1. You claim in your latest entry to have reviewed my comments. But you have not got the crux of my point. I wrote it in reference to what Pastor Tan did –  so of course I was dealing with Christians! But if you were less enthusiastic about jumping to conclusions and making assertions on my behalf (i.e. I am “picking” on Christians), you would have realized I was speaking of a specific minority of Christians, not all Christians. But rather than address my larger point that both Christians and non-Christians are flawed and must consider the multi-racial reality of Singapore, you fall into a siege mentality mindset that sees a ghost who wants to lambast Christianity at every chance. This is patently not true. We are all in this together. I put the example of my own community on the record to show that all of us need to look beyond our respective faiths. And even more so when it comes to proseltysing. That’s all.

2. Your latest point is another puzzle I can’t make out. Whoever said anything negative or bad about Pastor Tan’s outstanding work in turning people around? When was that ever an issue? I think its wonderful that he has done this. In the same way I know of Buddhist priests, Imams and Sikh priests who have turned people around to become better human beings. But why should one’s good deeds in the past exonerate him/her for excesses and failures in the future? Think Ren Ci, and in a different context, T.T. Durai. And why should these good deeds allow one to criticize gays in such sharp and hurtful ways? Something isn’t right no? Surely our religious leaders must be more sensitive and civic-conscience given their mobilizing power and mass appeal.

3. And then you have another point which may not be seen in the effusive way you present it – “Rony Tan has done lot of good in our nation”. Let me share some thoughts with you on this. I think religion and politics should be kept as far as possible from each other, given today’s context. Historically, religion has often been on the opposite end of politics, speaking out against injustice, cruelty etc., as religious personalities worship God (and a moral conscience to consider), not politicians. When a religious personality openly supports a political personality, there are some who will be very disconcerted by such a development. It can be construed as a strategic and calculated obsequiousness on the part of those religious leaders that seek to build up a “goodwill bank” for their faith in the eyes of the political leadership. A literature student friend of mine put this point to me very starkly many years ago, “Mr Singh, I think patriotism is the first and last refuge of scoundrels.” Now before you lose your head, blow another fuse and suggest I am calling Pastor Tan a scoundrel, no I am not. That student’s remark was made specifically to a hypothetical point about mixing of religion and politics. Some tell me that this such religious support is supposed to be good for the PAP in terms as a vote. I am not so sanguine about this conclusion. And the unfortunate part of this is that the PAP has traditionally been consciously equal towards all religious groups. I would argue that such activities by religious personalities unnecessarily politicizes the social and public space beyond what ought to be necessary, even though in other cases, it may have been totally well-meaning and innocent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O67SyJiyzY

4. Finally, you urge me not to be “frivolous” and “petty-minded”. And that I should not indulge in such “speculative” commentary. My friend, I wrote this article in my real name. I commented in my real name. I have an email address up there for public perusal. The latter points should make it amply clear to you that this is a very serious issue to me. If we want to live in a peaceful, harmonious and tolerant society, everyone needs to do their part. What Pastor Tan did was wrong, distasteful and not becoming of a man of his stature. Forgiveness is a virtue, but what use is forgiveness if the same error is committed again? And this may happen again if the right lessons are not learnt. All of us must do our part and not allow it to happen again.

i would say he is a big cat and one day thought of roaring like a tiger and then got whacked and then went back to meowing again..

but he is an ok cat lah…

But, then again i also think a tiger is only a big big cat. Soft, Furrry, Cuddly and soooo Cute.
Give it a break and dont keep saying tigers are dangerous (well until it opens it mouth anyway).

peace

let’s all be gracious and give him a break…

In ancient East Asia the king or emperor is the “son of heaven”, a sort of god status. The suggestion by Tony borders on the absurd because the arbiter of the various religions would make one a god. So who is the son of heaven in Singapore?
Let the leaders of the various religions make their case, leave it to the individuals to decide.
Advocates for government intervention should try living in totalitarian regimes like North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc.
 
 
 

eh, you refering to me? my post was under moderation, you may have quoted the wrong person when my post “re-appeared”.

please include the poster’s name or nick, and ideally the details like the date & time to avoid misunderstanding, yeah?

eh, you refering to me? my post was under moderation, you may have quoted the wrong person when my post “re-appeared”.

please include the poster’s name or nick, and ideally the details like the date & time to avoid misunderstanding, yeah?..

In many points Pritam is correct but wrong when he said,

“If there is something educative the Rony Tan episode stands for, it ought to be that religious sensitivity and a respect for the secular public space must remain the central pillars …”

because the “Pastor Rony” saga took place in a Christian church for Christians.  Likewise the Sikh article is hosted in a Sikh organisation website. If netizens are offended by these articles, the problem is theirs because they choose to go to the website, not Pastor Rony, nor the Sikh organisation.

Every religion must agree to disagree because all religions claim they are unique or exclusive in some way. Singaporeans must be mature enough to debate religion without complaining to the government, or recourse to violence.

The answer lies across the bridge when we cross to the other side.

“If you still insist (not ‘deny’) that those actions and deeds were beneficial for society”

“A recent article published by the Straits Times on September 3rd, 2008 reported that nearly 50 per cent of the Christian clergymen polled “feared (that) interfaith dialogue would compromise their religious convictions”

So force them? what good would that do?

To others
Just another defensive spiel by fundies  to maintain their right to criticise, insult, and demonis all others who do not share their viewpoint.  Rather than lighting a fuse, this feature serves fair warning that EVRYONE will suffer, christians and non-christians alike , if the actions of christain findamentalists in the last few months were allowed scot-free.  If you still deny that those actions and deeds were beneficial for society, then perhaps it is you that is seditious and it is you who obviously has not the interests of society at heart, only the interest of  your own narrow minded enclave. 

Pritnam
As for why they govt initially had such a low kep reaction, check out the composition of MPs in our govt – 25 are christians, 8 are buddhists and 12 are muslimes.  What do you think the cabinet ismade up of?  For a country that is half buddhist, i find it surprising that our govt does not reflect that. 
http://singaporeanskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/02/religious-demographics-of-our.html

“It is best left to our government to handle this lest in your zeal you begin to villify the innocent by treading on dangerous territory.”

i find it strange, and sad, that many of us still expect the govt to do everything for us.

On Andrew’s comment, well, lets compare Satanic Verses, The Last Temptation of Christ and Da Vinci Code.  Only the latter was allowed. 

Why? my guess is that the Singapore govt reacts to international community’s reactions. Its not about protection level or fairness, but the impact those materials have on our nation.  The govt will act accordingly.

Pritam – i see your point.  Let those without sin throw the first stone, as they say.  Let’s look into ourselves to make things better. We dont have to wait for the govt to set the OB markers, the rules and regulations.

unfortunately, your use of the pastor’s name has made some unhappy, as they want to move on.

oh well, how one reacts to your piece is, to me, a reflection of their own self-belief.

Thank you Mr. Singh! You have try your best!

Come on, not Da Vinci Code again?

If you keep comparing da vinci code to your holy bible, then you are doing your bible injustice; reducing the bible to the same catergory as fiction.

Perhaps, Dawkins’s statement that Da Vinci Code = Modern Fiction, Bible = Ancient Fiction is appropriate in your case.

Please get some perspective here, simply by showing science programme showing ‘Big Bang’, Dinosaurs and Evolution will affend the hardcore Christian Fundamentalist.
So what should the government do? Banned all the science programme from all MSM??? Seriously.

If you are contended to live in a civilization without science, please do so.
But the rest of us has the right to progress with science.

Finally, Christian dont have the same amount of protection? Seriously, you’re not kidding me?