Nice song by a Malaysian Muslim Singer...
Friday, September 3, 2010
Mosque at Ground Zero
If you ask me, I would say build a mosque and church side by side at Ground Zero, or like a building where there is a mosque on one floor and a church on another. Both communities can share the classrooms, canteen, pantries and maybe teach some religious appreciation/tolerance classes. But then again, it's not my country so I won't say much. In any case, it is always good to think before you speak. Nowadays, we just have too many people shooting off their mouths before even thinking. Generalising another religion or even thinking that we, Christians, are one seamless generic whole is one of those. This article below puts it succintly in what is becoming one of my favourite websites for interesting articles on religion.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/3138/dangerous_religion/
Dangerous Religion
Which religion has proved the most violent and destructive in US history? The answer should not be a surprise.
By Gary Laderman
What is the most dangerous religion in America?
A slightly loaded question that no one in their right mind would attempt to answer, no? But it is a question at the heart of the debates surrounding mosques and Muslims in America today. The opposition against building an Islamic center near the site where the World Trade Center once stood, and the growing outcry around the country about the creation of other Muslim places to gather and worship, suggests that many Americans are not afraid to answer the question without hesitation.
In the post-9/11 world we now live in, Islam poses the greatest threat to American lives and security; a nefarious, fanatical religion that can bring death and destruction to innocent people, that disregards our laws and codes of conduct, and that is prone to acts of violence beyond the pale of civilized society. At least this is the message we are hearing more and more frequently in the news, especially in the wake of President Obama’s recent statements; views espoused by religious and political leaders as well as average American citizens fearful of Muslims abroad and at home.
Hatred of Infidels, the Subhuman, the Different
But perhaps it might be worthwhile to take a step back from all the heated rhetoric and passionate emotions fueling the fires of hatred and distrust in the current moment and take a brief look into the past. In the pre-9/11 world and backward through time to the founding of this great country, a historical perspective leads to a very different picture about religious violence and what religion poses the greatest threat to American lives. Anyone who takes the time to research and reflect on the nation’s past might be led to believe that Christianity has been the most dangerous and violent religion in the United States: that it is a religion inspiring bloodshed and discrimination, hatred and terrorist acts against people understood to be infidels, subhuman, or simply different.
“Christianity” of course is a meaningless label, as I’ve written before. Like “Islam” it is too broad a category to cover the radically diverse practices, beliefs, and interpretive communities associated with it. So let me be even bolder and say that Protestants, and even more specifically, Anglo-European Protestant men, would appear to be the most dangerous religious individuals in American history. Without question white Protestant males from the colonial era to the dawn of the twenty-first century have inflicted more pain, more suffering, more terror than any other individuals in this so-called “city on a hill.”
This historical perspective is placed in sharp relief by a new book that coincidentally arrived in the mail as I was preparing to write this piece last week. Religious Intolerance in America: A Documentary History, edited by John Corrigan and Lynn S. Neal, is chock full of fascinating documentation pointing to this interpretation, providing evidence that throughout US history the perpetrators of religiously-inspired violence have usually been white Protestant men fearful of non-Protestant communities. It’s an easy case to make with or without the book when commonly known events from historical eras are brought to mind:
• In colonial America, Protestant men burned witches at the stake, hanged Quakers on the gallows, destroyed indigenous surrounding cultures, and supported the heinous slave trade bringing Africans to North America.
• In the early national period and through the antebellum era, white Protestant males continued the wanton devastation of Native American tribes as the American territories expanded; inflicted horrible suffering on slaves by tearing families apart, raping innocent women, and killing blacks as if they were not human beings; murdered Joseph Smith and harassed early Mormon followers; and discriminated against Catholics in both subtle and overtly hostile acts of violence.
• In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, men associated with Protestant churches espoused awful anti-Semitic views that led to the lynching of Leo Frank and a host of discriminatory practices against Jews, harassed freed blacks and others by wearing white hoods and engaging in despicable, cowardly, and murderous acts, and enacted numerous policies that forced Native peoples to convert to Christianity.
• From the early decades of the twentieth century on through to the end of the twentieth century, white Protestants made sure that Japanese Americans were placed in internment camps on the West coast, joined a variety of Christian militia movements spread across rural America that promoted violence against the federal government, and participated in a range of hate crimes against blacks, gays, and others deemed to be enemies worthy of discrimination and brutality.
Is it Fair to Generalize?
Throughout American history white Protestant men enjoyed privilege and opportunities not available to others, and asserted that the destiny of the nation belonged to them under the providential power of their God. And they had no qualms about creating laws to oppress those less fortunate or taking the law into their own hands to lash out against the perceived threats to their version of a Christian nation. Racist views, economic injustices, and political machinations were rationalized by religiously-inspired, divinely-sanctioned hatred emanating from the home, the streets, and even, at times, from the churches they attended.
Did every single white Protestant male share exactly the same perspectives on blacks, Native Americans, Catholics, gays, and others? Were all white Protestant men guilty of heinous actions based on the cruelties and violence perpetrated by segments of the Protestant communities? Is it fair to generalize about an entire religion by singling out the acts of specific individuals associated with that religion?
Using the same logic as those who group all Muslims under one America-hating banner, the answer would appear to be yes. And if we follow this same ignorant logic, it would indeed make sense to begin protesting the building of Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist churches near hallowed sites that are supposed to symbolize the highest ideals and values of the American experiment: religious freedom, opportunity for all, equality before the law, sacrifice for a greater good, and so on. Forget about diversity within white Protestantism—the Social Gospel and pacifists, or communitarian movements and Unitarianism—in this worldview.
But no one in their right mind would use the kind of simplistic, odious, ill-informed logic we hear so frequently in the news and originating from the blogosphere and mainstream media about Muslims. Muslim-Americans who worked and died in the World Trade Center, who are pillars of their local communities, who participate in significant interfaith efforts—all of these religious human beings are utterly and completely disregarded in the vile rhetoric spewing from those who oppose ensuring Muslims have the same rights as other Americans. Even white Protestant Americans who belong to the same religion as those in the past who have been killers, fanatics, and terrorists.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/3138/dangerous_religion/
Dangerous Religion
Which religion has proved the most violent and destructive in US history? The answer should not be a surprise.
By Gary Laderman
What is the most dangerous religion in America?
A slightly loaded question that no one in their right mind would attempt to answer, no? But it is a question at the heart of the debates surrounding mosques and Muslims in America today. The opposition against building an Islamic center near the site where the World Trade Center once stood, and the growing outcry around the country about the creation of other Muslim places to gather and worship, suggests that many Americans are not afraid to answer the question without hesitation.
In the post-9/11 world we now live in, Islam poses the greatest threat to American lives and security; a nefarious, fanatical religion that can bring death and destruction to innocent people, that disregards our laws and codes of conduct, and that is prone to acts of violence beyond the pale of civilized society. At least this is the message we are hearing more and more frequently in the news, especially in the wake of President Obama’s recent statements; views espoused by religious and political leaders as well as average American citizens fearful of Muslims abroad and at home.
Hatred of Infidels, the Subhuman, the Different
But perhaps it might be worthwhile to take a step back from all the heated rhetoric and passionate emotions fueling the fires of hatred and distrust in the current moment and take a brief look into the past. In the pre-9/11 world and backward through time to the founding of this great country, a historical perspective leads to a very different picture about religious violence and what religion poses the greatest threat to American lives. Anyone who takes the time to research and reflect on the nation’s past might be led to believe that Christianity has been the most dangerous and violent religion in the United States: that it is a religion inspiring bloodshed and discrimination, hatred and terrorist acts against people understood to be infidels, subhuman, or simply different.
“Christianity” of course is a meaningless label, as I’ve written before. Like “Islam” it is too broad a category to cover the radically diverse practices, beliefs, and interpretive communities associated with it. So let me be even bolder and say that Protestants, and even more specifically, Anglo-European Protestant men, would appear to be the most dangerous religious individuals in American history. Without question white Protestant males from the colonial era to the dawn of the twenty-first century have inflicted more pain, more suffering, more terror than any other individuals in this so-called “city on a hill.”
This historical perspective is placed in sharp relief by a new book that coincidentally arrived in the mail as I was preparing to write this piece last week. Religious Intolerance in America: A Documentary History, edited by John Corrigan and Lynn S. Neal, is chock full of fascinating documentation pointing to this interpretation, providing evidence that throughout US history the perpetrators of religiously-inspired violence have usually been white Protestant men fearful of non-Protestant communities. It’s an easy case to make with or without the book when commonly known events from historical eras are brought to mind:
• In colonial America, Protestant men burned witches at the stake, hanged Quakers on the gallows, destroyed indigenous surrounding cultures, and supported the heinous slave trade bringing Africans to North America.
• In the early national period and through the antebellum era, white Protestant males continued the wanton devastation of Native American tribes as the American territories expanded; inflicted horrible suffering on slaves by tearing families apart, raping innocent women, and killing blacks as if they were not human beings; murdered Joseph Smith and harassed early Mormon followers; and discriminated against Catholics in both subtle and overtly hostile acts of violence.
• In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, men associated with Protestant churches espoused awful anti-Semitic views that led to the lynching of Leo Frank and a host of discriminatory practices against Jews, harassed freed blacks and others by wearing white hoods and engaging in despicable, cowardly, and murderous acts, and enacted numerous policies that forced Native peoples to convert to Christianity.
• From the early decades of the twentieth century on through to the end of the twentieth century, white Protestants made sure that Japanese Americans were placed in internment camps on the West coast, joined a variety of Christian militia movements spread across rural America that promoted violence against the federal government, and participated in a range of hate crimes against blacks, gays, and others deemed to be enemies worthy of discrimination and brutality.
Is it Fair to Generalize?
Throughout American history white Protestant men enjoyed privilege and opportunities not available to others, and asserted that the destiny of the nation belonged to them under the providential power of their God. And they had no qualms about creating laws to oppress those less fortunate or taking the law into their own hands to lash out against the perceived threats to their version of a Christian nation. Racist views, economic injustices, and political machinations were rationalized by religiously-inspired, divinely-sanctioned hatred emanating from the home, the streets, and even, at times, from the churches they attended.
Did every single white Protestant male share exactly the same perspectives on blacks, Native Americans, Catholics, gays, and others? Were all white Protestant men guilty of heinous actions based on the cruelties and violence perpetrated by segments of the Protestant communities? Is it fair to generalize about an entire religion by singling out the acts of specific individuals associated with that religion?
Using the same logic as those who group all Muslims under one America-hating banner, the answer would appear to be yes. And if we follow this same ignorant logic, it would indeed make sense to begin protesting the building of Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist churches near hallowed sites that are supposed to symbolize the highest ideals and values of the American experiment: religious freedom, opportunity for all, equality before the law, sacrifice for a greater good, and so on. Forget about diversity within white Protestantism—the Social Gospel and pacifists, or communitarian movements and Unitarianism—in this worldview.
But no one in their right mind would use the kind of simplistic, odious, ill-informed logic we hear so frequently in the news and originating from the blogosphere and mainstream media about Muslims. Muslim-Americans who worked and died in the World Trade Center, who are pillars of their local communities, who participate in significant interfaith efforts—all of these religious human beings are utterly and completely disregarded in the vile rhetoric spewing from those who oppose ensuring Muslims have the same rights as other Americans. Even white Protestant Americans who belong to the same religion as those in the past who have been killers, fanatics, and terrorists.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
An interesting article on Evangelicals crossing over to Catholicism looking for structure, authority and intellectualism.
Evangelicals ‘Crossing the Tiber’ to Catholicism
Under the radar of most observers a trend is emerging of evangelicals converting to Catholicism.
By Jonathan D. Fitzgerald
In the fall of 1999, I was a freshman at Gordon College, an evangelical liberal arts school in Massachusetts. There, fifteen years earlier, a professor named Thomas Howard resigned from the English department when he felt his beliefs were no longer in line with the college’s statement of faith. Despite all those intervening years, during my time at Gordon the specter of Thomas Howard loomed large on campus. The story of his resignation captured my imagination; it came about, ultimately, because he converted to Roman Catholicism.
Though his reasons for converting were unclear and perhaps unimaginable to me at the time (they are actually well-documented in his book Evangelical is Not Enough which, back then, I had not yet read), his reasons seemed less important than the knowledge that it could happen. I had never heard of such a thing.
I grew up outside of Boston in what could be described as an Irish-Catholic family, except for one minor detail: my parents had left the Church six years before I was born when they were swept up in the so-called “Jesus Movement” of the 1970s. So Catholicism was all around me, but it was not mine. I went to mass with my grandparents, grew up around the symbolism of rosary beads and Virgin Mary statues, attended a Catholic high school, and was present at baptisms, first communions, and confirmations for each of my Catholic family members and friends.
All throughout this time my parents never spoke ill of the Catholic Church; though the pastors and congregants of our non-denominational, charismatic church-that-met-in-a-warehouse, often did. Despite my firsthand experience with the Church, between the legend of my parents’ conversion (anything that happens in a child’s life before he is born is the stuff of legends) and the portrait of the Catholic Church as an oppressive institution that took all the fun out of being “saved,” I understood Catholicism as a religion that a person leaves when she becomes serious about her faith.
And yet, Thomas Howard is only the tip of the iceberg of a hastening trend of evangelicals converting to Catholicism. North Park University professor of religious studies Scot McKnight documented some of the reasons behind this trend in his important 2002 essay entitled “From Wheaton to Rome: Why Evangelicals become Roman Catholic.” The essay was originally published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, and was later included in a collection of conversion stories he co-edited with Hauna Ondrey entitled Finding Faith, Losing Faith: Stories of Conversion and Apostasy.
Thomas Howard comes in at number five on McKnight’s list of significant conversions, behind former Presbyterian pastor and author of Rome Sweet Home, Scott Hahn, and Marcus Grodi founder of The Coming Home Network International, an organization that provides “fellowship, encouragement and support for Protestant pastors and laymen who are somewhere along the journey or have already been received into the Catholic Church,” according to their Web site. Other featured converts include singer-songwriter John Michael Talbot and Patrick Madrid, editor of the Surprised by Truth books, which showcase conversion stories.
Would Saint Augustine Go to a Southern Baptist Church in Houston?
McKnight first identified these converts eight years ago, and the trend has continued to grow in the intervening years. It shows up in a variety of places, in the musings of the late Michael Spencer (the “Internet Monk”) about his wife’s conversion and his decision not to follow, as well as at the Evangelical Theological Society where the former President and Baylor University professor Francis J. Beckwith made a well-documented “return to Rome.” Additionally, the conversion trend is once again picking up steam as the Millennial generation, the first to be born and raised in the contemporary brand of evangelicalism, comes of age. Though perhaps an unlikely setting, The King’s College, an evangelical Christian college in New York City, provides an excellent case study for the way this phenomenon is manifesting itself among young evangelicals.
The King’s College campus is comprised of two floors in the Empire State Building and some office space in a neighboring building on Fifth Avenue. The approximately 300 students who attend King’s are thoughtful, considerate and serious. They are also intellectually curious. This combination of traits, it turns out, makes the college a ripe breeding ground for interest in Roman Catholicism. Among the traits of the Catholic Church that attract TKC students—and indeed many young evangelicals at large—are its history, emphasis on liturgy, and tradition of intellectualism.
Lucas Croslow was one such student to whom these and other attributes of Catholicism appealed. This past spring, graduating from The King’s College was not the only major change in Croslow’s life, he was also confirmed into the Catholic Church.
Croslow’s interest in Catholicism began over six years ago when he was a sophomore in high school. At the time, Croslow’s Midwestern evangelical church experienced a crisis that is all too common among evangelical churches: what he describes as “a crisis of spiritual authority.” As a result of experiencing disappointment in his pastor, Croslow began to question everything he had learned from him. This questioning led him to study the historical origins of scripture and then of the Christian church itself. Eventually he concluded that Catholicism in its current form is the closest iteration of the early church fathers’ intentions. He asks, “If Saint Augustine showed up today, could we seriously think that he’d attend a Southern Baptist church in Houston?” The answer, to Croslow, is a resounding “No.”
Croslow’s belief that the Catholic Church most accurately reflects the intentions of the early church fathers is echoed throughout the movement as other evangelicals seek a church whose roots run deeper than the Reformation. Further, due to the number of non-denominational churches that have proliferated since the Jesus Movement, many evangelicals’ knowledge of their history runs only as far back as the 1970s. These are the young believers who are attracted to a Church that sees itself as the direct descendent of the religion founded by Saint Peter and the apostles.
Another recent convert and current King’s sophomore, Nick Dunn, agrees with Croslow about the need for a historically grounded Christianity, however he emphasizes the liturgical aspects of Roman Catholicism as a motivation for converting. When he moved to New York City to attend The King’s College he had a difficult time finding a church that was similar to his home church in San Diego. The churches that he attended in New York, even the evangelical ones, often were a bit more structured and incorporated some liturgical elements into their services. In time, Dunn realized that these liturgical practices, which had been all but absent from his church life to that point, were quite rich.
When he asked his parents why their church didn’t have a benediction or a call to worship, they answered as many evangelicals would, saying that they don’t like “these ritualistic or religious kinds of things.” Eventually, after attending mass at St. Francis of Assisi in midtown Manhattan, Dunn became interested in learning more about Catholicism. It was living like a Catholic, Dunn says, that finally made him to decide to convert.
In much the same way that many evangelical churches have discarded Church history, so the liturgical structure of worship was left by the wayside as these churches made claims to the “freedom” that comes from forsaking the bounds of the Catholic Church and even mainline Protestant denominations. But for many young evangelicals and former evangelicals like Dunn, this move to be free of liturgical strictures came at the expense of religious practices that have been a part of Christianity for two millennia, and to these believers, the loss is too great. This is precisely why many evangelical churches have, as Dunn witnessed, made an effort to reintroduce those once forsaken elements into worship services.
Chris White, a 2009 King’s graduate, shares the concerns of Croslow and Dunn, while adding another of the main reasons why many evangelicals are converting to Catholicism: intellectual hunger.
White describes himself as a “victim of Church history classes that start in 1517,” the year Martin Luther posted his Ninety-Five Theses. That is, until he took a course entitled “Foundations of Judeo-Christian Thought” at TKC. It “raised certain questions within me,” he says of the course. White cites Boston College philosophy professor and TKC visiting faculty member Peter Kreeft’s Catholic Christianity as a factor in his conversion, but he also points to a number of other courses that he took at King’s that led him to the point of conversion. He says of the college’s curriculum that it is “not a ‘great books curriculum’ but it draws heavily on the liberal arts tradition.” He adds, “You can’t study the liberal arts without confronting the rich history of Catholicism.”
Indeed The King’s College is a microcosm of the larger community of young believers whose frustration with the lack of authority, structure, and intellectualism in many evangelical churches is leading them in great numbers to the Roman Catholic Church. This trend of “Crossing the Tiber” (a phrase that also served as the title of Stephen K. Ray’s 1997 book on the phenomenon), has been growing steadily for decades, but with the help of a solid foundation of literature, exemplar converts from previous generations, burgeoning traditional and new media outlets, and the coming of age of Millennial evangelicals, it is seeing its pace quicken dramatically.
Back in 1985, when many of the most recent converts were still singing Sunday School songs in evangelical churches, Thomas Howard wrote in the postscript to Evangelical is Not Enough that after completing the text in 1984, he formally converted to Catholicism at the Easter Vigil in 1985. Ultimately, Howard concluded that the question that matters most is “What is the Church?” His answer, like that of Hahn, Grodi and Talbot, and now of Croslow, Dunn, and White, is that the “one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church”—the historical, traditional Church—can only be the Roman Catholic Church.
The original article can be found here.
Evangelicals ‘Crossing the Tiber’ to Catholicism
Under the radar of most observers a trend is emerging of evangelicals converting to Catholicism.
By Jonathan D. Fitzgerald
In the fall of 1999, I was a freshman at Gordon College, an evangelical liberal arts school in Massachusetts. There, fifteen years earlier, a professor named Thomas Howard resigned from the English department when he felt his beliefs were no longer in line with the college’s statement of faith. Despite all those intervening years, during my time at Gordon the specter of Thomas Howard loomed large on campus. The story of his resignation captured my imagination; it came about, ultimately, because he converted to Roman Catholicism.
Though his reasons for converting were unclear and perhaps unimaginable to me at the time (they are actually well-documented in his book Evangelical is Not Enough which, back then, I had not yet read), his reasons seemed less important than the knowledge that it could happen. I had never heard of such a thing.
I grew up outside of Boston in what could be described as an Irish-Catholic family, except for one minor detail: my parents had left the Church six years before I was born when they were swept up in the so-called “Jesus Movement” of the 1970s. So Catholicism was all around me, but it was not mine. I went to mass with my grandparents, grew up around the symbolism of rosary beads and Virgin Mary statues, attended a Catholic high school, and was present at baptisms, first communions, and confirmations for each of my Catholic family members and friends.
All throughout this time my parents never spoke ill of the Catholic Church; though the pastors and congregants of our non-denominational, charismatic church-that-met-in-a-warehouse, often did. Despite my firsthand experience with the Church, between the legend of my parents’ conversion (anything that happens in a child’s life before he is born is the stuff of legends) and the portrait of the Catholic Church as an oppressive institution that took all the fun out of being “saved,” I understood Catholicism as a religion that a person leaves when she becomes serious about her faith.
And yet, Thomas Howard is only the tip of the iceberg of a hastening trend of evangelicals converting to Catholicism. North Park University professor of religious studies Scot McKnight documented some of the reasons behind this trend in his important 2002 essay entitled “From Wheaton to Rome: Why Evangelicals become Roman Catholic.” The essay was originally published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, and was later included in a collection of conversion stories he co-edited with Hauna Ondrey entitled Finding Faith, Losing Faith: Stories of Conversion and Apostasy.
Thomas Howard comes in at number five on McKnight’s list of significant conversions, behind former Presbyterian pastor and author of Rome Sweet Home, Scott Hahn, and Marcus Grodi founder of The Coming Home Network International, an organization that provides “fellowship, encouragement and support for Protestant pastors and laymen who are somewhere along the journey or have already been received into the Catholic Church,” according to their Web site. Other featured converts include singer-songwriter John Michael Talbot and Patrick Madrid, editor of the Surprised by Truth books, which showcase conversion stories.
Would Saint Augustine Go to a Southern Baptist Church in Houston?
McKnight first identified these converts eight years ago, and the trend has continued to grow in the intervening years. It shows up in a variety of places, in the musings of the late Michael Spencer (the “Internet Monk”) about his wife’s conversion and his decision not to follow, as well as at the Evangelical Theological Society where the former President and Baylor University professor Francis J. Beckwith made a well-documented “return to Rome.” Additionally, the conversion trend is once again picking up steam as the Millennial generation, the first to be born and raised in the contemporary brand of evangelicalism, comes of age. Though perhaps an unlikely setting, The King’s College, an evangelical Christian college in New York City, provides an excellent case study for the way this phenomenon is manifesting itself among young evangelicals.
The King’s College campus is comprised of two floors in the Empire State Building and some office space in a neighboring building on Fifth Avenue. The approximately 300 students who attend King’s are thoughtful, considerate and serious. They are also intellectually curious. This combination of traits, it turns out, makes the college a ripe breeding ground for interest in Roman Catholicism. Among the traits of the Catholic Church that attract TKC students—and indeed many young evangelicals at large—are its history, emphasis on liturgy, and tradition of intellectualism.
Lucas Croslow was one such student to whom these and other attributes of Catholicism appealed. This past spring, graduating from The King’s College was not the only major change in Croslow’s life, he was also confirmed into the Catholic Church.
Croslow’s interest in Catholicism began over six years ago when he was a sophomore in high school. At the time, Croslow’s Midwestern evangelical church experienced a crisis that is all too common among evangelical churches: what he describes as “a crisis of spiritual authority.” As a result of experiencing disappointment in his pastor, Croslow began to question everything he had learned from him. This questioning led him to study the historical origins of scripture and then of the Christian church itself. Eventually he concluded that Catholicism in its current form is the closest iteration of the early church fathers’ intentions. He asks, “If Saint Augustine showed up today, could we seriously think that he’d attend a Southern Baptist church in Houston?” The answer, to Croslow, is a resounding “No.”
Croslow’s belief that the Catholic Church most accurately reflects the intentions of the early church fathers is echoed throughout the movement as other evangelicals seek a church whose roots run deeper than the Reformation. Further, due to the number of non-denominational churches that have proliferated since the Jesus Movement, many evangelicals’ knowledge of their history runs only as far back as the 1970s. These are the young believers who are attracted to a Church that sees itself as the direct descendent of the religion founded by Saint Peter and the apostles.
Another recent convert and current King’s sophomore, Nick Dunn, agrees with Croslow about the need for a historically grounded Christianity, however he emphasizes the liturgical aspects of Roman Catholicism as a motivation for converting. When he moved to New York City to attend The King’s College he had a difficult time finding a church that was similar to his home church in San Diego. The churches that he attended in New York, even the evangelical ones, often were a bit more structured and incorporated some liturgical elements into their services. In time, Dunn realized that these liturgical practices, which had been all but absent from his church life to that point, were quite rich.
When he asked his parents why their church didn’t have a benediction or a call to worship, they answered as many evangelicals would, saying that they don’t like “these ritualistic or religious kinds of things.” Eventually, after attending mass at St. Francis of Assisi in midtown Manhattan, Dunn became interested in learning more about Catholicism. It was living like a Catholic, Dunn says, that finally made him to decide to convert.
In much the same way that many evangelical churches have discarded Church history, so the liturgical structure of worship was left by the wayside as these churches made claims to the “freedom” that comes from forsaking the bounds of the Catholic Church and even mainline Protestant denominations. But for many young evangelicals and former evangelicals like Dunn, this move to be free of liturgical strictures came at the expense of religious practices that have been a part of Christianity for two millennia, and to these believers, the loss is too great. This is precisely why many evangelical churches have, as Dunn witnessed, made an effort to reintroduce those once forsaken elements into worship services.
Chris White, a 2009 King’s graduate, shares the concerns of Croslow and Dunn, while adding another of the main reasons why many evangelicals are converting to Catholicism: intellectual hunger.
White describes himself as a “victim of Church history classes that start in 1517,” the year Martin Luther posted his Ninety-Five Theses. That is, until he took a course entitled “Foundations of Judeo-Christian Thought” at TKC. It “raised certain questions within me,” he says of the course. White cites Boston College philosophy professor and TKC visiting faculty member Peter Kreeft’s Catholic Christianity as a factor in his conversion, but he also points to a number of other courses that he took at King’s that led him to the point of conversion. He says of the college’s curriculum that it is “not a ‘great books curriculum’ but it draws heavily on the liberal arts tradition.” He adds, “You can’t study the liberal arts without confronting the rich history of Catholicism.”
Indeed The King’s College is a microcosm of the larger community of young believers whose frustration with the lack of authority, structure, and intellectualism in many evangelical churches is leading them in great numbers to the Roman Catholic Church. This trend of “Crossing the Tiber” (a phrase that also served as the title of Stephen K. Ray’s 1997 book on the phenomenon), has been growing steadily for decades, but with the help of a solid foundation of literature, exemplar converts from previous generations, burgeoning traditional and new media outlets, and the coming of age of Millennial evangelicals, it is seeing its pace quicken dramatically.
Back in 1985, when many of the most recent converts were still singing Sunday School songs in evangelical churches, Thomas Howard wrote in the postscript to Evangelical is Not Enough that after completing the text in 1984, he formally converted to Catholicism at the Easter Vigil in 1985. Ultimately, Howard concluded that the question that matters most is “What is the Church?” His answer, like that of Hahn, Grodi and Talbot, and now of Croslow, Dunn, and White, is that the “one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church”—the historical, traditional Church—can only be the Roman Catholic Church.
The original article can be found here.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Of casinos, birds, bees and honey
I went to the Marina Bay Sands to watch the World Cup final game on the invitation of a friend who booked a room there. I must say it is really glitzy and impressive. Especially the swimming pool that overlooks the city and bay front, that was quite mind blowing. Singapore has really changed since I was kid...no more satay club and the feint smell of grilling meat with sugar cane juice.
The only counseling service at the Resort World Sentosa ran by the Thya Hua Kwan Moral Society is still in negotiations with the casino operators as to how they should operate within the casino. Wonder if the Christian leadership or intelligentsia are thinking of a similar initiative. Now that everyone is abuzz with the economic recovery, boost in tourism figures and boomzing casinos, they seemed to have forgotten that the casino issue still holds the highest number of signatures on a petition (against casino) in Singapore. The worries of the various Christian leaders seemed to be a distant thought relegated to the same realm of Christmas Island being administered by Lim Yew Hock.
Perhaps it's time we positioned ourselves in critical social spaces where humans are particularly vulnerable to temptations like the ills of being addicted to gambling. I mean just think about it, casinos, English Premier League, S-League, 4D, TOTO, stock markets, World Cup.
We also have to reform the way we impart lessons, (if you ask me, they're boring most of the times), to make it more relevant to issues today and more interesting for our youths. I mean "conversations with Jesus" and "trusting God in times of adversity" is really fine but what about "Christianity and pre-marital sex" or "how to anchor a Christian in the digital age". We gotta move with the times, otherwise how can you explain the continued rise in membership of mega-churches and their rock concerts. How do you explain Christian youths who are leading a second life outside of church and making ill-informed life choices?
It's time the traditional Christian leadership in Singapore wake up, or risk losing a large part of our following to mega-churches (we already have) and the decadent undercurrents of the digital age. Meanwhile, don't believe in an octopus, only TRUST in GOD.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Salt and Light...how I see it.
You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men. You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven. Matthew 5:13-16
Ironically, the two prominent Christian personalities, Thio Li Ann and Kong Hee, that have talked about salt and light in the public space have been rather controversial figures. Not that controversial people are necessary good or bad.
Others have written essays and long articles about salt and light but to me, it really quite simple. Salt represents intelligence, a critical mind and the purity of Jesus Christ in your heart and deeds. Light represent evangelism, sharing the Gospel to those around you, first in deed and behaviour of oneself and subsequently in fervent self-study and sharing of the Holy Scriptures.
What is salt? And how does one forever remember the taste of salt?
A mind, if well-schooled (in secular and theological knowledge) and trained to think critically, will not lose the taste of salt. And if you don't acquire the taste of salt, then you will be, as the Bible says, thrown out and trampled upon.
When a pack of wolves attacks a deer and devours it, is it good or bad? In the first instance, some might think that the act isn't so "good" as the deer is tormented and eventually dies horribly. Some might even think that the pack of wolves are evil. Yet, this type of somewhat "cruel" behaviour are everyday occurences in the animal kingdom. Our God and Creator of this Universe, has designed this amazing ecosystem that behind seemingly cruel acts conceal His divine intentions. That the wolves are hunting for their own survival and the deers would over a long period of time develop better evading skills (yes, theory of evolution, please don't get started on Religion and Evolution).
So, when something happens to a Christian personality or Christian organisation (like CHC and Kong Hee) and an issue confronts the Christian community (like AWARE or Casino), think critically and not blindly follow what others say or do. Do not be easily swayed by seemingly convincing arguments, read and research intensively, find out both sides of the arguments and come to your findings and conclusion.
Do not take pride in your conclusion or argument, be open to criticisms and amendments to what you first believe. Do not shun disagreements, for it is only with them that one may improve and hone the mind (of course, be nice when disagreeing). It is so that notions can become convictions. It is so that we can be the salt of God's Kingdom.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
When CHC meets CAD
There are many more urgent issues in the world that captured my attention this past week, like the Foxconn suicide payment conspiracy and the appalling light sentences given to the owners of the Bhopal chemical plant in India which leaked and killed thousands of people in the 1980s. So desperate were Foxconn workers that they gave up their own lives for 5 years worth of their USD$250 monthly salary, thank goodness Foxconn have decided to double their pay and stop all suicide compensation. And for profit-craze businessmen, they forsake safety and eventually caused thousands of lives only to be punished by couple years jail-time and few thousands in fine (subjected to appeal). Pretty warped if u ask me.
But in sunny Singapore, there was nothing except CAD investigating CHC that attracted the attention of Singaporeans and Christians especially. I am not going to judge Pastor Kong Hee or say that he is right or wrong - I guess there are many netizens, forums and blogs already doing that. Ultimately, that is the job of the CAD, and let's leave it to the professionals. What I can say is that Kong Hee has touched many people through his spreading of the word of Lord Jesus Christ and no one should take that away from him. And for those who are giving support to their church and pastor, don't take it away from them, in unity we can find strength in adversity.
But I am going to make a few observations. First, some CHC-ers has thought of the investigations as an attack on their pastor, church and perhaps faith. The most prominent example doing its rounds online is one Zhen Yi Kiew who has threatened to raise an army. I hope CHC pastors can talk to him before he really gets into trouble. Also, in CHC's Statements of Faiths, No.17, quoting Romans 13, it is clearly stated that CHC is subjected to the Singapore Government that is ordained of God. Hopefully, CHC-ers can understand that the investigations is into monies and accounts held by humans, who as the Bible said are born into sin, and not a question mark cast upon the good work done by CHC. I am sure, after the storm has subsided, that CHC would function as ever before as a church with a vibrant congregation.
Source: http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/showthread.php?t=2788450
Source: http://www.chc.org.sg/eng/church/church_sttFaith.php
Second, mega-churches who are able to collect an enormous amount of tithe (while most other churches get by from hand to mouth) and build up healthy reserves for their grand expansion plans should subject themselves to stricter financial regulations, internal checks and balances and external audits, not unlike any listed company or institution that has the covenant to collect money from the public. This is to protect public interests and prevent such organizations from misusing public funds.
Some will argue, and have argued, that churches are different from charities who solicit funds from the public. My reply is aren't churches also soliciting members from public, who in turn contribute money to the church? And publicly listed companies also do not directly solicit funds from the public, their target a specific audience, i.e. investors. Moreover, if Singapore does not have strict corporate governance laws and regulations, would anyone want to invest their money in our markets? Therefore, churches, mega or otherwise, should have robust financial governance to boost the confidence of donating Christians.
A case point, as highlighted by Lycan Times, is the CHC Jurong West church that cost $47 million on a 30 years lease. 47/30 = $1.57 million per annum. That's a lot of money that could be used for other things such as social work and bursaries for the less-fortunate students. Really, do Christians need a titanium clad building, state-of-the-art sound system or leather-clad auditorium seats to be inspired by Our Father and his Only Son who shed his blood for our sins? (And I thought building opulent places of worship was something that the towkays will do.) Could the same money be put to better use such as running subsidized or free Biblical courses so that our youth and converts can better understand the lessons from our scriptures and parables? And if the lease is not renewed or CHC has no financial ability to renew the lease after 30 years? Tear it down? Or appeal for more donations? Whatever happened to prudence?
Another reason why mega-churches require a keen financial oversight is their demographic make-up. Take CHC for example, 52% of their congregation are not drawing a salary and more than 40% of their congregation are below 24 years old (see charts from CHC). Yes, these Christians do donate, often being "inspired" by their fellow members who are also donating and propagating the prosperity gospel. But wait, where do these students get their money from? Do their parents, Christian or otherwise, have an interests in how the money is collected and spent? Are these kids donating with their eyes wide open, do they understand the philosophy behind tithe, or simply a part of the ritualistic adrenalin rushing heart stomping Christian rock concert?
Source: CHC official website statistics
Similar for the $310 million deal that CHC has with Suntec City. In the first place, CHC does not have that much money, they probably have somewhere around $100 million from the news reports (CAD is probably trying to determine that now). So the congregation has to top-up gradually over the years and decades the $200 million plus interests from the bank. Is that fair? Churches spending future money and taking on debt when in the first place we are non-profit?! And what if the congregation dwindle or do not grow as fast due to whatever reasons? Who would bear the debt? Speak to any property agent and he will tell you how big piece a land one can buy with $50 million, and freehold!
Ask thyself followers Jehovah! Would Our Father in Heaven judge you by the hardware you pray in or the HEARTWARE U PRAY WITH? Would Our Father in Heaven judge you by the number of Christian rock songs you know or the Biblical knowledge you possess? would Our Father in Heaven judge you by the amount of tithe that you have given or the good kind deeds you have done in His Righteous Name, The Lord Jesus CHRIST? Ask thyself!
Proverbs is one of the most beautiful and simplistic books in Christianity, and it re-emphasizes the need for Biblical knowledge and prudence over the pursuit of materialism. And it is written:
Choose my instruction instead of silver, knowledge rather than choice gold, for wisdom is more precious than rubies, and nothing you desire can compare with her. I, wisdom, dwell together with prudence; I possess knowledge and discretion. Proverbs 8:10-12
May the peace of Jesus' teachings dwell everlasting in your hearts. Amen.
But in sunny Singapore, there was nothing except CAD investigating CHC that attracted the attention of Singaporeans and Christians especially. I am not going to judge Pastor Kong Hee or say that he is right or wrong - I guess there are many netizens, forums and blogs already doing that. Ultimately, that is the job of the CAD, and let's leave it to the professionals. What I can say is that Kong Hee has touched many people through his spreading of the word of Lord Jesus Christ and no one should take that away from him. And for those who are giving support to their church and pastor, don't take it away from them, in unity we can find strength in adversity.
But I am going to make a few observations. First, some CHC-ers has thought of the investigations as an attack on their pastor, church and perhaps faith. The most prominent example doing its rounds online is one Zhen Yi Kiew who has threatened to raise an army. I hope CHC pastors can talk to him before he really gets into trouble. Also, in CHC's Statements of Faiths, No.17, quoting Romans 13, it is clearly stated that CHC is subjected to the Singapore Government that is ordained of God. Hopefully, CHC-ers can understand that the investigations is into monies and accounts held by humans, who as the Bible said are born into sin, and not a question mark cast upon the good work done by CHC. I am sure, after the storm has subsided, that CHC would function as ever before as a church with a vibrant congregation.
Source: http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/showthread.php?t=2788450
Source: http://www.chc.org.sg/eng/church/church_sttFaith.php
Second, mega-churches who are able to collect an enormous amount of tithe (while most other churches get by from hand to mouth) and build up healthy reserves for their grand expansion plans should subject themselves to stricter financial regulations, internal checks and balances and external audits, not unlike any listed company or institution that has the covenant to collect money from the public. This is to protect public interests and prevent such organizations from misusing public funds.
Some will argue, and have argued, that churches are different from charities who solicit funds from the public. My reply is aren't churches also soliciting members from public, who in turn contribute money to the church? And publicly listed companies also do not directly solicit funds from the public, their target a specific audience, i.e. investors. Moreover, if Singapore does not have strict corporate governance laws and regulations, would anyone want to invest their money in our markets? Therefore, churches, mega or otherwise, should have robust financial governance to boost the confidence of donating Christians.
A case point, as highlighted by Lycan Times, is the CHC Jurong West church that cost $47 million on a 30 years lease. 47/30 = $1.57 million per annum. That's a lot of money that could be used for other things such as social work and bursaries for the less-fortunate students. Really, do Christians need a titanium clad building, state-of-the-art sound system or leather-clad auditorium seats to be inspired by Our Father and his Only Son who shed his blood for our sins? (And I thought building opulent places of worship was something that the towkays will do.) Could the same money be put to better use such as running subsidized or free Biblical courses so that our youth and converts can better understand the lessons from our scriptures and parables? And if the lease is not renewed or CHC has no financial ability to renew the lease after 30 years? Tear it down? Or appeal for more donations? Whatever happened to prudence?
Another reason why mega-churches require a keen financial oversight is their demographic make-up. Take CHC for example, 52% of their congregation are not drawing a salary and more than 40% of their congregation are below 24 years old (see charts from CHC). Yes, these Christians do donate, often being "inspired" by their fellow members who are also donating and propagating the prosperity gospel. But wait, where do these students get their money from? Do their parents, Christian or otherwise, have an interests in how the money is collected and spent? Are these kids donating with their eyes wide open, do they understand the philosophy behind tithe, or simply a part of the ritualistic adrenalin rushing heart stomping Christian rock concert?
Source: CHC official website statistics
Similar for the $310 million deal that CHC has with Suntec City. In the first place, CHC does not have that much money, they probably have somewhere around $100 million from the news reports (CAD is probably trying to determine that now). So the congregation has to top-up gradually over the years and decades the $200 million plus interests from the bank. Is that fair? Churches spending future money and taking on debt when in the first place we are non-profit?! And what if the congregation dwindle or do not grow as fast due to whatever reasons? Who would bear the debt? Speak to any property agent and he will tell you how big piece a land one can buy with $50 million, and freehold!
Ask thyself followers Jehovah! Would Our Father in Heaven judge you by the hardware you pray in or the HEARTWARE U PRAY WITH? Would Our Father in Heaven judge you by the number of Christian rock songs you know or the Biblical knowledge you possess? would Our Father in Heaven judge you by the amount of tithe that you have given or the good kind deeds you have done in His Righteous Name, The Lord Jesus CHRIST? Ask thyself!
Proverbs is one of the most beautiful and simplistic books in Christianity, and it re-emphasizes the need for Biblical knowledge and prudence over the pursuit of materialism. And it is written:
Choose my instruction instead of silver, knowledge rather than choice gold, for wisdom is more precious than rubies, and nothing you desire can compare with her. I, wisdom, dwell together with prudence; I possess knowledge and discretion. Proverbs 8:10-12
May the peace of Jesus' teachings dwell everlasting in your hearts. Amen.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Christians and the Death Penalty - Just not Mandatory
I have been asked, and I would try to answer, should Christians support the death penalty? I am no biblical expert or theologian, but it won't be too far to say that much of the diverse views within the Christian community towards the death penalty has to do with different instances when death was dealt as a punishment in the Old and New Testaments.
There are many instances in the Old Testament where we see death as a punishment for sins against God. Genesis examples include the flood of Noah and Sodom and Gomorrah while in Exodus we witness the destruction of Egyptian army in the Red Sea.
In fact, capital punishment was instituted by God in the Jewish law code. HOWEVER, the principle of capital punishment even PREcedes the Old Testament law code where capital punishment is meted out when an act transgresses against the sacred life given by God, "Whoever sheds man's blood by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God, He made man." (Gen 9:6)
The conflict comes about upon inspection of the New Testament where compassion, forgiveness and repentance are central themes to the Passion of Christ; where we are taught to "turn the other cheek" and "he who was without sin cast the first stone".
However, one must make the distinction that capital punishment was made in the image humans who are of God and created by God ["Whoever sheds man's blood by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God, He made man."] and enacted before the Old Testament theocracy law code. The principle of capital punishment is not rooted in the Old Testament (and hence, some argue, should go because of the New Testament); rather the principle was based on the creation order. This ought to be the broader philosopy that should be considered.
Some would argue that in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was arguing against the principle of an eye for eye. But in fact, he was speaking to each individual Christian on the issue of a personal desire for vengeance. He is not arguing against the right to rule of government but telling them that they should not try to overthrow the government and rather, love thy enemy as I have loved you, to turn the other cheek.
And for the case of the woman caught for adultery that was not stoned, Jesus did not teach that henceforth there should be no more punishments meted out to adulterers. Jesus was trying again to teach us that every stone should be measured and weighed and not just thrown for a blind adherrence to laws. Contextually, Jesus was also being watched by the Pharisees. If Jesus had asked for the woman to be stoned, then he would have broken the Roman law and a outright refusal to stone would mean that Jesus had broken the theocracy laws. Hence, Jesus avoided the conflict by asking he who had not sinned throw the first stone. We have also seen that Jesus and his disciples did not specifically refute the Old Testament established order of capital punishment but preached that we punish with compassion and much thought.
And it is not only the Old Testament that sanctions death penalty. Romans 13:1-7 wrote on the authority of a secular government and the authority to mete out certain punishments for the government does not bear the sword in vain. [Romans 13:4 "For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."] There is a cause for capital punishment because of the sanctity of human life and because we are created in God's image.
What we Christians must be clear about is that not every adulterer must be stoned and not every murderer must have life taken away. Compassion, the agent of repentance and mitigation of the circumstances surrounding the crime must be considered just as Jesus Christ has always given sinners a chance to repent and enter the Kingdom of God. And judges as the highest authority of and on our laws must have the power, the authority and the moral obligation to weigh every crime and mete out varying punishments. In this spirit, I am against the mandatory death penalty and its entailed draconian nature cast upon our legislation.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Yong Vui Kong loses appeal - It's up to the politicians now
Yong Vui Kong’s appeal was denied as Singapore’s highest judicial authority, the Court of Appeal, declared the mandatory death penalty is constitutional. I have earlier written about the harshness of the mandatory death penalty here. I really hope that the judiciary, the government and the law fraternity won’t stop at this juncture in terms of reviewing the mandatory death penalty. The burden of judicial discretion or mitigation should not only be borne by the narcotics officers and public prosecutors but also be shared by the judges, who btw are the highest legal authority on this land.
On 14th May 10, “in a landmark ruling, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong reaffirmed the line of decisions passed in Ong Ah Chuan and Nguyen. He ruled that Article 9 (1) of the Singapore Constitution, which establishes that ‘no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law’, neither precluded ‘inhuman punishment’ nor did it embrace customary international law that prohibits the mandatory death penalty…Furthermore, he noted the lack of an explicit prohibition against inhuman punishment in the Singapore Constitution.”
Interesting, “the court also did not find applicable the Indian Supreme Court ruling that declared the mandatory death penalty inconsistent with their constitutional equivalent of Article 9 (1). CJ Chan found that to accept the Indian standard of a ‘fair, just and reasonable procedure’ would require judicial interpretation of the scope of ‘reasonable’ – thus potentially leading to a conflict with Parliament.”
With that I would think that CJ has put the ball into the politicians’ court or by saying that he meant that since Justices are appointed by the government of the day they should somewhat abide by their political view? In any event, it’s similar to what I have already said earlier that hope on the judges to rule in a controversial manner is mostly bleak – change has to come from the politicians.
Lastly, CJ sort drew down the curtain on the court’s role in the debate of the mandatory death penalty when he “observed that Yong’s appeal have had mustered the most substantive constitutional arguments against the mandatory death penalty. As such, the rejection of this appeal would mean that ‘under Singapore law as it stands, further challenges in court [against the mandatory death penalty] have been foreclosed.’”
A depressively sad reflective day.
On 14th May 10, “in a landmark ruling, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong reaffirmed the line of decisions passed in Ong Ah Chuan and Nguyen. He ruled that Article 9 (1) of the Singapore Constitution, which establishes that ‘no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law’, neither precluded ‘inhuman punishment’ nor did it embrace customary international law that prohibits the mandatory death penalty…Furthermore, he noted the lack of an explicit prohibition against inhuman punishment in the Singapore Constitution.”
Interesting, “the court also did not find applicable the Indian Supreme Court ruling that declared the mandatory death penalty inconsistent with their constitutional equivalent of Article 9 (1). CJ Chan found that to accept the Indian standard of a ‘fair, just and reasonable procedure’ would require judicial interpretation of the scope of ‘reasonable’ – thus potentially leading to a conflict with Parliament.”
With that I would think that CJ has put the ball into the politicians’ court or by saying that he meant that since Justices are appointed by the government of the day they should somewhat abide by their political view? In any event, it’s similar to what I have already said earlier that hope on the judges to rule in a controversial manner is mostly bleak – change has to come from the politicians.
Lastly, CJ sort drew down the curtain on the court’s role in the debate of the mandatory death penalty when he “observed that Yong’s appeal have had mustered the most substantive constitutional arguments against the mandatory death penalty. As such, the rejection of this appeal would mean that ‘under Singapore law as it stands, further challenges in court [against the mandatory death penalty] have been foreclosed.’”
A depressively sad reflective day.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Religion and the Public Space
Just yesterday, the newspapers reported on Mr. Wong Kan Seng's speech on increasing religiosity in Singapore. Mr. Wong was clearly concerned about religions encroaching onto what is known as the "neutral common space". I hope Mr. Wong understands that public space (or neutral common space) belongs to all Singaporeans and that hitherto, more often than not, we find that the strong government in Singapore does have a rather discerning influence on the conduct of affairs in public space and of the conduct of civil society.
Public space should not be completely devoid of religion as most Singaporeans do ascribe to a certain religion and one cannot simply dictate that since Singapore is a secular country and therefore all public debate should be 100% secular. 100% secularism is as extremist as any religion or ideology that is implemented or practiced in an extremist inflexible form.
Rather than to see religion as encroaching onto public space, one should recognize that religion and other non-state actors such as Chinese clans and ethnic based associations have always had a stake in public debate. The key here is to develop a certain level of matured debate and a system of engagement (not state sponsored of course) for inter-religious dialogue and public debate on sensitive matters. To ignore the religious component in any public debate would result in inefficient policies as they might run against the grain of religious beliefs (which the state of somewhat avoided but not completely).
The growing intolerance amongst religious groups that have been alluded to by Mr. Wong is perhaps an indication of the crippled civil society and the lack of non-state sponsored inter-religious interaction in Singapore. State orchestrated movements are often only half-potent due to lack of impetus and ownership from stakeholders (because the state owns the movement). Besides the highlighting the need for tolerance amongst religions, it is also important to note that there is also a need for the non-religious to be tolerant of the religious. Mega-churches that have amassed large amounts of money is an indication of their success and the religious service that they provide. Ultimately, the governance of finances in churches should be resolved by the churches themselves, in line with government regulations, and definitely with the agreement of church members. Some of the gloating and sneering that churches (mega and non-mega) have gotten in trouble with the government is another extension of religious intolerance.
As for the issue of proselytizing, I would agree that aggressive evangelism is unwise of multi-ethnic, multi-religious Singapore as such sensitivities when mishandled may escalate into unplesantries and even violence. However, to denounce proselytizing completely is tantamount to saying that there should be no exchange of thoughts and ideas. And we were just talking about mature religious dialogue in previous paragraphs?! =) Shouldn't a civil and mature society know how to politely say no to another and the other party to know how to accept a no graciously. To criticize all forms of proselytizing is also a form of intolerance.
Public space should not be completely devoid of religion as most Singaporeans do ascribe to a certain religion and one cannot simply dictate that since Singapore is a secular country and therefore all public debate should be 100% secular. 100% secularism is as extremist as any religion or ideology that is implemented or practiced in an extremist inflexible form.
Rather than to see religion as encroaching onto public space, one should recognize that religion and other non-state actors such as Chinese clans and ethnic based associations have always had a stake in public debate. The key here is to develop a certain level of matured debate and a system of engagement (not state sponsored of course) for inter-religious dialogue and public debate on sensitive matters. To ignore the religious component in any public debate would result in inefficient policies as they might run against the grain of religious beliefs (which the state of somewhat avoided but not completely).
The growing intolerance amongst religious groups that have been alluded to by Mr. Wong is perhaps an indication of the crippled civil society and the lack of non-state sponsored inter-religious interaction in Singapore. State orchestrated movements are often only half-potent due to lack of impetus and ownership from stakeholders (because the state owns the movement). Besides the highlighting the need for tolerance amongst religions, it is also important to note that there is also a need for the non-religious to be tolerant of the religious. Mega-churches that have amassed large amounts of money is an indication of their success and the religious service that they provide. Ultimately, the governance of finances in churches should be resolved by the churches themselves, in line with government regulations, and definitely with the agreement of church members. Some of the gloating and sneering that churches (mega and non-mega) have gotten in trouble with the government is another extension of religious intolerance.
As for the issue of proselytizing, I would agree that aggressive evangelism is unwise of multi-ethnic, multi-religious Singapore as such sensitivities when mishandled may escalate into unplesantries and even violence. However, to denounce proselytizing completely is tantamount to saying that there should be no exchange of thoughts and ideas. And we were just talking about mature religious dialogue in previous paragraphs?! =) Shouldn't a civil and mature society know how to politely say no to another and the other party to know how to accept a no graciously. To criticize all forms of proselytizing is also a form of intolerance.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Holy Friday but Only Human
On this Good and Holy Friday where the Son of God sacrificed his body and blood for our sins, I am not going to write about the Passion and Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. although seminal to the Christian faith, but Peter's three denials of Jesus of Nazareth. The biblical record of Matthew Chapter 26 narrates that Jesus predicted Peter will deny him three times before roosters crow:
34"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times."
35But Peter declared, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the other disciples said the same.
This was after the Last Supper where Jesus had predicted that one of his disciples would betray him and asked them to eat his bread and drink his wine to symbolise Jesus' body and blood. After Jesus was betrayed by Judas and arrested, he was brought to the Caiaphas to be charged with blasphemy. Peter (and one other) was brave enough to follow Jesus at a distance and saw him being accused and assualted and threatened with death by the Sanhedrin. It was in the courtyard where Peter denies Jesus (Matthew 26):
69Now Peter was sitting out in the courtyard, and a servant girl came to him. "You also were with Jesus of Galilee," she said.
70But he denied it before them all. "I don't know what you're talking about," he said.
71Then he went out to the gateway, where another girl saw him and said to the people there, "This fellow was with Jesus of Nazareth."
72He denied it again, with an oath: "I don't know the man!"
73After a little while, those standing there went up to Peter and said, "Surely you are one of them, for your accent gives you away."
74Then he began to call down curses on himself and he swore to them, "I don't know the man!" Immediately a rooster crowed.
75Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken: "Before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times." And he went outside and wept bitterly.
Why did Peter deny Jesus? You could say that he was fearful of being persecuted and put to death like Jesus, even as most of the other disciples have fled when Jesus was arrested. You could also say that he was courageous only enough to follow Jesus to Caiaphas, but not brave enough to admit to his enemies that he was a disciple of Jesus of Gailee. Or you could thicken your skin and say that Peter was smart enough not to readily admit his association with Jesus for he has a mission to spread the Good News after Jesus' acension to Heaven.
Many of us, including me, would have done the same thing that Peter did in face of grave danger. How many of us are willing to die for a cause or a religion? Even though God calls us to be willing to suffer and die for him, for Truth, for Salvation.
Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. Matt. 5:11-12
Besides remembering the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ today, may we, as Christians, have the strength to be steadfast in our Faith and to spread the word of God when we encounter flasehoods or when we are challenged. May we have the courage to tell others that Jesus came and died for them!
For Remembrance of Lord Jesus Christ and enjoy the long weekend! =)
Friday, March 26, 2010
Kings Of Convenience: Rule My World
A beautiful song and meaningful lyrics
You set yourself above
That all forgiving god
You claim that you believe in
Your kind is gonna fall
Your ship is sinking fast
And all your able men are leaving
Only someone
Who's morally
Superior can possibly
And honestly deserve
To rule my world
I talk before I think
You shoot before you know
Who's in your line of fire
So somehow we're the same
We're causing people pain
But I stand and take the blame
You scramble to the night
Only someone
Who's morally
Superior can possibly
And honestly deserve
Only someone
Who's morally
Superior can possibly
And honestly deserve
To rule my world (10x)
Explain me one more time
When they kill it's a crime
When you kill it is justice
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
A Bleak Take of the Court of Appeal and Yong Vui Kong
The Court of Appeal has reserved its judgment after hearing arguments from Yong's lawyer M Ravi and the Attorney-General, Walter Woon. While Ravi's argument was based on the claim that the mandatory death penalty was unconstitutional as it strips the judges' judicial discretionary, Woon made it clear that the mandatory death penalty, regardless of its international non-practice, was constitutional and not whether it was desirable or not. Singapore is one of the fourteen countries that has the mandatory death penalty.
In fact, the key debate for the judges would be whether the courts have the authority to rewrite the Misuse of Drugs Act - which apparently they do not. The mission of the courts is essentially to carry out justice as laid down by the legislation/laws which is written by the parliament. As Woon argued, "the removal of the mandatory death penalty is a political issue rather than a legal one, its retention or otherwise was a matter for Parliament to decide." It appears that the judges' hands are tied and sparing Yong from the gallows would also mean that he is innocent of drug trafficking and would be a free man, there is simply no lesser punishment for drug trafficking in the Misuse of Drugs Act - such is the tyranny of the law. If the judges decide to acquit Yong, one can be sure of a clash between the legislature and judiciary arms.
While it is a noble cause to argue for the abolishment of the mandatory death penalty, and Yong's case would be a best example to demonstrate how cruel and indiscriminate the mandatory death penalty can be, the courts doesn't seem to be the place to effect some change. At the end of the day, what is needed is politicians to bring up the debate in parliament as civil society can only create the 'noise' and awareness but not change the legislation which judges are bounded by. Until then, it saddens me as I realise that Yong would likely be just another example.
TOC Articles
M Ravi: Death penalty should not be dispensed ‘in an automated, robotic, spasmodic approach'
Discretion to the judges – judgment reserved
Judges reserve judgement in Yong’s mandatory death penalty appeal
Jacob George's Blog
Singapore’s Court of Appeal reserves judgment in Vui Kong’s appeal hearing
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Anti-Death Penalty in Spore
Yong Vui Kong's appeal is going before the Court of Appeal this March. It seems that Singapore cyberspace is pretty much silent on the issue except for The Online Citizen who have continued their coverage on the death penalty debate with some very thought-provoking articles. In my must-read list would be TOC's interview with Prof Michael Hor of NUS Law School and Law Society's President Michael Hwang's address in 2008.
These two legal heavyweights have brought up many interesting points in the death penalty debate, and specifically the debate on the mandatory death penalty in Singapore. I have said earlier that I would support a movement that removes the mandatory death penalty and I hope with this case and the coverage by TOC, the government would entertain the thought of a public debate on the issue.
Michael Hwang puts it most eloquently in his address to Law Society in 2008, "The extent to which an offender ought to be punished cannot be determined solely by the need to stamp out future repetitions of the same offence; there is a moral limit to the law’s power to make an offender an example for others to fear." It resonates as I read it because I can imagine someone receiving a heavier sentence as a deterrence but I cannot fathom a person dying to act as a deterrence; not to mention the many petty drug traffickers.
Michael Hor, on the other hand, points out succinctly the problematic mandatory death penalty:
Perhaps the most prominent aspect of a mandatory death penalty is the absence of a judicial discretion in relation to the most extraordinary sentence in our criminal law. The judge trying the case can only determine guilt or innocence, and once that is done, the death penalty automatically follows. This goes against the grain of modern penological thinking that the punishment ought to fit not only the crime, but the criminal. It means that the judge should have the power and the duty to take into account the personal circumstances of the offender.
But Michael Hor was also quick to point out that in Singapore's case, the prosecution and police does mitigate the eventual punishment meted out to offenders in terms of going for a reduced charge. But like Hor, I agree that there is no harm in also allowing the judge to be part of this mitigation process and in fact, it might provide greater transparency and oversight to the criminal law process in Singapore.
In tandem with the mandatory death penalty and the absence of discretion on the part of judges' sentencing, the legal process under the Misuse of Drugs Act contains presumptions which shifts the burden of proof to the accused. Hence, he is not granted the principle of innocence until proven guilty. He has to prove that he either did not know he was carrying drugs - failure to do so will, in the current system, most probably result in sentencing him to the gallows.
An eye for an eye, but Jesus shed his blood on the Cross at Calvary just so we can have a chance to repent.
These two legal heavyweights have brought up many interesting points in the death penalty debate, and specifically the debate on the mandatory death penalty in Singapore. I have said earlier that I would support a movement that removes the mandatory death penalty and I hope with this case and the coverage by TOC, the government would entertain the thought of a public debate on the issue.
Michael Hwang puts it most eloquently in his address to Law Society in 2008, "The extent to which an offender ought to be punished cannot be determined solely by the need to stamp out future repetitions of the same offence; there is a moral limit to the law’s power to make an offender an example for others to fear." It resonates as I read it because I can imagine someone receiving a heavier sentence as a deterrence but I cannot fathom a person dying to act as a deterrence; not to mention the many petty drug traffickers.
Michael Hor, on the other hand, points out succinctly the problematic mandatory death penalty:
Perhaps the most prominent aspect of a mandatory death penalty is the absence of a judicial discretion in relation to the most extraordinary sentence in our criminal law. The judge trying the case can only determine guilt or innocence, and once that is done, the death penalty automatically follows. This goes against the grain of modern penological thinking that the punishment ought to fit not only the crime, but the criminal. It means that the judge should have the power and the duty to take into account the personal circumstances of the offender.
But Michael Hor was also quick to point out that in Singapore's case, the prosecution and police does mitigate the eventual punishment meted out to offenders in terms of going for a reduced charge. But like Hor, I agree that there is no harm in also allowing the judge to be part of this mitigation process and in fact, it might provide greater transparency and oversight to the criminal law process in Singapore.
In tandem with the mandatory death penalty and the absence of discretion on the part of judges' sentencing, the legal process under the Misuse of Drugs Act contains presumptions which shifts the burden of proof to the accused. Hence, he is not granted the principle of innocence until proven guilty. He has to prove that he either did not know he was carrying drugs - failure to do so will, in the current system, most probably result in sentencing him to the gallows.
An eye for an eye, but Jesus shed his blood on the Cross at Calvary just so we can have a chance to repent.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Of Rony, GLBTs and Police
The second wave of criticisms against Rony Tan by the GLBT groups have somewhat abated but not completely dissipated. Thus far, we have perhaps seen the most vocal of both sides - an uneducated sermon on GLBT by Rony Tan has elicited a group of concerned individuals, numbering 85, to lodge a police report against Rony Tan. The group of concerned individuals were hoping for an apology from Rony Tan and, in the words of prominent director, Sun Koh, "send a message that gays and lesbians in Singapore will no longer stay silent when provoked by religious groups that actively promote disinformation.”
Before I write about how I, as a Christian, view homosexuality, let's just say that a police report against someone will hardly get the same person to apologise. A defensive stance is only a natural response. Wonder if anyone from the GLBT community sent a measured but strong-worded response to Rony Tan to dispel some of the ridiculous statements that he has made, just like what the NUS Buddhist Society had done earlier. Rony Tan can apologise all he wants, but it doesn't make a difference if he doesn't LEARN. There can thousands of police reports, but enforcement and punitive measures were never enlightened ways to educate the other.
http://www.nusbs.org.sg/blog/?p=774
With regards to Sun Koh's rallying cry that gay and lesbians WILL NO LONGER stay silent when provoked by religious groups, I will just like to say that we have seen during AWARE saga that they can have a voice in civil society too. Mistake me not, I am not a fan of the hijacking a secular organisation but neither am I a fan of portraying oneself as constantly being under seige. Vindictive actions, such a police reports, would only further polarise the Christian and GLBT communities with every action and reaction etched in common consciousness of each group.
For the Christian community, it has a mission to propogate and educate its flock on the right standards of moral behaviour, and this includes promoting the typical man-woman union. While doing so, we should not denigrate other religions or the sexual minority. Religious communities, as part of civil society, non-state opinion makers, would expect their message to spread to the wider public. While we argue with reason and maturity, we hope that others can share our point of view, if not, at least tolerate us, just as I would urge Christians to tolerate others.
In terms of arguing for the stay or abolishment of Section 377A, while some churches would like it to stay, I believe that it has no consequence whatsoever since it is not being used and politicians have assured that it will not be used to persecute the GLBTs. Would less people become GLBT due to the existence of such a law? I doubt it. Is it a Peanuts Linus' security blanket for the conservatives, regardless of religions? Perhaps. Maybe it's going to stay to placate both sides, an uncomfortable, bumpy, middle ground.
As Christians, the first lesson we were often taught were Adam and Eve, man and woman created by God, prone to sins and temptations. GLBTs were always the group that we Christians were mixed, confused and often ignorant about, unless one were to have close family/friends who were GLBT. It easy to label the sinner and cast the first stone, it's harder, and definitely more emotional draining, to understand, counsel and share. Perhaps, we must first understand that we might never share the good news with all GLBT, just as not every heterosexual person might be receptive to The Bible, but that shouldn't stop us from respecting their wishes just be around when they need us. And, I can't emphasis enough these days to share with respect and sensitivity. But ultimately, let us revisit the scriptures to see that there is enough of the blood and body of Jesus Christ to share with everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17
Before I write about how I, as a Christian, view homosexuality, let's just say that a police report against someone will hardly get the same person to apologise. A defensive stance is only a natural response. Wonder if anyone from the GLBT community sent a measured but strong-worded response to Rony Tan to dispel some of the ridiculous statements that he has made, just like what the NUS Buddhist Society had done earlier. Rony Tan can apologise all he wants, but it doesn't make a difference if he doesn't LEARN. There can thousands of police reports, but enforcement and punitive measures were never enlightened ways to educate the other.
http://www.nusbs.org.sg/blog/?p=774
With regards to Sun Koh's rallying cry that gay and lesbians WILL NO LONGER stay silent when provoked by religious groups, I will just like to say that we have seen during AWARE saga that they can have a voice in civil society too. Mistake me not, I am not a fan of the hijacking a secular organisation but neither am I a fan of portraying oneself as constantly being under seige. Vindictive actions, such a police reports, would only further polarise the Christian and GLBT communities with every action and reaction etched in common consciousness of each group.
For the Christian community, it has a mission to propogate and educate its flock on the right standards of moral behaviour, and this includes promoting the typical man-woman union. While doing so, we should not denigrate other religions or the sexual minority. Religious communities, as part of civil society, non-state opinion makers, would expect their message to spread to the wider public. While we argue with reason and maturity, we hope that others can share our point of view, if not, at least tolerate us, just as I would urge Christians to tolerate others.
In terms of arguing for the stay or abolishment of Section 377A, while some churches would like it to stay, I believe that it has no consequence whatsoever since it is not being used and politicians have assured that it will not be used to persecute the GLBTs. Would less people become GLBT due to the existence of such a law? I doubt it. Is it a Peanuts Linus' security blanket for the conservatives, regardless of religions? Perhaps. Maybe it's going to stay to placate both sides, an uncomfortable, bumpy, middle ground.
As Christians, the first lesson we were often taught were Adam and Eve, man and woman created by God, prone to sins and temptations. GLBTs were always the group that we Christians were mixed, confused and often ignorant about, unless one were to have close family/friends who were GLBT. It easy to label the sinner and cast the first stone, it's harder, and definitely more emotional draining, to understand, counsel and share. Perhaps, we must first understand that we might never share the good news with all GLBT, just as not every heterosexual person might be receptive to The Bible, but that shouldn't stop us from respecting their wishes just be around when they need us. And, I can't emphasis enough these days to share with respect and sensitivity. But ultimately, let us revisit the scriptures to see that there is enough of the blood and body of Jesus Christ to share with everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Rony Tan saga and what it means for Christians (Part II)
There are so many articles out there talking about Rony Tan that I feel almost guilty writing about it because it will most probably be plagiarism. But, there are still a couple more things to say:
i) Some might see Christianity as an arrogant religion and Christians as people who condemns non-believers. This is not true, most Christians accept non-believers and when we can we share the good news with care and respect. We don't shove it down your throat or force you to convert your parents, break up the family etc etc.
ii) Many Christians are flabbergasted and ashamed by Rony Tan's antics. Not all Christian churches preach in that manner. In fact, this is a good opportunity for the moderate Christians to voice out and argue that the Christian community is increasingly inward-looking and it is time for us to engage other religions and civil society in a frank, candid and mature dialogue. This will be a positive step for Singapore society and Christianity.
iii) It is time for NCCS to take a more pro-active role in regulating churches. If not in an official manner, then at least as an influence. With so many churches under its umbrella, it can set the tone and prevent such incidents in the future. It should also be a public face and voice to the majority moderate Christians in Singapore.
iv) We should work towards a community that self-regulates and not one that depends on, or is sub-consciously fearful, of the strong arm of the state. A strong enforcement agency and punitive measures would only restrict the growth of a intelligent, sensitive and respectful Christian community and retard the development of genuine inter-faith dialogue beyond the government orchestrated pleasantries.
http://kentridgecommon.com/?p=6275
Read this to understand Buddhism - not the Rony Tan show.
http://kentridgecommon.com/?p=6261
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/it-has-only-just-begun/
Read these articles to understand why we should forgive, and most importantly, learn our lesson, and thank those who forgive us so that we can really move towards a frank inter-faith dialogue. Also, why citizens shouldn't be too quick to call for arrest and punitive action.
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/take-a-stand-for-moderation-liberty-and-genuine-understanding/
Read this to understand a moderate take on the issue and why we should work towards a robust self-regulating community rather than one dependent on a strong hand of the government.
http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2010/02/pastor-tan-fallout.html
Read this for the views of a esteemed monk and the state of inter-faith dialogue in Singapore.
http://singaporelifetimes.blogspot.com/2010/02/flogging-dead-horse.html
Read this for how cyberspace is sick of Rony Tan. ;p
i) Some might see Christianity as an arrogant religion and Christians as people who condemns non-believers. This is not true, most Christians accept non-believers and when we can we share the good news with care and respect. We don't shove it down your throat or force you to convert your parents, break up the family etc etc.
ii) Many Christians are flabbergasted and ashamed by Rony Tan's antics. Not all Christian churches preach in that manner. In fact, this is a good opportunity for the moderate Christians to voice out and argue that the Christian community is increasingly inward-looking and it is time for us to engage other religions and civil society in a frank, candid and mature dialogue. This will be a positive step for Singapore society and Christianity.
iii) It is time for NCCS to take a more pro-active role in regulating churches. If not in an official manner, then at least as an influence. With so many churches under its umbrella, it can set the tone and prevent such incidents in the future. It should also be a public face and voice to the majority moderate Christians in Singapore.
iv) We should work towards a community that self-regulates and not one that depends on, or is sub-consciously fearful, of the strong arm of the state. A strong enforcement agency and punitive measures would only restrict the growth of a intelligent, sensitive and respectful Christian community and retard the development of genuine inter-faith dialogue beyond the government orchestrated pleasantries.
http://kentridgecommon.com/?p=6275
Read this to understand Buddhism - not the Rony Tan show.
http://kentridgecommon.com/?p=6261
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/it-has-only-just-begun/
Read these articles to understand why we should forgive, and most importantly, learn our lesson, and thank those who forgive us so that we can really move towards a frank inter-faith dialogue. Also, why citizens shouldn't be too quick to call for arrest and punitive action.
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/take-a-stand-for-moderation-liberty-and-genuine-understanding/
Read this to understand a moderate take on the issue and why we should work towards a robust self-regulating community rather than one dependent on a strong hand of the government.
http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2010/02/pastor-tan-fallout.html
Read this for the views of a esteemed monk and the state of inter-faith dialogue in Singapore.
http://singaporelifetimes.blogspot.com/2010/02/flogging-dead-horse.html
Read this for how cyberspace is sick of Rony Tan. ;p
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Rony Tan saga and what it means for Christians
I asked a much older friend, "Why are people still calling for more blood after Rony Tan has apologised, seek forgiveness from Buddhist n Taoist Federation, and basically lose his credibility as a church leader?" The friend replied, because you young people take our inter-religious peace for granted and you dun know the consequence or sensitiivity of a religious leader being charged in open court by govt, moreover the Buddhist and Taoist chiefs have forgiven him...either that or they have benefits outta religious tensions, like arms manufacturers from wars.
In any case, once 'touched' by ISD, you're marked for life, that's what we know during our time, he said. He added with a chuckle that things shouldn't have changed much since we haven't had a change of government since independence when the intelligence department was already very much into politics. A wink he added - means what?? Am I suppose to fear them? haha I only fear God.
By calling for more punishments for Rony and posting the videos of the sermons, we are aggravating the situation as the nameless public or even foreigners might take take this on another spin or see it as an opportunity to further strain the tenuous social fabric. Don't be mistaken, it's very wrong to run the other religion down just to glorify our own. In fact, it is rather distasteful, like bad mouthing about your neighbours and relatives behind closed doors.
But, Christians, instead of feeling remorseful or embarrassed, we should see this as an opening to push forth the need of frank dialogue between the different religions. Yes, we should share part of Rony's blame because we carry the cross too but we shouldn't go into hiding as this is a good chance to share about what Christianity is about - forgiveness and repentance and salvation. We can makan together with individuals of other faiths but do we really know the philosophy behind other religions. If we don't know, how can we fulfill God's and his son's mission to spread the good word?
Like many of you, with the Bible close to my heart and Jesus in my thoughts, I know I hardly need to look further to find the answers. But I too studied Buddhist philosophy, in fact, it is quite an interesting philosophy and it has many similarities like turning the other cheek and de-emphasizing materialism. Sure, you might not agree with the Karma part, but don't run it down and learn to appreciate the other finer parts of Buddhism as a way of life.
Alright, I will write more when I have time, meanwhile I really need to move that mop and broom for spring cleaning. =)
In any case, once 'touched' by ISD, you're marked for life, that's what we know during our time, he said. He added with a chuckle that things shouldn't have changed much since we haven't had a change of government since independence when the intelligence department was already very much into politics. A wink he added - means what?? Am I suppose to fear them? haha I only fear God.
By calling for more punishments for Rony and posting the videos of the sermons, we are aggravating the situation as the nameless public or even foreigners might take take this on another spin or see it as an opportunity to further strain the tenuous social fabric. Don't be mistaken, it's very wrong to run the other religion down just to glorify our own. In fact, it is rather distasteful, like bad mouthing about your neighbours and relatives behind closed doors.
But, Christians, instead of feeling remorseful or embarrassed, we should see this as an opening to push forth the need of frank dialogue between the different religions. Yes, we should share part of Rony's blame because we carry the cross too but we shouldn't go into hiding as this is a good chance to share about what Christianity is about - forgiveness and repentance and salvation. We can makan together with individuals of other faiths but do we really know the philosophy behind other religions. If we don't know, how can we fulfill God's and his son's mission to spread the good word?
Like many of you, with the Bible close to my heart and Jesus in my thoughts, I know I hardly need to look further to find the answers. But I too studied Buddhist philosophy, in fact, it is quite an interesting philosophy and it has many similarities like turning the other cheek and de-emphasizing materialism. Sure, you might not agree with the Karma part, but don't run it down and learn to appreciate the other finer parts of Buddhism as a way of life.
Alright, I will write more when I have time, meanwhile I really need to move that mop and broom for spring cleaning. =)
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Campaigning a cause on TV
This caught my eye. The Canadian government has allowed a church group to run a pro-life, anti-abortion advertisment titled, "Everyone Against Abortion, Please Raise Your Hand”, on a local TV channel. The video shows an adult hand clutching a hand that belongs to an aborted baby...the message is strong...a life has been truncated when there were many alternative choices.
Would it be possible to buy media advertisment space for a religious cause in Singapore? Afterall, we only have one official media station/company and their declared interests are that of national interests. It would be tricky. Would the financial might of the various stakeholders/camps be crucial in deciding whose views gets publicise more? Or who gets more supporters? It is also interesting that Focus on the Family have had their "advertisements" publicised in the TODAY newspapers several times (but I guess not explicitly stating their stance on issues).
At the end of day, are advertisments strong enough to sway one's moral viewpoints? Or is it a matter of getting people aware of certain issues and presenting a counter argument? Would we be mature enough to take such a debate public? Obviously, in the West, they have been thru a long process of civil activism, they have debated/protested long and hard over sensitive issues and they numerous TV channels where different camps and promote their cause. But, I am of the view that, even if we do it differently here, it is crucial to get our stance and opinions in public.
In our current society where moral standards and values seemed to be a constant flux, it seems inextricably difficult to get good positive message across. And I guess one way we can reach out to people is thru the channels where we can find them, i.e. TV, Internet, Facebook, Blogs etc. If we don't, the battle is only ours to lose. In our small ways, we can be the salt and light of the Lord.
===================================================================
Canadian group airing pro-life ad on local TV station
Kelowna Right to Life is running a pro-life video ad entitled “Everyone Against Abortion, Please Raise Your Hand” on the local TV station, CHBC, starting today, reports LifeSiteNews.com.
The ad features what the local media is calling a "graphic anti-abortion image" of adult fingers holding the outstretched hand of a baby killed by abortion.
"This is the hand of a child that was aborted," the ad says, "Let us mourn for these children. May our hearts be broken enough for God to enter and stir us to action to defend their lives."
Kelowna Right to Life executive director Marlon Bartram said the airing of the advertisement, which was created by Priests for Life in New York, will likely mark the first time a body part from an aborted child has been shown on television in Canada.
"I am sure there will be people saying that the ads should not be allowed to be run on TV," he told LSN, saying "there is nothing the pro-abortion side would like better than to prevent people from seeing these ads."
However, CHBC's new director, Derek Hinchliffe, told The Province that the ad has been approved by the Television Bureau of Canada. "It has met with their approval, so if we were to say, ‘No, we're not going to run it,’ we would have been offensive," he said.
Bartram said he hopes the ad will show the truth about abortion and encourage people to react in the same manner as people have reacted to the disturbing images of the Haitian earthquake aftermath .
"This is similar to what has been happening since the earthquake in Haiti two weeks ago," Bartram said in a Kelowna News report. "We've been bombarded with images, very real images of what's been happening there. It's hard to look at, but it's important to get the truth out there so we can react appropriately."
Bartram told LSN that the "Raise Your Hand” ad is one of several the group is funding that are aired in rotation and will be broadcast for as long as Kelowna Right to Life has the funds to pay the fees.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
"Jesus Rifles" get the boot
Dubbed the "Jesus rifles", in what was a very embarassing episode for the US military, US gunsight maker Trijicon have decided to stop inscribing biblical references onto gunsights used by US soldiers - who are coincidentally also deployed in Irqa and Afghanistan. To make it worse, these weapons are used to train Muslim Iraqi and Afghan security forces and perhaps later supplied to them. The fear is that this fuels the notion that USA and its allies are waging a religious war against the Muslim world. Even if there was no official "religious war", religious insensitivity can spark off anger (lots of it) and perhaps in this case even lose a war. Check out this post for examples of insensitvities in America war against terror, it's appaling.
There is no biblical text on the sights, only numerical references to passages. The Bible references carry the common theme of Jesus being the light of the world. One, JN8:12 – chapter eight, verse 12 in the Book of John – reads: "When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, 'I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.'" The other inscription is from the Second Corinthians, which reads: "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."
A Church of England spokesman best sums up the episode, "People of all faiths and none are being killed and injured in these conflicts, on all sides, and any suggestion that this is being done in the name of the Bible would be deeply worrying to many Christians. The meaning of the Bible is to be found in reflective reading and prayer, not in sloganising and soundbites."
For us, it is important that we keep our public instituitions secular. It would be disastrous to be carrying out our military/police training in the name of a religion, or even appear to carry out in the name of any religion. Any troop tainted with any hint of favouring any religion would not be able to enforce law and order in our multi-ethnic society. Too much baggage and suspicions. But have we found the balance between secularism and the rights to practice one's religion? Are these two always a dichotomy and in conflict? Is secularism oppressive? Would it be ok for a soldier to inscribed his own weapon?
Monday, January 11, 2010
The tension rises over use of "Allah"
The tensions have increased since I last blog about this issue with the burning and attempted arson of churches in Malaysia. Evidently, this is not doing any good for Singapore as we are geographically and ethnically intertwined, like how the troubles spilled over in the 1960s. But I am glad that we have managed to stay out of the troubles up north, which, in my opinion, may have more links to politics and racial bigotry. Singapore is obviously more edgy about our Doraemon figures not having the Chinese Zodiac Pig to complete the Lunar New Year celebratory from MacD. It might also be the fact that we have been conditioned over the decades that a multi-racial-religious society can only stay cordial and integrate when religion is kept separate from politics. Afterall, an explosion is only expected when a spark meets with petrol.
Perhaps it is times like this that I am glad we have separated from Malaysia...not because they're a less developed country but because they have chosen to organise their politics along racial lines, and inevitably religious lines as well. In fact, most other times, I think I might be happier there with a slower pace of life and cheaper cost of living. Combustible is the word to describe the racial-religious politics in Malaysia and increasingly so since Barisan Nasional/UMNO less than authoritative showing in the 2006 general elections. Even the mainstay of past decades, the New Economic Policy and affirmative action for Malays, are being debated by UMNO themselves.
One can only wonder why the Malaysian leaders allow the "Allah" saga to see the light of the courts and the media. Not that I am anti-liberty, or anti-freedom of press, but such sensitive issues should be thoroughly discussed or amicably settled between the various religious leaders and government before it is released to public and spun mercilessly by negative elements with the masses aroused. With a cauldron of oil one only needs a spark to start a fire. Maybe the various religious leaders up north don't have tea together regularly. Can have teh tarik and kueh kueh this week, then next week we have chinese tea and vegetarian snacks?! Ease up dude...I will pray for peace and understanding.
Perhaps it is times like this that I am glad we have separated from Malaysia...not because they're a less developed country but because they have chosen to organise their politics along racial lines, and inevitably religious lines as well. In fact, most other times, I think I might be happier there with a slower pace of life and cheaper cost of living. Combustible is the word to describe the racial-religious politics in Malaysia and increasingly so since Barisan Nasional/UMNO less than authoritative showing in the 2006 general elections. Even the mainstay of past decades, the New Economic Policy and affirmative action for Malays, are being debated by UMNO themselves.
One can only wonder why the Malaysian leaders allow the "Allah" saga to see the light of the courts and the media. Not that I am anti-liberty, or anti-freedom of press, but such sensitive issues should be thoroughly discussed or amicably settled between the various religious leaders and government before it is released to public and spun mercilessly by negative elements with the masses aroused. With a cauldron of oil one only needs a spark to start a fire. Maybe the various religious leaders up north don't have tea together regularly. Can have teh tarik and kueh kueh this week, then next week we have chinese tea and vegetarian snacks?! Ease up dude...I will pray for peace and understanding.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
The use of "Allah" in Malaysia
A Malaysian’s High Court ruling to allow the use of “Allah”, to mean Christian God, in the Malay language version of the Catholic newsletter, The Herald, has ignited the Malaysian cyberspace as various camps began to take sides. There is a Facebook group against the High Court ruling that has more than 66,000 members! Here are some of the latest news but just search “Malaysia+Allah” and boy…
http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsgeneral.php?id=466416
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/asia/malaysia/2010/01/05/239372/Malaysia-Allah.htm
http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=1148778&lang=eng_news
The Malay version of The Herald reaches out to Malay speaking Catholics in Sabah and Sarawak and it has long and widely been used by them to denote the Christian God. Even the High Court judge acknowledged this when she ruled that it was the constitutional right of the non-Muslims, such as Catholics, to use “Allah” when communicating with their believers but it not right to use the same word when trying to preach to Muslims. Personally, I agree with the judge as the Malay speaking Catholics might not have a more apt word…although some have pointed out that the correct Malay word for God is Tuhan as Allah is Arabic. Admittedly, Tuhan is infrequently used and the Arabic speaking Christians in the Middle East have been (and still) using Allah to refer to their God. Furthermore, the Malaysian judge has ruled that “Allah” shouldn’t be used for preaching to Muslims which is adequate and fair in a multi-religious society and protects Muslims from aggressive preaching. (It’s like treating the common man on the street (not only Muslims) as an naïve innocent child and can be easily confused …I mean Malaysians (and Singaporeans) are better than that.) At the end of the day, what speaks of a man who sways easily from one religion to another just with different groups of people using the same word, Allah?!!? And what good is it for the believers which eventually claim ownership over “Allah”?? It strains inter-religious ties more than anything else…
Now the courts have passed a stay on the old ruling, i.e. a ban on the use of “Allah” by non-Muslims, until the case is presented before the Court of Appeals, the country’s highest court. Not surprisingly, the issue is being increasingly politicized and various political camps have begun to take sides. PAS, the conservative Islamic party of Malaysia, has shockingly said that the use of “Allah” by Abrahamic faiths is okay, one would have expected to take the more hardline approach by claiming the use “Allah” for only the Malay-Muslim ground. However, PAS’ move is not as shocking if you consider the fact that their main rival the ruling UMNO government is the plaintiff of this case against the Catholic Church. UMNO, the long-time defender of Malay rights, have lost much of their support as evident in the 2006 Malaysian elections and are now seeking to be purer than pure. Even the Mahathir family is split with Marina Mahathir commenting that Muslims should be confident that they will not be easily confused by a name while her brother, Mukhriz, believes that the “Allah” belongs solely to Muslims in Malaysia. Note that the brother is a senior UMNO member and Deputy Trade Minister while Marina is a known social activist.
The usually combative UMNO Youth Chief, Khairy Jamaluddin, has sensibly called for a dialogue between the Fatwa Council and Catholic Church to solve the quagmire with the obvious vision that an open court battle and inflammatory elements/comments/speeches would do no good for the multi-racial, multi-religious society. It would serve to create more suspicions among the different faiths when bridges are needed more than ever these days. Honestly, in my opinion, what good does it do for the side that wins? Do they appear to be holier in front of their community? Does it prevent their believers from converting to Christianity or vice versa? How much is the issue now cloaked with political mileage with too much stakes embedded? Or is it that people in a multi-ethnic society/geopolitical region have a tendency to claim territory, cultural heritage, words etc?? Like the recent who owns laksa, chilli crab etc mini-saga?? =)
AND HOW COMES NO ONES FIGHTING OVER WHO OWNS “LAH”?? I mean almost every ethnic group uses "lah" in Malaysia and Singapore right? Come lah, challenge lah…according to Wikipedia ‘lah’ might come from Tamil and here we using it like crazy…Tamils should fight back for ‘lah’. Haha. Or we should simply be nice and tolerant and share what we can. Below is from wikepedia:
The "Lah" word
The ubiquitous word lah (/lɑ́/ or /lɑ̂/), used at the end of a sentence, can also be described as a particle that simultaneously asserts a position and entices solidarity.
Note that 'lah' is often written after a comma for clarity, but there is never a pause before it. This is because in the original Malay, 'lah' is appended to the end of the word and is not a separate word by itself.
In Malay, 'lah' is used to change a verb into a command or to soften its tone, particularly when usage of the verb may seem impolite. For example, "to drink" is "minum", but "Here, drink!" is "minumlah". Similarly, 'lah' is frequently used with imperatives in Singlish, such as the command, "Drink, lah!" (Come on, drink!). 'Lah' also occurs frequently with "Yah" and "No" (hence "Yah lah" and "No lah"), resulting in a less brusque sound, thus facilitating the flow of conversation. This form is more used by Chinese in Malaysia.
Most of the Manglish grammar described here is of Chinese origin since Malays do not converse in English daily, while the Indians use a different form of Manglish. The Chinese influence in Manglish, however, can be seen among other races in Malaysia, especially when conversing with Chinese-speaking people. This principle can be generally applied to all forms of non-standard English spoken in Malaysia.
It might have Tamil origin. Lah is still used widely in Southern Tamilnadu (Thirunelveli, Kanyakumari district) in the same manner. Tamil is said to be more pure in this region than northern Tamilnadu and had ancient trade link with south east Asia.
http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsgeneral.php?id=466416
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/asia/malaysia/2010/01/05/239372/Malaysia-Allah.htm
http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=1148778&lang=eng_news
The Malay version of The Herald reaches out to Malay speaking Catholics in Sabah and Sarawak and it has long and widely been used by them to denote the Christian God. Even the High Court judge acknowledged this when she ruled that it was the constitutional right of the non-Muslims, such as Catholics, to use “Allah” when communicating with their believers but it not right to use the same word when trying to preach to Muslims. Personally, I agree with the judge as the Malay speaking Catholics might not have a more apt word…although some have pointed out that the correct Malay word for God is Tuhan as Allah is Arabic. Admittedly, Tuhan is infrequently used and the Arabic speaking Christians in the Middle East have been (and still) using Allah to refer to their God. Furthermore, the Malaysian judge has ruled that “Allah” shouldn’t be used for preaching to Muslims which is adequate and fair in a multi-religious society and protects Muslims from aggressive preaching. (It’s like treating the common man on the street (not only Muslims) as an naïve innocent child and can be easily confused …I mean Malaysians (and Singaporeans) are better than that.) At the end of the day, what speaks of a man who sways easily from one religion to another just with different groups of people using the same word, Allah?!!? And what good is it for the believers which eventually claim ownership over “Allah”?? It strains inter-religious ties more than anything else…
Now the courts have passed a stay on the old ruling, i.e. a ban on the use of “Allah” by non-Muslims, until the case is presented before the Court of Appeals, the country’s highest court. Not surprisingly, the issue is being increasingly politicized and various political camps have begun to take sides. PAS, the conservative Islamic party of Malaysia, has shockingly said that the use of “Allah” by Abrahamic faiths is okay, one would have expected to take the more hardline approach by claiming the use “Allah” for only the Malay-Muslim ground. However, PAS’ move is not as shocking if you consider the fact that their main rival the ruling UMNO government is the plaintiff of this case against the Catholic Church. UMNO, the long-time defender of Malay rights, have lost much of their support as evident in the 2006 Malaysian elections and are now seeking to be purer than pure. Even the Mahathir family is split with Marina Mahathir commenting that Muslims should be confident that they will not be easily confused by a name while her brother, Mukhriz, believes that the “Allah” belongs solely to Muslims in Malaysia. Note that the brother is a senior UMNO member and Deputy Trade Minister while Marina is a known social activist.
The usually combative UMNO Youth Chief, Khairy Jamaluddin, has sensibly called for a dialogue between the Fatwa Council and Catholic Church to solve the quagmire with the obvious vision that an open court battle and inflammatory elements/comments/speeches would do no good for the multi-racial, multi-religious society. It would serve to create more suspicions among the different faiths when bridges are needed more than ever these days. Honestly, in my opinion, what good does it do for the side that wins? Do they appear to be holier in front of their community? Does it prevent their believers from converting to Christianity or vice versa? How much is the issue now cloaked with political mileage with too much stakes embedded? Or is it that people in a multi-ethnic society/geopolitical region have a tendency to claim territory, cultural heritage, words etc?? Like the recent who owns laksa, chilli crab etc mini-saga?? =)
AND HOW COMES NO ONES FIGHTING OVER WHO OWNS “LAH”?? I mean almost every ethnic group uses "lah" in Malaysia and Singapore right? Come lah, challenge lah…according to Wikipedia ‘lah’ might come from Tamil and here we using it like crazy…Tamils should fight back for ‘lah’. Haha. Or we should simply be nice and tolerant and share what we can. Below is from wikepedia:
The "Lah" word
The ubiquitous word lah (/lɑ́/ or /lɑ̂/), used at the end of a sentence, can also be described as a particle that simultaneously asserts a position and entices solidarity.
Note that 'lah' is often written after a comma for clarity, but there is never a pause before it. This is because in the original Malay, 'lah' is appended to the end of the word and is not a separate word by itself.
In Malay, 'lah' is used to change a verb into a command or to soften its tone, particularly when usage of the verb may seem impolite. For example, "to drink" is "minum", but "Here, drink!" is "minumlah". Similarly, 'lah' is frequently used with imperatives in Singlish, such as the command, "Drink, lah!" (Come on, drink!). 'Lah' also occurs frequently with "Yah" and "No" (hence "Yah lah" and "No lah"), resulting in a less brusque sound, thus facilitating the flow of conversation. This form is more used by Chinese in Malaysia.
Most of the Manglish grammar described here is of Chinese origin since Malays do not converse in English daily, while the Indians use a different form of Manglish. The Chinese influence in Manglish, however, can be seen among other races in Malaysia, especially when conversing with Chinese-speaking people. This principle can be generally applied to all forms of non-standard English spoken in Malaysia.
It might have Tamil origin. Lah is still used widely in Southern Tamilnadu (Thirunelveli, Kanyakumari district) in the same manner. Tamil is said to be more pure in this region than northern Tamilnadu and had ancient trade link with south east Asia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
