For those of you who do not know already, the AWARE saga is over. The New exco has been ousted and the old exco is back in power.
During the saga, something which has been bandied about a lot was the need to "separate the religious realm from the secular realm". Christians and other persons of faith, we are told, can have their opinions and say what they want only within their churches, temples and mosques. They should not propagate their views in the "secular" realm. The "secular" realm should, we are told, stay secular.
That's the popular view. Many people believe in it. Many Christians, even some religious leaders think that such a view is wisdom.
They are wrong on many accounts.
Imagine if the abolitionists in the 19th century, many of whom believed fervently that God created everybody in his image and likeness and thus, black people ought not to be slaves were to say that well, that's my personal religious belief. I won't own slaves myself but I shouldn't be stepping into the secular realm to persuade others that slavery is wrong. If they want to own slaves, that's their right.
We would still be owning slaves today.
Or imagine if Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, or Archbishop Desmond Tutu, fervent Christians all and other Christians of different racial groups, were to say that well, its my personal religious belief that segregation, apartheid and racism are wrong, but I will not impose my beliefs on other people.
We would still have segregation and and official policy of racial discrimination today.
Indeed,when it was revealed that a Methodist Organization, the Chen Su Lan Trust, under the leadership of retired Methodist Bishop Yap Kim Hao, donated $113, 000 dollars, out of wish nearly a third was used for AWARE's controversial sexuality education program which we all know by now, endorsed anal sex as potentially normal and healthy and labeled pre-marital sex as a neutral thing, nobody was screaming that a religious organization is interfering in the affairs of a secular organization. Neither was anybody objecting that through donating money, it is attempting to "influence" and "impose" its agenda on a secular organization.
Yet when 6 people who happened to attend the same Church were constitutionally elected at AWARE's AGM, and came out to say that they were concerned that the leadership of AWARE has been promoting lesbianism and homosexuality as acceptable alternative lifestyles, they were accused of hate mongering, possessing a religious agenda and worst of all, received death threats.
What's going on here?
The issue is not separation of the secular and religious realms. The issue really is that when people of faith agrees with the values of militant secularists, they are welcomed with open arms and seen as enlightened and progressive.
But when a person of faith dares to disagree with the values endorsed by these same militant secularists, then they had better confine their views to the walls of their churches and temples or risk facing the wrath and anathemas of these new high priests/(or priestesses).
Take the question of homosexuality for instance. If you disagree in public, even in Singapore, where homosexual sex acts are technically illegal, that the homosexual lifestyle should be promoted as a normal or a neutral thing, you had better be prepared to face being called "fundamentalist", "Christian Taliban" "hate monger" and other types of inflammatory language which, if used in other contexts, will risk bringing down the power of the sedition act on you for inciting racial and religious tension.
This is not civil society. This is unchecked criminal intimidation.
It is civil society when we can discuss in a rational manner, whether sexual complementarity is merely a social construct to be deconstructed at will or whether sexual complementarity and everything that flows from it, i.e marriage between a man and a woman, family, children etc is vital for human flourishing and that the state and society at large should have a special interest in promoting it.
It is civil society when someone should be able to point out, without being called a bigot, the tragic fact that persons who are involved in a gay lifestyle are catching HIV at disproportionately higher rates than heterosexuals and wondering if a homosexual person should at least be open to the option of abstaining from risky sexual practices.
And it is civil society when concerned parents, should be able to get together to sign a calm and respectful petition urging the Ministry of Education to better inform them of what is being taught as sexuality education in schools without being called intolerant or interfering in the internal affairs of AWARE.
Let's get this straight. The issue is not about the separation of the religious or secular realms or that Christians and other people of faith should confine their views to the private sphere.
The issue is really how far militant secularists are willing to tolerate inconvenient truths being brought to their attention by persons of faith.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
"The issue is really how far the liberal elite is willing to tolerate inconvenient truths being brought to their attention by persons of faith."
And the answer is: Not at all, as we've seen so clearly in the past few years.
What I fear is that Christians, who feel increasingly persecuted, may begin to adopt the practices of the Left, to the detriment of the ideals of civil society.
BTW, Nick, post his as a note in your facebook account so that your friends can link it and share it wider.
The one danger I am more concerned about would be that the government interpreting the results of AWARE's coup on May 2nd as an indication that Singaporeans are more open and tolerant to LGBT and start taking action as such.
Hi,
I would like to comment on the following statement:
"I won't own slaves myself but I shouldn't be stepping into the secular realm to persuade others that slavery is wrong. If they want to own slaves, that's their right."
This is a common argument brought forth by religious persons about the good that religion plays in society. I am not disputing that good. However I am disputing the notion that religion somehow has a monopoly on morality. The above statement assumes that the only objection to slavery is religious, and that secular morals have no problems with slave owning at all. This is completely untrue.
The question is one of ownership: do human beings own themselves?
If your answer is yes, then slave owning is wrong. This is simply because an individual has absolute ownership over their own personhood, and therefore it is morally wrong for one person to own another.
Han, if I understand what's written here well enough, I think what you've quoted here are the imagined thoughts of a laid back Christian who believe in the separation of state and church.
Nick, a very well-written piece! :)
Jo:
Yes I know, I got that. =) But those imaginings still imply that secular=immoral/amoral, which I think is a huge misconception.
I wonder if Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, or Archbishop Desmond Tutu would have approved of the actions of Josie and co.
The examples you cite of individuals who, spurred by their faith to change the status quo ironically undermines your central argument. In those cases, they were acting against the status quo and challenging the discrimination of human beings. They fought for equality. They opposed the status quo and general acceptance of slavery and in so doing fought for equality.
One wonders if the actions of Josie and co. can be said to stand on the side of equality.
There is a distinction between a contribution to AWARE and the covert albeit legal takeover of AWARE and that is the method in which it was done. The former is a donation to a secular organization for woman's rights; the latter a covert, well organized hostile takeover. The method in which it was carried out, whilst legal, could hardly be considered honorable. One seriously doubts if the likes of Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, or Archbishop Desmond Tutu would have approved of such tactics.
The subsequent actions of the new exco, from firing of aware staff and sub-com heads, the changing of locks, the troubling lack of transparency have hardly provided them with the legitimacy they so seek.
I agree with you that a person of faith should be able to speak up beyond the church and advocate his views within the public sphere. But what has happened is NOT speech, but action. It is the act of taking over an organization because you disagree with one aspect of its program with the express objective of changing it to suit your belief system.
It is not simply a case of "person of faith dares to disagree with the values endorsed by the so called liberal elite" but a person of faith taking over said organization with the intent to bent it to its view. Disagreeing might be to raise concerns over its programmes publicly, or making a complaint to MOE, or setting up your own alt feminist organization to do things your way.
Hey
I agree with your POV. And i would like to point out that even people who are not religious can feel disturbed.
why 'liberal elite'? thio su mien, josie and co. were pretty much influential and powerful women themselves.
it's hard to say who's persecuting who, and it really depends on which side you are more sympathetic towards.
there is truth on both sides. and i'm not just equivocating.
as a Christian involved in a same-sex relationship, i think there is greater potential for the church to open its doors to accept homosexuals for who they are, not to change them, but to preach love, purity and servanthood. on this account, i believe homosexuals have suffered more persecution from the church than the other way round.
Post a Comment