escape chapel party

 

Singapore continues to anally rape its nonreligious citizens with its syphillic brand of multireligious “tolerance”, one that strangles our civil freedom to opinion and expression. Singaporeans are brain freezed into glazing only at the Disney channel when it comes to religion (and politics) while nonreligion is open market and can be AXNed by anyone at any time.

 

Many of us are now frostbited to be self-censoring and hypocritically respectful, tickling the scrotums of religious “sensibilities” even if some of us would rather be fingering the heathen. It is just not right. It is immoral.

 

Advertiser Creative Insurgence has for more than a week red-carpeted its campaign for the coming Escape Chapel Party to be held at the Chijmes Chapel this Saturday at 9pm onwards. The party is a spur to promote UK-based “Escape” nightclub brand to the region.

 

(source)

 

 

Even this one is as benign as my cheeky daughter playing peekaboo under the bed covers. It is as holy as stupid sheep. But many Singaporeans seem to disagree, most of them, I reckon, bleeting among the local roman catholic community. They claim these visuals of beautiful nuns are “offensive” and “in bad taste”. Many even filed reports to the police (!!??) and the various local ministries.

 

Creative Insurgence is perhaps trying to give a tongue-in-cheeky humour to the party, since it is held in a former religious convent and that coincidentally, this week is the fucking holy week. The organisers originally wanted the party to be held over the Spring Festival weekend in January but due to circumstances postponed to the next public holiday, namely the coming Bloody Friday cum Walking Dead weekend.

 

As expected, the organisers promptly apologised to the phallus-crowned supremo of the catholic diocese in Singapore, a Mr Nicholas Chia, whose office is devilishly located a few nun-jiggle steps away at the Cathedral of the Good Shepherd. They also recycle-binned the nuns from their main website.

 

This is Singapore, and this is how the pasteurised version of the blasphemy law is enforced in this peaceful and loving multireligious country. The absence of criminalisation does not make it any less vile. What if vice versa? Can freethinkers and atheists file reports to the police if we find posters about evangelistic meetings and christian outreach programme to the non-christians offensive? We have a right to be offended, don’t we? Can the LGBTQ community squeal their offence over schools that promote anti-gay agendas in their sex education programmes?

 

The above pictures are already so mild. I think I shall leave you with these:

 

(source)

 

(source)

 

There are more fucking nuns, literally, out there, but I shall have the christian virtue of self-control and just stop here.

 

*******

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.

 

*******

 

the affirmations of humanism

 

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)

 

*******

 

in defence of liberalism

by Will Hutton

 

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)

 

*******

 

“the great divide”

by Radical Faith

 

When we don’t or can’t see the bigger picture, it’s easy to perceive the Great Divide in terms of its symptoms. One such is ongoing conflict between so-called traditional and liberal Christians, between those who operate from a supernatural world-view and those who think in scientific terms, between the official church and a secular outlook. 

 

The conflict isn’t confined to Christians. It rages throughout the world in many aspects of our lives, and is seldom remarked upon except in terms of its particulars. An author in the field of religious studies, Lloyd Geering puts it like this:

 

… a new world-view is taking shape, which is undermining all of the traditional world-views and which does have the power to win universal conviction. This has been transported all over the globe in the past 200 years .. [1]

 

The common foe of all the world’s religions is this so-called secular world-view – yet they continue to dispute with each other. Strife within each religion also continues. Unfortunately, in the process of conflicting, we attach labels to others, formulate stereotypes, and test whether others conform to our ideologies. What we don’t often do is wonder if the conflict has underlying, unseen origins. These ideological battles are seldom won or lost. Why is there no resolution? Is it not possible that the two sides can’t meet because neither really comprehends what’s being argued about?

 

Before the Great Divide

What is the Great Divide? One way of describing it is to explore what people once thought about discovering truth. What is the best way to plough? Is the earth round or flat? Should a king be obeyed? Is usury right? How did they settle such questions?

 

We know that until the late 1400s in Western Europe, and probably throughout the world, the source of truth lay primarily with “authority”. In the intensely hierarchical society of the age, authority was rated according to a person’s place in the social pecking order. The higher the status, the greater the authority. A philosopher might have great authority; the Pope had greater. The words of an Apostle were true but the words of Jesus, Son of God, were supremely true.

 

Because the essentials of society were thought to be essentially unchanging, everyone looked to the golden past for the best sources of authority.

 

As one author puts it:

 

… Christians … required the past to justify an institution which could control and help fulfill the Christian Mission, namely, an organised Church with a hierarchy of bishops, priests and deacons capable of interpreting the present condition of men in the light of the past.

 

 

Lest this seem somewhat outrageous, it should be noted that the medieval respect for, and dependence on, the past was itself of revision of a much more ancient standpoint. The intellectuals and rulers of the Roman Empire thought that their society was definitely inferior to that which had gone before. Looking back into the past they saw their ancestors performing deeds far greater than anything they knew. We now know that these were more mythical than historical. But that didn’t diminish the power of the past.

 

Writing about the Jewish historian Josephus, Steve Mason describes this view of the past:

 

In the earliest known Greek texts we already see an image of the world in decline … Among the Roman elite this basic worldview became ever more concrete in the face of a perceived rise in corruption, crime, social dislocation, violence and political upheaval … Many Roman authors saw their generation as vastly inferior to the glorious men of old … character was dependent on bloodlines and the illustrious deeds of one’s ancestors … Progress, by contrast, was not an established good. “Innovation” was often a synonym for revolution …

 

 

This way of thinking may seem strange to us today. What if, for example, a President of the United States told us that he could make gold out of lead? Would we believe him because he was President? Or the Pope if he said he could personally cure cancer by touching the sick? What Prime Minister of Britain would get votes by claiming that things were better in King Henry the 8th’s time?

 

If people once looked to authority for truth, that’s not to say they didn’t use their powers of reason. But the point is that reasoned answers were regarded as less weighty than those derived from authority – preferably past authority. Ultimate truth was derived from the past. One Bible scholar has described such truths as “doctrines felt as facts”.

 

That is, the authority of the past was so much a part of people, so deeply embedded in their nature and culture, that it was largely beyond their awareness.

 

How the Great Divide began

In the late 1400s and on into the 16th and 17th centuries (the period from the Renaissance and on into the Enlightenment) an increasingly large number of people in Western Europe began to do something very different.

 

Lawyers began to interpret the contemporary meaning of legal language, rather than deriving rulings from past authority. This new investigative mode quickly took root in other disciplines. If one could investigate the contemporary meaning of language, then why not also chemistry, astronomy and even theology? Truth gradually began to change its shape. It began to involve attempting to describe things as they actually are, rather than as an authority says they are. One aspect of working out how things are was to analyse them, to take them apart and describe them.

 

This new way of thinking took centuries to develop and involved many aspects of life. Before the end of the 17th century the Great Divide of the present from the past had become more apparent. In Western Europe, a significant number of people had begun thinking in an entirely new way never before known to mankind. This is a vital point to appreciate. It was not a revision or reformation of older thought modes. It was radically unlike anything before. That is, it differed not in the branch but at the very roots.

 

In passing, it’s worth noting that Socrates did think logically and analytically, as we attempt to do nowadays. But note that his analysis was of language, not of the physical world. Note also that his death sentence was imposed not for thinking like this, but for “corrupting the youth” by challenging the authority of the gods. Herodotus and then Thucydides evolved something very close to the analytical, evidence-based methods of modern history, but the latter couldn’t quite carry it through in his History of the Peloponnesian War. Muslim mathematicians preserved and developed algebra while the West lost it. That and other glimmerings of what gave birth to our modern culture have no doubt arisen and been extinguished many times.

 

The Great Divide grew at a particular point in history, it seems, because a large enough group of people and cultures was able to nurture what we now call modern analytical thought long and pervasively enough to reach critical mass. Changes in perception took place, of course, within the context of larger cultural movements.

 

Karen Armstrong describes how modern Europe evolved its questioning, probing, sceptical outlook. It is

 

… the child of logos, which is always looking forward, seeking to know more and to extend [its] areas of competence and control of the environment.

 

 

In contrast, the conservative cultures of Islam:

 

Instead of expecting continuous improvement … assumed that the next generation could easily regress … it was by approximating to this [golden] past that a society would fulfill its potential … It would be difficult to imagine an attitude more at odds with the thrusting, iconoclastic spirit of the modern West.

 

And so the fate of the Ottoman, Safavid (Iran) and Moghul (India) empires was sealed. By the mid-twentieth century, all three would have been largely conquered by Western culture, despite rearguard actions by fundamentalist extremists.

 

The Great Divide grows

Between the 17th and 21st centuries the Great Divide had grown deeper and wider. It has now spread from the West to every part of the globe.

 

If one were to contrast the pre-modern way of deriving truth with the modern, some of the main features would be:

 

• Before our age the unquestioned source of truth was authority. Ultimate authority lay in the past. On the other side of the Great Divide, truth is determined by reason. It’s possible to think one’s way towards truth. The “scientific method” is a way of investigating phenomena. The results, though always open to revision, can be counted as “true” by all who accept the method. Variants of the method are used in almost every modern discipline.

• The pre-modern world was regarded as existing on unchanging foundations. We now think of the universe as in continual flux. Humans and society change constantly. Truth itself is provisional upon discovery and the formulation of new paradigms.
• Pre-modern authority derived its credibility from God. In other words, reality was perceived as a continuum stretching from the supernatural world into the natural. Now many think that the universe is the only reality accessible to us.

• Our ancestors valued tradition because it reflected their concept of a stable order. Now, as the way we think changes, tradition as an image of truth begins increasingly to take a back seat. It is replaced by the notion of development.

 

A penetrating but little-known scholar put it this way at the beginning
of the 20th century. Whereas in previous ages 

 

… all the foundations of culture were complete, we are essentially future-orientated; the world is to be changed, truth is to be guaranteed only by the inner necessity of the human spirit, not by deference to past authorities.

 

 

The Great Divide today

In the light of the above, the main points of dispute in Christianity
today are, I think, entirely understandable. Particularly at issue are:

 

• Revelation, and the Bible as a special case of revelation;
• Miracles as events which contradict what we know of
  the universe;
• Original sin as inherited corruption of human nature;
• Evil as a supernatural force corrupting and destroying
  humanity;
• Jesus Christ as both man and God;
• The resurrection as a unique historical event;

 

and, of course, a host of other doctrines, dogmas and religious images.

 

However, if one examines the situation it turns out that Christians
squabble amongst themselves within a relatively minor tributary of the Great Divide.

 

The main divide is that great river which separates the religious from the a-religious. The Great Divide is not between believers and atheists but between two mutually exclusive modes of perceiving reality.

 

 The so-called atheist no longer responds with “I don’t believe” but with “So what!” The reason is that not only do such people regard traditional Christianity as irrational but, more importantly, they cannot understand it and its presuppositions.

 

Explaining traditional Christianity to a modern a-theist is like trying to
explain colour to someone blind from birth. Just as colour is essentially unimportant to a blind person, so are supernaturally-based concepts irrelevant to most moderns. For them the past is a source of information and perhaps an object of nostalgia. It certainly has no intrinsic authority.

 

Can the Great Divide be bridged?

The brief answer is no. The terms in which those each side of the divide perceive reality appear to be incompatible.

 

Nevertheless, a tiny minority in Western Christendom, who might be
termed the “new heretics”, suppose that their faith can be re-framed in terms meaningful to the modern mind. They seek to remain part of the contemporary world rather than try in vain to drag it back into pre-modern mode.

 

They argue that Christians must reformulate every aspect of their faith if it is to have long-term intellectual credibility. Faith, though it goes beyond reason, must be based upon it. A majority of humanity will one day cross the Great Divide. What then? New heretics would say that there is something about being a Christian which should be able speak to any culture, in any age.

 

Meanwhile, the vast majority of Christians (and, indeed, religious
people) remain largely in pre-modern, traditional mode as far as their faith is concerned. Some more extreme pre-moderns have taken up cudgels against the new heretics, whose position within the official Church can be difficult or even precarious as a result.

 

One writer put it well more than 30 years ago:

 

To express it in wholly political terminology, the revolutionary regime has seized power but the symbols of authority are still in the hands of the old displaced rulers … each man is confronted by a choice … Shall he obey the new authority … or shall he obey the “duly constituted authorities” who still claim the right to govern?

 

Some foundations of a reformulation would, I think, be that:

 

• All truth is necessarily provisional. Nobody can claim access to absolute truth;
• The universe we know is all we can know;
• God-talk (theology) is inevitably in images of our own creation;
• Being Christian is about serving and healing – not about proselytising;
• We can learn from the past, but what matters is “now” and what we make of the future;
• We are not here to dominate our planet but to harmonise with it.
• Choice, not compliance with declared truth, is the essence of being human.

 

To sum up: A Great Divide has opened up between two ways of interpreting the universe.

 

On one side are those who, while living cheek-by-jowl with the paradigms and technology of modern Western society, think that the pre-modern essentials of Christianity are unchangeable. The old, old story is sufficient.

 

On the other are those whose lives are no longer deeply touched by pre-modern faith. In response, they seek to speak of God and Jesus in terms which harmonise with their world. They seek to write a new story.

(source)

 

*******

 

 

fascist group at it again…

 

Freedom of thought and expression, applied responsibly that is, includes the freedom to express one’s beliefs, secular OR OTHERWISE. A truly secular society, however nonreligious its culture, has the moral responsibility to allow citizens their right to practise their religious faith in albeit civil ways.

 

Organisations like the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) in the US are crossing the line from decent secularism to a fascist-like, communist-like intolerance of all forms of religious expression in the public sphere. As someone who cherishes secular governance, I too abhor the use of religious reasoning to formulate public policies and that no one religion should have even a toehold on policy-making which is intended for the wider society. But as in the case of FFRF, which often uses the US constitution as a legal smokescreen to advocate its religiophobic agenda, it is behaving more like theocratic states – this time on the other side of the spectrum.

 

The recent case of the FFRF claiming that a religious advertisement that was sponsored by the Onslow County Sheriff in a state newspaper violated the US constitution is one example. The advertisement was sponsored by the Sheriff’s own money – not government funds – and it had nothing to do with promoting bigotry, discrimination, or physical violence.

 

Sheriff’s Ad draws Watchdog Ire

 

Apparently some people just got offended by the advertisement and decided to use the constitution to harass an innocent sheriff into submission.

 

Former christian pastor Dan Barker, who is one of the founding members of the FFRF, should take a good look at himself and realise what he is doing. Yes – one should voice out against the many ridiculous evils of religious fundamentalism and extremism – but never innocent expressions of religious faith that is often benign and harmless.

 

But of course, Barker is barking up the Dawkins and Hitchens tree – following the insolent duo in their footsteps of spiteful rhetoric against even the mildest forms of religion.

 

A disgrace to all free thinkers and humanists.

 

*******

 

“alpha course” islamic style

 

One of the vices in which I am so well known for, at least in my own household, is my insatiable appetite for knowledge and intellectual inquiry. It is a vice because intellectual curiosity often leads me to tread beyond the “safer” waters of evangelical orthodoxy. And since the bible “is the sole absolute authority on faith and practice” for the evangelical christian (sola scriptura), to seek knowledge elsewhere is anathema and detrimental to the christian’s “spiritual” progress.

 

Darn it – but since I do not identify myself with the evangelical enterprise – and I value my intellectual independence apart from any community; I am often free to indulge in flights of philosophical, scientific and religious fancy.

 

As some of you might have already suspected, the British muslim scholar, Abdal Hakim Murad, is one of my “heroes” and one of the very few muslims whom I admire greatly, despite his having certain very traditional views on sexuality and marriage with which I disagree.

 

Anyhow, I came across a talk he gave at an Alpha Course-like event, organised by a muslim relief agency called Ulfa Aid. It was one of the most moving messages I have heard in recent times, and I suppose it reflects the state of evangelical sermonising today. I am often baffled as to how most of my evangelical friends could digest the anti-intellectual drivel that evangelical preachers offer, messages that deliberately bypass and in my opinion, insult the intellect.

 

But of course…brainwashed people are like cheerleaders screaming for their pop idol, all ready to go to bed with them.

 

Anyhow, Murad waxed eloquent about the weariness of human existence and the futility of secularism to arrest the human soul. I loved the way he weaved in snippets of how the Islamic view is similar to the other major religious traditions while at the same time proclaiming its distinct uniqueness in an irenic manner that even a staunch christian would not be offended. Okay, perhaps a loony fundamentalist will.

 

 

References were also made to the poet Rumi and this revealed Murad’s penchant for Islamic spirituality and mysticism, often called Sufism.

 

This is a “sermon” par excellence, a message that engages the heart as well as the mind – issues of existentialism and philosophy came to the fore – and thus allow my mind to say “amen” to my heart. Evangelical sermons, however, often expect the listener to stop their critical thinking faculties and simply acquiesce to the hurrahs, however ridiculous or unpalatable.

 

Thus other great religious thinkers whom I admire would be the current Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams as well as the Chief Rabbi of Britain, Jonathan Sacks.

 

You can watch the full talk on youtube at Come Dine with Me.

 

 

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!

 

*******

 

no lack of biblical literalists in singapore

 

This morning I was rather distracted during the church service, having to force myself to keep awake on a few occasions. As usual, the “praise and worship” portion was beyond me as I prefer stillness and solitude to raucous clapping and concert-style singing.

 

The preacher was a regular visitor, an amiable and jovial bespectacled middle-aged bloke with a full head of straight and shaggy black hair, conspicuously coloured with a sliver of distinguished white, somewhat exactly in the middle. He pastors a small congregation that shares the campus grounds with a local halfway house for former convicts in the Singapore prison system.

 

Although his speech was fluent, his pronunciation left much to be desired for, mispronouncing numerous English words by putting the stress on the wrong syllable. Although no decent parishioner would fault a preacher on his/her speech, which is but only a peripheral issue compared to the content of the homily; I couldn’t help myself being the snobbish pedant. I wouldn’t blame such an individual for such an “error” if we were in conversation over a cup of coffee, but over the lectern or the pulpit, it is another matter all together.

 

Anyhow, throughout the entire length of his homily, I was skipping in and out of my own thoughts – thinking to myself how difficult it is to find a pastor in Singapore who is a non-literalist and whose theology is mainstream liberal, probably in the tradition of Paul Tillich and the benign Church of England. I could catch myself wince and grimace at the several times in which the preacher this morning mentioned about not diluting the “gospel” of Christ and not “changing” the message to suit the secular world.

 

Isn’t this the problem with religious fundamentalism in general? A mindset that is preoccupied with premodernity, always looking back instead of looking forward and the propensity to view change and innovation as a moral evil?

 

It is not an issue about compromise, about being palatable to the current zeitgeist. It is about in constant dialogue and engagement with current knowledge and research. In order for the church to be thoroughly relevant and empowered to “minister” to the current culture, it has to do theology in a way that correlates the different strands of knowledge – christian theology, modern philosophy, evolutionary biology, quantum physics, neuroscience, psychology, sociology, anthropology, history, archaeology, etc.

 

I don’t know if this pastor views the bible as inerrant and infallible, but if he is properly educated during his days as a seminarian, he should know that the bible is written by men, in the language of myth and fable, and not supposed to be interpreted literally. And as such, christian doctrines have to be modified, changed and reformulated, tampered by the findings of other fields of knowledge, so as to be relevant for the 21st century.

 

I don’t expect the average pastor to be a polymath of course, but as learning is a lifelong experience, a preacher should embody the noble ideals of a keen mind that is willing to learn and engage with the sciences, the liberal arts and the humanities. As all truth is God’s truth, so to speak, there is the sense of the sacred in any field of human inquiry, and as such as Christians we can learn even from literature, poetry and biology.

 

For example, the fall of Adam and Eve cannot be understood as an original sin suffered by our literal ancestors (we do not have a specific ancestor but a continuum of ancestors, from other species all the way to being primates and then the great apes and then to the hominids) – but perhaps a metaphor that represents an estrangement from complete human fulfillment.

 

Modern historical research has also provided us with a rather skimpy image of the real Jesus, who according to some scholars might be nothing more than a fictional mythological character like Zeus, or if he indeed existed, is simply a human being like any other. So in all likelihood, our understanding of Jesus have to change and our christology has to be reformulated so as to be intellectually honest with ourselves.

 

And so on and so forth.

 

And thus the concept of “heresy” or “false doctrine” will have no place in the modern church. There is no such thing as false doctrine, but only archaic doctrines that are no longer intellectually plausible in this day and age. Biblical literalists love to speak of the “old old gospel”, as though to go back to premodernity is something honorable and good.

 

The preacher this morning ended his almost an hour-long homily with a comment regarding the state of his church. Somehow the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) would not be allowing the halfway house and the church to be using the premises any longer due to some dispute regarding the mission statement of the halfway house in its constitution. The authorities claim that there were some sentences in the statement that were too Christian-centric and thus exclusive only towards Christianity. They demanded a change so as to allow people of other faiths and traditions to be welcomed. Singapore is a religiously pluralistic society, anyway.

 

But apparently the board of directors of this Christian organisation refused to accept SLA’s proposal due to reasons which in my opinion are silly and irrational. It is very common for evangelical and fundamentalist christians to behave “holier-than-thou”, unwilling to compromise and adapt so as to make peace with the larger society. Isn’t this fundamentally similar to the muslim extremists who do not wish to compromise?

 

Sigh. I don’t blame the preacher this morning. He, like any other preacher in churches all over Singapore today, is just doing his job, out of his own beliefs, blinded by religious prejudice and an innate antagonism towards secularism, real education and real knowledge.

 

Thank goodness for modern technology and the internet. At least I will have real intellectual and perhaps even spiritual sustenance from “proper” liberal preaching.

 

*******

 

the epitome of islamic idiocy

 

What is FUCKING wrong with Saudi Arabia??!

 

It was only very recently that the current King made a public proclamation that Saudi women are able to vote in the country’s elections.

 

And yet they are still banned from driving. And are not allowed to go out of their homes without a male chaperon. And are coerced by law to cover up themselves like silly blanket ghosts.

 

Saudi Arabia is also one of the very very few countries in the 21st century who still practises beheading and stoning for crimes like murder, armed robbery, frequent drug use, adultery, “witchcraft” and conversion to another religion. There is also no freedom of religion in the country, where the only religion that is allowed to be practised is Islam, and their own interpretation of it at that. No churches or temples are allowed to be erected in the nation.

 

And muslims still complain about “discrimination” in secular Europe. My goodness…it is precisely because of the goodness of Europe that muslim immigrants could even build mosques and worshp in them!

 

It is high time muslims appreciate the secularism and humanism that is represented by Europe, one that is much more civilised, humane and truly enlightened than even moderate forms of Islam could ever aspire to be.

 

*******

 

 

pray to vote for the right president

 

If you think that I would agree with the title of this post, you are dead wrong.

 

In fact, I am all contrarian to this erroneous proposition that presupposes an excuse NOT to think and NOT to weigh and grapple with the issues.

 

Many a time when such a statement is offered among christians, what is subtly meant is to ask whether the candidate is a “christian”. This would ensure, perhaps only in theory, that the candidate would propose ideas and policies that are in line with his religious convictions.

 

That is precisely the problem with yankee politics – what evangelicals in the US want is a “christian” president, a “christian” government who will lead the nation to “follow god”, as though that is the moral thing to do. One who is acquainted with history will bemoan the fact that nations who claimed to ”followed god” often behave the most immorally towards other nations.

 

In our local context, christians would be praying for the right candidate to be our next President. And many are wondering among themselves if Dr Tony Tan is a “christian”. And what about Tan Jee Say - rumours abound that he IS a “christian” – otherwise why all this talk about “moral authority” and “absolute conscience” (whatever that means)?

 

But of course, we all know that Dr Tan Cheng Bock IS a “christian” – a Roman Catholic to be more specific – which I reckon will not go too well with the evangelical wing in Singapore. But Catholics have a GOOD track record in the public square. They are often very accepting towards other religious views and are known to be devoted to secularism as a political ideology. Most of the time, anyway.

 

Religious views aside, what is vital for us as citizens of Singapore is NOT to pray, but to THINK carefully and weigh the relevant issues such as the country’s stability, economy, multi-racial and multi-religious social fabric, etc before heading to the polling station tomorrow.

 

Christians cannot vote for somebody JUST BECAUSE he or she is a christian! Chee Soon Juan is one example of a lunatic who happens to be christian.

 

And if the recent polls are anything to go by, online Singaporeans seem to prefer a President who questions the government more often. This would favour Jee Say and Kin Lian.

 

But after all is said and done, my bet would be on Dr Tony Tan who would clinched the presidency - although my heart goes with the medical doctor. The wiser generation among us would select someone with a GOOD track record of political leadership and experience as well as someone with the decorum and dignity to pull it off.

 

Jee Say is but hot air and white noise. Although he is now trying to allay the fears that he might be too confrontational and hence impede the political process, if public appearance is all we can go by, for now; nothing he says can soothe me into believing that he is all for cooperation. I have seen people like him. Once a boss, always a boss. A former CEO like him would want to hold the reins, would want to get things done HIS way.

 

Cooperation? A load of chicken droppings.

 

Besides, he kept trying to reinvent the constitution by claiming for the presidency powers that are not to be! The President of Singapore is a position NEVER MEANT to act as a “check and balance” to the main government. In fact, he is the unifying figure OF THE GOVERNMENT. He is also not THE VOICE for the PEOPLE, as the ah seng Kin Lian would want the Presidency to be.

 

Singaporeans is making a very grave mistake if either of these two thugs are elected into the presidency.

 

Besides, I cannot imagine my President speaking in very poorly articulated English while dining with international heads of state!

 

My wife, I think, would root for Dr Tony Tan while I myself might vote for Dr Cheng Bock. Both will do fine for Singapore, in my books. We need experienced, wise and sensible people, not brash gangsters.

 

*******

 

 

happy 46th birthday to singapore

 

46 years ago today, the small island nation of Singapore broke off with the larger Malaysian peninsula. Although many feared for the worst, including the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore has since risen from the ashes of fear, uncertainty and despair to a society that has surpassed the racist Malaysia in more ways than one.

 

Yes, racist.

 

Malaysia is one country that has a ridiculous policy that favours the native Malays of the land over all the other races even though it is so obvious to everyone that the Chinese and Indians are so much more competent.

 

If you put the two nations side by side, you will soon notice the disparity.

 

One is well known for its corruption and heinous crimes agaist humanity while the other is reputably the cleanest government in the world (of course, to loonies like Chee Soon Juan, that is not the case). One has an education system that leaves much to be desired while the other is world-class. One has a constitution that exalts one religion above all else while the other is firmly rooted in secularism – which is of course, the right thing to do.

 

So there. It is a pity though, for the Malaysians. It was and always is their loss to have not being able to reconcile with Singapore 46 years ago.

 

*******

 

wary of christians

 

…if we get a cabinet full of christians, we may have an intolerant cabinet, we will not allow that.

- Lee Kuan Yew