He labelled it as "an attempt by a religiously motivated group, who shared a strong religious fervour, to enter civil space, take over an NGO(non-governmental organization) it disapproved of, and impose their agenda." That makes the group led by Josie Lau, a deficiently intelligent group. Yes, I am being polite here. What makes them think they can impose their biasedly religious views on a secular group? It may be their attempt to evangelise and to spread God's teachings to others, but this method of doing it is too extreme. Yes, I am a Christian too, in case you are wondering. However, I think they are a disgrace to we Christians. One of the rules set by PM Lee to counter this extremity in religious fervour, so as to prevent it from affecting the overall harmony of the nation is "Rules which apply only to one group cannot be made into laws that apply to everyone." It is a clear message to the group, that frowns upon what they did. Another one is "religion must stay separate from politics." It is probably an instruction to the group not to try that stunt again.
It was definitely "hardly the way to conduct a mature discussion of a sensitive matter where views are deeply divided." They are adults and surely know that it was a sensitive matter. Sexual education usually is. After all, parents try to avoid talking to their children about it. The irony is that most of them are mothers. As adults, they should have known too that their method was immature and unbecoming. It was practically a usurpation of power. Do they think they are in one of the Dynasties of China? They are in Singapore, unfortunately for them. "not whether we can express and propagate those beliefs and values". Isn't it rather subjective to focus on evangelization at the expense of respect to others? "Respect and recognition for others who do not share the same set of ideals are absolutely vital". "Norms of tolerance are(sic) necessary if we are to co-exist even with people with very different values. It requires deliberate, cultivated restraint". Sometimes it is more right not to fight for our rights.
"an attitude of 'live and let live' has to prevail, actions flowing from religious beliefs and faith practices must not offend against the imperative of maintaining and enhancing the precious mores of multi-racialism in our society". They are not children and so they should know that "Stronger religious fervour can have side effects which must be managed carefully, particularly in a multi-religious society." This is self-explanatory. "faith communities continue to recognise and respect the virtues and imperatives of diversity, respect and tolerance".
Thank goodness, there were "many Christians" who were worried about the further implications this would cause. They were at least more rational. To add to it, the National Council of Churches and our Archbishop issued official statements to quell the gradually erosive wave on our unity.
Editor's note: It seems as if I'm regurgitating the quotes from the PM's speech but I selected these particular ones, because I feel they are outstanding on their own and can immediately explain my view on the Aware saga. Of course, I have included my own thoughts in this entry too.
No comments:
Post a Comment