My mother and I have different opinions on the AWARE saga. Her position, seemingly on the old guard's side, is that Christians should keep our beliefs to ourselves and not force our beliefs 'down other people's throats', to quote the Archbishop of the Anglican Church in Singapore. I understand her point that being over zealous can backfire on us. She used religious fundamentalists as examples of the negative consequences of getting too involved in a faith. Mummy advocates for a neutral position on this issue.
While I totally agree with her idea that forcing beliefs down others' throat is unacceptable becuase it casts a bad light on Christians, I do not believe that we should take a neutral position on this issue. I don't think there is such a thing as no position; taking no position in itself is a position. What makes neutrality better than having an opinion? The non-religious are susceptible to performing an extreme act too. Two suspicious envelopes have been sent to the Church of Our Savior in Margaret Drive. Supposedly 'scientific' and 'dispassionate' atheists, like Richard Dawkins, vehemently advocate their beliefs too.
Clearly, the problem doesn't lie in religion per se. Everyone, religious or not, is equally prone to becoming a 'freak'. So, what makes neutrality a better position than a religious one? I'm not saying that a religious position is necessarily better than a non-religious one too. What I am saying is that we should know the basis of our positions. It is fine to have a different opinion, as long as we know why.
On a side note, it is in my opinion that the media has chosen to blow this issue out of proportion, although I don't know the reason why. Perhaps The Straits Times is trying to ride on any residual energy from 377a. Really, ST should write a cheque to the homosexual community for helping them sell the papers.
No comments:
Post a Comment