(source)

*******

Our Great Leader, the Holy Prime Minister, successor to the Holy Father of our beloved Lee Dynasty – all praise and honour to Him – exposes his real nature last Sunday when he issued a legal letter to the editors of sociopolitical website, TR Emeritus (TRE), commanding them to withdraw an article which apparently accused the government of partiality (cronyism), when it appointed Our Great First Lady as head of the Asian investment firm, Temasek Holdings.

PM Lee sends lawyer’s letter to editors of TR Emeritus

The Great Leader, in the letter, reminded TRE of the government’s (the People’s Action Party) terrible and awesome powers, as was demonstrated by the numerous defamation suits it waged against international newspapers and periodicals, such as the Far Eastern Economic Review, and won.

And so our Great Leader warned TRE that a similar fate would await them unless they withdraw the article and post an apology on the website.

This is Singapore, my motherland and my home. An autocracy which masquerades as a democracy only in theory. Our people has no power at all in deciding how the country is run. Isn’t this what democracy is all about – power of the people? Although I do not suspect any foul play during vote counts, it does not take a rocket scientist to realise how disparate the arena is during election campaigns, with the ruling regime having an obvious advantage over the opposition by constantly fiddling with electoral boundaries as well as having more press and media coverage.

TRE has withdrawn the article although it has yet to post an apology, as our Alex Au had done in his blog, Yawning Bread, when a very insecure Minister decided to play the defamation game on him over some rumours about his moral indiscretions. Competent and intelligent as he is, the minister does not realise he is digging his own grave, at least in the eyes of netizens, by using the law to bully Yawning Bread into silence.

Dear PAP, if you are innocent, just say so – and debunk the allegations once and for all by speaking the truth. There is no need to emotionally and psychologically abuse and bully Singaporeans into withdrawing their comments. Where is civil discourse in all of this? Why the need to use the law to threaten and frighten us?

WHEN WILL THE RULING REGIME STOP ITS BULLYING TACTICS?? When will the PAP stop its thuggish ways on its people like a hysterical parent brandishing a chopper over mischievous children?

The Holy Father, peace be upon Him, claimed in the past that any political accusation against the government taints their reputation and as such a legal victory, via defamation suit, would always be the right thing to do as it vindicates the ruling regime. Besides, this is politics. Shouldn’t we be unscrupulous against our political “enemies”?

Our Holy Father thinks he is Cao Cao living in ancient China.

On the contrary, the megalomaniacal antics of the PAP has time and again allows itself to be exposed to the world as a strangely first world country with third world ethics.

Mature individuals pay attention to constructive criticism and simply ignore unwarranted and unjustified ones. One does not see the governments in the US or UK lash out against all the rude and critical comments made of them by the many newspapers and tabloids.

Human beings have the right to say anything they want, even if such speech is irresponsible and rude. This is life.

And it takes a mature and self-secure government to accept it.

*******

1. We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

2. We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.

3. We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.

4. We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.

5. We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.

6. We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.

7. We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

8. We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.

9. We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.

10. We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.

11. We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.

12. We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.

13. We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.

14. We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.

15. We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.

16. We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.

17. We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.

18. We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

19. We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.

20. We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.

21. We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.

(source)

*******

“It would be almost unbelievable, if history did not record the tragic fact, that men have gone to war and cut each other’s throats because they could not agree as to what was to become of them after their throats were cut.”

- Walter Stacy (former Chief Justice, North Carolina Supreme Court) 

*******

I write in defence of liberalism – a tradition as traduced by Baroness Warsi sounding off in the Vatican about a liberal elite undermining religion‘s necessary and important centrality in national life as it is by Dawkins’ high profile campaign to convert us all to atheism. There are many dimensions to liberalism – proportionality, due desert, mutual respect, belief in pluralism and tolerance of dissent – but we liberals would no more want to pillory those who have faith than we would want to endorse a philosophy that for all its appeal to rationality does not respect difference.

Liberalism is a doctrine of live and let live, and there has to be a very high threshold of harm before that liberal principle can be qualified.

Of course when religion is carried to absurd and dangerous degrees – the Tea Party movement in the US or Islamic fundamentalism – I am opposed, but for the same reasons I recoil from any zealot. George Osborne’s irrational zealotry on debt and deficit reduction is a much more serious threat to our wellbeing than Archbishop Rowan Williams’s Anglicanism. Indeed paradoxically the Church of England he leads is a great liberal redoubt – an institution that embodies proportionality, tolerance of dissent and respect for others along with considerable moral authority.

It is our ally, not our enemy, as we are discovering again in its battle against the devastating and thoughtless welfare cuts and the argument for a responsible capitalism. It is why so many English people support it even while their practice and understanding of Christianity is uncertain. Please don’t confuse that hesitancy with their quiet respect – even love – of an institution they understand and feel they need.

I am agnostic rather than atheist, which means I am much more well-disposed to the values and sensibility of faith. It also means I set a higher bar for my objections. I object to Baroness Warsi, Rick Santorum and radical Islam alike – but not to longstanding rituals such as prayers before council meetings or even in schools. I am more selective about my fights, and more anxious to protect my general liberalism and tolerance.

(source)

*******

“Most people realise that AIDS came from the homosexual community – it was one guy screwing a monkey, if I recall correctly, and then having sex with men. It was an airline pilot, if I recall. My understanding is that it is virtually – not completely, but virtually – impossible to contract AIDS through heterosexual sex…”

- Senator Stacy Campfield (Republican, State of Tennessee)

This statement, made by a US government official, made the headlines in the country for its ignorance and idiocy. And no wonder – it came from a homophobic evangelical christian, and thus very moronic, Republican.

*******

Tim Prowse was a United Methodist pastor for almost 20 years, serving churches in Missouri and Indiana. Tim earned a B.A. from East Texas Baptist University, a Master of Divinity (M.Div) from Saint Paul School of Theology in Kansas City, Missouri, and a Doctor of Ministry (D.Min) from Chicago Theological Seminary. Acknowledging his unbelief, Tim left his faith and career in 2011. He currently lives in Indiana. He was kind enough to discuss his experience of leaving the ministry with me by email.

Can you describe the process by which you lost your belief in the teachings of your Church?

An interesting thing happened while I was studying at East Texas Baptist University: I was told not to read Rudolf Bultmann. I asked myself: Why? What were they protecting me from? I picked up Bultmann’s work, and that decision is the catalyst that ultimately paved the road to today. Throughout my educational journey, which culminated in an Ordination from the United Methodist Church where I’ve served for seventeen years, I’ve continued to ask the question “Why?”

Ironically, it was seminary that inaugurated my leap of unfaith.  It was so much easier to believe when living in an uncritical, unquestioning, naïve state.  Seminary training with its demands for rigorous and intentional study and reflection coupled with its values of reason and critical inquiry began to undermine my naïveté.  I discovered theologians, philosophers and authors I never knew existed.  I found their questions stimulating but their answers often unsatisfying. For example, the Bible is rife with vileness evidenced by stories of sexual exploitation, mass murder and arbitrary mayhem.  How do we harmonize this fact with the conception of an all-loving, all-knowing God? While many have undertaken to answer this question even in erudite fashion, I found their answers lacking. Once I concluded that the Bible was a thoroughly human product and the God it purports does not exist, other church teachings, such as communion and baptism, unraveled rather quickly.  To quote Nietzsche, I was seeing through a different “perspective” – a perspective based on critical thinking, reason and deduction.  By honing these skills over time, reason and critical thinking became my primary tools and faith quickly diminished. Ultimately, these tools led to the undoing of my faith rather than the strengthening of it.

It sounds like you lost your faith in the process of becoming a minister—or did you go back and forth for some years? How long did you serve as a minister, and how much of this time was spent riven by doubt?

I didn’t lose faith entirely during the ministerial process, although a simmering struggle between faith and doubt was clearly evident.  This simmering would boil occasionally throughout my seventeen-year career, but any vacillations I experienced were easily suppressed, and faith would triumph, albeit, for non-religious reasons.  Besides the money, time, and energy I had invested during the process, familial responsibilities deterred any decisions to alter course.  These faithful triumphs were ephemeral and I found myself living in constant intellectual and emotional turmoil. By not repudiating my career, I could not escape the feeling I was living a lie. I continued to juggle this stressful dichotomy to the point of being totally miserable. Only recently have I succumbed to the doubt that has always undergirded my faith journey.

After I read your book, The End of Faith, I could no longer suppress my unbelief.  Since I’d never felt comfortable in clergy garb and refused to accept a first-century worldview, your book helped me see that religion could no longer be an instrument of meaning in my life. I’m sad to say, Sam, this conclusion did not result in an immediate career change.  I didn’t break from the church immediately, but rather feigned belief for two more years.

If you could go back in time and reason with your former self, what could you say that might have broken the spell sooner?

I would tell myself to ask questions, to read the text, to wonder, to explore the nuances, to take seriously my intuition and abilities to debate.  I’d tell myself to listen to what is actually being said with critical and reasoning ears.  I’d tell myself to substitute “Invisible Friend” for “God” every time I encountered the word and notice how ridiculous the rhetoric sounds from grown-ups. I would challenge myself to be more skeptical, to study science.  I’d tell myself to find joy in life – it’s the only one you are going to get – don’t waste a second.

Believers often allege that there is a deep connection between faith and morality. For instance, when I debated Rick Warren, he said that if he did not believe in God, he wouldn’t have any reason to behave ethically. You’ve lived on both sides of the faith continuum. I’m wondering if you felt any associated change in your morality, for better or worse.

I’d be interested to know what behaviors or impulses God is deterring Rick Warren from acting upon. I doubt very seriously if “God’s goodness” evaporated tomorrow, Warren would begin robbing banks, raping children, or murdering his neighbors!  These types of statements, while common, are fallacious in my opinion.  When Rick Warren uses God as his reason for being good, he is not using God in a general sense.  He isn’t referring to Thor, Neptune, or Isis, either. 

One can find a few biblical passages that do promote “goodness” to use Rick Warren’s term, but only by cherry picking them and avoiding the numerous passages that are appalling, offensive and destructive.

Since God is nothing more than our creation and projection, any talk of God is our reflection looking back at us.  Hence, our morality begins with us anyway. My morality hasn’t changed for the worse since I left the faith.  If anything, it is much more honest because I am forced to consider what is really going on in ethical decisions.  Family, culture, beliefs and values, genetic tendencies, all play a role in shaping morality, but I’m not arguing an extreme relativism.  While I do give credence to certain cultural influences on determining right and wrong, I believe that some issues are universal.  Which is why, unless Rick Warren is truly demented, he wouldn’t begin doing heinous acts if his faith evaporated tomorrow, and if he did, it would be more the result of mental illness than lack of faith.

Did you ever discuss your doubts with your fellow clergy or parishioners? Did you encounter other ministers who shared your predicament (some can be found at http://clergyproject.org/)? And what happened when you finally expressed your unbelief to others?

As an active minister, I did not discuss my atheism with colleagues or parishioners. Facing lost wages, housing and benefits, I chose to remain silent.  However, I did confide in my wife who provided a level of trust, understanding, and support that proved invaluable. Unfortunately, some ministers do not enjoy mature confidants.  Some have lost marriages and partners, friends and family, leaving them with feelings of isolation and abandonment.  Hence, many continue living in estrangement, uncertain where to turn or who to trust, waiting for their lives to be completely upended when the truth finally is discovered.

This is why the Clergy Project is so important.  It provides an invaluable resource of support for current and former clergy who are atheists.  It is a safe and anonymous place to discuss the issues atheist clergy encounter while providing encouragement and support that is genuine and heartfelt. It greatly eases the desperation and uncertainty of where to turn or who to trust!  I’ve been a member of the Clergy Project since July 2011, and it prepared me well for the responses to expect from friends and family during my post-clergy conversations. So far, I have not been surprised by the responses I’ve received nor have I lost any significant relationships due to my professed atheism, but time will tell.

It is nice to hear that your exit from the ministry has been comparatively smooth. What will you do next?

Repudiating my ordination and leaving faith behind was much smoother than I had anticipated.  Ironically, something I had worked years to accomplish ended in a matter of minutes.  When I slid my ordination certificates across a Bob Evan’s tabletop to my District Superintendent, I was greatly relieved.  The lie was over.  I was free.  This freedom does not come without consternation, however.

Fortunately, a dear friend helped my family by offering their second home to rent at a very reasonable price.  Another dear friend has procured a sales job for me in her company.  While housing and employment have been provided in the short term, long term my future is much more uncertain.  Ideally, I’d love to write and lecture on my experiences; especially concerning the negative impacts faith and church have on individuals and societies. I’d love to write a novel.

I do not have visions of grandeur, however.  If the rest of my life is spent just being a regular “Joe” that will be fine by me.  I have a wonderful family and a few good friends.  My heart and mind are at ease.  I’m healthier now than I’ve been in years and tomorrow looks bright.  For the first time in my life, I’m living. Truly living, Sam. (source)

*******

(source)

Thailand. The land of the free. The constitutional monarchy with a very well-loved and respected King. The country of smiles.

But did you know? Thailand is a place of little true joy. Buddhism is so much a part of the Thai national identity and permeates into every level of society and culture that only about one hundred Thais accept Christ each year in the country of over 68 million people.

Do you share the burden of being that one small change agent, bringing the gospel to the Thais, one at a time?

With its many temples and monks, it is hard to ignore the fact that Buddhism is Thailand’s national religion. With only 16% christians, most Thai students see christianity only as a foreign religion. The land of smiles needs to hear the gospel message. Come and share with Khonkaen University students that Jesus is the way, the true and the life!

Go Change. World.  

For someone who lives under the christian subculture in Singapore, it is easy for me to mock the online cacophony over the poster above as white noise. In fact, I invite any practising christian in Singapore, to challenge me on this – that the above IS REPRESENTATIVE, very accurately indeed, of grassroots christianity as subscribed (orthodoxy) and practised (orthopraxy) in this country.

NUS student group says sorry for insensitive remarks

For anyone blissfully ignorant of Campus Crusade for Christ (CCC), of which the NUS (National University of Singapore) campus branch is responsible for the above advertisement (which caused much noise in the online community), it is an evangelical parachurch organisation founded by an already deceased William (Bill) Bright. Its main purpose is to spread (really, to proselytise) the christian religion all over the world. It has many branches, with sub “ministries” in tertiary campuses, all over the world. The main polytechnics in Singapore, namely Singapore, Ngee Ann, Temasek and Nanyang, have CCC ministries (I am not sure about the newest polytechnic, Republic) along with the two main universities, NUS and NTU (Nanyang Technological University).

I was a member in one of those branches during my school days.

And so let anyone accuse, dishonestly and deceptively, that I have no credibility to assert what I am asserting now. In fact, in the deluded madness of my youth, I wanted to enter the seminary to become a pastor. This led me to years of personal study and research (and anguish) into christian theology, biblical studies and historical criticism (which eventually led me to my free-thinking secular humanism). I suppose that is one of the reasons why I am still earnestly interested in the academic study of the bible.

Now, contrary to what CCC Singapore as well as the rest of the christian community who want to distance themselves from CCC claim; the theological premise which undergirds the alleged poster has always been constant in christianity, at least as practised and believed in this country; which is namely, that the person of Jesus Christ, as the Son of God (jews and muslims would disagree), is the ONLY way to personal salvation (of the soul) and thus upon death, the ONLY way to an eternity in heaven. This means that in the perception of christians, buddhists, muslims, hindus and free thinkers are all DAMNED to an eternity in hell. Full stop.

Now, a conniving dishonesty comes when a non-christian confronts the christian in a media or national capacity.  It is common for the christian to make the non-sensical statement that it is not up to him to judge anyone – only god knows – the destiny of all men. No streetwise christian would be so daft as to state the truth point blank that the poor interviewer will be damned to hellfire. But this is a red herring which distracts the public from the real issue – what does christian theology teach?

Classical christian theology has always been religiously exclusive – there is only ONE TRUE religion – and ONE TRUE scripture. It is precisely this very deluded view that compels practitioners to proselytise non-christians as much as possible – they are really sincere about it – they want you to go to heaven!

So let me be clear. Any christian who claims that CCC is not representative of christianity is being deliberately dishonest.

In making this assertion, I am not claiming that no christian in Singapore disagrees with the bigoted exclusivity of classical christianity; there are perhaps many who do privately. But as an institution and a social movement in Singapore, christianity is religiously exclusive, and theoretically unaccepting towards other religious or nonreligious traditions.

There is no point in interviewing, let’s say, a spokesperson for the National Council of Churches in Singapore. Or some lecturer in Trinity Theological College Singapore. Folks like these do not represent the average church pastor, let alone the christian person on the street. In classic Singaporean style, bishops and theologians would offer politically correct and nuanced views on the matter, deflecting any potential conflict.

Politically correct spin are nothing but half-truths and testicle-licking lies.

Anyhow, the alleged poster is very tame by my book. Just drop by any of the tongue-speaking, hand-raising, demon-casting and chriss angel-like magic mumbo-jumbo charismatic megachurches in Singapore and you will see that Jesus Camp and Teen Mania is more closer to the truth than meets the eye.

*******

Some have lauded the recent expulsion of the Hougang MP by the Workers’ Party (WP) as a brave and shrewd political move. They have “taken, boldy, the moral high ground”, to quote Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Eugene Tan, the assistant professor of law at the Singapore Management University.

The expulsion was carried out in response to a very immature Singaporean society which still holds on to very quaint ideas of public civil service and its supposed moral standards. The media cannot seem to keep their partisan hands off the poor gentleman and his personal life. It was also his mistake to remain silent amid the media silliness…he should either reaffirm his innocence, if he is, or come out in the open and confess to his indiscretions and apologise to the residents of Hougang.

The latter would indeed place him on the moral high ground. I will applaud him for the moral courage and the strength in humility to be transparent to the people.

UNLIKE the schemes of the ruling regime…which only “appears” CLEAN because they are craftier and more skilled in covering up their tracks. I always believe in the adage that there can be no senseless smoke without fire…and the disparity is so obvious for any discerning individual – the media is so quick to pick up on any rumour of moral indiscretion on the part of the political opposition but if it comes to the ruling party, ALL IS SILENT.

Of course, the testicle-squeezing silence can be attributed to the classic Singaporean fear of being legally sued by the ruling regime if there is any sign of criticism (think of Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, Chee Soon Juan and Alan Shadrake). The capacity to sue has nothing to do with moral innocence but with resources and power, full stop.

We are not fooled, though. Until the day when the Internet is cruelly and senselessly censored and squashed (thank goodness for twinkles of humanity in our current PM) by the powers that be, netizens in Singapore would always be the watchdog against a government that is constantly suppressing our civil rights to free speech and expression.

Are Singaporeans so naive as to think that the PAP (People’s Action Party) is really that CLEAN and FREE of moral indiscretions? Have you ever wonder why the people of Singapore are in the dark when it comes to the families of the ruling regime, apart from the Lees? We are hardly acquainted with the kin of most of our parliamentarians, let alone MPs and those on the ground.

A very good strategy, if you ask me. If the public knows next to nothing about the personal life of their leaders, there is no way we could hold them to account for any moral indiscretion, if they exist.

Contrary to propaganda, the truth is really out there. In the worldwide web.

While there is still hope for a liberal society, and a fairly liberal internet, please traverse far and wide for the truth.

Before even the Internet is unjustly censored.

*******