Inconsistency in the Religious/Secular divide

To what extent should religious values be reflected in secular public policy? I’m not making a stand here, but wondering out loud.

 

 ”If in fact it is true, and I have asked doctors this, that you are genetically born a homosexual — because that’s the nature of the genetic random transmission of genes — you can’t help it. So why should we criminalize it?” MM Lee’s own words in 2007.

 

The conservative family values has often been cited as the reason why.

 

Yet we see an inconsistency.

 

Abortion is immoral under most Christian interpretations, as well as Muslim / Jewish interpretations.

I’m not as familiar with other religious, but I suspect religious which promote vegetarianism, mercy, not taking the lives of even animals, would not exactly be supportive of abortion.

 

Yet we have one of the most lax abortion policies here — something I applaud, because banning abortions has always led to the dangerous practice of clandestine abortions.

 

Human embryonic stem cell research is also deemed immoral by some Christian interpretations — yet we actively pursue such research in Singapore.

 

Gambling and casinos are frowned upon by most “conservative value”  champions, but we’re building 2.

 

So what is the justification for criminalizing homosexuality? And only MALE homosexuality, but not female homosexuality???

 

Is is justified to base such policy on the “majority’s views”?

 

If it were, the genocide of the Jews in Nazi Germany would be justified.

 

In a local context, the anti-racism laws were put in place at a time where there was a lot of racial tension here, and many people held racist views. The government response was not to say

 

“Our society will not reach consensus on this issue for a very long time to come. The way for ABC-race to have space in our society is to accept the informal limits which reflect the point of balance that our society can accept, and not to assert themselves stridently as ABC-race groups do in the West.”

 

The government took a strong stand at that point in time to condemn racism , and put into the pledge “regardless of race, language or religion”

 

The homophobic / anti-discrimination groups are divided according to the same divides Singapore had during the race riots. Why should the response be any different?

 

The only difference, to me, was that the race riots were significantly more violent — does society change only in response to violence? That would be very sad indeed, because I want to believe that dialogue, not violence, is the way to go to assert your fundamental rights.

Protest against the hypocritical words of the Bishop of the Anglican Church in Singapore

“Questionable takeover but crucial service” says the Bishop of the Anglican Church in Singapore “An alarm has been sounded on the promotion of revisionist sexuality norm”

( http://news.asiaone.com/News/the+Straits+Times/Story/A1Story20090515-141553.html )

 

 

Sounds like the Bishop is saying that questionable methods can be justified based on their ends. And that speaking up against prejudice & discrimination is a “promotion of revisionist sexuality norm”.

 

 

I’m glad my God — in the person of Jesus Christ — made a career out of speaking against the religious leaders of his day. He never flinched from being their public enemy No. 1, even until death.

 

 

I’m glad that JC preferred hanging out with the unfairly marginalised — those terminally ill with infectious diseases ( equivalent of the HIV affected), the Samaritans ( equivalent of the marginalised/discriminated ethnic groups), the prostitutes & thieves ( which incidentally is the group that the RIGHTEOUS people of society have put homosexuals in)

 

 

I’m glad that my God never made in a requirement for his faithful to agree with the religious leaders.

 

 

 

By the way, just some words that JC had for the religious leaders of his day (the Pharisees were the name of such a group):

 

They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them (Matt 23: 4)

 

 

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

 

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

 

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

 

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

 

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

 

(Matt 23 : 13 – 15, 23 – 28)