Sometimes I wonder how stupid the fundamentalist christians think we are. Just because you don't put your religious views into a letter, we don't know where you are coming from?
Take this letter from Renae. My rebuttal is in blue.
Today, Voices
18 October 2007
Most not for gay agenda
by Renae Sim Pei Pei
I AM concerned about the recent petition to Parliament to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, which forbids men from having sex with each other in public or private.
I am not against homosexuals; I recognise that they are as human and Singaporean as I am. As citizens, they already enjoy the same rights as the others.
Does this sound familiar? Let me refresh your memory, "Love the sinner, hate the sin". Let me paraphares this, "I am not against homosexuals but I still want them to be criminals". Sound hypercritical?
And what about her fabulous statement, "they already enjoy the same rights as the others". Let me see, the rights that heterosexuals have that we don't
1) Get married
2) Have children (i.e. adopt as a couple)
3) Protected when your spouse dies
4) Being able to put your spouse's name as beneficiary on insurance forms
5) No security (financial or otherwise, i.e. we don't get our partner's CPF, pensions)
Does it look like we have the same rights! Furthermore, to add injury to insult, we have to serve the army, pay taxes AND considered criminals. Does that sound like we have the same rights?
But what they are pushing for now is the Singaporean majority's approval of their behaviour. It is clear the majority does not covet the agenda that gay activists are pushing for. If Parliament repeals Section 377A, we will be unwittingly consenting to such behaviour.
So not have S377A means the gahmen/Singapore is consenting to gay men having sex. So the gahmen/Singapore consents/condones extra marital affairs, pre-martial sex and how about the latest - anal and oral sex between heterosexual couples. These are all condoned by the gahmen/Singapore and I presume (using Renae's assumption) is actively promoting it too. So the gahmen is sending a message to Singaporeans that you should have extra martial affairs (because there is no law against it), that you should have pre-martial sex (because there is no law against it), that you should have oral and anal sex with your spouse (because there is no law against it). Gosh, as a fundamentalist christian, aren't you cringing? Now that you know our laws are for/condoning these things?
Health factors are another reason why Singapore must not repeal Section 377A. Studies in the United States, Australia and Cambodia have shown that men who have sex with men are most vulnerable to HIV.
This really takes the cake. Studies are now sighted. Let me just tell say this, men are going to have sex with other men REGARDLESS of S377A. Just because it is illegal is not going to stop men from having sex with men. Look at the statistics. Men who have sex exclusively with other men are still around, and it has not stopped nor will it every stop, regardless if S337A is there or not.
Studies have also shown that people with multiple sex partners have a higher chance of getting HIV. And it doesn't matter if you are gay or not. How about a law against having multiple sex partners? Yea, like that would put a stop to people having more than 1 sex partner.
Why not have a law that makes men who have foreskins criminals? Studies have shown that circumcised men are less venerable to HIV.
The problem with people like this is that they don't see the bigger picture. If S377A is so useful in preventing HIV transmission (because NO men is having sex with each other) then why is the HIV numbers of men who have sex exclusively with men (MSM) on the rise (which made the gahmen do a double take). If you use her logic, then HIV infection rates for MSM should have fallen or even become zero.
The problem with S377A is this, with it there, the gahmen cannot launch a campaign to educate MSM about the risk of unprotected sex. How can you campaign it when it is actually illegal in the first place. And this is the big problem. The HIV infection rates in Singapore are increasing (not only with MSM but everone) because our education about safer sex is so lacking. Not everyone in the world are like fundamentalist christians, who can withhold sex until marriage or even have sex with only their spouse. They believe the world is "clean and pure" as sex is the biggest taboo in the christian culture. Violence is okay but sex is BAD, BAD, BAD.
I am most unwilling to see society degenerate with the legal approval of homosexual behaviour and fully support the Government's decision to preserve the law.
Let we really see where she's coming from, typical fundamentalist answer. "Do not want to see society degrade...".
Just a note from history, when African-Americans were considered 2nd class citizens (very much like gays in Singapore now), when thinking people started to protest against their unfair treatment, the answers the fundamentalist christians gave were, yup you guessed it, "... do not want to see society degrade..."
Which brings be to the 2nd letter (see below), which is basically the same thing. This is getting so boring, every point that fundamentalist christians bring up have been rebutted and refuted by thinking people. Sad to say, like a broken record, they will keep repeating the same statements over and over again, even when more and more people stop believing in them.
And because they are so worried about morality of society, I'll like to propose the follow laws:
Pre-marital Sex
"Whoever voluntarily has gross indecency before they are married under the law, shell be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years"
Adultery
"Whoever voluntarily has gross indecency besides their spouse with any man or woman, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years"
Orgies (yes, heterosexuals do have orgies too)
"Whoever voluntarily has gross indecency with more than 1 man or woman at the same time, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years"
Toys
"Whoever voluntarily has gross indecency using sexual aids like toys, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years"
Masturbation
"Whoever voluntarily has gross indecency with themselves, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years"
I think with these extra laws to keep the morals of Singaporeans, Singapore will be the most moral and upright nation in the world.
Today, Voices
18 Octobel 2007
The measure of indecency
Charis Lee Ting Li
I refer to Felicia Tan Ying Yi's letter ("Teach youth the spirit of the law, not just its letter", Oct 17). Ms Tan talks about the importance of giving the youth the right tools and attitudes to help them make their own moral decisions, which I fully agree with.
However, I believe the most basic tools take the form of laws, which, beyond being a strict taskmaster, serve to reflect the consensus of the wider population.
Morality is not a black-and-white issue but if Section 377A prohibits "gross indecency", some sort of moral compass is needed here.
The problem is that not many people want to recognise that "gross indecency" is exactly what the term implies.
Showing posts with label Christian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian. Show all posts
18 October 2007
24 May 2007
Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian
It is just so true. :)
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
13 March 2007
Crap from Christians again (what's new?)
Note: I'm using the general term Christian to mean all followers of Jesus Christ, be they Catholics or Protestants. I know a lot of people think that only Protestants are Christians but by definition it is not.
Christian's don't want truth, they just want their version of the truth. And what more, their version of the truth is the right one (ordained by God herself) and everyone has to subscribe to it, regardless of whether you believe in the Christian God or not.
To shut yourself off like that is no more healthy than a person who believes everything he/she reads or sees (especially in Sg's main stream media) without processing all information that you have and come to your own conclusions.
The Christian's have gone so far as to enact a law (or is it an amendment) to force the park rangers at the grand canyon to NOT say that it took millions of years to form because according to the bible, the earth is only thousands of years old.
So who, we who don't subscribe to stupidity (or Christianity, same difference actually), do we believe, the people who proclaimed that the bible is the end all be all and it explains everything and anything under the sun or people who actually do research on stuff like this. Fair enough the researches don't always get thing right but if you have 100 researchers doing the same type of work and 95 of them say that this is correct and the other 5 say it isn't, who would you believe?
Christian arrogance is really amazing especially when they try to reason out the world in black and white when we living in the real world (Christians don't live in the real world, they are very much like the Muslim extremist) know that most things in this world are grey (or multi-coloured as some of my friends would say) very few (if any) things are black and white. And yet, to Christians, it is so, this is black and that is while, clear cut, no 2 ways about it. Nice to know that the world is so simple. We, living in the real world, must be really stupid to not have known that or even perceived it.
Why am I writing this, well it is just a statement for what the NCCS wrote about the Penal Code. Christ taught love and compassion. Christian Churches in the world teaches hate and intolerance. Which incidentally is exactly what the Pharisees during Jesus' time taught. Talk about white washed walls!
I totally believe that Christians are no different from Pharisees. Let's start calling a spade a spade and not hide behind the framework of love and compassion (whatever your Christian definition is).
further reads: Criminalise lesbianism, say Church leaders
Logic isn't really a Christian's strong point.
P.S. If you are angry from reading this, then you are exactly what I've described about a typical Christian. If you are not, then thank God for some thinking Christians.
------
Penal Code: Proposed changes
'relevant and compassionate'
-- says National Council of Churches of Singapore
THE National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) is of the view that generally speaking, the proposed amendments to the Penal Code (PC) are relevant, timely, compassionate and appear well thought through.
In presenting this feedback, the NCCS is mindful of the role of governing authorities and the Scriptural injunction to Christians on their attitude towards the higher powers (Romans 13:1).
Additionally, in making these comments, the NCCS is aware anecdotally that there are other individuals or groups in society that intend to give appropriate feedback to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on some of the proposed amendments to the PC from other perspectives (e.g. criminal justice viewpoints) and may proffer analysis of both the underlying policies of the Government and the legal wording.
Therefore, the NCCS confined itself only to the proposed amendments that are likely to be of concern to Christian churches, groups and individuals in Singapore.
In this regard, the NCCS gave three feedback points:
'(a) the proposed section 298A PC ("Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion or race, and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony"). An issue that arises for consideration (quite apart from the legal issue of what is the mens rea [i.e. blameworthy state of mind] involved in this intended offence) is what scenarios are envisaged by the Government as constituting: -
(i) words/signs/visible representations that "[promote] disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious … groups or communities" or
(ii) acts that are "prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious … groups or communities … which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity"
The deeper or underlying issue is how these intended PC offences correlate with fundamental rights enshrined in Article 15(1) of the Constitution safeguarding the freedom of religion (i.e. the right to profess, practise and propagate one's religion). Will a Christian who shares his/her faith to a non-Christian trigger off the commission of a criminal offence under this section? This issue may not be unique to Christians alone. It may also impact on devotees of other "missionary" religions such as Islam.
Other examples come to mind. If a Christian narrates his testimony of conversion in his web log or personal website and makes reference to how he failed to find fulfilment and meaning in his former religion and only found the same in Christ, could that constitute promoting disharmony or feelings of ill-will (even if it does not meet the conceivably higher threshold of promoting enmity or hatred) between different religious groups/communities?
Assuming that we have a situation of a Muslim convert that wishes to be baptised in a local church … could the act of baptism performed by the pastor be prejudicial to the maintenance of religious harmony and likely to disturb the public tranquillity?
In this regard, it is interesting to note that the language in the proposed section 298A PC is similar to section 8(1) of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Cap 167A) ("MRHA"). That section allows the Government to make a restraining order against religious leaders where the Minister is satisfied that that person has committed/is attempting to commit acts that cause "feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups". As far as we know, no restraining order has been made under the MRHA since that legislation was enacted. However, the present statutory changes envisaged to the PC elevate the commission of such acts to a criminal offence. The danger with this is the possible subjectivity and arbitrariness of the judgment which may be made about which acts transgress the boundaries and which do not. The uncertainty is unsatisfactory.
To remedy the same, one view is that the Government should insert some illustrations and explanatory notes to this statutory provision to clarify what constitutes an offence under this new section and what does not. This approach adheres to the scheme of the PC as originally codified. This will enable the parameters of the criminal offence concerned to be spelt out clearly.
The problem with the approach in the preceding paragraph, however, is that illustrations are not exhaustive. Much will turn on the context and circumstances of the words/acts concerned and an objective analysis of the same. In line with this, the alternative approach to that in the preceding paragraph is therefore to leave it to the courts to be the final arbiters in determining whether a contravention of intended section 298 has taken place or not.
(b) The Explanatory Notes to the Proposed Amendments issued by the MHA state that "The Public Prosecutor is aware that some offenders are of low IQ or mentally deficient. They take this into account in deciding whether or not to charge the offender." This approach by the Public Prosecutor demonstrates compassion towards low IQ offenders and the NCCS commends the same. The question is whether, given the variety of conditions that exist within the spectrum of mental illness, the statutory general exception for unsoundness of mind (section 84 PC) should be amended substantively to reflect the same. This contrasts with the present approach of leaving the same for prosecutorial discretion.
(c) We are aware that the proposed amendment to delete section 377 PC but on the other hand retaining section 377A PC may be controversial in some quarters. Nevertheless, we consider homosexual acts to be sinful, abhorrent and deviant, whether consensual or not. The NCCS commends the Government on taking a clear, unequivocal and bold stand of neither encouraging nor endorsing a homosexual lifestyle and opposing the presentation of the same as part of a mainstream way of life. At the same time, we do not condemn homosexuals as the Bible calls us to hate the sin but love the sinner. Given that section 377A PC criminalises homosexuality whether done private or publicly, we are of the view that a similar prohibition ought to be enacted in respect of lesbianism, considering that lesbianism (like homosexuality) is also abhorrent and deviant, whether consensual or not.'
Christian's don't want truth, they just want their version of the truth. And what more, their version of the truth is the right one (ordained by God herself) and everyone has to subscribe to it, regardless of whether you believe in the Christian God or not.
To shut yourself off like that is no more healthy than a person who believes everything he/she reads or sees (especially in Sg's main stream media) without processing all information that you have and come to your own conclusions.
The Christian's have gone so far as to enact a law (or is it an amendment) to force the park rangers at the grand canyon to NOT say that it took millions of years to form because according to the bible, the earth is only thousands of years old.
So who, we who don't subscribe to stupidity (or Christianity, same difference actually), do we believe, the people who proclaimed that the bible is the end all be all and it explains everything and anything under the sun or people who actually do research on stuff like this. Fair enough the researches don't always get thing right but if you have 100 researchers doing the same type of work and 95 of them say that this is correct and the other 5 say it isn't, who would you believe?
Christian arrogance is really amazing especially when they try to reason out the world in black and white when we living in the real world (Christians don't live in the real world, they are very much like the Muslim extremist) know that most things in this world are grey (or multi-coloured as some of my friends would say) very few (if any) things are black and white. And yet, to Christians, it is so, this is black and that is while, clear cut, no 2 ways about it. Nice to know that the world is so simple. We, living in the real world, must be really stupid to not have known that or even perceived it.
Why am I writing this, well it is just a statement for what the NCCS wrote about the Penal Code. Christ taught love and compassion. Christian Churches in the world teaches hate and intolerance. Which incidentally is exactly what the Pharisees during Jesus' time taught. Talk about white washed walls!
I totally believe that Christians are no different from Pharisees. Let's start calling a spade a spade and not hide behind the framework of love and compassion (whatever your Christian definition is).
further reads: Criminalise lesbianism, say Church leaders
Logic isn't really a Christian's strong point.
P.S. If you are angry from reading this, then you are exactly what I've described about a typical Christian. If you are not, then thank God for some thinking Christians.
------
Penal Code: Proposed changes
'relevant and compassionate'
-- says National Council of Churches of Singapore
THE National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) is of the view that generally speaking, the proposed amendments to the Penal Code (PC) are relevant, timely, compassionate and appear well thought through.
In presenting this feedback, the NCCS is mindful of the role of governing authorities and the Scriptural injunction to Christians on their attitude towards the higher powers (Romans 13:1).
Additionally, in making these comments, the NCCS is aware anecdotally that there are other individuals or groups in society that intend to give appropriate feedback to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on some of the proposed amendments to the PC from other perspectives (e.g. criminal justice viewpoints) and may proffer analysis of both the underlying policies of the Government and the legal wording.
Therefore, the NCCS confined itself only to the proposed amendments that are likely to be of concern to Christian churches, groups and individuals in Singapore.
In this regard, the NCCS gave three feedback points:
'(a) the proposed section 298A PC ("Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion or race, and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony"). An issue that arises for consideration (quite apart from the legal issue of what is the mens rea [i.e. blameworthy state of mind] involved in this intended offence) is what scenarios are envisaged by the Government as constituting: -
(i) words/signs/visible representations that "[promote] disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious … groups or communities" or
(ii) acts that are "prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious … groups or communities … which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity"
The deeper or underlying issue is how these intended PC offences correlate with fundamental rights enshrined in Article 15(1) of the Constitution safeguarding the freedom of religion (i.e. the right to profess, practise and propagate one's religion). Will a Christian who shares his/her faith to a non-Christian trigger off the commission of a criminal offence under this section? This issue may not be unique to Christians alone. It may also impact on devotees of other "missionary" religions such as Islam.
Other examples come to mind. If a Christian narrates his testimony of conversion in his web log or personal website and makes reference to how he failed to find fulfilment and meaning in his former religion and only found the same in Christ, could that constitute promoting disharmony or feelings of ill-will (even if it does not meet the conceivably higher threshold of promoting enmity or hatred) between different religious groups/communities?
Assuming that we have a situation of a Muslim convert that wishes to be baptised in a local church … could the act of baptism performed by the pastor be prejudicial to the maintenance of religious harmony and likely to disturb the public tranquillity?
In this regard, it is interesting to note that the language in the proposed section 298A PC is similar to section 8(1) of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Cap 167A) ("MRHA"). That section allows the Government to make a restraining order against religious leaders where the Minister is satisfied that that person has committed/is attempting to commit acts that cause "feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups". As far as we know, no restraining order has been made under the MRHA since that legislation was enacted. However, the present statutory changes envisaged to the PC elevate the commission of such acts to a criminal offence. The danger with this is the possible subjectivity and arbitrariness of the judgment which may be made about which acts transgress the boundaries and which do not. The uncertainty is unsatisfactory.
To remedy the same, one view is that the Government should insert some illustrations and explanatory notes to this statutory provision to clarify what constitutes an offence under this new section and what does not. This approach adheres to the scheme of the PC as originally codified. This will enable the parameters of the criminal offence concerned to be spelt out clearly.
The problem with the approach in the preceding paragraph, however, is that illustrations are not exhaustive. Much will turn on the context and circumstances of the words/acts concerned and an objective analysis of the same. In line with this, the alternative approach to that in the preceding paragraph is therefore to leave it to the courts to be the final arbiters in determining whether a contravention of intended section 298 has taken place or not.
(b) The Explanatory Notes to the Proposed Amendments issued by the MHA state that "The Public Prosecutor is aware that some offenders are of low IQ or mentally deficient. They take this into account in deciding whether or not to charge the offender." This approach by the Public Prosecutor demonstrates compassion towards low IQ offenders and the NCCS commends the same. The question is whether, given the variety of conditions that exist within the spectrum of mental illness, the statutory general exception for unsoundness of mind (section 84 PC) should be amended substantively to reflect the same. This contrasts with the present approach of leaving the same for prosecutorial discretion.
(c) We are aware that the proposed amendment to delete section 377 PC but on the other hand retaining section 377A PC may be controversial in some quarters. Nevertheless, we consider homosexual acts to be sinful, abhorrent and deviant, whether consensual or not. The NCCS commends the Government on taking a clear, unequivocal and bold stand of neither encouraging nor endorsing a homosexual lifestyle and opposing the presentation of the same as part of a mainstream way of life. At the same time, we do not condemn homosexuals as the Bible calls us to hate the sin but love the sinner. Given that section 377A PC criminalises homosexuality whether done private or publicly, we are of the view that a similar prohibition ought to be enacted in respect of lesbianism, considering that lesbianism (like homosexuality) is also abhorrent and deviant, whether consensual or not.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
