“from faith to facts: theology to atheism”

by Catherine Dunphy

 

When I was a practicing Catholic, I often stretched my imagination by visioning my church not as a global oppressor of women but as a segmented community, “a church with in a church”, that derived its mandate not from the pulpit in Rome but from the roots of liberation theology. I spent many years at the altar of feminist theologians, honoring their articulation of the liberated experience.

 

Yet despite the appeal of feminist theology I now identify as a secular humanist. So what happened? To put it shortly and succinctly; I could no longer reconcile myself to belief. Instead I embraced the sentiment that I was not losing faith, but gaining reason. Since that time, I have spent many an unfettered hour thinking about religion, its function as a building block of society and how and when it will be retired as product of a bygone era.

 

Which brings me to this article. Despite religion’s best efforts, things are changing, particularly in the West; with the influence of science a new world of possibilities, free from religion have come into focus. But there is also, in my opinion, another unknowing contributor – theology.

 

The study and development of theology has become one of the main architects of internal schisms in the Roman Church. Most people in this day and age don’t take notice of who the Vatican is excommunicating or whose book has been banned. In most instances, the person in question is a theologian. Recent examples of theological thinking that has gotten the Church in a tither include the splinter group “Roman Catholic Womanpriest”, an international union of women priests ordained in the apostolic tradition. Also, since the 1970‘s the church has spoken against liberation theologies that it feels focus too much on the emancipate communities of disenfranchised persons seeking justice in areas of political, social, economic and ecological oppression. One of the most vocal of these groups include feminists.

 

Rosemary Radford Ruether is one of the most influential feminist liberation theologians. Dr. Ruether has written numerous books on women and the church, including Sexism and God Talk: Towards a Feminist Theology. She currently teaches at Claremount School of Theology. She agreed to speak with me in preparation for this article.

 

The recognition of sexism as wrong, evil and sinful brings about the total collapse of the myths of female evil… more than that, women have to suspect that the entire symbolic universe that surrounds them, which has socialized them to their roles, is deeply tainted by hostility to their humanity.

 

Before I spoke with Dr. Ruether I knew that she would have a perspective that was contrary to official church teaching. In a very frank discussion she said that catholicism is not about the papacy, and “if you identify the hierarchy as the church, then you might as well forget about it (church).”

 

When I asked Dr. Ruether to provide more information about what she meant by “church” she explained that her experience of it, “has some relationship to Christ, specifically as an inspiration for justice, but that church is mostly a community committed to an ecumenical and interfaith dialogue about liberation and social justice”, of which feminism is part of that tradition.

 

When it comes to Ruether’s theology, the idea of church does seem “out of focus” with the general consensus of what it is to be a Christian and Catholic.

 

Many would be surprised that most reputable theological schools are places where a convergence of similar ideas occurs; everything from the feminist perspectives of Ruether and Daly to biblical scholarship that includes the detailed study of pseudepigraphic texts as well as metaphorical concepts of god as mother or as the manifestation of love in the universe.

 

Yet despite these differing views at the academic level, very little transcends to the pew.

 

Rome continues to dictate the rules and obligations for millions of Catholics as it is the recognized church on the world stage. I have given a lot of thought to this conundrum, therefore it should not be surprising that theological students like myself, would find themselves trapped by doctrine when working in parishes, schools and hospitals.

 

Concerning this topic, Daniel Dennett and Linda LaScola authored a recent study in Evolutionary Psychology, Preachers Who Are Not Believers, that clearly outlines what appears to be an emerging phenomenon.

 

The loneliness of non-believing pastors is extreme. They have no trusted confidantes to reassure them, to reflect their own musings back to them, to provide reality checks. As their profiles reveal, even their spouses are often unaware of their turmoil. They are caught in a trap, cunningly designed to harness both their best intentions and their basest fears to the task of immobilizing them in their predicament.

 

Inspired by this research, I spoke with a friend and former student of theology. She was aware that I had left the church but this was the first time that we had discussed it.

 

Ever since John Stuart Mill, the liberal tradition has been wary of democracy and its potential for the tyranny of the majority and the oppression of individuals or minorities. As I have argued at length, what is disturbing about Strauss is that his cures for the ills of democracy exacerbate its fascistic hazards. Encouraging a secretive elite to justify all manner of dirty tricks, lies, deceptions, and an assortment of unethical and illegal tactics cannot “save” the world from the dangers of democracy. Equally misguided is the promotion of a religious and nationalist militancy.

 

Though our meeting was conversational and at ease, I was struck by her relief at speaking with someone else about her evolving beliefs. Most notably she spoke in detail about the lack of solace or spiritual nourishment she found from her position as a school chaplain and her continued attendance at church. In fact, she indicated that she most often found it to undermine her happiness, resulting in frustration. She did say these frustrations contributed to her decision to leave her job as a chaplain and to pursue other career options.

 

When I asked her about her beliefs now, she identified “god as the manifestation of love in the universe”, not a particularly canonical view, especially since she admitted to feeling like a heretic since she stopped believing in the virgin birth and the divinity of Jesus.

 

I left our meeting feeling like I was on the tip of an iceberg. It seems to me now that the process of completing a degree in theology is directly related to changes in belief and for at least a percentage of people, loss of faith.

 

So where do we go from here? Without a doubt, religion has played an important part in the human story. It once provided answers to questions about the world we live in and purported to reveal the meaning of life. As science ebbs ever closer to answering the crucial facts of existence, believers will continue to be challenged to let go of the ramblings of a bygone era.

(source)

 

*******

 

 

liberalism entails plurality

 

A genuine free-thinking secular humanist tolerates the practice of religions in society, as long as public policy remains in the hands of secular government. We do not subscribe to fairy tales but we allow others their right to play red riding hoods and sleeping beauties in the comforts of their private straw houses without forcing us to play the grandmother wolf or the dim prince.

 

We are cross if the red riding hoods get deluded into believing we are the grandmother wolves and as such refuse to do business with us, especially if the hoods are offering public service such as a B&B (bed & breakfast), hotel or eatery. We are cross if our public leaders are secret red riding hoods who want to get rid of all the grandmother wolves in society. But we live and let live if these red riding hoods wish to wear their hoods to the office. We live and let live if they wish to carry their lunch baskets to the boardroom.

 

It is just child’s play.

 

It is all right if protestant and catholic christians wish to wear their cross and crucifix pendants as jewellery in the office. It is all right if muslim women wish to adorn their headscarf to demonstrate their play-pretend piety to the boardroom, or their men to wear their strange hats and keep their ugly beards. It is all right if their jewish counterparts wish to do the same thing. It is all right if buddhists or taoists wish to bring their prayer beads or amulets along for good luck. Or any of the very stupid new-agers who wear crystal pendants for “spiritual” or “supernatural” reasons.

 

As long as all these loons do not start preaching their fairy stories to others. As long as they do not expect others to do the same.

 

So it is hypocrisy and I suppose, an insult to the humanist cause to refuse christians their HUMAN right to wear cross pendants to the office. Why the apparent bashing of christianity in the public square in this very unreasonable way? England loves to brandish its atheist lance as the US adores swinging its christian scimitar – both wishes to force its views on the wider society.

 

*******

 

morality for the here and now

by Andrew Copson

 

Against faith schools, against worship in schools, against confessional RE in schools – sometimes humanist views on education are portrayed in entirely negative terms. In fact, any humanist taking action on these issues is doing so for positive reasons, being in favour of integrated schools without discrimination, inclusive assemblies that bring a school together, and objective, fair and balanced education about beliefs. But more than that, humanists have originated powerful educational thinking of their own down the centuries.

 

One of the most prominent contributions has been in moral education. Seeing morality not as a set of rules derived from a transcendent deity but as an organised attempt to reinforce human social impulses in the here and now has a clear effect on how you seek to develop morality in children.

 

“Morality…is an organised attempt to reinforce human social impulses in the here and now…”

 

Sixty years ago the humanist educational psychologist Margaret Knight caused a national moral panic when she suggested on the BBC that moral education could usefully be uncoupled from religious education. She said moral training should be an independent effort, not just involving the passing on of principles and ways of thinking but having an emotional basis too. “Warm-hearted and generous natures are developed not primarily by training and discipline, important though these are in other ways, but by love,” she said. Today, not least because of humanist educators like Harold Blackham (who founded the still-running Journal of Moral Education) and James Hemming, these ideas are near to mainstream.

 

Development of reason and scientific and critical thinking is another concern of humanists in education. “The humanist is a rationalist, one who puts reason first … stresses the open mind, dedication to a disinterested search for truth,” said Blackham. Beyond the search for truth that motivates in a subject like science, humanists in education have prioritised the development of critical thinking and a rational spirit for its social consequences in the formation of democratic citizens. This was a lifelong concern for the humanist political thinker Bernard Crick, responsible for the introduction of citizenship education. In case this still seems too coldly utilitarian, we have the humanist idea that the ability to reason and inquire freely is personally fulfilling too: “I appeal to you to be rational, critical, inspired with the spirit of enquiry … You shall never be free on this earth so long as you remain a voluntary subject to forces unknown and unknowable,” said the Indian humanist MN Roy.

 

If you believe death is the end of our personal existence, the individual cannot achieve their full flourishing in some world to come. So personal fulfilment, if achieved at all, can only be achieved in this life. Education on this view kickstarts this lifelong journey of personal development, and the study of art, literature, philosophy, religions, science, history and so on is not just a process of acquiring knowledge but of making a life for oneself that is meaningful and fulfilling. This is a third area when humanist views have an enormous impact on educational thinking.

 

It’s unlikely there would ever be a “humanist school” as there are religious schools – if humanist organisations ever did run schools they would surely be secular ones, run along inclusive lines and encouraging open-minded autonomy among pupils. But humanist thinking on education can help teachers, parents and others to reflect on how our values shape this most important endeavour.

(source)

 

*******

 

this IS christianity in singapore…

 

(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.

 

*******

 

uncouth woman makes racist remarks on public transport

 

The following is a video clip recorded by a commuter on a British tram showing a caucasian British woman creating a scene by uttering very expletive remarks about perceived “foreigners” in Britain, especially the blacks.

 

My Tram Experience

 

It is incomprehensible how she could use such uncouth language in front of her own toddler whom she was cuddling on her lap. Poor child – pray he would not grow up to be as ridiculously racist as his mother.

 

Although such a scene may not be common in England, it still reveals a dark side to British culture that is unsavoury as it is spectacularly atheistic. Thank goodness for beautiful Singapore – where the different races strive to live together in harmony and the different religious traditions are respected and honoured.

 

Yes, one dodgy character should not be used as a representative of an entire population – but I contend that her bad language certainly is, especially among the working and middle classes in England. It is very common to hear words like bl**dy, b*ll**ks and f**k when one passes through the streets of London – and one wonders if such a culture of bad language is due to a society that abhors piety and modesty.

 

Yes, one can be good without God and without religion – but it seems that a gentle temper and a gracious tongue are not part of the good which humanists espouse. All atheists do are to rant and shout, scream and holler, and often be very poor ambassadors of a robust morality that should be humanism.

 

*******

 

why dogma is irrelevant for religious pluralism

 

 

This is a cheeky yet eloquent presentation of religious pluralism and its perceived incongruence, using the “co-exist” tag as its jumping board. It seems that the wildly fanatical on both sides of the continuum love to toy with the propositional differences of religion to buttress their fundamental biases.

 

The religious fundamentalists would play the noncontradiction game that truth is antithetical and exclusive, and as such there would be no place in the metaphysical world for both monotheism as well as polytheism, or any of the contradictory alternatives. Christians would assert that either there IS ONLY one God, many gods or none at all. All three alternatives cannot exist one and the same time. Muslims would holler at the top of their lungs that “Allah is Great” and that they have the FINAL revelation which supercedes both of their predecessors in the faith, namely Judaism and Christianity. And Buddhists would roll their eyes at the shenanigans of the monotheists and preach that such metaphysical issues are irrelevant to good and righteous living.

 

On the other end of the continuum, the belligerant atheists and secularists would hammer home their dream of exterminating all forms of religion as they are not based on science and reason. And yes, they will preach to the choir about why the different religious traditions cannot coexist due to reasons similar to that of the religious extremists. Doctrines such as eternal damnation, salvation in christ alone and military “jihad” would often be the scapegoats.

 

Both ends miss the point.

 

In fact, the term “fundamentalism” does indeed characterise Dawkins and company – NOT in the sense that they adhere strictly to sacred texts, as Dawkins and Hitchens would often assert in their own defence, but in the sense that like the religious fundamentalists, Dawkins and company perceive reality in very stark black and white terms, with no shades in between at all. Science is the be-all and end-all of everything and anything – science is the answer to ALL of humankind’s problems and should be the ONLY thing humankind should believe and HAVE FAITH in.

 

But I suppose we all know that there are some things science simply cannot answer and resolve. Science may attempt to “explain” these issues in neurological, biological or psychological terms but it cannot eliminate the real EXISTENTIAL issue of pain, loss, suffering, estrangement, love, hope, faith and compassion. Science can objectifiy those issues so as to study them, but issues of existence cannot just be objectified but has to be subjectified in order to understand them. Life is to be EXPERIENCED and not just studied.

 

And the moment we put ourselves in the shoes of the sufferer, the lover, the poet, the mystic, the depressed, the romantic, etc – science sometimes goes out the window. One does not become a better lover by understanding the intricacies of neural and hormonal function but by simply BEING IN love. One will not be able to make love better by studying the evolutionary history of copulation and procreation, or even the mechanics of bipedal copulation. One has to be EMOTIONALLY and PASSIONATELY involved with the partner in order to make love to him/her better and perhaps send him/her to the moon and back!

 

Anyhow, it is common knowledge that populist notions often misrepresent the real thing and similarly, these atheists who take potshots at crude caricatures of religion are simply shooting at empty space. Although there are hundreds of thousands of people who take some of these religious dogmas seriously and literally – the language of religion itself, is NEVER literal or scientific. It is the language of MYTH.

 

And myth revolves around fable, legend, symbols and metaphors. These point to existential truths beyond the surface readings of the religion. Thus no theologian who is worth his salt would subscribe to a strict christocentric exclusivism in Christianity or a literal place of fire and brimstone for the non-believer.

 

And because symbols and metaphors are embedded in human culture, they are “different” in different religions. But these differences are never intended to be literal and empirical differences! The crux of religious faith is in the experience of the MORE, the AWE, the mystery of simply existing and living. Christian contemplation and buddhist meditation evokes the same physiological and neurological responses. Pentecostal/charismatic speaking in tongues and buddhist/muslim chanting also evokes the same, as would the humanist in the company of best friends sharing toast and tea under the stars, contemplating the vastness of the physical universe.

 

It is thus this primeval, existential urge for the “more” that led to premodern humanity to perhaps develop such complex edifices of symbols, metaphors and rituals which enrich and enliven them. So far, secular humanism and atheism have not been able to replicate the power in which the great religions are able to evoke in their practitioners. So far, much of atheism has but led to meaninglessness, hopelessness and a REAL void that nothing can seem to fulfil.

 

By claiming that religious pluralism cannot succeed, by asserting that the religions of the world cannot coexist in peace, are atheists trying to promote strife and conflict? Freethinkers often claim to promote peace in the world, but are we, when we always attack the religions virulently and haphazardly?

 

Yes, the fanatical and loony in the religious world may be causing problems. But what about the majority in the civilised world who are religious, who simply want to get on with their lives in peace and quiet?

 

What about the numerous foundations, coalitions, societies and organisations that are promoting unity and dialogue among the religions? What about the numerous religious enterprises that are promoting evolutionary theory? What about the many deeply religious people in the world who are against homophobia and are for same-sex marriage? Or for that matter, human and animal rights?

 

Aren’t they trying to make this world a better place to live in? Just like the humanists and the secularists?

 

It can be a bit weary to read about organisations like the Freedom from Religion Foundation and the National Secular Society or the British Humanist Association, who, in my opinion, are behaving like whiny kids throwing tantrums when they continuously hammer on about the constitution and such so as to eradicate prayer in public schools, and for that matter, any form of religious discourse.

 

Come on. You should be concerned about the terrorists and the suicide bombers. You should be concerned about the numerous serial killers on the loose (who always happen to be Americans). As well as the paedophiles and the sexual perverts. These do REAL harm than some harmless and innocent praying.

 

We Singaporeans, apparently, are more civil than these American and British atheists. We just live and let live – really, what other religious people do is NONE OF OUR BLOODY BUSINESS – unless serious harm or injury is done.

 

Bah!

 

*******

 

not religion?

 

It was a good thing that CEO Isabella Loh, of Wildlife Reserve Singapore (WRS), clarified that she was NOT a christian, of which many netizens were suspecting her of, due to some comments she had made about “devil worship”.

 

She clarified that she is a buddhist.

 

Wildlife Reserves Singapore apologises to President

 

Halloween event cancelled not due to Religious reasons

 

But the statement that WRS gave to the press that the event was cancelled NOT due to religious reasons is somewhat dubious.

 

It is dubious because Ms Loh has yet to elaborate on the exact content of the feedback, of which I suspect have to do with “reasons” that are not coherent with current global standards of humanistic morality, secular humanism and empirical research; but loosely based on so-called traditional “family values”, “wholesomeness”, what is “good for society and family” (as though harmless horror fun can be detrimental to the moral fabric of society), etc.

 

It is a no-brainer that perhaps those “feedback” did not actually contain words like “religion” or “christian values” or “islamic principles” as Singapore, thanfully, is a strictly SECULAR country where issues regarding the public have to be discussed rationally, with alternative views defended based on publicly available evidence and reason, NOT sacred texts or sacred principles. Such appeal to authority is no argument at all.

 

Then again – the folks who often espouse “traditional family values” are usually the religiously motivated. Thus I will still reject the claim of WRS that reasons to cancel Halloween Horrors are not religious.

 

Ms Loh apparently also commented to her management team regarding the “controversial” nature of Halloween, citing the example of some schools in the United States that banned its celebration.

 

How ignorant can she get – the United States, for goodness’ sake – much of their population even think that evolution is controversial! She should have realised that although the US is a secular nation with a secular constitution, in all practical terms, it is still a thoroughly “christian” country with christians having a lot of power in the political arena. There are schools in the US who still teach pseudoscientific stuff like Intelligent Design! It is no surprise that some of these evangelical idiots might want to ban Halloween at all costs! I know for a fact that some christians, even in Singapore, who will believe that all the gore, blood and spook in Halloween, is somehow inspired and instigated by the devil so that he can have an influence on the people through their innocent celebrations.

 

Bah!

 

Halloween aside, it is now almost a well-attested public knowledge that European countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and Finland have one of the most peaceful societies in the world. But they also have one of the least religious societies in the world – compare them with the United States – and it seems that religion is doing the US more harm than good.

 

And surprise, surprise, some of these Scandinavian nations have one of the most anarchic, brutal and “devilish” (if you want to use that term) death metal bands around! Death metal is a genre of music that is often characterised by lots of gothic, dark and biblical imagery of devils and demons, gore and blood, etc. But these bands do not go around spreading the message of evil and murder to their fans! It is a very ignorant stereotype which religious people make of alternative lifestyles like goth and such.

 

In fact, it is mostly the zealously religious who spread the message of hate and evil – who are the ones who love to oppose same-sex marriage? Who are the ones who love to see “God’s Law” imposed on the societies of the world? Who are the ones who believe that everyone who does not follow their code of beliefs will go to hell? Who are the ones who burn people at the stake just for contradicting them? Who are the ones who would kill people like death metal band members if they were living in the middle ages? Who are the ones who would rather obey their “gods” than love their fellow humanity?

 

You and I know the answer.

 

I suppose I got carried away again. Sheesh. Back to the WRS and Halloween Horrors.

 

It isn’t the apologies that we want to hear, Ms Loh. It is the REINSTATEMENT of the event, Halloween Horrors, for at least this year, if not the next. Although this cancellation would not have any detrimental result on the Singapore Polytechnic students’ gradings, THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE! The emotional abuse has already been executed. All the hard work that have been put – and they cannot even showcase it to the public! The pleasure of an artist is twofold – the pleasure of the creation and the process as well as the pleasure of interacting with the audience. By cancelling the event, the public can never get to enjoy the fruits of the students’ labour.

 

I have a family too – and my children are all young, too young I reckon, to appreciate and enjoy the fictional horrors of halloween. But that does not mean that I have to forbid them from doing so with the reason that it will harm them morally. There is nothing unwholesome about fiction and make-believe. Such art is neutral and it often takes an idiot to interpret such art and turn it into the rubbish and decadence that some moral pedants love.

 

It might be a shock to some parents, but I expose my young children to films like The Walking Dead. Of course it is not something I relish doing in the sense that I allow them to watch every episode. But I would not switch the channel if the kids happened to be still awake. And I would explain to them that IT IS ALL MAKE-BELIEVE. The zombies, or “monsters” as kids would like to call them, are NOT REAL monsters.

 

And you know what, my five-year-old son and four-year-old daughter understands. By explaining it to them, and exposing it that it is NOT REAL, I am telling them that ALL HORROR is fiction. And so are any supposedly paranormal phenomena – they are all bullshit.

 

I am appalled by some parents who create a climate of fear for their kids by telling them not to go into the dark, for it is scary, there are ghosts there. For Holy Mother’s sake! There is no such thing as ghosts. Full stop.

 

By the way, Ms Loh also made a statement regarding her feelings about the event, that she found it too scary.

 

What??! Since when Halloween has to be sugar and nice, meek and mild? Sigh. I am trying darn hard not to sound sexist now, but it seems that if she is a bloke, she would not have made such a silly remark. No bloke who’s worth his prick would think of cancelling something just because he finds it too scary for his taste!

 

Personal taste and business do not mix, my dear.

 

*******

 

 

if morality only comes from god or religion…

 

…then without god, one would:

• be evil and debased
• be irresponsible towards one’s family
• be a rapist
• be a serial adulterer
• be an irresponsible parent
• be an irresponsible employee/employer
• be a murderer
• be an uncivilised motherf*r
• be a selfish, self-cented prick
• be homophobic
• be racist
• be sexist
• be uncharitable
• be unkind
• be violent
• be rude
• etc etc etc.

But aren’t a lot of humanitarian work done by atheists and agnostics?

But aren’t a lot of human rights activism done by atheists and agnostics?

But aren’t a lot of charity work done by atheists and agnostics?

But aren’t a lot of environmental work done by atheists and agnostics?

But aren’t a lof of the animal rights movement motivated by atheists and agnostics?

But aren’t a lot of astute and responsible employers and employees atheists and agnostics?

But aren’t atheist countries more peaceful and stable than religious ones? Think about Denmark, Sweden and Japan and contrast them with Saudi Arabia, Yemen and the USA.

On the other hand,

aren’t the discrimination of blacks in the American past religiously motivated?

Aren’t the promotion of slavery in the past religiously justified?

Aren’t the discrimination of LGBT people mostly done by religious people?

Why are there more serial killers in “Christian” USA than any of the secular and atheist countries in Europe?

Why is child abuse so rampant and committed by clergy in the Catholic church when God is supposed to make them “more moral”?

Why much of the deaths in the medieval past caused by religious institutions due to heresy trials, witch hunts, etc?

Isn’t the lunatic Terry Jones who recently burnt korans a “godly” man?

Isn’t the hateful and prideful Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church following god?

Why are a lot of megachurch pastors getting so filthy rich at the expense of their innocently gullible parishioners?

Wasn’t the gay-fucking Ted Haggard supposed to be a  gay-bashing “godly” pastor?

 

…and the list goes on and on and on….

 

to the detriment of religious fundamentalism and the vindication of humanism.

 

*******