Dec 9, 2008
I READ with interest two seemingly unrelated reports last Friday, 'Couple go on trial for sedition' and 'DBS' charity tie-up draws flak'.
In the case of the sedition trial, while the authorities have rightly taken action to robustly maintain the fragile balance in the areas of race, language and religion, it is disheartening that this action is not applied universally to all. There seems to be a greater tolerance of 'attacks' on Christianity than other major religions.
We have these attacks in cinemas in The Da Vinci Code movie, where insinuations regarding the 'authority' of the Bible abounded and the central tenet of who Jesus is was questioned repeatedly. We have them in bookshops and community libraries as well. Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, labelled the God of the Bible 'a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully'.
[There is no double standards. Clearly Singapore is against Christianity! Can't his paranoid delusion help him see it?
And, as pointed out by some comments online, there is a world of difference between a proselytising action (distributing tracts to people who did not ask for it), and personal choice of entertainment (buying a book or watching a movie). There is also a world of difference in offering what is claimed to be facts, and what is claimed to be fiction or an opinion.]
As a Christian, I am not threatened by such 'attacks' and even welcome such opportunities it gives the Christian community to reflect on what and why we believe, thereby strengthening our faith. I do, however, wonder how the authorities would have responded if these 'attacks' were aimed at other religious groups.
In the case of the DBS charity tie-up case, a group of concerned activists has successfully forced DBS Bank to draw down its support of a local charitable organisation for fear of further negative publicity over a tenuous link the organisation may have had with its American parent, with its strong family-centric and corresponding pro-life and traditional family values.
[That DBS is a wimp is a separate matter. DBS is a commercial entity and makes decision based on commercial consideration. They fear losing some customers, or being seen as intolerant, etc. It cannot be used as a reflection of the Govt or the powers that be. ]
It will not be long before these activists, bolstered by their success, start to target 'bigger' fish. Religion-based beneficiaries of other charity initiatives (for example, the President's Challenge), which do not conform to the activists' values, will be targeted. Mission schools will also be targeted since, in the views of these activists, public money should not be used to promote any religious viewpoint, subtle or otherwise.
The first incident intimated the seemingly differing treatment in Singapore towards religion in general, and Christianity in particular. The second incident demonstrated an increasingly disturbing trend by some in Singapore to forcibly remove all religious influences from society.
The potential ramifications of these two incidents, if left unchecked, will bode for an increasingly factious and polarised Singapore society.
Alex Tan
[Muslims don't proselytise. Buddhist don't proselytise. Hindus don't proselytise. Jews don't proselytise. If someone knocks on your door and asks to share his religious views with you, what is the most likely religion they are "sharing"?
a) Christianity
b) Christianity
c) Christianity
d) Christianity
e) All of the above.
The fractious and polarised society will come about because of attempts to proselytise.]
I READ with interest two seemingly unrelated reports last Friday, 'Couple go on trial for sedition' and 'DBS' charity tie-up draws flak'.
In the case of the sedition trial, while the authorities have rightly taken action to robustly maintain the fragile balance in the areas of race, language and religion, it is disheartening that this action is not applied universally to all. There seems to be a greater tolerance of 'attacks' on Christianity than other major religions.
We have these attacks in cinemas in The Da Vinci Code movie, where insinuations regarding the 'authority' of the Bible abounded and the central tenet of who Jesus is was questioned repeatedly. We have them in bookshops and community libraries as well. Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, labelled the God of the Bible 'a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully'.
[There is no double standards. Clearly Singapore is against Christianity! Can't his paranoid delusion help him see it?
And, as pointed out by some comments online, there is a world of difference between a proselytising action (distributing tracts to people who did not ask for it), and personal choice of entertainment (buying a book or watching a movie). There is also a world of difference in offering what is claimed to be facts, and what is claimed to be fiction or an opinion.]
As a Christian, I am not threatened by such 'attacks' and even welcome such opportunities it gives the Christian community to reflect on what and why we believe, thereby strengthening our faith. I do, however, wonder how the authorities would have responded if these 'attacks' were aimed at other religious groups.
In the case of the DBS charity tie-up case, a group of concerned activists has successfully forced DBS Bank to draw down its support of a local charitable organisation for fear of further negative publicity over a tenuous link the organisation may have had with its American parent, with its strong family-centric and corresponding pro-life and traditional family values.
[That DBS is a wimp is a separate matter. DBS is a commercial entity and makes decision based on commercial consideration. They fear losing some customers, or being seen as intolerant, etc. It cannot be used as a reflection of the Govt or the powers that be. ]
It will not be long before these activists, bolstered by their success, start to target 'bigger' fish. Religion-based beneficiaries of other charity initiatives (for example, the President's Challenge), which do not conform to the activists' values, will be targeted. Mission schools will also be targeted since, in the views of these activists, public money should not be used to promote any religious viewpoint, subtle or otherwise.
The first incident intimated the seemingly differing treatment in Singapore towards religion in general, and Christianity in particular. The second incident demonstrated an increasingly disturbing trend by some in Singapore to forcibly remove all religious influences from society.
The potential ramifications of these two incidents, if left unchecked, will bode for an increasingly factious and polarised Singapore society.
Alex Tan
[Muslims don't proselytise. Buddhist don't proselytise. Hindus don't proselytise. Jews don't proselytise. If someone knocks on your door and asks to share his religious views with you, what is the most likely religion they are "sharing"?
a) Christianity
b) Christianity
c) Christianity
d) Christianity
e) All of the above.
The fractious and polarised society will come about because of attempts to proselytise.]
No comments:
Post a Comment