Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Religion-ism: To what extent

The Singapore Parliament had recently convened in 2 sessions and after a heated debate, decided to repeal Section 377 but keep Section 377A. If Equality be applied as in the pledge, then surely it would have been repealed after the sessions. So why?

A simple word: Religion.

Yes, Religion is at the root of the problem. In our parliament, we have a disproportionate amount of a certain religion serving as Member's of Parliament. It might not be that serious if they knew how to think rationally and objectively, but the few black sheeps chose to colour Singapore through their monochromatic World views.

Just read NMP Thio Li-Ann full speech from the Online Citizen. Or grab the highlights from Molly. Or if you bought the Straits Times, the flip to the Home section where enough information is provided for the average reader. (Now this is one of the few days where we find real content in the papers) Btw, a point by point rebuttal of her arguments can be found here.

A quick glance into the 3rd paragraph of her speech and one would have gotten the idea that her entire argument is based on her beliefs and that she believes that her beliefs are the majority's too.

I implore people like her to wake up and remember the fact that your religion only comprises 14.6% of the local population. Dont try imposing all your beliefs onto the rest of the population. Doing so is threatening the fundamentals of our country: Justice, Happiness, Equality, Prosperity and Progress.

Things like this are what sparked the wars that Europe experienced in the past. The English Anglician Church fought the Roman Catholic Church; East Orthodox vs the Roman Catholic... it was not until the the rise of Monarchys and the decline of the Church's role to that of a spiritual one that Europe was able to progress from the Middle Ages to the Industrial Age. If ancient beliefs were to remain in Europe, I believe that the Holy Crusades would still be going on between Christianity and Islam in determining which is the true religion.

I can even give a more modern example: Osama bin Laden and George Bush. Both were religiously convicted men. Osama wanted death to the Americans for what he thought was a threat to his understanding of his religion. Bush wanted to spread democracy in the Middle East, but ultimately can the ME people trust a guy that read a bible twice over and caused so much slaughter between 2 factions of Islam, the Shia and Sunni?

Ultimately, no one should impose their ideals onto anyone, even if they are the majority. 50.1% and 49.9% should all be treated equally, desho?

Disclaimer: I am not critising any religion of particular in this post. Whats more important is why we should not impose on people our ideals based on only our own beliefs.

5 comments:

Onlooker said...

I agree with you. Good point.

Abao said...

thank you :D

Alan Wong said...

Lest we are willing to be hookwinked, I think the next time when someone use "majority" to put forward an argument, the next logical question to raise would be :-

What is the exact majority figure that you are talking and how do you arrive at this "majority" figure ?

Anonymous said...

erm. that religion is a progressive one. otherwise, men will all be wearing long hair today. what's interesting also is that it's democratic and i even dare say...liberal.

why? there is so much faith in that religion that there is no need to be a control freak.

that religion got a bad name because she was contaminated by scholarly minds.

the principle son wasn't even scholarly.

so...listen well, there is a new word out there.

it is definitely more palatable to the masses than the current corrupted teachings.

nevertheless, these common values exist even amongst those who profess no faith at all.

Abao said...

@Alan Wong
Yep, next time they should back things up with solid statistics. And the one done by ST where "8 in 10 disapprove of homosexuality" doesnt count as a honest survey.

@Anonymous
Whether that religion is liberal or democratic I dont know. What I do know is that their current representatives in Singapore doesnt seem to have any hint of liberism at all.