I happened to come across an article produced by the National Council of Churches of Singapore linked by Yawningbread.org owned by Mr Alex Au, a gay activist. I found the contents of the article to be disturbing. The stand adopted by the National Council of Churches is that lesbianism should be prohibited and criminalized like homosexuality. Lest readers want to question my sexual orientation, I would like to qualify that I am a straight, BUT I am writing this article as a concerned citizen.
Singapore is a multi-religious society and its government makes the conscious effort to preserve religious harmony. Some time ago, a blogger drew some satirical pictures of Jesus Christ and the authorities took him to task, giving him a stern warning. Whilst the government's efforts directed at preserving religious harmony is commendable, it is also imperative that the government should keep a lookout for the activities of religious organizations because the seeds of religious hatred can be planted inside there.
I find it extremely strange that in the light of more pressing social problems like gambling, alcoholism, teenage sex and unwanted pregnancies, dysfunctional families as a result of loss of jobs and bankruptcy, marital problems resulting in divorce, etc, the National Council of Churches chooses to address the small blips in the radar in the form of homosexuality and lesbianism in the article, yet ignoring the more glaring blips.
It would be interesting to see if the National Council of Churches have conducted studies to prove that homosexuality and lesbianism can lead to the "moral denigration of our society" so to speak. It would be good if the National Council of Churches can convincingly show proof that homosexuals and lesbians are openly convincing and converting non-homosexuals and non-lesbians to their fold, leading to the proliferation of homosexuality and lesbianism, and the "ultimate denigration of our society". To me, it would be fine if homosexual and lesbian groups minded their own business and not drag in unwilling counterparts.
It is refreshing to note in the article that the government can make "a restraining order against religious leaders where the Minister is satisfied that the person has committed/is attempting to commit acts that cause "feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups" under 298A PC of the Maintainance of Religious Harmony Act. Based on the many anecdotal accounts, pastors, preachers and church leaders have propagated messages be it subtle or direct to their followers that condemn other faiths as works of evil. The end result is the tension that develop when these Christian followers interact with their non-Christian counterparts. Complaints from non-Christians on the actions of their Christian peers are quite common. I would even suggest extra provisions to the Maintainance of Religious Harmony Act that criminalizes the propagation of messages either direct or subtle that have an influential effect on followers, resulting in religious tension. This provision should be applied to all religions.
I would venture further to suggest to the government to criminalize attempts at condemning, prosecuting and marginalizing minority groups like gays and lesbians, which should be applied to all religions. When the government gave the green light to the employment of gays to government service, Christian groups reacted to the policy shift, with one of them calling on their members to express their concerns to Members of the Parliament, during feedback unit or during Meet-the-people sessions. In other words, they want to voice their protest against the policy shift. I see such a course of action as an attempt at marginalization. I mean why go all out to deny someone of a different sexual orientation his right to an employment and a livelihood? I remember some time back, a blogger, Mr Brown, was criticized for lambasting the government and not suggesting solutions to the problems highlighted. Thus, my question to these Christian groups is this, "If you want the government to repeal its policy, do you have any solution to the employment of gays?"
One of the obvious benefits of criminalizing attempts at prosecuting, condemning and marginalizing lesbian and gay groups is that it can help stem out seeds of hatred generated amongst the gays and lesbians towards the antagonizing religion, and maintain religious harmony. I mean if a gay is in the know of attempts by a particular religious group in marginalizing him, denying him of a right to employment to government service, would he be at peace with the religious group? I think not. I find it worrying based on my conversation with some gays in the aftermath of the actions of Christian protesters over the employment of gays in government service that they expressed unhappiness with the actions of these Christians. This certainly does not bode well for religious harmony.
Lest some Christians out there accuse me of being an anti-democrat in clipping their wings with my suggested additions to The Religious Act, allow me to add that living in a democracy doesn't mean anyone can say and do what he likes. There must be social responsibility involved. It isn't socially responsible to be a loose cannon, causing tension with other members of the society, and worse, deny certain members a right to a livelihood. My other reply is a TIT for a TAT. Since the National of Council of Churches are exercising their right to call for the criminalization of lesbianism, a form of prosecution in my opinion, I too am exercising my right to call for a criminalization of attempts at prosecution. Quid pro quo.
P.S. I was actually toying with the idea of writing a petition appealing to the powers-that-be to criminalize attempts by ANY religious group to propagate religious tension-causing messages and make illegal the attempts to prosecute, marginalize and condemn minorities like gays and lesbians. If the powers-that-be heeded the call, the article by the National Council of Churches will be a footnote in history.
Disclaimer: I do not profess to be against any religion, and the spirit of my post should be taken as a concern for religious harmony in maintaining the fabric of our society more than anything else. I personally believe that any religious practitioner is free to practise his religion, so long as he conducts himself in a SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE manner, upholding the principles of our National Pledge, regardless of race, language and religion, so as to achieve a democratic society!
Citations
1) Yawning Bread. Anti-gay campaign by 20 Christians. http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2003/imp-114.htm
2) Yawning Bread. Criminalize lesbianism, say Church leaders. http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2007/yax-719.htm
3) National Council of Churches. Penal code: Proposed changes 'relevant' and 'compassionate'. http://www.methodistmessage.com/mar2007/penalcode.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Great post! Maybe this is due to my own personal experience, but I can't stand the way certain religious groups seem to get a free pass to say whatever they want no matter how inflammatory or degradatory their statements are. Certainly while their rights to free speech are important and should be safeguarded, opponents of their views should be allowed to do to them what they do to others.
Whoops I meant degratory..I'm getting confused with bio terms.
Dear Amanda:
Thanks for your kind words. It's even worse. Like you said, some religious groups seemed to get a free pass and say what they want, without due considerations for the implications.
A case in point would be a doctor's forum article to ST denouncing evolution. Evolution is a proven concept that has appeared in scientific journals. Yet his forum article demonstrated an appalling lack of scientific understanding. He doesn't know much about the subject of evolution, yet want to cast aspersions on it because it clashes with his religious beliefs. I say that is just being irresponsible because he is misrepresenting a sub discipline within the biological sciences, spreading misinformation to the readership at large.
Post a Comment