Respect those outside traditional family I REFER to yesterday's report, 'Unite against alternative values, Anglicans urged'. Do people actually marry in the belief they will be divorced some years down the road? Who chooses deliberately to be a single mother? Who wants to be a homosexual and be vilified as an enemy of 'mainstream values'? For many divorcees, ending the marriage is the only way to continue to lead a fulfilling life. In many such cases, love and support from family members and friends are precisely what is needed to get them through difficult times. A single mother often needs the help of her extended family and friends to raise her children. Love for a child born out of wedlock is no less than that for one born within the 'classical' family structure. The gay man can be a filial son, a loving uncle, a steadfast friend, a doting godfather and an accommodating colleague. If there is to be any consensus on 'mainstream values', it must be built on respect, empathy, compassion and tolerance. The family should reflect such values and not be used to draw divisive lines. Harvey Neo http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_460985.htmlReligious leaders have the most obnoxious views when it comes to pre-judging people who are not from their group. People like John Chew frequently denigrates others who do not accept his own superstitious beliefs. What is remarkable is that while some Christian sects reject homosexuality as a sin against god,there are other Christian sects that actually ordains gay priests, and it's supposed to be the same god that they all worship!!! This just goes to show that the Christian religion is entirely based on interpretation of the mythical stories written in the bible, and has got nothing to do with the bible being a sacred or an inerrant book dictating what humans should be. It would be great if more Christians read the actual bible on their own, and not get their bible education from bigots like John Chew. Many people who left Christianity are actually ex-Christians who finally read the bible for themselves, and realised that the god that is actually described in the bible is actually a cruel and evil character, and is really not worthy of worship. I was really surprised that many of my more devout Christian friends do not know many of the horrible, cruel, and sexually audacious stories that is written in their own bible. It was very obvious to me that my devout Christian friends have been shielded by their church from knowing about the non-"mainstream" stories that is written down in their holy book.
Wednesday 2 December 2009
Anglican Church "Mainstream" Values
The following is a Straits Times Forum letter about some comments made by Dr John Chew from the Singapore Anglican Church and that was reported in the Straits Times. In the original ST article, it was reported that John Chew urged Anglicans to unite against single motherhood, homosexuality, and atheism, saying that these were non "mainstream" values. I am very pleased that Harvey Neo responded with such an eloquently written letter:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I love your blog! I wrote the letter you've cited, by the way. Keep up the writing, I've spent the past hour reading it and learnt much from your writings!
Hi Harvey. Thank you for your kind comments! I am very flattered. You've made my day!
I have also spent an hour reading through your blog, and am envious that you have travelled to so many places around the world. I am also a KFC fan, and I can give you a head's up to avoid the KFC if you are ever in Langenfeld or Aschaffenberg in Germany. The fried chicken is so dry that the moment you bite into the chicken, all saliva and moisture will be sucked out from your tongue in an instant :-) They were the worst KFC chicken I have ever eaten in my life.
Hi, it is completely unacceptable for Archbishop John Chew to denigrate 'alternatives'. At the same time, I'd like to point out when you polarise (eg. Christians = bad or ignorant; ex-Christians see the light), it is also rather unhelpful in creating a middle ground and consensus.
I'm sure you will now think I'm a Christian, but I'm not. I do just think if we don't draw battle lines, we can promote mutual understanding and acceptance much better. It is when people take positions, they find it difficult to let go then. :)
Hi Alan,
Thank you for your comment.
Actually, I am not seeking a middle ground consensus approach when it comes to unpleasant people like John Chew and his ilk.
These people draw their inspirations and moral guidance from a book of fables, instead of thinking rationally, and using tools like reason and science to make informed opinions and decisions. And the danger is that they want to foist their depraved morals upon secular people like myself, who have set ourselves a much higher standard of moral behaviour based on other humanist standards like respect, empathy, tolerance and compassion, instead of superstition and hatred of other people that the church is always fond of doing (see Pastor Rony Tan for another example).
As the Anglican Bishop of Singapore (as well as the Archbishop of the Anglican Church in South East Asia), what John Chew says is broadcast to a large segment of the population, where his "poisonous thinking" condemning "alternative people" can, and will, contaminate the minds of others into similar thinking.
What I write on my blog will be read by only a few people. Its impact is totally negligible, as compared to the mass-infection that John Chew spreads every Sunday when he gives a sermon. If more people are influenced by John Chew and his church that "SINNERS" (ie. homosexuals, unmarried mothers, etc) need to be condemned, not only by his church, but by society and its laws, I think that will be most unpleasant for people like myself who do not subscribe to his superstitious beliefs.
I am very glad that with the internet and the wider dissemination of information it provided, much of the core of Christianity's teachings have been shown to be unfactual, unreliable, untenable, and intellectually and morally impoverished, against better philosophies and moral thinking available in this modern day and age.
Although "softly softly" approaches that you advocate may have some validity, I am also of the opinion that a more "in your face" stance like mine has its place. Because John Chew has a much larger pulpit than me, I do not apologise for taking just as hard a line against him and his religion.
NJ
Post a Comment