Rilek1Corner

Tag: Christians

  • Hue And Cry Over Pink Dot Event Shows Discrimination Exists

    Hue And Cry Over Pink Dot Event Shows Discrimination Exists

    The letter writer Ho Lay Ping (“Don’t equate difference in opinion with discrimination”, June 20) said that because the Pink Dot event is allowed to continue, it shows that “discrimination does not exist”.

    A minority community which faces no discrimination would not spark calls to have its event advertising material reported to the police on the basis of it being “divisive and polarising”.

    The general tone of Facebook groups such as “We are against Pinkdot in Singapore” also makes the writer’s claim of tolerance and lack of discrimination nothing short of disingenuous.

    Her comments that our government ministers may have religious affiliations and “that the majority of Singaporeans follow a religion” hint at laying out who has the authority of being the moral majority to steer our society.

    Our pluralistic society comprises multiple ethnicities, creeds and religions, and protecting our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) minority community is not that great a stretch.

    It is unhelpful to society if our reaction to something we find discomforting is to make police reports instead of having a reasonable and adult conversation.

    We can be better than this.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • The LGBT Debate: What Really Is The Crux Of The Issue?

    The LGBT Debate: What Really Is The Crux Of The Issue?

    Dear A.S.S. Editor

    I know what the response to this contribution will be like. But nonetheless this is one issue I have no regrets standing my ground on.

    Over the past few days we have witnessed an intense debate over Cathay Cineleisure’s decision to put up posters promoting Pink Dot. But that is not the biggest crux of the issue. The biggest crux is what is the fight for and about. I have shared my position. Those who have agreed with mine have shared ours. But the most important question is what is the crux of the matter.

    Is the fight about the “freedom to love”? I don’t think so. If it is truly about love, then how can you on the “freedom to love” movement subject others to the other side of the aisle the most unlovable form of response? Let’s face the hard truth, a good tree bears good fruits and your fruits give you away. If it is truly about love there is no need to bring up the religious beliefs or association of one for attack and vigilante treatment just because of disagreement in worldview as a matter of first response. The fact that one’s religious beliefs were singled out when for that matter it wasn’t used in the debate shows that the real problem is not about the freedom to love. It lies elsewhere. Case in point. Why was there the need to bring up the chairman of ASAS’s religion and church when the ASAS did not even call for Pink Dot’s publicity ad to be taken down completely but rather for its subtitle “freedom to love” to be amended? And also factoring in that the call was made according to the book and not based on some hastily inserted clause or rule?

    I think let’s be honest about this.

    On my earlier case of kleptomania and homosexuality. We don’t legitimise kleptomania because it goes against the natural order of things. And that’s my case with homosexuality too. For if homosexuality is indeed what we were made for and the natural order of things all marital relationships would naturally gravitate towards homosexual ones and the heterosexuals will be the ones clamouring for the “right to love”.

    We already have a “right to love”. That is why adultery is not criminalised in Singapore and neither is prostitution nor pre-marital sex. And we already know what the social and health related consequences are and if you want to push the line back further my advice is to calculate the cost first, not only for us but for our children. And if you want to flame me for this article, watch the flame burn and decide for yourselves if the question is about the freedom to love, or the real question lies elsewhere.

    N Chan

    A.S.S. Contributor

    Source: www.allsingaporestuff.com

     

  • Jakarta Governor Ahok Sentenced To 2 Years Jail For Blasphemy

    Jakarta Governor Ahok Sentenced To 2 Years Jail For Blasphemy

    Jakarta’s Christian governor has been sentenced to two years in jail for blasphemy, a harsher-than-expected ruling critics fear will embolden hardline Islamist forces to challenge secularism in Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation.

    Tuesday’s guilty verdict for Basuki Tjahaja Purnama comes amid concern about the growing influence of Islamist groups, who organized mass rallies during a tumultuous election campaign that ended with Purnama losing his bid for another term as governor.

    President Joko Widodo was an ally of Purnama, an ethnic-Chinese Christian who is popularly known as “Ahok”, and the verdict will be a setback for a government that has sought to quell radical groups and soothe investors’ concerns that the country’s secular values were at risk.

    As thousands of supporters and opponents waited outside, the head judge of the Jakarta court, Dwiarso Budi Santiarto, said Purnama was “found to have legitimately and convincingly conducted a criminal act of blasphemy, and because of that we have imposed two years of imprisonment”.

    Purnama told the court he would appeal.

     

    Source: www.reuters.com

  • Netizen Who Asked Where To Stay In Singapore With Little Or No Muslims Told to Stay In Christian Cemetary

    Netizen Who Asked Where To Stay In Singapore With Little Or No Muslims Told to Stay In Christian Cemetary

    Unless you are a foreigner, or have been living under rock, almost everyone will notice that Singapore is a multiracial and multireligious society.

    This did not stop an anonymous netizen from asking a potentially seditious question on Quora.

    He wrote: “What are the best areas to live in Singapore with as little Muslims as possible?”

    The result was a flurry of witty responses that only Singaporeans can give.

    One netizen wrote: “Try Orchard road. A little expensive than your normal neighbourhoods but really, there are Muslims in every area possible and they avoid Orchard road for more than the economic reasons. If Orchard road area is too steep for you, you can consider migrating. Or try to live in harmony like a Singaporean will.”

    Another helpful netizen suggested an unlikely but fitting venue.

    “You want to live in an area of Singapore with as few Muslims as possible?

    I got one for you.

    It’s a place with open fields and fresh air. You’re surrounded by nature and it’s really peaceful staying there.

    It’s the area around 920 Old Choa Chu Kang Road. Only Christians reside here. There’s not a single Muslim there.”

    And then there are netizens who seem to pluck statistics out of a hole no one can see.

    “Public housing in Singapore has racial quota. The effect is that, all public housing estates have similar ratio of Chinese, Indian, and Malay. Very few Chinese are Muslims, not many Indians are Muslims (there are not that many Indians, anyway), and most Malays are Muslims (but Malays are not that numerous, either). Thus, all public housing estates don’t have many Muslims.

    Private housing, on the other hand, has no racial quota. However, Muslims in Singapore tend to be less well-off (to use the polite term), and thus you will less likely see them in private housing.”

     

    Rilek1Corner

    Source: https://www.allsingaporestuff.com

  • Abu Sumaiyah Al-Jawi: A Response To Haji Mohammad Alami Musa

    Abu Sumaiyah Al-Jawi: A Response To Haji Mohammad Alami Musa

    The attached article is symptomatic of the confusion and inferiority complex that has infected the Muslims, which has been succinctly described by the eminent Muslim thinker Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas in his 1970 work entitled Islam and Secularism.

    In the article, the major premise is “doctrinal basis” upon which ideas are rendered acceptable or rejected. The writer, a bureaucrat, stated that with regards to enmity towards non-Muslims, there is no doctrinal basis and therefore such an idea is rejected. Of course, to an unsuspecting mind, there are no problems in that statement; any sane and matured Muslim can accept that. But when he rambles on about all religions sharing the same roots like the “roots of a Banyan tree”, without evaluating that idea to the same premise he had established for himself which is “doctrinal basis”, he contradicted himself. This kind of thinking, known as the transcendental unity of religions, is already effectively refuted by Al-Attas in his Prolegomena to the Metaphysics of Islam.

    Furthermore, to limit the meaning of the term “fansurna” used in the Imam’s prayer to connote the act of vanquishing and enmity is already against doctrinal basis. Fansurna is derived from “nasara”, which the authoritative linguist Ibn Manzur in his Lisān al-‘Arab already explains as “rendering assistance to the oppressed”. In other words, the condition for asking God who is the Lord (Mawla) and Helper (Nāsir) is that oppression exists. So we can ask the question, is there oppression coming from those who claim to be Christians and Jews?

    In 2005, George Bush claimed that his Christian god told him in his dream to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. The current administration of the United States are filled with people like this too. The Zionists of Israel still justify their atrocities using their Jewish scripture. In other words, extremists who are Christians and Jews, just like how there are extremists who are Muslims, exist. And the prayer is specifically directed at these extremists and not all Christians and Jews, some of which are our friends and family.

    In our bid to preserve and enhance racial and religious harmony, we don’t have to sweep these facts under the carpet or make sweeping statements about religion and Banyan trees that have absolutely no doctrinal basis. Just as how we can talk openly about Muslim extremists without thinking that such discussions are based on enmity against Islam, there is no reason to be offended when we talk about Christian and Jewish extremists.

     

    Source: Abu Sumaiyah Al-Jawi