It makes things so much easier instead of using the word 'religion' when concerns are very obviously levelled at this particular religion.
Shouldnt it? Why should anything be considered taboo?
Interesting snippets from the Forum today:
Peter Thompson:
AS AN international speaker and educator, I found Dr Lee Bee Wah's comments in her letter, 'Some mega churches affect students adversely' (ST, Sept 19), with regard to children being influenced by 'mega churches', a rather dangerous assertion which needs to be corrected......
(then he says.....)
............What would Dr Lee prefer, youths spending time learning about God or spending time at game arcades and gang gatherings which lead to rioting?
- y so defensive? arent you making an assertion urself? self righteous prick.
Teo Choon Liang:
I am a final-year university student attending what is presumably one of the 'rich' mega churches Dr Lee alluded to. While I sympathise with her feelings of 'losing' her loved ones, I find some of the assumptions and generalisations she made unfair. Firstly, while mega churches in Singapore are active in sharing their faith with the public, they do not target impressionable teenage schoolchildren. As with any religion, it is natural that as Christians we desire to share the joy of our faith with our friends and loved ones.
While church activities do take up time, as a cell-group leader I can vouch that never has the church sought to sow discord in families or influence teenagers to rebel against their parents.
- Causation does not imply correlation. But, what Dr Lee has pointed to is an obvious example of a CAUSATION. Can you say for sure that this is the case for ALL CHURCHES across the globe by the term you use as "the church"? Get your facts right, fat boy
Perhaps the most sensible article i read today is one that takes an impartial stance, by Mr Felix Ang Kok Hou. What he brings out is simple and gets the the basics. He writes:
Why Some people become "lost to Religion"
I REFER to Dr Lee Bee Wah's letter 'Some mega churches affect students adversely' (ST, Sept 19).
It is a common sentiment shared by many people whose family members and friends are 'lost to religion'.
Many new converts to a religion become fascinated with its teachings, charismatic teachers and bonds of fellowship. It's as if the meaning of their lives has been discovered. They devote all their time and effort to study and practise their religion, often isolating themselves from non-believers. The isolations are sometimes deliberate because everything that happens outside their religious grounds and circles suddenly appears unholy. They do not want to be tempted into their previous state of lives. And families and friends find it difficult to dissuade them because religion is a personal choice.
Young converts should investigate and experience for themselves whether the teachings make sense morally and how the teachings can make them better people. They should take note that most religious documents were written many years ago before history was recorded properly. And many religious teachings were delivered orally during times with no modern technology to record the teachings. Many religious teachings were originally written in languages that are no longer used today. Meanings could be lost in translation since there were words available in certain languages and not in others. And finally the contexts in which the teachings were written were vastly different from today's. Cultural, ethnic, racial, social and political forces can shape the development of a religion.
It is also important for these converts to realise that moderation and not extreme zealotry is the better way to sustain them throughout their religious lives. I know people who suffer from 'religious fatigue' after a few years of extreme religious involvement. They eventually lose their faith and release their pent-up emotions on undesirable activities.
Religious extremists do not make good followers. They make terrorists. Major religions, when properly taught, extol good moral values. A good religious man should be able to live a full and integrated life with his faith as the foundation. A holy man is not simply one who walks on holy ground. He is one who can maintain his holiness on all grounds.
...........................................................................The problem with religion stems from the act of proselytising.
Get it into ur thick skulls. Nobody has any right to make another person believe what he does not want to. Leave it at that. One shoul always be given a rational choice of whether to believe or not to believe. This forms one of Dawkins' major arguments- the influence of religion on the young. As Mr Ang writes, "Young converts should investigate and experience for themselves whether the teachings make sense morally and how the teachings can make them better people. They should take note that most religious documents were written many years ago before history was recorded properly."
But how is it possible for kids to make that distinction? Striking them at their most impressionable? Underhand tactics, i say.
No matter how much religious people may preach about impartiality and freedom, it is but a bad faced lie. Religion that thrives on propagation will never be able to live in harmony with the world at large. It can NEVER be impartial, it can NEVER take a neutral stance. Ur either with them or against them.
One example of how religion is BIASED:
When i was in secondary school, i was told as a kid that i was REQUIRED to attend chapel service. BUT THE MUSLIMS ARE EXCLUDED. Where is the rationality behind that? Is being a Buddhist any less than a Christian or Muslim? Preferential treatment? What the FUCK man seriously. But my agitation at this is tempered by the fact that i DID MAKE A RATIONAL CHOICE to attend a christian school, so i cant really blame the school. BUT BUT BUT.....
WHY NOT THE MUSLIMS!!! ALLAH =/= GOD MEH? Shouldnt there be MORE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE BIBLE AND THE QUARAN?
I dont get the logic or the inherent bias.
Then you say- but religion has so many merits and benefits! The moral values, the emotional comfort, etc.
Then i say- why should an ideology, a BOOK CHOSEN BY A COUNCIL OF MEN, be taken to its literal extent? Imagine this- centuries ago, the bible gets compiled, a series of books, of which books are CHOSEN for inclusion.
But i am digressing.
At the end of the day, i believe that religious emphasis should always be slanted towards a singular purpose, that is the development of MORAL values and positive attitudes.
NOTHING MORE
Anything more will only breed conflict
No comments:
Post a Comment