Wonderful article, Gwee!!!

An excellent essay on the diversity of family life. Congratulations. This essay merits wide circulation and your readers are encouraged to do that for you. Just look within our own family and all other families of different forms around us – all making their commitment to be responsible and seeking fulfillment. Not forgetting those who live in single blessedness too. They deserve encouragement and support especially from synagogue, church, mosque, temple and secular groups rather than judgment and condemnation. Let’s build happy families reflecting the colours of the rainbow – a sign of hope for humanity.

we are famiLLEE..trust me on it
my chomp chomp home in serangoon garden is ready for china chinese immigrants
instead of havin bangala spittin indians as my new neigbours
i now have loudmouth china chinapeoples familLEE neighbours who will talk loud/squattin down in chomp chomp hawkers centre spittin away..`
ptui here ptui there ptui everywhere
by the way i also a chinese singapoorium chinese
they chinese me chinese
if this familLEE is not a famiLLEE
than whoses famillee?
lee kuanyew and inc again?

Great article. Thanks Dr Gwee for writing this.

Simple logic and compassion that the Thios and their twisted followers fail to grasp.

Hope you’d write more for TOC.

This article appear to be promoting something to me.

When is a family not a family?

There is only but one family in the Singapore context, i.e. the Lee Family.

All others are a complementary class, as have been so brutally, clearly and accurately expounded by Wee Shu Min, the girl with the “get out of my elite uncaring face” fame, the precious daughter of AMK GRC MP Wee Siew KIm.

Remember, the then PM Goh Chok Tong unreservedly referred to the Lee Family as the “First Family”, indirectly insulting the family of the Elected President of the Republic of Singapore? And he got away from making such a blatantly unwarranted reference without any objection from the Office of the President. Plus not even a single word came out of the Judiciary, Legal Profession, the Law Society, or the Members of Parliament (the Law Makers) to refute Mr Goh’s claim, even until today!

So, isn’t it clear that the Lee Family is indisputably the “First Family”? And many of us might add, “The First and Only Family”. Or the family that rules Singapore. Therefore, all Singaporeans are the subjects or servants or slaves of this “First and Only Family”?

Therefore, in that sense, we can safely conclude that all other families are not “families” but just part of a very big Lee Family!

Prof Gwee,

While I agree with your statement that “The project of upholding family values should focus less on policing external forms than on strengthening internal ties and enriching the commitment of persons to persons”…ditto lessons from our northerly neighboring society’s struggle with Islamic moral policing, I’m not sure if its some kind of irony(?) that you’re using the archbishop’s statement as your straw-man to pitch the same kind of “divisive” arguement (that u wanna avoid) cos I’m reading it like a secular versus religous positioning (i’m not sure if thats your intent).

While we(the public at large) do not know the exact content of the archbishop’s speech, the ST Forum letter from the Anglican Diocese in response to the reporting on Monday seems to suggest that there are some omissions and nuances that ought to be taken-into account, on e part of the ST’s highly dubious standards of journalism:

http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_461859.html

[i]Remember, the then PM Goh Chok Tong unreservedly referred to the Lee Family as the “First Family”, So, isn’t it clear that the Lee Family is indisputably the “First Family”? And many of us might add, “The First and Only Family”. [/i]

leekuanyew onced mentioned in parliament how he and his famiLLEE every WEEKENDS organised a sunday bbq brunch in instana for all the ministers and their famiLLEE to sit together as a famiLLEE gatherins..all the sons/daughters of those ministers also don’t want to come….
who is supposed to reside in instana? you me? or leekuanYOU? and who foot all the bbq bills? mr ahkong himself..who is mr ahkong? laulee’s grandpa perhaps?

Dear Walau –

You are right about a “secular versus religous positioning” insofar as, under “secular”, you include views from all other faiths whose beliefs and moral fervour do not need society to keep to supposed “classical” families. This call itself is also not a clear Christian one as the rejoinder you cite says, mentioning “the values and tenets in the Holy Scriptures”. But look up New Testament passages such as Matthew 12: 46-50 and 19:1-10, and you’ll see how Jesus’s view on family is far more complex, even radical. He stressed the sanctity of marriage as well as singlehood and was ready to challenge even standard concepts of family.

So this is not just about a religious perspective but also about a specific Christian interpretation; it is also a specific Anglican stance taken in view of the diverse stances within the worldwide Anglican communion. I grant the possible “omissions and nuances that ought to be taken-into account” you suggest. It is why it will be helpful if actual transcripts of the speech and the interview are made available to all. The rejoinder clarifies very little, specifically when it says eg. “It is these classical norms of family life that we believe will preserve the strength of a nation and enhance our ‘human-ness’.” What can this mean?

Gwee Li Sui

5) agongkia on December 5th, 2009 8.58 am
This article appear to be promoting something to me.

———————————————————————

I agree. The article appears to be promoting a compassionate, inclusive and substantive concept of a family over blind adherence to dogmatic and superficial moralising.

Wonderful – an insightful and decisive assessment of what it means to be a ‘family’ in our modern world.

Its is quite amazing that those who stood for pro-family in the new guard, many are single women from the Anglican Church of Our saviour. Surely John Chew should ensure that anyone from his faith who is determined to stand publicly for values like pro-family be part of his ‘classical’ family unit first. Ditto for TLA.

aiyah, they cannot find partners mah, so blame ‘alternate’ values lor.

7) walau on December 5th, 2009 12.58 pm

…ditto lessons from our northerly neighboring society’s struggle with Islamic moral policing, I’m not sure if its some kind of irony(?) that you’re using the archbishop’s statement as your straw-man to pitch the same kind of “divisive” arguement (that u wanna avoid) cos I’m reading it like a secular versus religous positioning (i’m not sure if thats your intent).

You are falling for the cunning trick set by the fundamentalists, i.e. disagreement within the same faith is necessarily divisive. This is because the fundamentalists want to set their agenda as the single agenda of Christianity as a whole when Christianity is far from being a monolithic faith. In fact, the fundamentalists are the truly divisive lot.

@9 Prof Gwee, thanks for the response although I’m not clear what u mean by “specific” when u say that its “about a specific Christian interpretation; it is also a specific Anglican stance taken in view of the diverse stances within the worldwide Anglican communion” – do not all religious beliefs (ideologies ) arise from particular conditions and times, and are therefore historically “specific”? Is there a point outside of “history” that u can claim your position?

A family is not a family when it supports the famiLEE all the way.

Dr Gwee (#9),

1) I suppose that by “other faiths” you refer to Buddhism. Well, the Theravada variety does not oppose homosexuality, but the Chinese Buddhist – which naturally is the variety prevalent in Singapore – variety does oppose it. And so does Tibetan Buddhism, at least until the Dalai Lama was pressured by Western LGBT activists to change his stance.

Also, Mt 12: 46-50 is not talking about family forms at all; or else you might as well claim that Jesus is showing his endorsement for group marriage. As a Theologian, you should not be mistaking figurative language for literalistic language.

And Mt 19:1-10 is condemnation of legalizing divorce; which is just about as “traditional” as one can get. Or perhaps it is a typo, and you are referring to Mt 19:11 instead, the verse on “eunuchs”. The problem is, Jesus’ argument is that these eunuchs are singled out to remain single, as opposed to being married; he does not in any way argue that they should be granted same-sex unions. (ref. CFWA, http://www.cwfa.org/articles/9355/CFI/family/index.htm)

Jesus affirms, rather than challenges, the “traditional” concept of family by stressing that all individuals who are not able to marry members of the opposite sex are called to celibacy instead.

2) Well, again, perhaps an atheist or a non-Christian might be excused for asking such a question; but since you are a Theologian, you ought to know that “humanness” means “Image of God”,; i.e. “these classical notions of family will preserve the unity of our nation and help each and every human to fully express the Image of God in himself or herself.”.

walau (#14),

The religious stance – any religion – is that the religious beliefs are revealed but some of the religious practices are formed by historical circumstance. Hope that clarifies your confusion.

15) commentator on December 5th, 2009 10.24 pm

A family is not a family when it supports the famiLEE all the way.

Eh.. not everything is about Lee Kuan Yew and his family.

I do not understand why Bishop John Chew has this habit of doing the “inclusion” and “exclusion” theory. This certainly isn’t the first time. It echos the sentiment of Josie Lau wondering to help “a lesbian” having trouble and in need of help.

Jesus don’t do that. Remember that Jesus interacted with prostitutes, ate together with the leper Lazarus and spent time the tax collectors which at that time was a despised lot .

But it seems that the church is so high middle class now, so they only serve those that has a proper family and probably in the PMET category .

Jesus don’t do the “inclusion/exclusion” act.

Well. Yesterday’s news: religious values stand for inclusion. The Anglican Church elected the first lesbian bishop.

http://www.episcopal-life.org/79901_117538_ENG_HTM.htm

Praise God.

well, if there is a rating mechanism for the article (and not just the comments), I would give it a thumbs up.

I think eg. Arix, Jesus’ Feet, etc. have already addressed Walau’s question: thanks, guys! I want to stress here that the Anglican Church is free to teach its own members what it wants, but it should bear in mind responsibilities and consequences. And, especially when the issues may affect everyone, the rest of us are right to be concerned.

What happens if the archbishop’s call is taken seriously by those with political/social influence in his flock? If such notions of model family and moral decay start to affect (if they haven’t already) social help, child education, family policies, state assistance, employment, etc., will it to be fair to those who do not live in Rev Chew’s vision of the world?

And should religion even be used to make its believers treat a political message (in this case, procreative marriage) as their moral obligation? But, to be sure, I can’t decide if the aim here is to make a political plan score religious points or a religious plan score political points…

Gwee Li Sui

Dr Gwee (#22),

I think that the 4 greatest mistakes in Church History were: Gregory the Great’s assent to rule the Papal States, Henry VIII’s decision to split from the Roman Catholic Church, The Photian Schism that created the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Papacy’s decision to expel Luther from the Church. Whatever other evils you can identify in history stem from these 4 Great Mistakes. And possibly the first one is the root of all problems.

Anyway, pertaining to Rev John Chew, he is not just reflecting his own vision, but the opinion of the Anglican Communion as expressed at the Lambeth Conference in 1998 and re-affirmed in 2003. I guess you would understand the role of Synods in the administration of the Church. he repeats the same opinion and references in his response – as Head of the Anglican Communion in Singapore – to the ECUSA’s appointment of a Lesbian priest, as linked by maytaglady in #20.

I do agree though on your perspective of shifting focus from a formalistic, structural approach to one that is more focused on strengthening internal ties. Although, physical forms and internal relations are not entirely disseparate from each other.

And I feel obliged to point out that “a marriage open to procreation” is not identical to “a procreative marriage”. There are deeper theological reasons to the idea of heterosexual default than simply the duty to produce babies. In fact, focusing too much on “the duty to produce babies” is itself problematic, because it might lead to IVF, which has its own related set of moral considerations.

[...] Discourse – TOC: When is a Family Not a Family? – Gerald Giam’s Blog: Training real “thinking soldiers” – Kelvin Teo Writes: What A*STAR [...]

[...] Discourse – TOC: When is a Family Not a Family? – Gerald Giam’s Blog: Training real “thinking soldiers” – Kelvin Teo Writes: What A*STAR [...]

With regard to Arix’s Comment #23, I am not sure which Lambeth Resolution he claims Rev Chew was affirming. If he means that on homosexuality (again), then there may be some inaccuracy. Here’s what the indaba to Lambeth Conference 2008 actually say:

“The issue of homosexual relations is as sensitive as it is because it conflicts with the long tradition of Christian moral teaching. … [It] is also highly sensitive because there are very strong affirmations and denials in different cultures across the world which are reflected in contrasting civil provisions, ranging from legal provision for same-sex marriage to criminal action against homosexuals. In some parts of the Communion, homosexual relations are a taboo while in others they have become a human rights issue.”

As such, what is still affirmed at this point is a so-called “listening process” which accepts a range of visions from decisive stance to wait-and-see based on “Gamaliel advice” (ie.”If it is from God, it will last.”). See http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/2008/ All that said, do note that Lambeth Resolutions have no binding power over member churches.

Gwee Li Sui

Arix arix.
The problem with church mistake were not simply the actions of its congregations. Which essentially what you have stated on the 4 examples above.

Some mistakes are doctrinal, which can still be repeated if current social political is to be dicated in biblical context. ~ ie Slavery.
`In contrast to its efforts to abolish slavery of European Christians, the Catholic Church encouraged enslavement of non-Christians, beginning from the mid 15th century.[91] The papacy endorsed Portuguese—and eventually Spanish—slave-taking.’

Hence the need for secular society . . .
Arix, the funny thing about history is. It works in ones favor if one were to control all the sources of information (like the church in middle ages).
But with internet, its harder to bury to truth, no?

Since the topic is when a family is not a family.

Lets examine this case study.

A neighbour in his mid 60s and his 24 yrs old mail order bride.
They are now in their 4th child (finally a boy).
He looks happy but she is clearly not.

So is this ‘classical composition of family’ still a family or ’simply ‘marriage for procreation? (borrowing a term from Arix.)

Personally, there is a key ingredient missing to make a family. ie LOVE.
Without that, regardless how classical that compostion is, there’s no family if there’s no love.

Agree to disagree?

Kezu (#29),

To answer your question: No, this is not the “classical composition of family”, as the word “mail-order” should tell you.

I see your bait tactic here. The “classical composition of the family” is not the core, but allows the core to be exercised to fullest potential. LOVE is required to make a family, but LOVE exercises its maximum potential – at the moment at least – within the “classical composition of the family”.

Arix

The thing is, mail order bride is not illegal isnt it?

They are legally married, arent they?

Procreative heterosexual, defintely with 4 children now.

So enlighten me then on this classical composition of family?

Are you saying their family is also alternative?

Help me to understand here. . .

Kezu (#30),

We are not talking about Legality; we are talking about Morality. Mail-order bride may be legal (in some jurisdictions), but that does not mean that the phenomenon is moral.

The “composition” refers to more than just the structural composition; the form. It also includes the relational composition; how husband and wife are viewed in relation to each other.

So yes, “mail order” is also “alternative”, because it does not fit the relational criteria. The kind of “mail-order” relationship you have described here is not “pro-creative”; it is “reproductive”, because it is apparent that the husband has reduced the wife into the role of a baby-making machine, so that she has no enjoyment in the creative process.

As per the Bible that you hate so much, husbands and wives are told to surrender their own bodies to each other; and clearly that does not happen in a “mail-order” wedding scenario, where the only one surrendering the body is the “bride”.

Oh, and incidentally, the Church – well, the Catholic Church at least – opposes mail-order brides too.

When oxytocin levels dissipate and non-familial-induced LTP supercedes familial-induced LTP.

Arix.

It seems its difficult to talk about classical composition without touching on concept of marriage.

So if i read your statement correctly, a Family is only a Family when there’s ’surrender’ from both parties in accordance to the bible (which i dont hate at all).

If that’s the case, let me elaborate further on what i perceived from your comment.

Not all marriage is equal (noted your stand on mail order bride), therefore not all family that resulted from all marriages can be considered a family?
Even reproductive and perfectly legitimate heterosexual marriages??

This concept of family is getting more and more exclusive, dont you think Arix?

We should help single parents by defining them and their children (and possibly their stepfather) as a family so that they are able to receive financial aid and social help as a ‘family’ would.

People do overstate the efficacy of governments, don’t they? Singaporeans lol

Kezu (#33),

1) That is because marriage is what founds a family. Well, physically, what founds a family is the consummation of marriage, but the wedding acts as a prelude to that. Marriage – as in the relationship between husband and wife – is also what maintains the family.

2) Not exactly. A marriage is only legitimate if both husband and wife ’surrender’ to each other. A family is slightly different, because of the status of children as gifts from God. (see below.)

4) Well, a little caution here. Children are still children, regardless of what conditions they are born under. So whatever may be said about their parents’ relationship, it has no bearing on how the children – legitimate or illegitmate by secular society’s standards – ought to be treated. I am not implying that any children – even the children of the mail-order bride ought to be discriminated against.

The most legitimate form of marriage is procreative, not reproductive. The point of calling the act pro-creation is that it is supposed to be the participation in the creation of new life, not a carbon copy clone to what is already existing.

Because of the unchangeable nature of the children’s condition, all families are still families, but they are imperfect families with illegitimate marriages.

5) The definition of marriage is exclusive, not the definition of family.

[...] a Family Not a Family? December 5, 2009 A slightly shorter version of this essay appeared on The Online Citzen (5 December [...]

Ah Arix

You finally agree with me!

Kezu (#38),

Kindly elaborate please…

Arix

You twisted and looped with both terms ‘marriage’ and ‘family’ to a point
i almost believe you agree with me. (call me delusional)

But you did say ‘All families are still families.’ Yeah!

However, i dont like your next phrase, about imperfection of family due to illegitimacy of some marriage.

What do you say to the face of those in arranged marriages (that eventually found love and affection) and children in loving foster homes?

@Kezu at 28: Absolutely correct! LOVE makes a family.

@Gwee Li Sui – This is a great article on democracy and love including all types of families. I absolutely hate how some Singaporeans put themselves through hoops arguing that the licence to f**k only applies to certain “classical compositions”

Lol. I wonder what sexual affairs the anglicans and moral protestors guiltily resort to behind closed doors, trapped by stone-age “morality”.

Look the Catholic church and all the child abuse done by the “moral” fathers.
Preaching about god on one hand.
Abusing little kids for three decades on the other.
Should we trust what these preachers say?

Families of LOVE work, not families of custom.

Arix

But you did say ‘All families are still families.’ Yeah!

However, i dont like your next phrase, about imperfection of family due to illegitimacy of some marriage. (still not sure what you mean by this)

Let me ask you what do you say to the faces of those in arranged marriages (that eventually found love and affection) and oprhans growing up in loving foster families?

Lol Lol (#40)(pun intended),

1) What makes love love?

2) As I told kezu, morality and legality are two different things. The argument is not whether we have a “license to f**k” – as you so crudely put it – but how/whether we ought to use the “license to f**k” that we have.

3) Is everything in the stone age necessarily bad? Or are we just arrogant moderns here?

4) Poisoning the Well Fallacy. The conduct of the “moral” fathers is independent from the truth of what they teach. The Church can teach the complete truth, but not follow it properly; that doesn’t mean that the truth is in error.

To use an analogy: A student catches his health education teacher smoking after a lesson on how smoking is bad because it causes cancer; should now the student disregard everything that he/she was taught earlier just because of the teacher’s conduct?

5) Love and Custom are not mutually exclusive, or else we might as well stop celebrating Chinese New Year!

Kezu (#41),

1) Ah, I see.

2) Simply put, there are many aspects of a family. One aspect may be be perfect, but another may not.

3) For those in arranged marriages that found true affection; good. They have met the perfect family. (Incidentally, “true affection” refers to more than just sexual attraction.)

For the orphans who found kind and loving foster parents, I am glad for them too. But I will still acknowledge that the circumstances that cause them to be orphaned in the first place represents a social imperfection; that hopefully as a society we can work toward an outcome where no child needs to end up orphaned.

The fact that the orphan is orphaned indicates an imperfection in the orphan’s biological family, whatever imperfection that might be. It does not indicate an imperfection in the foster family.

The foster family is legitimate as long as there are only two parents, and they are of different sexes. (I don’t like the word “gender” because it is more subjective.

On a side note, I am also realizing now that family in itself is a many-faceted concept, and (part of) the reason why liberals and conservatives are at loggerheads is because they are making arguments for different aspects. I would agree that the conservatives are taking the macro-perspective -societal construction in general – but failing to note the micro-perspective; conversely, the liberals take the micro-perspective – owing to their individualism – and fail to recognize the macro-perspective. The conservatives present the macro-perspective as the micro-perspective and the liberals like Dr Gwee treat the micro-perspective as the macro-perspective.

That is why – whatever Dr Gwee thinks – I do accept the Listening Process by the Anglican Communion. Hopefully, both the macro-perspective and the micro-perspective can be synthesized for a fuller realization of human life.

By the way, Christian Post has done us all a service by putting up its reporter’s notes from the controversial sermon: http://sg.christianpost.com/dbase/church/2397/section/1.htm There is also an accompanying report on the uproar: http://sg.christianpost.com/dbase.php?cat=church&id=2398

What’s striking here is the position that it’s OK for the archbishop to make his points not in his public speech but in a private interview. So we are told: “The comments that drew a public uproar were mostly made in the context of an interview the mainline church leader granted the journalist after the service – during which the archbishop was apparently asked to clarify what he meant by the terms he used – rather than in public as his report properly noted.”

The blame then appears to be shifted to the Straits Times reporter: “The article did not mention the substance of the archbishop’s exhortation to his members. Many had the impression that the church leader was simply being critical of those in non-traditional family units and encouraging Anglicans to do the same.”

I must say that such an approach taken by any party — Christian Post or The Anglican Church — cannot be more mistaken. The outrage was NOT over whether the archbishop said something publicly or privately but over WHAT he actually said, in a public or a private capacity. It was also over what he happily shared as his own CLARIFICATION of his words — as all reports confirmed. In other words, the archbishop didn’t mean something else.

So, considering the merit of journalistic clarity, I suggest the spotlight be turned away from the reporter back to the real issues at hand.

Gwee Li Sui

Arix

your poisoning the well fallacy is interesting.
But its only applicable it THAT church teaching is the truth.

However, it is not the case now isnt it?
Its divided and questioned and debated upon and open itself up
to many interpretations.

So like what is been said here, if that truth does not applied to all, … or yet to all (optimistically) then it should not be allow to spill into secular space, no?

Arix

Love and custom are mutually exclusive.

How many of us still remember the true purpose of the custom of Chinese New Year? Celebration of beginning of spring? Ancestor worship?

But we all still willing reunite for family dinner no matter how far apart the family is.

That’s Love, not custom.

Dr Gwee (#44),

1) Yes, the Christian Post has done so, and that is good, for the Reporter’s Notes does – in this instance – confirm the editorial opinion of the Post.

2) I think that you miss the point here. The Christian Post does not make any such stand. Its stand is rather a more nuanced one. To paraphrase the thesis:-

“”"
Some netizens have attacked the Archbishop for making a sermon that attacks single parents and homosexuals. We wish to refute this claim on two grounds:

(1) The sermon’s topic is a discussion of witnessing to the World, not a discussion of the rights and wrongs of individual lifestyles, homosexuality or otherwise.

(2) The comments which are the basis of this accusation are technically not part of the actual text of the sermon, so saying that they are is a lie to the public. They are instead points made to clarify certain points in the sermon after the sermon. In other words, they are a commentary on the sermon, not the sermon itself.
“”"

I fail to see where your allegation fits into the thesis as presented above.

3) Looking at the Straits Times’ article, blaming the reporter is justified since – as usual – the reporter has chosen to zero in on a specific part of the speech without looking at it in entirety. Typical Straits Times journalistic quality, and one point that has been noted countless times over in other threads on TOC.

Straits Times seems to work on assigning arbitrary classifications to each group in Singapore society and then moulding whatever is expressed by these groups into those classifications lock, stock and barrel; religious groups are no less immune to this slip-shod mode of journalism than are Opposition Parties and “fringe groups”.

4) Well, as I see it – after reading the Reporter’s Notes in entirety, which I advise you do too – the conflict is over what liberals like you thought that he meant (due to the slip-shod journalism or perhaps censorship of ST) and what he actually meant.

The Archbishop didn’t say something else; but he meant something else. He shared his clarification of the structural meanings of the terminology, but he did not clarify – or wasn’t asked to – what the contextual applications of those structural meanings were.

Looking at the Reporter’s Notes, I deduce the following argument:-

“”"
Our society today faces a crisis, and that crisis is Individualism. One effect of individualism has been the derogation of classical family norms, which has led to the low birth rate here in Singapore. This echoes the situation that led to the decline of Ancient Greece.

As faithful Christians, we must work to direct society away from this dangerous Individualism back to the Light of the Gospel.
“”"

That makes your article wrong on three counts:-

(A) Rev Chew “attacks” the philosophy of Individualism. He does not attack homosexuality or divorcees or orphans or whatever.

(B) You confuse cause with effect. Insufficient babies is not the cause of moral decline; moral decline is the cause of insufficient babies.

(C) You have applied a Fallacy of Equivocation. You have presented an example given to illustrate an argument as if it were the argument itself. This is totally un-academic.

A side-note: Using capitals in posts shows an un-Christian etiquette, unless you can justify that they are being used for mere emphasis, and not to express “anger and resentment”.

5) I agree. Let us continue debating the real issues, but please, let us not misrepresent what people actually say or mean. That, incidentally, would run counter to the principles of the Listening Process, which you have stated previously that you endorse.

Kezu (#46),

1) Wow, great … Turning the Tables to refute Poisoning the Well. *sigh*. The truth-value of the Church’s propositions are independent of whether its detractors engage in Poisoning the Well.

2) The mainline hasn’t opened up voluntarily. the liberals are shoving their alternative interpretations down the throats of the mainliners. The Church is not opening up of its own accord because of internal processes; it is being forced to open up by external pressure.

That is why there is so much heated debate between the conservatives and the liberals. The conservatives dislike the un-charitable manner the liberals are using to force their own views into implementations of Church policy; whilst the liberals decry the un-charitable attitudes the conservatives take against those who do not conform to their stereotype.

3) Well, what is truth affects everybody; or else we should be able to argue that the Theory of Evolution should be kept within scientific space, since not everyone consents to it. But that is not a policy atheists are willing to accept, no?

Kezu (#47),

2) CNY predates ancestral worship; CNY is meant to celebrate the coming of spring, but at a deeper level.

3-4) That is custom built on love. All customs and traditions have some grounding, even if we don’t know what they are exactly.

Arix

You said ‘The truth-value of the Church’s propositions are independent of whether its detractors engage in Poisoning the Well’

I have to disagree, especially when ones proposition are about morality.
The action/effect of your believers justify the meaning of the teachings, if not what’s the point of this self-perceived moral superiority?

Lets get specific here, lest you think me not serious ;

1. Christian child sex abuses cases.
The John Jay report indicated that some 11,000 allegations had been made against 4,392 priests in the USA. This number constituted approximately 4% of the 110,000 priests and the dioceses affected spent in total 1 billion dollars in settlement.

This is appalling to outsider and even more traumatic for those that are unfortunate to be the victims. Even more disturbing is when the church’s stand is all about traditional Family, yet resulted in enviroment that facilitate this crime against helpless children, then try to diffuse it with a huge cover up story.

2. Child exorcism in African evanglical churchs.
Pastors were involved in half of 200 cases of “witch children” reviewed by the AP, and 13 churches were named in the case files.
Campaigners against the practice say around 15,000 children have been accused in two of Nigeria’s 36 states over the past decade and around 1,000 have been murdered. In the past month alone, three Nigerian children accused of witchcraft were killed and another three were set on fire.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/18/african-children-denounce_n_324943.html

All these cruelty and death visited upon helpless children because of this verse
“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” ? What happened to Pro-Family? Children?

3. Dealth Penalty for Homosexuals in Uganda.
Latest news linking the American Christian right Richard Cohen to Uganda Death Penalty for Homosexuals in Uganda.
The bill goes even further than the death and life sentences mentioned above. It also includes prison sentences for people who fail to turn in LGBT acquaintances, and even for landlords who rent to LGBT people. It’s a witch hunt.

Even Roman catholics would not agree to death penalty, but this is acceptable for to impose on GLBT? Bear in mind Uganda is a country with Christians of all denominations made up 85.1% of Uganda’s population.
.
All this are the direct effects of the teaching of christianity, or one of its many interpretation.

Tell me now how should one view the teaching/propositions of the church these days that bring about all the above altrocities?

Finally please do bear in mind these absolute truth does not belong to the church alone. There are more than one religions that is based on the judeo-abrahamic tradition (if you refer to that as the truth)

And If were I the recipient of the above, i would rather dismiss the whole teaching along with the teachers and learn the same thing all over again from somewhere else (or not bother at all).

.

Kenz/ Kezu (#50),

1) The actions/effects of Christians shows how much worth they put into the teachings of the Church; they do not prove whether those teachings are correct or wrong. The subjective-value is affected by the actions, not the objective-value.

2) 4% tells you the proportion of priests involved; so that is 96% of priests not involved in the scandal. But what an aggregate of 4% doesn’t tell you is that 75% of the 4% are in New York.

3) It is disturbing, but the Church didn’t actually cover it up. That is the wrong impression distributed by a handful of atheist organizations who are – as usual – out to discredit the church like vultures over a dead body. The USCCB in fact issued a public statement and the Vatican undertook its own series of investigations. Perhaps one might criticize the Vatican for choosing the wrong mitigation policies, but one cannot say that they stood still.

And on the doctrine of the family: Church teaching does not just cover the formal aspects; it also covers intangible aspects such as mercy. So the Church needs to balance retribution with mercy; going too far either way compromises the message of the Church.

4) Blame King James for that. (Hehe.) Incidentally, this has nothing to do with your allegations in the previous paragraph. The African exorcisms are fully the work of evangelicals, with no Catholic involvement whatsoever. The three Churches involved in these are the Lighthouse, Liberty Gospel and Apostolic, none of which are ecclesiastically related to the Catholic Church.

The New American Bible, which I use (and is the USCCB’s official version), has “Thou shalt not let a sorceress live” instead “Thou shalt suffer not a witch to live” (Ex 22:17 NAB, Ex 22:18 KJV). KJV was rejected in the 17th Century by the Catholic Church because it contained many mistranslations, and this was obviously one of them. As an interesting side-note, An American sociologist notes that “hardly any witch-craze took place in the strongly Catholic countries of italy, Portugal and Spain”. This shows that witch-hunts are not a Christian phenomenon; they are a Protestant and particularly Calvinist phenomenon.

http://www.gendercide.org/case_witchhunts.html

These exorcisms are not Christian in character; they are Christianised paganisms.

Arix

#1. You have not answer the question, what is the point of these morally superior teaching if resulting in altrocities?
Simply calling it collateral damage is not good enough.

#2. 4% is in New york, so?
Do we need to list down country by country on roman catholic child sex abuses scandals?
You should know the numbers better than me in that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

#3. Refer to the link above to see what’s vatican’s response initially to all the scandal.
One should pay particular interest in what happened in Ireland, especially the police are in cahoot with the church to cover up.

#4. African Exorcism is purely work of evanglical christian, hmmm really now.
It’s true there’s no with hunt craze in those countries. But in Portugal and Spain the Roman Catholics are too busy burning protestants to bother with the witches.
Its call the inquisition.

What is christianized paganism? Wouldnt you say Christmas is too a christianized paganish?

Kenz (#53),

1) Oh, that post is still awaiting moderation…

2) The problem is that the results are inconsistent. You are citing reports that cover different time periods and different-length time periods.

The John Jay report (USA) covers 11000 cases over 50 years; that’s equivalent to 220 cases per year, but not equivalent to 220 priests per year. John Jay’s time period is 1950-2004. Also, 11000 is a drop in the ocean, considering that there are 72 million Catholics in the USA.

The Irish/UK Ryan Report covers 1500 children suffering sexual abuse between 1914 to 1935. Firstly, this is 1500 out of 25000. Secondly, it is only a few institutions that are included in the report, not each and every church in the UK. Thirdly, honestly the results are outdated. 1935???!!!

The Irish Murphy report covers 1975-2004, about 25 years. In 25 years, there are only 29 priests indicted. Honestly, that is like 1 (new) priest per year. And note, I am averaging out; the distribution might be more inconsistent. I think that there are more paedophiles indicted in Singapore in 1 month than there are indicted in the Catholic Church for 25 years!

Based on the links on wikipedia, only 100 out of 5 million catholics in Australia were sexually abused!

So, have some perspective please.

3) That is your interpretation. The report does not mention that the police are “in cahoots” with the Church – considering that there was even anything to be in cahoots about.

And read your link again:-

“”"
In response to these allegations, defenders of the Church’s actions have suggested that in re-assigning priests after treatment, bishops were acting on the best medical advice then available, a policy also followed by the US public school system when dealing with accused teachers.
“”"

Notice that the US public school system also follows the same policy.

4) Err, well, according to your article, yes, since the only churches identified are Evangelical Churches.

And as for the Inquisition, it is a more complicated matter, if you choose to look beyond 19th-Century anti-Catholic stereotypes and Monty Python (and Simpsons and South Park). The authorities responsible for burning protestants and other heretics were the secular authorities, who did not get permission to engage in the burning itself. The Papacy was far more moderate; the strictest punishment that was levied in Italy (practically ruled by the Pope) was hard labour building cathedrals and churches; no burning at the stake.

The Spanish Inquisition was conducted in response to what the Castillian Monarchy – not the Papacy – felt was a threat to their power. The famous witch-burning manual, the Maleficos Malicarum, was German in origin, and despite its preface, never received official sanction by any member of the clergy in the Holy Roman Empire (Germany) , and certainly not by the Holy See.

No cases of witch-burning in Portugal.

5) “Christianized paganism” means pagan behaviour that receives a Christian label. Christmas is not a christianized paganism. The only “pagan” feature of Christmas is its date; the practices and philosophy of Christmas differ totally from whatever pagan fertility ritual it replaced.

Arix

#1. since its under moderation, let me just say. it would be a cold heaven if the earth that thrives on this religion flourishes.

#2. The result may span decades or whichever.
I am not debating statistical or chronological. I am demanding accountability on the suffering.
The suffering of those that come to the church in need of healing and looking for hope, but repaid in abuse.
Given by your logic, just because there are billions of people on this earth, murdering a few is OK. Is that how you defined humanity?
For the record, many of the abuser died without being named or punished!

You say get some perspective, i would counter that and say get some humanity.

#3. Irish Child abuse commission 2009. Where the police are refusing to name the abuser. Is it just my interpretation?

#4. Perhaps they are all evangelical protestant christian church.
But if you are going to claim the glory of the whole christianity, then are you so eager then to shoulder all its crimes? guess not.

So the pope sanction hard labour for different denominations of christianity? Nicely done.

#5. Therefore exorcism is all its form is truly an original Christian ritual/sacrament/etc.

The point is this, why is the christianity so hard up defining and redefining family?

What does pro-life/pro-family and etc actually means when you look back at what happened and still happening in the name of Christianity?