For friends who have requested for an English translation:
Translated Summary of 《世俗人道主义更行得通》（Published in Lianhe Zaobao, 28 Jun 2009）
Not long ago, NMP Thio Li-Ann criticised people who prevented those with religious beliefs from speaking up and of demonising their views. She named them as "secular fundamentalists".
Ironically, it is Singapore's secular system that has ensured her right and liberty to voice her own personal opinions, even though they might have been religiously driven.
Thio seems to be setting up a contest between religious people and secularists. But such a binary view is pernicious. Why should the two are be opposites? The influence of religion on legislation and policy making has always been duly considered by secularists. More importantly, secularists do contemplate the role of all different religions, as well as other factors such as economics, sociology, biology, sexology, culture, customs, global history and humanism.
"Feminist Mentor" Thio Su-Mien, who sees viewing homosexuality as "neutral" as "promoting homosexuality" is also guilty of binarism. Must people be coerced to take sides and see others as hostile based on their position? Doesn't such a stance remind us of George Bush, the ex-President of the United States, known for his belligerent foreign policy on Afghanistan and Iraq? Is someone who is not "for us" necessarily "against us"? Have we forgotten that American fundamentalists are the main driving force behind Bush's political legitimacy?
Religious people may of course righteously exert their right to a secular space. However, if they were to do so under the guise of secularism while espousing their own beliefs (take cue from the hijacking of Aware), then their motives would be dubious even when they speak of concern of the majority's interests and love for the country.
Perhaps, secular humanism as the moderate path, may serve the goals of religious harmony and the diverse interests of different communities better. However, secular humanists must similarly remind themselves to understand and tolerate the views of others, even if these are conflicting to their own. Secular humanists must not perceive their own positions as "universal truths" supported by the "majority", and only through so doing, will sincere exchange, acceptance and the respect of different views and harmonious co-existence be possible.
Translated Summary of 《世俗人道主义更行得通》（Published in Lianhe Zaobao, 28 Jun 2009）
Not long ago, NMP Thio Li-Ann criticised people who prevented those with religious beliefs from speaking up and of demonising their views. She named them as "secular fundamentalists".
Ironically, it is Singapore's secular system that has ensured her right and liberty to voice her own personal opinions, even though they might have been religiously driven.
Thio seems to be setting up a contest between religious people and secularists. But such a binary view is pernicious. Why should the two are be opposites? The influence of religion on legislation and policy making has always been duly considered by secularists. More importantly, secularists do contemplate the role of all different religions, as well as other factors such as economics, sociology, biology, sexology, culture, customs, global history and humanism.
"Feminist Mentor" Thio Su-Mien, who sees viewing homosexuality as "neutral" as "promoting homosexuality" is also guilty of binarism. Must people be coerced to take sides and see others as hostile based on their position? Doesn't such a stance remind us of George Bush, the ex-President of the United States, known for his belligerent foreign policy on Afghanistan and Iraq? Is someone who is not "for us" necessarily "against us"? Have we forgotten that American fundamentalists are the main driving force behind Bush's political legitimacy?
Religious people may of course righteously exert their right to a secular space. However, if they were to do so under the guise of secularism while espousing their own beliefs (take cue from the hijacking of Aware), then their motives would be dubious even when they speak of concern of the majority's interests and love for the country.
Perhaps, secular humanism as the moderate path, may serve the goals of religious harmony and the diverse interests of different communities better. However, secular humanists must similarly remind themselves to understand and tolerate the views of others, even if these are conflicting to their own. Secular humanists must not perceive their own positions as "universal truths" supported by the "majority", and only through so doing, will sincere exchange, acceptance and the respect of different views and harmonious co-existence be possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment