AWARE Revisited
-
Something not quite clear to me.
Last time I found it strange that the media shone such a strong spotlight to the AWARE saga, and seemed to side toward one party.
And then later on there were some comments from government officials about the dangers of religious groups taking over, and religious leaders showing up one by one, publicly saying that secular groups should remain secular, etc, etc.
This is all quite confusing to me.
From my understanding, the new energetic motivated group simply want to limit or supress lesbianism views in AWARE.
Since last time Section 377A was also energetically supressed by the overall Singaporean public, it seems to me, the overall secular views of Singaporeans should also be against lesbianism.
So maybe the question should be asked instead, why is AWARE allowed to be taken over by pro-lesbianism group?
And why are conservative people representing the overall Singapore view, is being hammered so hard? Just simply because they went to the same church.
It seems some political elite in Singapore are too afraid of religious groups, which, I can appreciate their prudence, but I think for this time they over-reacted and didnt read the situation clearly.
What do you think...?
-
Oh, i am not Aware of it
-
Originally posted by Meat Pao:
Something not quite clear to me.
Last time I found it strange that the media shone such a strong spotlight to the AWARE saga, and seemed to side toward one party.
And then later on there were some comments from government officials about the dangers of religious groups taking over, and religious leaders showing up one by one, publicly saying that secular groups should remain secular, etc, etc.
This is all quite confusing to me.
From my understanding, the new energetic motivated group simply want to limit or supress lesbianism views in AWARE.
Since last time Section 377A was also energetically supressed by the overall Singaporean public, it seems to me, the overall secular views of Singaporeans should also be against lesbianism.
So maybe the question should be asked instead, why is AWARE allowed to be taken over by pro-lesbianism group?
And why are conservative people representing the overall Singapore view, is being hammered so hard? Just simply because they went to the same church.
It seems some political elite in Singapore are too afraid of religious groups, which, I can appreciate their prudence, but I think for this time they over-reacted and didnt read the situation clearly.
What do you think...?
It was not as simple as it look in the takeover of AWARE - which is a non-religious body - taken over by an enthusiastic group of Chrisitan activists.
This Christian activist group had disagreed with some of the public policies that were implemented by AWARE, and they began to scheme a plan to hijack control of this Public Body so as to change those policies that were found to be objectionable.
The methods employed by this Christian activist group was cunningly calculated, and organized in quiet and surreptitious ways that allowed them to execute a coup de'tat which quickly gave them control of the Executive Committee at one EGM.
They then set out to impose their own Christian moral values onto this Public Body, whose larger membership come from different religions with diametrically different religious views and values.
The entire manner in which the takeover was executed was distasteful and was a recipe for confrontation, which happened due to the arrogance displayed by the Public Face of the Christian activist group.
If the situation was allowed to continue, it will surely result in a clash of religious values between the new Executive Council members - who are entirely Christian, and the general membership from a wider multi-religious dimension.
-
bump over the nonsensical crap posted by knnb, stupid fellow
-
What you said is exactly what the newspaper and government officials say, but I think it's too theoretical and is actually not the real case.
They dont go into Aware to turn it into a Christian organization, they dont promote to people to accept Jesus Christ as Son and Saviour, and they dont change the logo into a cross logo, they dont do anything like this.
All they do is to reverse the worrying pro-lesbianism campaign of the old Aware committee.
Do you remember after this exposure, many parents noticed and became concerned with the AWARE teaching in schools and protested and then subsequently the MOE suspended and cancelled it.
So we can see that they represent the majority of conservative Singaporeans, they represent parents, they represent MOE. There is no difference. In fact we should thank them because they opened the public eyes. Otherwise who pay attention? Everybody is sleeping on the wheel, nobody pay attention that some deviant group have infiltrated an influential women's group and inserted a brainwashing campaign to young impressionable students.
But instead of thanking them, the reverse thing happened instead.
They were energetically hammered and pushed back.
All is because they went to the same church, so they got labelized and stigmatised, and some over-prudent, over-cautious people decided that it's too risky and suspicious.
I mean, come on.
I think what they tried to do is nothing wrong.
Today if you do a survey to Singapore women, I guarantee the majority would not like to have a pro-lesbianism agenda or ideals being promoted and especially being teached in schools to their children.
Hmm?
And the section 377A debate was not too long ago anyways. And we know how that went.
So I think we can say with relative certainty that they were doing something which serves the public interest.
Other than this, they dont have any "religious agenda" , none at all, I dont think so.
I read a couple interviews of that new leader, she says her concern is how to promote work-family balance for modern women, and some other things I cant remember.
This is very neutral, and in fact, very much needed by Singaporean women who a lot of them have to work, and there is a low birth rate problem in Singapore, which I suspect have got a connection with the fact that many women have to work, delay pregnancy, and / or work long hours.
This is very topical and relevant to Singapore.
And work-life balance is a favourite topic by many smart women leaders in the world, in fact Mrs Obama had said it too that she would like to learn and promote this issue as a First Lady.
So how is this very neutral, secular, representative, smart women, being hammered and pushed back like that.
I think that is quite regrettable.
They have a religious motive but they dont persue religious agenda. There is a difference.
For instance, if I become religious, I give money to beggar. Giving money to beggar is a neutral act and will not make anyone agry or offended, and is representative of the overall public view of what is good.
If I become religious, then I print books to convert people and hold rallies, then you can say what I do is dangerous and wrong and will make some other people angry and offended.
Can you see the difference here?
Many religious people are more motivated, and want to do something positive, their energy should be tapped, and they should be welcomed to do good, to join NGOs, to join charities, to join civil society.
They should not be turned away in suspiscion.
This is really quite regrettable.
-
Meat Pao and Veggie Pao, this is interesting.....
-
Newly registered member.
More interesting.
-
Originally posted by Veggie Bao:
What you said is exactly what the newspaper and government officials say, but I think it's too theoretical and is actually not the real case.
They dont go into Aware to turn it into a Christian organization, they dont promote to people to accept Jesus Christ as Son and Saviour, and they dont change the logo into a cross logo, they dont do anything like this.
All they do is to reverse the worrying pro-lesbianism campaign of the old Aware committee.
Do you remember after this exposure, many parents noticed and became concerned with the AWARE teaching in schools and protested and then subsequently the MOE suspended and cancelled it.
So we can see that they represent the majority of conservative Singaporeans, they represent parents, they represent MOE. There is no difference. In fact we should thank them because they opened the public eyes. Otherwise who pay attention? Everybody is sleeping on the wheel, nobody pay attention that some deviant group have infiltrated an influential women's group and inserted a brainwashing campaign to young impressionable students.
But instead of thanking them, the reverse thing happened instead.
They were energetically hammered and pushed back.
All is because they went to the same church, so they got labelized and stigmatised, and some over-prudent, over-cautious people decided that it's too risky and suspicious.
I mean, come on.
I think what they tried to do is nothing wrong.
Today if you do a survey to Singapore women, I guarantee the majority would not like to have a pro-lesbianism agenda or ideals being promoted and especially being teached in schools to their children.
Hmm?
And the section 377A debate was not too long ago anyways. And we know how that went.
So I think we can say with relative certainty that they were doing something which serves the public interest.
Other than this, they dont have any "religious agenda" , none at all, I dont think so.
I read a couple interviews of that new leader, she says her concern is how to promote work-family balance for modern women, and some other things I cant remember.
This is very neutral, and in fact, very much needed by Singaporean women who a lot of them have to work, and there is a low birth rate problem in Singapore, which I suspect have got a connection with the fact that many women have to work, delay pregnancy, and / or work long hours.
This is very topical and relevant to Singapore.
And work-life balance is a favourite topic by many smart women leaders in the world, in fact Mrs Obama had said it too that she would like to learn and promote this issue as a First Lady.
So how is this very neutral, secular, representative, smart women, being hammered and pushed back like that.
I think that is quite regrettable.
They have a religious motive but they dont persue religious agenda. There is a difference.
For instance, if I become religious, I give money to beggar. Giving money to beggar is a neutral act and will not make anyone agry or offended, and is representative of the overall public view of what is good.
If I become religious, then I print books to convert people and hold rallies, then you can say what I do is dangerous and wrong and will make some other people angry and offended.
Can you see the difference here?
Many religious people are more motivated, and want to do something positive, their energy should be tapped, and they should be welcomed to do good, to join NGOs, to join charities, to join civil society.
They should not be turned away in suspiscion.
This is really quite regrettable.
One point, if you don't mind. It wasn't about, against lesbianism, but about, against homosexualism.