIHAD FOR LOVE
Six years in the making, A Jihad for Love is the groundbreaking documentary by Muslim gay filmmaker Parvez Sharma which explores the complex issue of homosexuality and Islam.
Filmed in twelve countries and nine languages, A Jihad for Love speaks from within the faith, illuminating the lives of its gay and lesbian subjects in all their human complexity and diversity.
This film is not only a rare, first-hand account of the threats faced by gays and lesbians, but it is a celebration of the courageous effort that is being made by Muslims around the world, often in silence or alone, to reconcile their faith and their love.
Film Website: http://www.ajihadforlove.com/
Film Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78jUBRio3So
321) Arix
“Not quite. What I have tried to do is to analyze why God says so. (And not my God, because that implies polytheism.)”
Maybe God didn’t say what you think he said. You can’t be that arrogant to presume your antenna is tuned closer to His frequency than the rest of us.
“I have been trying to work out a theory of morality/sin that goes beyond the “Sin is a crime against God, that is why it is wrong” argument.”
Sin is what takes you away from God. Putting the concept of Heaven and Hell aside first, IMHO, being with God means being in that state of Love, Grace and Happiness in spite of the conditions of the physical world – and that is just a very weak definition. I do believe that many of what is attributed as His Words and Commandments are perfectly REASONABLE to reach/remain in that state. For example, lying is ’sinful’ because it makes the perpetuators live in a state of denial and dishonesty, which isn’t the best place to be in. (Whether I practice it or not is another matter altogether.)
Hence I can’t understand how being homosexual automatically distances one from God – unless you want to revert to the Adam-Eve-not-Adam-Steve argument, thus gays are living in denial and dishonesty because they deny their true nature. But unless you live inside their mind, you can’t be that presumptuous to say they are in denial.
Your arguments on the grounds on psychology holds no water too, because based on your penchance for indulging in online debates means spending a disproportionate amount of time alone- like me- do indicate you show signs of neurotism. Should I therefore recommend that it’s best for you not to marry and procreate – to prevent the ’spread’ of neurosis – and also seek some reparative therapy?
Mike2cts #341,
you are not kidding about the 2 cents are you?
1) Sure, it’s possible for someone to CLAIM to know (as opposed to believe) that “God did it”.
2) It’s possible for God(s) (any one or number of of them, even one we make up right this minute) to exist. It follows that it’s possible to “know” he/she/it/they did it.
In the instances above, psychological examination might be called for. We know for a fact, that people hallucinate and are very capable of misinterpreting reality (eye witness accounts for example). There are also numerous cases of people killing others claiming God told them to. Those might have gotten a free pass in the past, but in this day and age, probably not.
3) Ahh, the ol’ brain in a vat pseudo-quandary. It’s useless speculation when we can’t tell even if it exist. It’s even more useless than the God hypothesis, at least that gives everyone something to chew on.
@sllim (#311), you said: “I haven’t seen a good secular anti-gay argument since the AWARE fiasco. Scratch that. I haven’t seen one ever.”
Well, attempts have been made, to say the least. The basic thrust is that sex, to be morally good, must involve both mutual affection and procreative potential. Appended is one example for your delectation:
“Genital intercourse between spouses enables them to actualize and experience… their marriage itself, a single reality with two blessings (children and mutual affection). Non-marital intercourse, especially but not only homosexual, has no such point and therefore is unacceptable.
The union of the reproductive organs of husband and wife really unites them biologically… Reproduction is one function and so, in respect of that function, the spouses are indeed one reality, and their sexual union therefore can actualize and allow them to experience their real common good—their marriage with the two goods, parenthood and friendship…
But the common good of friends who are not and cannot be married (for example, man and man, man and boy, woman and woman) has nothing to do with their having children by each other, and their reproductive organs cannot make them a biological (and therefore personal) unit. So their genital acts together cannot do what they may hope and imagine. [They] can do no more than provide each partner with an individual gratification. For want of a common good that could be actualized and experienced by this bodily union, that conduct involves the partners in treating their bodies as instruments to be used in the service of their consciously experiencing selves…“
“The basic thrust is that sex, to be morally good, must involve both mutual affection and procreative potential.”
Why is it then that sex between a married couple that do not want to have kids isn’t considered morally bad then, since they’re not keen to exercise the procreative potential?
la nausée #345,
a) do you, personally, consider that a good secular anti-gay argument?
b) If not, why are you slinging crap at me?
b) If so, are you serious? If you are, I’ll work on a response.
@sllim (#347), I do not, but I don’t think that’s the issue here. The fact is that this argument articulates and develops an ‘anti’-gay position (1) in a way does not directly reference religion, and thus which people can reasonably accept regardless of religious belief; (2) which is not flagrantly illogical; (3) has a distinguished academic and intellectual pedigree (including the Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, but also a cadre of modern-day philosophers and legal scholars); and (4) which Thio & Co. are relying on in support of 377A.
@Zefly (#346), the argument is that the act has procreative potential, so whether one wants children or not is irrelevant.
Re: post #349. I forget to add: (5) which many within the heterosexual majority subscribe to, either consciously or subconsciously.
“the argument is that the act has procreative potential, so whether one wants children or not is irrelevant.”
Then we’ll have to question if the morality of an act can be judged on its potential or its intent.
A sword has potential to kill, but does it make wielding a sword immediately bad?
I can’t see how the an act of sex between a married couple who do it out of pure mutual gratification and as an expression of emotional bonding – but taking measures to prevent the fulfilment of the procreative potential- is any more morally good than that of those between a committed homosexual couple!
And by the same token, sex between INFERTILE people should be considered morally wrong since there is no procreative potential to speak of!
la nausée #345,
This is sufficient: “The basic thrust is that sex, to be morally good, must involve both mutual affection and procreative potential… Non-marital intercourse, especially but not only homosexual, has no such point and therefore is unacceptable.”
A) “thrust”?
B) Tautology
C) The notion of romantic love in unions is a relatively new addition. I am sure there was some philosophical morality-twaddle about how marriage and sex, to be morally good, need only involve procreative potential.
D) “Morality” and social norms interact in an ecosystem. Neither one dictates the other. What is construed as moral/immoral in society can arise from the ground up, from individuals, from groups, via memes. That might have been the rationale behind the usage of the term “gay”. Mores shift when a critical mass is reached. Take KKK, who was laughed out of existence.
Sidelight: Some memes are more thick-skinned. (Morally) good sex for Moonies involves the couple and “father” himself. That is his portrait, looking down oh-so-approvingly. There are other weird directives like she goes on top for a certain number of days before they switch.
E) As for the indirect nod to religious beliefs; the claim is marriage has to be sanctified. (This raises the question: Should Atheists be allowed to marry?) We will almost definitely come to this point and hear this claim after 377A is dropped.
F) “Procreative potential” reeks of Ad Hoc. As Zefly pointed out, what about infertile couples?
G) I think Aristotle also said some pretty goofy things. Appeals to authority doesn’t work with me.
H) Yes, a lot of people buy into mumbo jumbo. So what? Most people, I believe, are not like H20; they care if their positions seem reasonable. Critical mass doesn’t mean the majority. The right information just has to reach the right people for the process to begin. The rest, to maintain a semblance of reasonableness conform.
The weight of scientific evidence can serve to expedite the process. At the other end of the spectrum, of course, is the religious. They will rail, kick, and punch, but eventually come round with some inane Ad Hoc rationale for their previous beliefs.
Hi Arix #276,
Thanks for revealing your agenda – promoting religious integrationalism to merge religious authorities for political domination. Religion is not and will not be Big Brother in a secular state!
Why do you think the purpose of this war of words is to seek your approval? Your approval has no legitimacy. Moreover, it is the opinion, not the population size that that determines left, centre or right, although right-wingers tend to form large fraction within any political band. The fact that you think religion is big brother in society reveals your right-winged agenda. Let me remind you again: the Christian Left-Centre-Right represents the continuum of political opinion within the Christian Community on how “Christian” the country should be. An important thing to note is Christian Political Ideologies started out along the denominational lines but denomination lines no longer matters today.
The far right wants to establish a Christian Theocratic State. However, the dominant ideology within the Christian Right is Christian Nationalism. The goal of Christian nationalists is the restoration of the imagined Christian nation. The Christian Right rejects LGBT rights. As George Grant, former executive director of Coral Ridge Ministries, wrote in his book “The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action”:
“Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ — to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish.”
Hi Arix #276,
[Continuation from previous post]
Next, we have the Christian Centre-Right whose dominating political ideology is Christian Democracy. An example of a ruling party that practises this ideology is the Christian Democratic Union of Germany. Although Christian Democracy originated from the Catholic Church in the 19th century, there are non-Catholic Christians who subscribe to it, such as Lutheranist Angela Merkel (Chancellor of Germany). As a proponent of Catholic Social Teachings, Christian Democrats support traditional moral values although they have mixed position on abortion and LGBT rights – from outright rejection to full support.
Now, we come to the Christian Centre-Left which is dominated by Christian Socialism. Christian Socialism is influenced by the protestant Social Gospel Movement in the late 19th and 20th centuries. Christian Socialists apply Christian ethics to social problems, especially poverty, inequality, liquor, crime, racial tensions, slums, bad hygiene, child labor, weak labour unions, poor schools, and the danger of war. Its left-leaning tendency reflects how Christian Socialists tend to exhibit anti-establishment thoughts within the Christian Hierachy. Interestingly, the modern civil rights movement shares certain ideals with Christian Socialism. However, Christian Socialists’ve mixed position on abortion and LGBT rights – from outright rejection to full support. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is a Christian Socialist.
Finally, we come to the Christian Left. There is no dominating Christian political ideology within the Christian Left while Christian Leftists support a variety of secular political ideologies that embrace the social justice ideal. The Christian Left sometimes differs from other Christian political groups on issues not due to substance but priority (e.g. criticising concentrations of wealth is more important than suppressing LGBT rights). However, some members of the Christian Left affirm that some homosexual practices are compatible with the Christian life and believe common biblical arguments used to condemn homosexuality are misinterpreted. Such views hold that the prohibition was actually against a specific type of homosexual sex act, pederasty or the sodomizing of young boys by older men. Thus, it is irrelevant when considering modern same-sex relationship.
As you can see here, a Christian Moderate / Progressive is hardly moderate in the Secular Political sense.
310) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on July 16th, 2009 4.25 pm
“What I don’t understand is this – there are enough examples to show that the gay community is not a monolithic bunch of hedonistic sex-and-drugs-starved people.”: Zefly.
Does it not also seem to you that the non-gay community is not a bunch of monolithic religious fanatics too, that stand in the way of the gay? Do you not see that there are other non-religious, non-gays who are just as unaccepting of the gay lifestyles than the religious ones? There is a heightened confrontation against those who pose religious views, and this is understandable when we talk about Western societies where Christianity is the main religion, but we not talking about such a society, we are talking about a society like Singapore, where Christianity makes up nothing more than 10% of the population. Why then target your fight against the Christians as though they are the rulers of the land who hold the power to grant the gay his freedom to exercise his right to choose?
You guys are crucifying Thio as if the captivity of the gay is her doing and her fault. How unstable such thinking can be? Here in TOC, your views may get lots of support, but what Thio did for the non-gay community during the AWARE saga, was to bring awareness to the gay syllabus being taught in school. Now, without going into another round of debate, the general consensus among the larger population, Christians or others, is that they are grateful to her for bringing about such an awareness which otherwise would have gone unnoticed.
You ask me whether the softer approach will work. I tell you honestly, I do not know. But what I know is this, that the confrontational approach will bring about more heartaches, headaches and physical aches, as we have already come to learn from those societies that have taken such a route before us. Surely, you are not saying we must approach this issue in the same manner as them.
“I am under the impression that your rationality is convinced that homosexuals are right in the equal-rights fight but you still have a problem with homosexuality. If this is indeed the case, can you explain why?”: Sllim.
In the name of equality, everyone has the right to fight for his belief. I have no problem with anyone who wants to fight for his belief, but I will have a problem if the approach taken is one that insults my being, my loved ones, the things that are dear and near to me, especially my faith in my unexplainable God. Insulting my God is akin to insulting my father, my mother, my spouse and my family.
You have said it quite clearly enough that your notion of God is that “He hates fags”. I won’t bring myself to blame you for harbouring such notion, suffice to enlighten you that God loves everyone, man, women and those caught up in their own identity. Those who have given you this notion that ‘God hates fags’, are not true disciples of the loving God. There are countless other aspects of God which even a few lifetimes will not bring you the enlightenment you need to fully understand and grasp His Almighty Being.
You ask what softer-approach will work on those not amenable to reason. Simple. The same approach that got 377 repealed, except for that portion in 377A.
Religion is but only one of the stumbling blocks in your way. It is a small stumbling block in secular Singapore. This is why the gays have to reassess their approach and work with the other ‘neutral’ majority. The unfathomable component of religion will do you no good – as history has proven – and as being lived out in societies that are much more liberal and secular as ours.
271) la nausée on July 16th, 2009 12.20 am
“If you go the full distance with the subjectivist/relativist perspective … why should Culture/Religion X, which believes that all persons below a certain height should be killed…”
If you really go the ‘distance’, then there are plenty of strawmans for me to put up. For example, culture depends largely on the surroundings. if the surrounding is made up of tall grass of x height, and people who are lost in the grass will suffer a fate worse than death, than a culture might emerge that people who are below x height will be killed, to save them the suffering.
Going the ‘distance’ is not a very good method of knocking down arguments. For the opponent can easily go a further ‘distance’.
“You ask me whether the softer approach will work. I tell you honestly, I do not know.”
… I would have assumed before you start criticizing, you would at least have thought of alternatives. What made you think it hadn’t been thought of before? AND, what made you so sure that it is not being practiced by a larger(?) bunch of GLBT just going about their lives and changing people’s opinions of them by virtue of just being ‘normal’?
“Does it not also seem to you that the non-gay community is not a bunch of monolithic religious fanatics too, that stand in the way of the gay?”
Yes. But this is a contest of ideas. Unfortunately in the contest of ideas, the group that can at least articulate their stand, and with the capabilities to fudge the topic AND make it sound like a reasonable argument are the Christian fanatics.
They’re not being singled out for their beliefs, but for their ability to influence and lobby.
“You guys are crucifying Thio as if the captivity of the gay is her doing and her fault. How unstable such thinking can be? ”
Neither are we a monolithic bunch – I do not necessarily agree with everything that had been said of her. And on that note, didn’t you just do the same with Alex Au as if he is the sole spokesperson for the GLBT? And so far, the example you quoted was his use of the phrase ‘Singapore shown to be a fool’ – which is an issue of semantics. There is a whole world of difference between that phrase, and ‘Singaporeans are fools’ which is the reason you took offense.
“Thio did for the non-gay community during the AWARE saga, was to bring awareness to the gay syllabus being taught in school. ”
By the mere virtue that you called it a ‘gay syllabus’ indicates you bought into the notion that there was a ‘gay agenda’ to begin with. You may wanna ask instead where did the insinuation that there was an agenda come from?
“But what I know is this, that the confrontational approach will bring about more heartaches, headaches and physical aches”
And a conclliatory approach any less?
“Those who have given you this notion that ‘God hates fags’, are not true disciples of the loving God. ”
Then for God’s sake, go out and do something about it. Think of ways to convince the mass of people whom you said are put off by the confrontational approach.
Enough of the Devil’s Advocate. We get your point. Time to be an Angel.
353) gemami on July 17th, 2009 8.22 am
“Does it not also seem to you that the non-gay community is not a bunch of monolithic religious fanatics too, that stand in the way of the gay? ”
Isn’t the ‘opposing’ group ANTI-gay (not non-gay)? I mean, I am non-gay, but still pro-human (including gay) rights….
And though you weren’t asking me, it does seem that the anti-gays do give an impression that they are a more homogeneous group than others.
HI Gemami,
You wrote: Religion is but only one of the stumbling blocks in your way. It is a small stumbling block in secular Singapore. This is why the gays have to reassess their approach and work with the other ‘neutral’ majority. The unfathomable component of religion will do you no good – as history has proven – and as being lived out in societies that are much more liberal and secular as ours.
You just thrown out a red-herring. Our Parliament consists of 9 Catholics, 25 Christians (Non-Catholic) and 12 Muslims. I single out the Abrahamic Religions because their followers are well-known to be anti-gay. In total, there are 93 MPs (Elected, Nominated and Non-Constituency) in Parliament. In another words, the anti-gay fraction represents 49.5% of Parliament.
HI Gemami,
You wrote: Religion is but only one of the stumbling blocks in your way. It is a small stumbling block in secular Singapore. This is why the gays have to reassess their approach and work with the other ‘neutral’ majority. The unfathomable component of religion will do you no good…
You are wrong. Our Parliament consists of 9 Catholics, 25 Christians (Non-Catholic) and 12 Muslims. I single out the Abrahamic Religions because their followers are well-known to be anti-gay. In total, there are 93 MPs (Elected, Nominated and Non-Constituency) in Parliament. In another words, the anti-gay fraction represents 49.5% of Parliament.
I really question whether Arix is bigoted or misguided. I think he is concealing information in an attempt to gain the moral upper ground. For the sake of discussion, I will expand the following points on the Christian Left-Centre-Right Continuum.
An important thing to note is Christian Political Ideologies started out along the denominational lines but denomination lines no longer matters today.
The far right wants to establish a Christian Theocratic State. However, the dominant ideology within the Christian Right is Christian Nationalism. The goal of Christian nationalists is the restoration of the imagined Christian nation. The Christian Right rejects LGBT rights.
George Grant, former executive director of Coral Ridge Ministries, described Christian Nationalism in his book “The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action”:
“Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ — to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish.”
Next, we have the Christian Centre-Right whose dominating political ideology is Christian Democracy. An example of a ruling party that practises this ideology is the Christian Democratic Union of Germany. Although Christian Democracy originated from the Catholic Church in the 19th century, there are non-Catholic Christians who subscribe to it, such as Lutheranist Angela Merkel (Chancellor of Germany). As a proponent of Catholic Social Teachings, Christian Democrats support traditional moral values although they have mixed position on abortion and LGBT rights – from outright rejection to full support.
Now, we come to the Christian Centre-Left which is dominated by Christian Socialism. Christian Socialism is influenced by the protestant Social Gospel Movement in the late 19th and 20th centuries. Christian Socialists apply Christian ethics to social problems, especially poverty, inequality, liquor, crime, racial tensions, slums, bad hygiene, child labor, weak labour unions, poor schools, and the danger of war. Its left-leaning tendency reflects how Christian Socialists tend to exhibit anti-establishment thoughts within the Christian Hierachy. Interestingly, the modern civil rights movement shares certain ideals with Christian Socialism. However, Christian Socialists’ve mixed position on abortion and LGBT rights – from outright rejection to full support. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is a Christian Socialist.
Finally, we come to the Christian Left. There is no dominating Christian political ideology within the Christian Left while Christian Leftists support a variety of secular political ideologies that embrace the social justice ideal. The Christian Left sometimes differs from other Christian political groups on issues not due to substance but priority (e.g. criticising concentrations of wealth is more important than suppressing LGBT rights). However, some members of the Christian Left affirm that some homosexual practices are compatible with the Christian life and believe common biblical arguments used to condemn homosexuality are misinterpreted. Such views hold that the prohibition was actually against a specific type of homosexual sex act, pederasty or the sodomizing of young boys by older men. Thus, it is irrelevant when considering modern same-sex relationship.
As you can see here, a Christian Moderate / Progressive is hardly moderate in the Secular Political sense.
Arix discharged a lot of hot air in #278.
Arix is really dense. Arix wrote: I am categorically against that type of discrimination i.e. points 1-to-3 of the Homosexual Civil Rights Movement Agenda. Incidentally, Point 3 refers to anti-discrimination public policy and law, which criminalises the act of pronouncing homosexuality as immoral. Arix also refused to reject Theistic Evolution as a scientific theory. Silly boy!
Arix referred to Amnesty International for the description of “the jailing of Jehovah’s Witnesses as the Jailing of Prisoners of Conscience”, I would like refer Arix to this URL where it shows Amnesty International supporting LGBT rights.. Religious freedom is not an open license to discriminate. Go learn from Amnesty International…
Arix wrote: I respect that as long as there is no discovered and proven method of removing this need, they should either be permitted to do whatever they need to do, or be persuaded to voluntarily restrain themselves.
Last I check, the Church resents Atheists persuading Christians to voluntarily give up their religion. I also resent the Church sending its members to persuade me to give up sex voluntarily. The Church has no business to intrude or advise how I lead my life. There is no proven need for religion (evidenced by the existence of atheists and agnostics) as well. According to Arix’s logic, Atheists/Agnostics should have free access to convince Christians to abandon their faith and the Church should not resent.
Arix wrote: I believe that the State should not interfere in Citizens’ private affairs. Does that mean citizens have business to interfere other citizens private affairs? He just want to discriminate and be not told to discriminate. I also think the right to be a Christian is similar to the “right” to have cancer. Christianity is a lifestyle choice and it is a choice not made at the subconcious level. I would love to arrange counselling for Arix to repress his need to be “Christian”.
Good point <lobo76. The target for conversion should be the non-gays then because you will not get anywhere with the anti-gays.
LGBT_Observer: you are equating one’s religious belief to be a direct opposition to anti-gay sentiments. This is flawed. I am Christian but I also belief the gays have their place in society.
Your examination of the various Christian compositions does nothing but suggest that these are powerful groups that acts against the non-discrimination of gays. How can this be true when these compositions, put together, makes up less than 10% of the entire population. So again, your reasoning is flawed and is only applicable to some of the Western societies where Christianity is the main religious influence, like I have said so earlier.
Zefly, You are right. The time to play Devil’s Advocate is over, and if you have not noticed the change in tone in my latest postings, then allow me to state clearly that I am rather pissed by the constant bickering against issues that will get the gay groups no where near what they so desire.
I am pissed, because even my gay friends around me are pissed. Here are people picking a fight that will do the gay groups no favour. These gay friends around me are eagerly yearning for these smart ones to go try and convert those who are non-gays and who are not anti-gays.
“….changing people’s opinions of them by virtue of just being ‘normal’?” Zefly.
Ha! Ha! Even you are having trouble describing the gay.
“ Unfortunately in the contest of ideas, the group that can at least articulate their stand, and with the capabilities to fudge the topic AND make it sound like a reasonable argument are the Christian fanatics”: Zefly.
It is unfortunate indeed that the losers are the ones who always make claims of unfairness. By the soft tissues in your head, go do what these so-called Christian fanatics do, in terms of articulation. Apart from one or two vocal ones, have you seen or heard any other Christians offering their opinions in an hotbed environment? Sometimes, the silent articulation works better. But in your case, and in the case of the gay groups, they ought to sit up and take your advice ”…not to single out their belief but to cultivate the ability to influence and lobby”.
“Neither are we a monolithic bunch”: Zefly.
This is amusing. You know what? It would be better for the gays if they are monolithic. That way, there will be less ‘unacceptable’ issues to consider. Remember my call to get its house in order?
“… didn’t you just do the same with Alex Au as if he is the sole spokesperson for the GLBT?”: Zefly.
OK, valid observation.
“By the mere virtue that you called it a ‘gay syllabus’ indicates you bought into the notion that there was a ‘gay agenda’ to begin with. You may wanna ask instead where did the insinuation that there was an agenda come from?”: Zefly.
It is a gay agenda, in stealth, never mind where it came from.
“And a conclliatory approach any less?” :Zefly.
You believe?
Gemani,
Being pissed is not an action. Eagerly yearning is not an action. If you feel that taking on a softer approach is a better way, by all means go ahead. Go out there and convert those who are non-gay and not anti-gay. What’s stopping you or your friends?
Hope is nothing without action.
“Remember my call to get its house in order?”
Yes, do it please.
Get the monogamist gay people to ‘police’ the hedonistic gay people – tell them to stop their promiscuity and their drug-use because this negative stereotype is what sticks in people’s mind.
Get them to also tell those more effeminate ones to rein in their effeminacy because that’s another rope that the majority finds disdainful.
Get them to tell the butches to stop being so.. butchy.
Essentially put on a more pleasing front – don’t give the discriminators any rope to hang them with.
Also, persuade all of them agree to come to a compromise with the other camp – Agree that in return for removal of section 377a, never to bring up the issue of same-sex marriage and adoption.
Good luck with that.
Zefly:
You make it sound so easy, and that’s what it is all about isn’t it? So come one, come all! Enough of this bickering along lines that do no one any good. You guys have your work cut out for you and you need to go out there more than I.
;)
“Enough of this bickering along lines that do no one any good.’
then why respond? ;)
@Zefly (#350-351), you said: “I can’t see how the an act of sex between a married couple who do it out of pure mutual gratification and as an expression of emotional bonding – but taking measures to prevent the fulfilment of the procreative potential- is any more morally good than that of those between a committed homosexual couple!
…
And by the same token, sex between INFERTILE people should be considered morally wrong since there is no procreative potential to speak of!
The argument does go the whole hog, although it draws a distinction between biological and mechanical barriers. i.e. If a married couple is infertile and has sex, the limiting biological condition does not prevent them from realizing the unitive two-part good of marriage (affection + children). However, if they deliberately set up mechanical barriers to procreation (contraceptives, coitus interruptus), then their sex is as morally worthless as masturbation, homosexual sex, etc., since it’s sex that involves only affection. Since the sexual activity cannot realize the moral good it seeks to achieve, all that one is doing is treating one’s body as an instrument, and therefore dehumanizing onself (interestingly, even Kant condemned masturbation on similar grounds).
Would you say that a person willing to bite the bullet and condemn the use of contraceptives, as well as masturbation and adultery, would be justified in condemning homosexual sex as well? Of course, he or she might believe at the same time that such immoral acts ought not to be criminalized, but purely on pragmatic grounds. So theoretically, if such acts somehow became a real threat to society, the State could legitimately criminalize masturbation, adultery, etc.
@lobo76 (#354), you said: “If you really go the ‘distance’, then there are plenty of strawmans for me to put up. For example, culture depends largely on the surroundings. if the surrounding is made up of tall grass of x height, and people who are lost in the grass will suffer a fate worse than death, than a culture might emerge that people who are below x height will be killed, to save them the suffering.”
Again, that’s a useless rebuttal, because all you’re saying is that objective moral standards will generate different conclusions under different factual circumstances. The bolded phrase gives this away: your controlling moral principle is that of minimizing suffering, which justifies the killing (something like euthanasia) in the society described. In short, Suffering A (getting killed) is outweighed by Suffering B (being lost in the grass) in this case; but in another case where Suffering B does not exist, then inflicting Suffering A would be wrong.
This shows that even when you’re citing examples from other cultures which ‘prove’ relativism, you cannot divorce your narration of that cultural practice from some implicit moral judgment. So why not make those moral judgments explicit, rather than cloaking oneself in false neutrality?
369) la nausée
Masturbation should be criminalized because it’s an awful waste of sperm.
370) la nausée on July 17th, 2009 1.08 pm
“So why not make those moral judgments explicit, rather than cloaking oneself in false neutrality?”
First, I just want to point out that the ‘morals’ being spouted so far are superficial. Do not do this, or do not do that. etc Even your example of “people below height x should be killed being classified as immoral is superficial. NO underlying reason were ever given. At least no valid ones.
Which brings me to the second point. What is ‘valid’ reasons? That differs from person to person, from place to place, from time to time. Reasons also allude to having an goal/target/objective. But these also differ. So how can an objective moral possibly exist?
Which may lead to a third point. What is the definition of ‘objective’ here? Are there limit/constraints involved? For example, are we talking about morality in the 21st century only? Are we limiting it to ‘civilized’ societies as we know it? i.e tribes in some ulu area excluded.
In short, to answer your question… ‘false neutrality’ may be the only logical possible position for a objective person to take. People are certainly free to make explicit their ownmoral judgements, but should not expect everyoneto follow them.
And man-man sex is not a waste of sperm?
no, cos the protein is good for anal complexion… For God’s sake, Gemami, have a sense of humor please!
“Masturbation should be criminalized because it’s an awful waste of sperm.”
haha…. you are right. Just imagine 5 millions “potential-to-be” innocent children died of that. We male are just born to be murderer , haha.
….b…b…but…I was being humurous wat …..
wahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
lobo76 (#372), you said:
“First, I just want to point out that the ‘morals’ being spouted so far are superficial. … Even your example of “people below height x should be killed being classified as immoral is superficial. NO underlying reason were ever given. At least no valid ones.
How about (1) the sanctity of human life; and (2) the fact that a person’s height is not generally a valid basis for discrimination in deciding who should live or die?
Disagreements surrounding these moral standards do occur, but they are generally disagreements over how the standards ought to be applied in specific cases, not over the standards themselves.
Which brings me to the second point. What is ‘valid’ reasons? That differs from person to person, from place to place, from time to time. Reasons also allude to having an goal/target/objective. But these also differ. So how can an objective moral possibly exist?
In everyday discourse, people readily recognize what qualifies as a valid moral reason. “I punched her because she had blonde hair” is not obviously a valid reason. Neither is “I stole a pair of shoes from the store ‘cos I was feeling bored”. Conversely, “I drove at 120km/h ‘cos I had to rush my very sick daughter to the hospital” counts as a valid reason.
The fact is, we can argue about relativism and subjectivism until we’re blue in the face… and then we’ll each happily go on with our lives, passing moral judgments of our own, even elsewhere on TOC itself, over MAS’ financial losses, the profligacy of civil servants, the poor calibre of the new NMPs, and the thousands of issues and people which concern our lives. A relativist stance is at best an indulgence for our free time, just like other philosophical oddities like the ‘brain-in-a-vat’ and the ‘free will’ problem.
People are certainly free to make explicit their own moral judgements, but should not expect everyone to follow them.
Nor am I insisting that we should. However, moral discourse involves a certain common vocabulary which all of us can engage in, making discussion possible. It explains why we can disagree meaningfully at all, rather than every one speaking his or her own peculiar language, “You shouldn’t take other people’s things, only those which are irregularly-shaped”; “Taking people’s things is okay if you take a maximum of two per day.” Disagreement is possible, rather than nonsensical, because we all begin from the same rough starting-point, with a working set of abstract moral standards. Relativism denies this, and thus leads us into absurdity.
Gemami #355,
A) Your response mis-addresses my point. “I have no problem with anyone who wants to fight for his belief” doesn’t answer the question of whether your rationality is convinced that homosexuals are right in the equal-rights fight.
Perhaps my wording was unclear.
“right in the equal-rights fight” is not equivalent to “right in fighting for equal rights”
Simply put: do you think equal rights should be afforded to gays? Why?
B) Does pointing out that the anti-gay movement is driven in part by religious convictions insult your being, your loved ones, the things that are dear and near to you…?
C) “God hates fags” is not my notion of God. It is Fred Phelps’, a rather infamous christian bigot. I was quoting him. One thing that can be said for Freddy is he doesn’t pretend to be politically-correct, or reasonable, or that his convictions need anything other than the inerrant word of God.
D) Oh, the famous inscrutability of God(s). It’s just seems all too convenient that God(s) is plenty explicit when used to reinforce a position but infinitely inscrutable when used to defend one. Would you accept this rationale from adherents of other Gods should their beliefs come in conflict with your own?
E) Correct me if I am wrong but wasn’t 377 repealed largely because it was just too disingenuous to be held up anymore? If that’s the case, is that the “approach” you would suggest the gays take? Hang in there until people realize 377A is ridiculous?
F) And if 377A is repealed and the fight moves on to same-sex marriage, would your advice be the same?
G) “This is why the gays have to reassess their approach and work with the other ‘neutral’ majority.”
If finger-pointing at Religion is without grounds, then yes I agree, it is counter-productive to lay the blame at the feet of shadows.
But what if religion is a vocal stumbling block? (Small doesn’t mean less vocal or less influential.) Would you then agree that gays should take them on, and call them out?
378) la nausée on July 17th, 2009 7.22 pm
#How about (1) the sanctity of human life; and (2) the fact that a person’s height is not generally a valid basis for discrimination in deciding who should live or die?#
The point is, if one is arguing for an absolute morality (moral absolutism in philosophical terms), the above 2 questions are irrelevant. To quote wikipedia (I believe it is)
“Moral absolutism is the meta-ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act. Thus lying, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., saving a life).” This is the same point I was trying to make in an earlier post (which for some reason or other TOC feels is in need of moderation and has not put up yet)
#Disagreement is possible, rather than nonsensical, because we all begin from the same rough starting-point, with a working set of abstract moral standards. Relativism denies this, and thus leads us into absurdity#
Relativism does not deny disagreement over different moral positions. Although there are no absolute, concrete rights or wrongs in relativism, intrinsic ethical judgements do exist as abstracta, differing for each perception of an ethical outlook. That being so, disagreement is possible in relativism. On the other hand if moral absolutism dictates that certain actions are right or wrong e.g. “The statement “wearing black shoes is wrong” regardless of the context of the act, what room is there left for disagreement?
@LadyMadonna (#380):
To adopt the Wikipedia article’s terms, I am arguing in favour of moral objectivism/realism, not moral absolutism. To quote from a helpful distinction it makes:
* “Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.”
* “Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.”
I think moral absolutism (e.g., the Kantian categorical imperative) is untenable; there is never one moral principle which wins out in all contexts. We often need to balance several moral principles (e.g., in the context of 377A, the right to privacy vs. the value of family and child-raising). But the ’several moral principles’ are objective, in the sense of being valid regardless of social custom. This is the subtext of the ‘repeal 377A’ movement, isn’t it? Morality cannot be held hostage by custom.
Genuine disagreement implies something to disagree over. For example, “I disagree with your giving priority to the value of embryonic life over the mother’s right to autonomous choice over her own body.” Disagreement implies that we are using the same moral building-blocks, albeit in different ways. In short, moral objectivism. Relativism, on the other hand, would simply insist that the concepts and values of one culture/religion/person cannot be compared to those of another culture/religion/person. If so, any ‘disagreement’ would be empty, a case of me liking vanilla and you liking peppermint and you trying to ‘demonstrate’ that I’m ‘wrong’. There’d be no room for any moral discourse — and yet, moral discourse takes place all the time around us.
This thread is now closed for further comments.
Homophobia is not just another point of view « Laïcité – Secularity and Secularism
[...] in Singapore, Society. Tags: homophobia trackback It has been a couple of weeks since the Thio-NYU incident and I think I’ve finally figured out why it has been bothering me so much. It’s not as if [...]
Figuring how faith fits into this world, & other stuff
[...] Prof Thio’s appointment can be seen in online articles / debates at Singapore’s The Online Citizen and the US legal tabloid Above the Law. In the case of the latter, see the Online Petition, [...]
Uncategorized - Jan 15, 2010 10:12 - 126 Comments
It is affordable – Mah Bow Tan
More In Uncategorized
- Rebutting Law Minister K Shanmugam
- Challenge of communication
- TOC & Talk Politics hold successful Year in Review forum
- “Live” from Post Museum – TOC’s Year End Review
- The Fajar Generation
Uncategorized - Jan 15, 2010 10:12 - 126 Comments
It is affordable – Mah Bow Tan
More In Uncategorized
- Rebutting Law Minister K Shanmugam
- Challenge of communication
- TOC & Talk Politics hold successful Year in Review forum
- “Live” from Post Museum – TOC’s Year End Review
- The Fajar Generation
An excerpt from the article: When queried by The Online Citizen over Dr Thio’s appointment, Jason Casell, Public Affairs Officer, School of Law, said that Dr Thio had been selected for the appointment based on her published academic scholarship, and not on the basis of her statements she made in Singapore parliament as an NMP.
An interesting thought emerged in my head. Did Thio Li-Ann consciously omit her NMP position against the Repeal of S377A in order to secure a job at New York University?