Strike at the right places at the right time
From: http://thevoiddeck.org/?p=568
"On another front, Thio claimed, Christians face an emergent threat to social harmony whereby a non-religious group uses the religious card on Christians to raise emotions and divert away from the issue at hand. Thio stated that the AWARE incident was a perfect example where there was no religious issue as it was about a private takeover of a NGO and a debate over public values. But someone threw the religious card into the debate and when that happened all rationality was lost. The non-Christian who threw in the religious card, Thio argued, used religion to incite hatred over a group and such an act was dangerous tantamount to playing with fire."
I argued previously that we only have, at best, circumstantial evidence for proving that Josie Lau and company overtook AWARE on religious grounds, and that that is neither necessary nor sufficient for the indictment the new guard faced. Consistently, I hold that Thio Li-Ann is right here in saying that 'someone threw the religious card into the debate and when that happened all rationality was lost.' As much as I am a proponent of secularism, and as much as I felt quite riled up over the matter, I do not approve treating the AWARE issue as a religious one.
By doing so secularists have exposed one flank to a backlash from a certain group of Christians, a backlash that is perhaps inevitable. Hence now this group can turn around and portray the public as the aggressors. Hence we have:
'Thio also shared on how she has been maliciously targeted online and had to “turn her cheek” many a times as a good Christian.'
'The non-Christian who threw in the religious card, Thio argued, used religion to incite hatred over a group and such an act was dangerous tantamount to playing with fire.'
'The same, Thio continued, could be said of TOC when they victimized her (no specifics) by playing the religious card and accused her of imposing her Christian values when she was merely debating on a public values as a citizen. She termed the TOC coverage as a lie and irresponsible reporting and said that TOC was not interested in public debate and was only interested in creating confusion.'
I agree that these are all valid charges. What's done is done, and I don't think there's any good way to successfully defend against these charges without attacking the ethos of the charger.
Secularists, however, have yet to play their strongest deck. The deck has just simply these 3 cards:
1) Democratic debate has to be based on reason.
2) Religious assertations are not based on reason.
3) Religious assertations have no place in democratic debate.
This isn't logically tight, at least in a formal sense. But you get the idea. Why are religious assertations not based on reason? That's because they ultimately fall back to God(s). Now, unless we can verify the existence of God, I don't see how falling back to the word of God is any different from saying, All heterosexuals must be locked up because my God says heterosexuality is a sin. And I don't think religious groups would want to refute that card because the moment religion is brought down to scientific scrutiny, the whole entity just dissipates, unless one can scientifically prove the existence of God. Cards 1 and 2 are relatively vulnerable though, but it remains to be seen if religious people can exploit those vulnerabilities.
***
Anyway, here's something funny for both camps to laugh over:
Dr Laura Schlesinger is a US broadcaster who dispenses advice to people who call her radio show. On one of her shows she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, she held that homosexuality was an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and she could not condone it in any way.
The following is an open letter to Dr Laura from a US citizen which was posted on the internet:
'Dear Dr. Laura
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev.15: 19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25-44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath, Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10)it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your faithful listener'
- Vanessa Baird, "Faith and Fundamentalism".
I need to mention, as a final note, that secularists must be extremely careful in attacking Singanews, if ever they should want to attack it. I think it may be wiser to just leave it alone. Let them over-reach themselves. Let them grow confident, let them slip in things that an objective reporter wouldn't slip in. If they don't, then all's good. If they do, then it's time to fight. Oops, I meant debate.
"On another front, Thio claimed, Christians face an emergent threat to social harmony whereby a non-religious group uses the religious card on Christians to raise emotions and divert away from the issue at hand. Thio stated that the AWARE incident was a perfect example where there was no religious issue as it was about a private takeover of a NGO and a debate over public values. But someone threw the religious card into the debate and when that happened all rationality was lost. The non-Christian who threw in the religious card, Thio argued, used religion to incite hatred over a group and such an act was dangerous tantamount to playing with fire."
I argued previously that we only have, at best, circumstantial evidence for proving that Josie Lau and company overtook AWARE on religious grounds, and that that is neither necessary nor sufficient for the indictment the new guard faced. Consistently, I hold that Thio Li-Ann is right here in saying that 'someone threw the religious card into the debate and when that happened all rationality was lost.' As much as I am a proponent of secularism, and as much as I felt quite riled up over the matter, I do not approve treating the AWARE issue as a religious one.
By doing so secularists have exposed one flank to a backlash from a certain group of Christians, a backlash that is perhaps inevitable. Hence now this group can turn around and portray the public as the aggressors. Hence we have:
'Thio also shared on how she has been maliciously targeted online and had to “turn her cheek” many a times as a good Christian.'
'The non-Christian who threw in the religious card, Thio argued, used religion to incite hatred over a group and such an act was dangerous tantamount to playing with fire.'
'The same, Thio continued, could be said of TOC when they victimized her (no specifics) by playing the religious card and accused her of imposing her Christian values when she was merely debating on a public values as a citizen. She termed the TOC coverage as a lie and irresponsible reporting and said that TOC was not interested in public debate and was only interested in creating confusion.'
I agree that these are all valid charges. What's done is done, and I don't think there's any good way to successfully defend against these charges without attacking the ethos of the charger.
Secularists, however, have yet to play their strongest deck. The deck has just simply these 3 cards:
1) Democratic debate has to be based on reason.
2) Religious assertations are not based on reason.
3) Religious assertations have no place in democratic debate.
This isn't logically tight, at least in a formal sense. But you get the idea. Why are religious assertations not based on reason? That's because they ultimately fall back to God(s). Now, unless we can verify the existence of God, I don't see how falling back to the word of God is any different from saying, All heterosexuals must be locked up because my God says heterosexuality is a sin. And I don't think religious groups would want to refute that card because the moment religion is brought down to scientific scrutiny, the whole entity just dissipates, unless one can scientifically prove the existence of God. Cards 1 and 2 are relatively vulnerable though, but it remains to be seen if religious people can exploit those vulnerabilities.
***
Anyway, here's something funny for both camps to laugh over:
Dr Laura Schlesinger is a US broadcaster who dispenses advice to people who call her radio show. On one of her shows she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, she held that homosexuality was an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and she could not condone it in any way.
The following is an open letter to Dr Laura from a US citizen which was posted on the internet:
'Dear Dr. Laura
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev.15: 19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25-44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath, Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10)it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your faithful listener'
- Vanessa Baird, "Faith and Fundamentalism".
I need to mention, as a final note, that secularists must be extremely careful in attacking Singanews, if ever they should want to attack it. I think it may be wiser to just leave it alone. Let them over-reach themselves. Let them grow confident, let them slip in things that an objective reporter wouldn't slip in. If they don't, then all's good. If they do, then it's time to fight. Oops, I meant debate.
1 Comments:
Lol...I just hope that when and if that time comes, there will still be a basis for debate.
Aquila
Post a Comment
<< Home