 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actress Mollie Sugden dies at 86
Actress Mollie Sugden has died at the age of 86, her agent has said. The TV star, best known for playing Mrs Slocombe in long-running BBC sitcom Are You Being Served?, died at the Royal Surrey Hospital after a long illness. The Yorkshire-born actress's twin sons, Robin and Simon Moore, were at her bedside, agent Joan Reddin said. David Croft, one of the writers of Are You Being Served?, remembered her as a "marvellous character" who would never turn down chances to make people laugh. "She would never refuse any sort of comedy situation. No matter how undignified it was, she would always go along with it. She was marvellously funny," he said.
Article continues here at the BBC
Tags: news
I am :  sad
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Belief Through The Lens of Cognitive Science, Part 1 of 6By Valerie Tarico May 26, 2009. Print: The Huffington PostMy father died in a climbing accident when he was 59 and I was in my mid thirties. In one of our last deep conversations before his 300 meter misstep, he expressed his abiding hope that I would “get right with God.” Dad was the son of Italian immigrants, all Catholics, who got converted by door-to-door Pentecostals some years after their arrival in Chicago. His mother lived out her life in the Assemblies of God denomination that had recruited them all, while Dad settled into a closely allied form of Evangelical fundamentalism without the speaking-in-tongues bit. As far as I know, he never questioned his belief that the Bible was the literally perfect word of God and that Jesus died for his sins. And yet of his six children three of us, by Evangelical standards, are now slated for eternal torture. We are on the wrong side of a battle being waged on a spiritual plane, a battle in which those who are not on the side of God are agents of evil. If Dad were alive, our lack of belief would grieve him. Religious belief is one of the most powerful forces in our world. Believers think that it has the power to save us all. Increasingly, doubters fear that the opposite may be true: a tribal mindset, unaccountable to ordinary standards of reason and evidence but armed with state of the art weapons may hasten our extinction. In the United States, religious affiliation is the best predictor of political party alliance. Almost half of Americans insist that humans were created in their present form sometime within the last 7000 years because the Bible says so. In the Middle East, Sunnis and Shia split over theological differences that seem trivial to the rest of us but that in their minds create tribal boundaries worthy of lethal conflict. Why is religious belief so wide-spread and powerful? The traditional Christian answer is: because it’s true, and people who haven’t hardened their hearts against God recognize this when God’s plan of salvation is presented to them. But the recent explosion of knowledge in cognitive science offers a new way to look at this question, not from a moral or theological standpoint but from a practical standpoint. What is the mental machinery that lets us form beliefs? What does evidence and reason have to do with it? How is it that six devoted Christian kids can turn into three devoted Christian adults and three agnostics? The more we learn about the hardware and operating systems of the human brain—the more we understand about human information processing—the more we glean bits of insight into the religious mind.
Article continues here, at The Reason Project. Tags: religion, science
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Straits Times - No 'bright line' between religion and politics - edited excerpt from a speech by NMP Thio Li-ann in Parliament May 27, 2009 SINGAPORE'S POLITICAL ARENA No 'bright line' between religion and politics This is an edited excerpt from a speech by NMP Thio Li-ann in Parliament yesterday during the debate on the President's Address IN A recent interview, Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng reiterated that religion and politics must not be mixed. This is sound, though there are difficulties of definition as no bright line demarcates 'religion' from 'politics'. We need to understand what 'secularism' entails in Singapore for more specific guidance. A state's attitude towards religion turns upon its model of constitutional secularism. 'Secularism' is a protean, chameleon-like term: what it means depends on the context and who is using it; it can be a virtue or a vice. It is timely to eschew glibness and examine the Singapore model of secularism with precision. There are in fact many secularisms or degrees of secularity. This complex term needs to be unpacked. Historically, 'secularism' originates from the Latin 'saeculum', meaning 'temporal', worldly affairs, rather than 'spiritual', other-worldly matters. The word 'secular' is an emblem of intense historical conflict. Today, in some circles, 'secularism' connotes systematic hostility towards religion, as a synonym for a politicised form of ideological atheism whose creed is that humanity is destined to wholly shed religious conviction. The atheistic word was made flesh in the atheistic state produced by the Russian Revolution of 1917, devoted to Marx's assumption that religion stupefies the masses and must be eradicated to bring forth the new Communist Man. The principle of secularity dates back to the Roman Empire. It derived from the teaching of Jesus to 'render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's'. This principle of limited government opposed state absolutism in suggesting Caesar did not wield absolute authority: While a citizen was to obey civil authority, he was to enjoy freedom from state interference in matters pertaining to the worship of God. Religious liberty thus limits state power. America first experimented constitutionally with dividing sacred from secular authority, rejecting the European conflation of civil and religious power. Senior Minister of State Zainul Abidin Rasheed described Singapore secularism as 'secularism with a soul'. This deft juxtaposing of the material and the metaphysical speaks to the cooperative relation between state and religion. The Constitution does not forbid the state to lend financial or other support to a religion; thus we have the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore as a statutory government body serving the Muslim community. In 1989, Foreign Minister George Yeo observed the Government was 'secular but it is certainly not atheistic'. This evinces a rejection of a thick, atheistic version of secularism. Secular humanism, which posits a morality independent of God, is a comprehensive anti-theistic world view. Some courts recognise it as a religion. It dogmatically asserts the absence of God, without any empirical evidence. We know from elementary logic that it is impossible to prove a universal negative. Whether God exists or not cannot be proved or disproved by evidence or logic. It takes faith to believe or not to believe in God or gods. A lot of faith is needed to believe there is no divine. As Turkish journalist Mustafa Akyol wrote: 'It is the atheist's opium to regard that unsubstantiated faith as established fact.' Thick secularism is thus an anti-religion religion. Secular democracies should be neutral not only between traditional religions but also regarding modern religions with atheistic foundations. What is the situation in Singapore? DPM Wong emphasised the secular nature of the political arena and how keeping 'religion' and 'politics' separate was a key rule of political engagement. What this means specifically is that laws and policies derive their legitimacy not from divine sanction but from a democratically elected government. Law generally applies to and equally protects all citizens, regardless of race, religion or social status. Clearly, the Singapore model of secularism is anti-theocratic in that religious tenets and secular law are separated, not conflated. While anti-theocratic, the Singapore secularism is not anti-religious. This is a vital distinction. DPM Wong welcomed the public service of individuals inspired by their religious convictions; they also 'set' society's 'moral tone'. He affirmed that religious individuals had the same right as other citizens to 'express their views on issues in the public space' guided by their beliefs. Religion is thus separated from politics, but, religion is not separated from public life and culture. Everyone has values, whether shaped by religious or secular ideologies; all may participate in public discourse to forge an ethical social consensus. While religion is personal, it is not exclusively private and has a social dimension which is not to be trivialised. Thus, Singapore secularism is 'agnostic' and 'thin'. The Government does not favour or disfavour any particular religion. We practise 'accommodative secularism' described by the Court of Appeal as removing restrictions to one's choice of religious belief. Religious values do have a role in public debate. Agnostic secularism of this sort is a virtue; it is a 'framework' which facilitates the peaceful co-existence of religions. Conversely, militant secularism is an illiberal and undemocratic vice in seeking to gag religious views in the public square and so to privilege its atheistic values, as in communist states. Secular fundamentalists are oppressive where they seek to mute religiously informed convictions in public debate, by demonising a view as religious. Militant exclusionist secularism is thus a recipe for social disharmony; it feeds the 'culture wars' in the US and provokes those it seeks to exclude. It will not promote unity in diversity. When it comes to moral disagreements and public policy, the press is powerfully positioned to promote informed debate. However the press may, by biased and selective reporting, misrepresent, distort or obscure an issue. We need to broaden our understanding of responsible journalism in Singapore, which rejects the extremes of an adversarial American watchdog and a Pravda-like lapdog, or running dog. The feedback I received from friends and strangers on the reporting of the Aware controversy was that much of the reporting, particularly in one paper, was biased. It largely lacked a diversity of views in singing the same chorus that religious groups should not get involved in secular organisations. Some spoke of their new lists of 'fair' and 'unfair' journalists. Responsible journalism should extend to covering a diversity of views, not a journalist's preferred view. It should include the accurate representation of differing viewpoints, and not paint the fringe as mainstream or the pathological as normal. Readers may then see all sides of an issue and decide what is true. This is important given the near monopolistic position of Singapore broadsheets. A lawyer recently returned from London wrote to me expressing horror in finding local papers apparently had nothing better to report than the Aware saga, as opposed to the more interesting British papers which offered a lot more variety. This made me somewhat nostalgic for my student days in Cambridge, where I could, with chocolate croissant and Nescafe coffee in hand, survey a range of perspectives from The Times, Guardian, Independent or Telegraph. ------- Miss Thio should remember that it was her religion.. Her Christian Fundamentalists that started all these nonsense in the first place. YOU were the ones who violently entered the public sphere in the first place. You were the ones trying to silence and discriminate, to trample the weak and marginalised in society. How dare you talk about Jesus! Don't whine and complain when people bite back. Have secularists silenced you in the same way? We keep hearing your endless drivel and we never stop you. Until of course, you try to set civil society back 100 years. There are limits to free speech you know. Reflect on yourself before you give us a patronising lecture on secularism. I'm surprised such a lofty and learned lawyer like you can have such ideas regarding secularism and religion. Perhaps you do need to go back to Cambridge, this time without Croissant and Nescafe in hand and attend all your lectures/tutorials AGAIN. Pay attention this time will you? You give women everywhere a bad, bad name. Tags: politics, religion
I am :  annoyed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 In one of the most anticipated reboots, we didn't get our signature star trek horn solo. From the word go, we are told - this is not your "Father's Star trek". Nonetheless, references abound and the new Star Trek starts off with errr.. Star Trek with an ubiqutious horn solo, the Wagnerian Leitmotif that would come to represent Captain James Tiberius Kirk and of course, the USS Enterprise herself. A parody of an alarm on the horn followed by a fierce, unexpected gilssando leads into Nailin' the Kelvin, the first action music sequence which introduces Nero's theme, played by menacing trombones and tubas. There are what I believe to be some cheeky star trek musical references here - notably the use of tambourine and the snatches of rhythmic quotations from Klingon Battle Music. Not sure if I'm reading too much into it though! Apart from Spock's theme (An elegant Erhu solo - two string Chinese fiddle/violin that appears only in End credits! Shame!!) and perhaps Labour of Love, the soundtrack is pretty much made of both Kirk's heroic theme and Nero's villain theme battling it out for supremacy. I am not so sure about its effectiveness? At times I found this to be particularly effective and others, not so. Enterprising Young Men is one of my favourite moments in the score - building up from a gentle piano dynamic using a juxtaposition of small musical ostinato cells of brass and strings, it is almost a tonally inflected Stravinsky in Le Sacre? LOL! He even 'quoted' the syncopated low horns! WTH?! This leads to a frenzied and crazy Timpani and tom/tom solo and finally a full statement of the Kirk Theme in all its glory - I had multiple orgasms just watching the unveiling of the Enterprise along with Giacchino's music pumping in the background. But to have all your musical material introduced in the first two and half minutes of your work, and not developing it properly, is courting disaster. Soon, the nobility and menace of the two themes edge towards the banal and frivolous, almost becoming a pastiche of old Hollywood movies from the Golden Era. Perhaps this was the composer's true intention? [note - my partner in crime has mentioned that he liked the themes. perhaps for mass appeal, accessible music, simple melodies fragments or otherwise always work I suppose]. Personally, the rest of the score is in a much similar vein. It does it's job well but that's it. We even have the totally oddball Nero Sighted, which really reminds one of the old Batman scores of Elfman (definately) and maybe a little Goldenthal. Maybe its meant to be satire/comic relief? I nearly burst out laughing! Or maybe I listen and think too much. The notable exception would be the final two tracks ( To Boldly Go and End Credits). Here, we finally get our long awaited five note Star Trek space motif followed by the famous horn call (albeit rhythmically altered) and Alexander Courage's original theme, complete with impressionist female water nymph chrous and over the top strings. No disco accompaniments though, which is a pity! To quote this here at the end sounds stylistically disjointed from the rest of the score...but at this point, who really cares? I sprung up from my seat to attention, made the Vulcan hand sign and proudly sang my national anthem just the same! Ooops! Verdict: It's not your father's Trek. But hell, I love it all the same. Rating: 3.5 out of 5. 1. Star Trek (1:03) *recommended 2. Nailin’ the Kelvin (2:09) *recommended 3. Labor of Love (2:51) *recommended 4. Hella Bar Talk (1:55) 5. Enterprising Young Men (2:39) *recommended 6. Nero Sighted (3:23) 7. Nice To Meld You (3:13) 8. Run and Shoot Offense (2:04) 9. Does It Still McFly? (2:03) 10. Nero Death Experience (5:38) 11. Nero Fiddles, Narada Burns (2:34) 12. Back From Black (:59) 13. That New Car Smell (4:46) 14. To Boldly Go (:26) 15. End Credits (9:11) *recommendedTags: review, soundtrack, star trek
I am :  enthralled
I am listening to: Giacchino - Enterprising Young Men from Star Trek
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
  The score by Hans Zimmer (and his team of composers?) presents us with no surprises. Nothing really new - safe and predictable Zimmer here, a heavy influence from Minimalism and Ambient music, with lots of percussion (acoustic and electronic) and synthesizers. Perhaps in Hollywood, formulae is key - and Angels and Demons suffers from perhaps an almost total lack of originality. But that is not necessarily a bad thing. Admittingly, the score serves its purpose and function really well. I daresay, after watching this dud of a movie, that without Hans Zimmer at the helm, this movie would have fallen flat on its face. The score contains what I term "Chase or Anticipatory music" - what you get is an unbroken flow of music and rhythm to keep the audience on the edge of their seats, with little (or no!) room to breathe. It is an effective compositional technique - Pounding ostinati on drums and tuned percussion, relentless/unstoppable moto perpetuo (motoric rhythms) on strings and keyboards, simple looped harmonic progressions (modal or minor tonality). you can even throw haunting or Dies Irae type choir moments for some snatches of 'melody' and BANG! You don't even need to have something good on the screen (Track 1 160 BPM) . The Music does everything and I mean everything, for you. The descending chromatic choral passages were very nices touches. This is the ONLY track of 'Chase' music you need here in this album. Really. Amazing race syndrome? Turn off the music and well, you have little or no show. For most musicians (as well as highly emphamtic persons), this is a genre that they will find it hard to listen to even at times distressing - extremely tense due to its unresolving nature and constant built up of emotion and modulations. Nonetheless, this is superb for short action sequences, like trailers. But its extensive use may cause ears to tire - or recall the whole music censorship fiasco in Britain with the Da Vinci code? Yah. The theme "Chaveliers de Sangreal" from the Da Vinci code appears as source material for most of the melodic sequences in Angels and Demons (Track 9 503) and is treated mostly by variations. Apart from this element, the entire score is really the same thing; motives being looped and repeated. You can't go wrong with Joshua Bell on the violin here though. Not exactly Itzak Perlman weeping for Schindler, but guaranteed violin satisfaction. Track 6 (Science and Religion) is perhaps the true 'heart' of the Angels and Demons score. While in itself an extended movement based on the "Chaveliers" theme, it's the Zimmer of old that we grew to love so much. Joshua Bell plays brilliantly here and at times, I really thought I'd shed a tear. Well, almost. Verdict: A score that will launch a thousand action movie trailer soundtracks. Stick with The Da Vinci Code. Rating: 2.5 out of 5 - 160 BPM (6:42) *recommended
- God Particle (5:20)
- Air (9:08)
- Fire (6:51)
- Black Smoke (5:45)
- Science And Religion (12:27) *recommended
- Immolation (3:38)
- Election By Adoration (2:12)
- 503 (2:14) *recommended
Also, don't forget to download the bonus track " H20" anglesanddemons.com/soundtrack. CD cover images courtesy of Amazon. Tags: review, soundtrack
I am :  bored
I am listening to: Zimmer - 160 BPM from Angels and Demons
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From ST Forum http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_378442.htmlSelf-described feminist mentor's actions invited a reaction I REFER to Monday's letter by Dr Thio Su Mien, 'Gay activists a key constituency of Aware'. I would like to highlight a number of statements she made that serve no purpose other than to confuse. I am perplexed how Dr Thio can, in the same paragraph, say that Aware's Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) manual 'expressly states that homosexuality is neutral and normal', and then go on to attack the content of the CSE programme as 'non-neutral'. But that is a minor point. What strikes me as most curious is how Dr Thio seems to have conveniently forgotten that anal sex between heterosexuals is legal when putting forth the argument that anal sex is against the law. It appears that she perceives anal sex as an activity only homosexuals are capable of, and in which heterosexuals would not engage. Dr Thio has also chosen to view the support that 'sexually challenged women' provided to the old guard at the Aware extraordinary general meeting as a sinister indication that 'homosexual activists seeking to impose their values' have become a 'chief constituency of Aware'. She seems to have overlooked the fact that she and her feminist 'mentees' had made unfounded and moralistic attacks on an entire group of society while orchestrating an unjust takeover of a civil society group. It is hard to imagine that Dr Thio, with her vast experience as a 'feminist mentor', did not expect sexual minorities to stand up and defend themselves. How then does she indicate statistically that homosexuals have become a 'chief constituency of Aware'? However, I must agree with Dr Thio's assertion that discerning Singaporeans can examine the evidence to make up their own minds on this issue. Singaporeans are generally progressive and I am confident we are able to see past the smoke to inch towards a more inclusive and egalitarian society. Tim Mou Hui Tags: human rights, straits times
I am :  contemplative
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Someone's sharing this on facebook.. Emphasis and comments in bold mine. From Lisa Li I teach General Paper, not HomosexualityWith all due respect to the well-meaning “concerned parents” out there, this is starting to sound like a dodgy GP essay to me. Apparently, because my students and I “discuss topics such as the legalisation of gay marriage and parents of the same sex forming families through adoption” in class, I am guilty of promoting homosexuality.* Right. But never mind. MOE has already come to the rescue with their statement that “GP lessons are meant to promote critical thinking” and GP teachers “should also adhere to social norms and values of our mainstream society”.* Oh yes, apparently one can facilitate critical thinking, that is, the reasoned questioning of assumptions, norms and values AND fully reinforce and adhere to social norms at the same time. And wait, I see this again, in the debate on sexuality education and just what should be said about homosexuality: 1. Homosexuality is against the social norms and values of mainstream society. 2. Homosexuality is illegal and considered unnatural under Singapore law. The first thing any student of GP (or indeed, any human being who knows anything about world history) will realise, is that social norms change. Secondly, if you insist on going by “mainstream” values and beliefs, you may like to follow 43% of Singaporeans and look to Buddhism, which views homosexuality on neutral grounds, as opposed to Christianity (15%) and Islam (15%). In any case, the legal argument will only hold as long as homosexual acts are considered illegal in Singapore.... and judging from the force of change in the world, frankly my dear, you can't hold the dam for much longer. Singapore's law criminalising homosexual acts is based on British law – which decriminalised this in 1967. Other countries which have decriminalised homosexuality include France (1791), The Netherlands (1811), Brazil (1830), Ottoman Empire (1858), Germany (1871), Japan (1880), Italy (1889), USSR (1922), Denmark (1930), Iceland (1940), Switzerland (1942), Sweden (1944), Greece (1951), Thailand (1956), Israel (1963), Chad (1967), Canada (1969), Kosovo (1970), Australia (1981), South Africa (1994), China (1997) etc. This shows an increasing acceptance that personal preferences that do not harm anyone else should not be governed (in this case, criminalised) by the state. As with the wearing away of all other forms of inequality, I believe this discrimination of homosexuals cannot last. So what are we left with? Are we justifying a brand of education with reasons that won't hold weight for much longer? (*applause*) You may argue that making something legal doesn't make it right, and you have a point. But then that would depend on what you consider “right”, which really is a moral issue and one that concerns personal belief. So I have two points for you: 1. Personal beliefs – religious or otherwise – should not influence the laws of a secular society. The onus is on parents and preachers to educate their children in these beliefs. Say what you want at the pulpit, not in Parliament, and certainly, do not foist this responsibility onto your child's teachers in secular schools. (actually on this point, for these people to impose their values on their children... isn't that tantamount to child abuse? It is the same with religion... it is 'imposed' upon the poor child, is there any room for the child to question? To make informed decisions on his/her own? For e.g. telling stories to very young children, about the horrors of a supposed hell, where they will burn in a lake of fire for eternity, or mass genocide, torture, rape. All these from holy books?! ) 2. It is unfair, impractical and dangerous to insist that youths be given only the old rules when they live in a completely different world. Parents, if you insist on a black-and-white moral education for your children, you only drive them into secrecy when they need you most. If teachers cannot teach openly and factually, rest assured that the internet will. As an educator and maybe future parent, I admit I am less concerned about whether my children are homosexual/transsexual/(fill in the blank) or not, and more concerned that they should always respect others and themselves, never discriminate, always critically examine issues, always feel free to share their thoughts with me without fear of condemnation, always love and always be loved no matter what.
This is my hope.
Lisa Li
11 May 2009 Tags: homosexuality
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very good reading... READ! From The Online CitizenAWARE: Lessons from a fiasco
by Cherian George
The battle for control of Aware can be a learning experience for civil society activists and the wider public. There are at least three lessons to reflect on: the brand of secularism that works for Singapore; the type of representation that civil society organisations should offer; and the level of transparency and accountability that the public deserve from such groups. Secularism Some may view the outcome of the Aware showdown as a triumph over religious values and then – depending on their standpoint – either despair or gloat. But, this would be a wrong reading of events and only set the stage for more confrontational encounters. The battle for Aware should be seen instead as a struggle over how – not whether – to insert faith-based values into public life. While there are some societies that interpret secularism as delegitimising the entry of religious values into the public sphere, that has never been Singapore’s way. Secularism here acknowledges that many Singaporeans are spiritually oriented; it respects their right to inject faith-based words and actions into public life.
Crucially, however, the state stays separate and equidistant from the different religions. Even more crucially, when there are disagreements over public matters, Singaporean secularism cannot recognise religious arguments as a trump card. One could allow one’s reading of God’s will to dictate how one runs one’s own household or faith-based community (and even then only within the limits of the law); but God’s word cannot be the final word on how collective decisions are made in the public sphere. People of a particular faith must therefore be able to translate their values into secular terms to the satisfaction of fellow citizens who do not share those values, or else accept graciously that their desires are, for the moment, incompatible with what the wider society wants. The Aware battle was not between the profane and the sacred, but between those who understand Singaporean secularism and those who apparently do not. The concerted steps they took to subvert a secular organisation and rid its leadership of its traditional diversity showed that the insurgents did not want merely to be part of a conversation; they wanted to be the only voice. When intolerant – and considerably more violent – voices have surfaced in other religious communities, the moderate mainstream had to rise up to reclaim the microphone, to assure themselves and their fellow citizens that their faith was entirely compatible with peaceful co-existence in a multicultural and democratic society. Similarly, one of the most positive outcomes of the Aware saga is the strong assertion by Singaporeans of faith and their religious leaders: we are here, our faith makes us and our society stronger, but we will not impose our values on others. Representation
The Aware old guard accused the insurgents of .... Article continues here at TOC Tags: aware, chrisitianity, human rights, religion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So it is over. For now. Firstly a big hug to all my women friends who were at Suntec and voted with their conscience [so many to give]. It was truly a historic day for Singapore - in all areas of her life. Kudos to all of you who endured a marathon session with little food and drink! I have to admit... I jumped up and shed a tear when I was SMSed the news. (Yah..I was so late for family bbq I had to stop reading off twitterfall). There is hope for civil society, for Singapore. There are people, especially young people, passionate about issues that concern our nation. And they are willing to stand up for what they knew was right, to fight for it, and unwilling to take any nonsense that would destroy all that our forefathers have built. I am humbled and truly inspired by our womenfolk. They have showed determintation and strength, in the face of a relentless and unforgiving opponent. And what's more... logic and reason had triumphed! Other oppressed minorities should take a leaf out of this chapter. I am so proud to be a Singaporean today. --- Some thoughts 1. It was disappointing to read that the red shirts left in 'droves' after casting their ballots. It tells the world that they were not interested in anything else except the 'gay agenda'. There was no 'gay agenda' yet they were there to cast their vote just to be sure homosexuality would not see the light of day even if it meant AWARE was completely destroyed or bankrupt. It made me really angry and incensed that at the end of the meeting, only 'two read shirts' remained. It goes to show that we must continually engage these people, even if they are unwilling to listen. 2. AWARE has been damaged but will heal and grow strong. Though the women of COOS did a bad and misguided thing, the subsequent tsunami that was to descend on them was a good thing - it encouraged a strong sense of activism, in our nation's values, and for AWARE for that matter. And hopefully, some introspection for themselves. Even though some may argue that both sides were bordering on civility, I leave you with a quote...
The idea that any kind of free society can be constructed in which people will never be offended or insulted is absurd. So too is the notion that people should have the right to call on the law to defend them against being offended or insulted. A fundamental decision needs to be made: do we want to live in a free society or not? Democracy is not a tea party where people sit around making polite conversation. [emphasis mine] In democracies people get extremely upset with each other. They argue vehemently against each other’s positions. (But they don’t shoot.)- Salman Rushdie I'm glad that there was a resolution. 3. There were some really sharp, intelligent comments and questions today, as there were the utterly dumb, insensitive and insane diatribes. The day's events were nothing short of gripping. There are some lovely gems that will no doubt, be firmly entrenched into the psyche of the Singapore blogosphere. Hot picks: "Shut up and sit down!" "I'm on page 73." If you're interested in a transcript I think The Wayang Party comes pretty close. You can check out The Online Citizen as well. I heard from Stuart's tweets that some HD videos are floating around...haven't got around to watching them yet! 3. The battle is over - we must not gloat. We must extend the olive branch, but simulteanously be vigilant. For they will regroup, employ new tactics and come back stronger. There is no doubt. So we must do the same. [aside] what will happen to the bills that AWARE now has to foot? Will Josie and company be made to pay for that (unlikely)? I don't mind helping out in some donation drive. ---- I'm not joking about lunch/dinner with Miss Thio you know. Just that I have no idea what it's going to entail. I don't want to talk about religion/gay issues...so therein lies the problem of meeting in the first place. And I don't wanna come across as having some 'ulterior' motive. Well, I do don't I? LOL. Anyone with ideas? Tags: aware, human rights
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
disjecta's journal
Previous
artistic
lazy
content
blank
awake
apathetic
working
ditzy
amused
busy
good
lethargic
excited
cheerful
naughty
