i just cannot do this.

It’s disturbing to see Christians push their religious agenda in organisations that should remain secular for good reasons. Reasons like inclusiveness and sensitivity. Like if a Taoist woman were to be repeatedly abused by her husband, she knows she can call a helpline without being lambasted for her religious beliefs. Or without being told that it is probably her fault and that her husband has the right to make her submit.

In this climate, I honestly find it hard to stake my (tentative) belief in God. I feel ashamed of these Christians. It is so much easier to remain agnostic.

I think if there is a God, He should understand the conflict some of us face. Like how can we take our place beside such people and still hold our heads high. How can you tell me to have faith in something that cannot directly intervene when terrible things are happening in my world? I could be like the father of the deaf and dumb son in Mark 9:24 who stood before Jesus and said: “Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief!”

But sometimes, religion really doesn’t make sense. I just want to crawl back to my hole where at least I have my familiar comforts like pluralism, logic, empiricism and reason. I just want to stand beside people who can tell me things that I would be able to believe in and concur with, not the things I cannot seriously believe. I want to see the things that can be justified by the laws of science and nature. I don’t want the unknown and unseen and unexplainable.

I’m sorry but can you take away your occult, I just want to keep my science.

Advertisements

12 responses to “i just cannot do this.

  1. agnostic ^5. (:
    and im still writing my religious rant on my blog….maybe will complete after exams…read it. think you will like it.

  2. you of little faith. You let some fumbling women mess with your head. Let not the actions of a few speak for the rest of the population.

    dv: where the hell’s your blog man?

  3. lol

    I find it really strange that people do not find it offensive to tell others if they have ‘little’ or ‘a lot’ of faith. I find it strange because.

    1. If faith is a personal thing, then no one should say anything about each other’s faith since its not anyone else’s place to judge.
    2. If faith isnt a personal thing but a social one, then social incidents such as the aware situation at hand would affect one’s faith.

    On the other hand, I would like to see ‘the rest of the population’, because there are so many ‘minorities’ around that they really do seem like the majority.

    1. Priests molesting little boys
    2. Pastors molesting little boys
    3. Anti-gay movement at the memorial of Heath ledger (who btw is not gay)
    4. Pro-family/anti-gay sex education in Singapore by Familylife.
    5. Proposition 8
    6. Christian fundamentalists against protection of gay children http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-11351.html
    7. Blaming Gun crimes on gays http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-12089.html
    8. Pope John Paul’s anti gay stance http://atheism.about.com/od/popejohnpaulii/a/homosexuality.htm

    I’m not against religion or christianity per se. I am however, against the ‘few black sheep’ argument.

    I was a worship leader, a youth leader and pioneer of a youth group in my church before I left it. If my experience tells me anything, it is that homophobia is a widespread Catholic condition.

    It would be great if christians step up against the current situation at aware, in order to give validity to the ‘few black sheep’ argument.

    I think it makes a statement for the presence of a liberal arm of christianity. Who says one cannot be a christian and still accept homosexuality?

    What has jesus ever said about homosexuals? Nothing. If he never said anything, then why do you believe it? if its because of leviticus, then perhaps you would also like to follow the other rules of leviticus such as execution for cursing (Lev 24:14), Blasphemy (Lev 24:16), being a false prophet (Deut 13:5), Worshipping a false God (Deut 17:1-8)…

    The failure to act against injustice is a crime onto itself.

  4. reading your posts on religion reminds me of a film that i’ve watched. try finding this show called “Religulous” by Bill Maher.

    maybe you’ll see where your faith brings you after watching this.

    and im not a religious person. it just that this whole issue on faith intrigues me. haha

  5. haha why’s it that i always have to approve your comments to make it visible? only yours

  6. previous reply to joshua.

    weiliang: yep ive heard of that show! but hvnt seen it. watch zeitgeist too! it’s next on my list

    dv: just continue your drunken posts. they rock haha

    nic:it’s disgusting the way they’re doing stuff like that in God’s name. there’s just no place for christians in a world like that

  7. i think faith is a personal thing but we’re social creatures so we are ourselves affected by social situations. maybe an indirect influence thing. but i wouldnt call faith a social thing.

    the problem with christianity is that there’s those ‘few black sheeps’ who make it their job to propagate their flawed personal ideologies, that (large) group who blindly follow, and the few christians who actually think for themselves and truly hear God. i think.

    that’s the problem i have with organised religion and priests, pastors, just anyone with any authority claiming that whatever they’re saying is God’s words when they’ve already strayed far from His path and are just basically pushing their own agenda.

    but if you look at the other camp. there’s also pesky people like perez hilton who’re denying others the right to stake their personal beliefs. small proportion no doubt but still. i have a problem with evangelizing christians but i dont think the girl was evangelizing. she was just answering the question truthfully in a way she deemed was right and true to her belief which happened to be christian.

    i think we just need to learn the meaning of being plural. (actually i know christians who stand for such beliefs. she’s been rather active in human rights education in sg.)

  8. It is certainly not my place to judge anything that is perhaps personal to others. But do note that I represent my opinion and probably not judgement as Joshua has described. I apologise for my lack of knowledge in the field of philisophy but I do believe there seems to be a difference between the two.

    I am not certain how the homosexuality topic came about but I will say a few words. I think there will always be people that have strong feelings against homosexuality and will make use of religion to justify this hate. Some overzealous ones will become religious vigilantes and take matters into their own hands. But in saying that, it would not be prudent to equate “a few” to “all”.

    What is perhaps most important (according to me) to tolerate different kinds. By standing up and engaging in a religious shouting match and tell people to accept homosexuality doesn’t look like a viable solution. Tolerance is probably something that cannot be achieved in a short span of time.

  9. Val: I think its because I’m being black listed somewhere… *conspiracy theory* I am so going to go into ISD la. Must visit me k.

    Nic: The danger of talking about ‘tolerance’ is that it is akin to being racist and saying that a particular race should be tolerated. How fair is that if we do not question our fundamental assumptions of inferiority or difference? In a situation of inequality, the ‘middle ground’ is a fallacy (Howard Becker ‘Whose side are you on?’)

    We do not ‘tolerate’ homosexuals. They like us ‘heterosexuals’ are part of the diversity of human sexuality and the spectrum of being human. Any other definition falls into the likely trap of treating them as less then human. (Hence, toleration. Which I understand as a Christian/Catholic discourse as part of John Paul II’s discourse on homosexuality)

    As for ‘personal opinion’, a personal opinion can and most of the time are judgemental. While freedom of expression states that we should be able to say what we want, freedom of expression also posits that active debate as the one situated here, is present. Without which, (ie, if it remains personal opinion and nothing else), freedom of expression would be pointless. (Thus, pls know that I appreciate this conversation over Val’s blog)

    Val: Are you talking about Heather chi? :) Btw, I totally advocate that stand. Religion does not stop anyone from acquiring a different understanding of social reality just because religion supports a particular stand. Religion must not be accepted wholesale. If we did, the world would still be imagined as flat.

    Liberals have to stand up within organized religion in support of causes such as feminism and homosexuality.

    Btw, I dont really agree on your take on Perez. The point that Perez was making is similar to the one I’m making about ‘tolerance’. Miss USA is a political role. As such, Prejean’s personal views will be political. It would not be right to endorse a view that ‘partial-racism’ is acceptable. By saying that “some people believe that its alright for black people to vote, but I was brought up not agreeing with that”, that stand itself is racist.

    Similarly, we cannot talk about homosexuals and take a stand that “others accept it but I dont” because that would still be sexist.

  10. Read theology of the body by Pope John Paul II. I havent read it myself but it’s supposed to be good cos it explains everything about sex for procreation and homsexuality, etc.

    And…you lucky girl! finished so fast! i still have 2 more papers!

    and must meet up ok!because u wont be in school anymore! :(
    take care dear! (:

    *back to mugging*

  11. can i first say that im loving this debate yay!

    josh: it’s ok!! i help u protest!! but political martyr.. cool leh haha

    i think maybe we shouldnt be reading too deeply into the way we use tolerance. it simply means to accept others for whatever it is about them that is different from yourself, to me. (ok la actually just use accept in place of tolerate, i think nic and i mean that)

    nope i dunno heather chi. it’s june tan, she wrote the email i forwarded you. i like your point about the understanding of social reality. i think all religious people must bear that in mind because, until they reside in Heaven, they must accept the presence of people who do not share the same beliefs. these 2 societies are different and how we live in them must be different.

    this may be a spiral of silence effect. but yes, i agree such people must come forward peacefully. it’s just that nobody wants to be first. but like i said, there are such people.

    joshua, you have made a (seemingly?) fair analogy and i can’t counter that. at the very least, i disagree with perez’s way of revenge. it was very immature.

    auddie: yes we will meet! when don is not making out or being cranky or when we’re actually talking and not pissing each other off hahaha. mingli too!! all the best for your papers babe!

  12. Aud: I just took a module on sexuality and part of it talks about how Christianity has shaped sexuality into its present day hierarchy with its counterpart sexual minorities (homosexuality etc) It’ll be too much to sum up here, but it really does present a radically different view through historical, cultural, inter-religious comparative analysis. I find it hard to endorse John Paul’s view after that given that he has merely reinstated the position since Augustine.

    For a case in point, the current aware situation was fueled by a perceived homosexual endorsement by the previous exco. Thio does not even feel that homosexuality is a positive word.

    On this issue, as a lover of contradiction, I feel that, if gender categories are assumed static, then there is no way anyone can argue that lesbians are not women.

    However, such fundamentalist stance come from a specific construction of meanings within the discourse of sexualiy mostly stemming from Augustine (even if they are not catholic).

    Val: This is the reason why I am against the usage of words such as ‘tolerance’ as they are laden with meanings that are historically constructed. My issue thus isnt really with word-usage but with meaning construction (Btw val, you would have so loved this module). In raising the seemingly trivial point about ‘tolerance’ I was hoping to throw into light the meanings behind the word itself.

    As for Perez.. well he is a ‘diva’ and he has been acting bitchy towards almost everything. But that aside, I think, the reason he feels so strongly is that, there is a recent turn against homosexuality in the states with prop 8 and as a homosexual he was perhaps personally affected by it.

    Anyway! Women of Singapore! pls do something about AWARE. They are not the best feminist group and they have their failings, but I seriously doubt women would want to be represented by the new exco. There is a lot more at stake than just a petty change in committee. I hope the following link could shed some light at what I mean by that.

    http://wayangparty.com/?p=8516

    I will blog about it and contest it in a day’s time.

    Btw Val! There is this really cool essay in one of my philo books that you’ll love! Everytime I read that book the same thought occurs to me. Remind me to show it to you sometime.

    Sigh and you know I really do think I am going to get myself into trouble some day. You can be my autobiographer when that happens k? I give u 20% of the profits.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s