Josie Minus her Pussycats Tonight 10pm on CNA interview with Balji & Debbie Soon

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Locke, not sure if you read this piece? Found it quite interesting although I am still trying to be on the neutral side
Letter criticises TOC for use of “divisive labels” in article
Sunday, 19 April 2009, 11:15 pm | 1,944 views
Dear Sir,

I refer to the report: “TOC Report: 150 call for vote of no confidence” by Choo Zheng Xi.

I write this letter in response to two objections I have about what the author of the article wrote. :

1) Christian Fundamentalism

Firstly, I object to the pigeonholing of AWARE ex-co members as “Christian Fundamentalists”, a term which the author employs in his article. After quoting a statement by Angela Thiang about her stance against homosexuals, Mr Choo then makes the logical leap (and a huge one that is) in the very next line to conclude that AWARE is now run by a group of “Christian Fundamentalists.”

I take issue with making this huge leap because (i) nowhere in the article is there suggestion or evidence that the ex-co is now Christian fundamentalist, (ii) an anti-homosexual stance does not equate to Christian fundamentalism.

True, Jenice Chua and Angela Thiang had both previously attracted attention for their anti-homosexual stance. But is that evidence of Christian fundamentalism? Is that a good ground for labelling them as such? How is the Author sure that they are Christians in the first place? And even if they are Christians, why must they be pigeonholed as being “fundamentalist” as opposed to “misguided” or “uninformed Christians” or “Christians who may not be totally familiar with Christ’s teachings as a whole.”

Attaching the “fundamentalist” label on them just results in tarring public perception of their reputation because “fundamentalist” as a term carries with it a negative connotation. A glance through some of the comments on TOC using the search function to look for the term “fundamentalist” would perhaps make this point of mine much clearer.

Mr Choo needs to be more aware of the implications of using certain terms before using them loosely as he has done.

2) Christianity and Regressiveness

The second grouse I have is Mr Choo’s quoting of the Glass Castle Magazine’s editor, Jolene, whose view is that Christian fundamentalism leads to effects that are “regressive to women’s rights.”

Firstly, I think that there must be more justification on Mr Choo’s part first to show why Christian fundamentalism leads to a regression in terms of women’s rights. Simply putting a quote there will not do. Again, we see here a large logical leap that it unjustified. It seems as though the Author has made the erroneous assumption that Christianity is against women having rights or worse, that Christianity leads to a diminution of women’s rights – both of these are untrue.

Many questions follow from his quoting of Jolene’s views:

- What is the Christian stance on women’s rights?

- Does it in the first place negatively affect women’s rights or does it promote women’s rights?

- Is Mr Choo even aware of how Christianity views the issue of women’s rights? If he does not, is he therefore justified in making such an equation between Christianity and regression of women’s rights?

One perspective that I hope Mr Choo will consider is that Christianity holds women in high regard. The Bible affirms that women are equally valued, equally treated and share the same divine image of men. Husbands are to love and honour their wives just as they love themselves. Let it also not be forgotten that the Biblical accounts of Christ’s resurrection sees women as the first ones at the empty tomb.

From this and from other articles on the TOC website, it seems to me that TOC is trying to side with the old committee of AWARE. Based on what Mr Choo wrote and based on the lack of evidence, it seems very contrived for him to try and link the new committee to anti-homosexual and “Christian fundamentalist” stances, both of which are deeply dividing terminologies.

Concluding, I wish to urge against the use of such divisive labels such as “fundamentalist” as it is unhelpful in promoting civil discourse. Even if one believes bona fide that someone is a “fundamentalist,” perhaps there are other less offensive terms that can and should be used.

Yours Sincerely,

Tang Shang Jun

—–

Editor’s note:

TOC apologizes for any offence caused by the terminology employed in the article in question and highlights that it was not our intention to criticize the Christian community as a whole.

Dear Porifirio

But alas some basic tenets of gender equality run against the very basic values of the christian right. For example a basic fundamental aspect of gender equality is that women have the right to decide on ok issues of their own sexuality but more than that above and beyond that, the basic issue of the right to chose and decide on sexual reproductive protection health and methods.

Can u imagine the "moral xtian right" supporting that ? Please see the abstinence versus condom debate. Equality at work is possibly something that Josie bin Ladin should be able to support but I hardly feel that she would support AWARE in lobbying for greater rights for single mothers, single women etc in that area, perhaps equal pay for married women, and greater rights for women with kids are something both sides of the liberal and conservative divide can agree on, but feminist have always been concerned about the greater issues.




Locke

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Is AWARE a "political party/org"?

No, there's nothing wrong with Christian women joining AWARE on their own accord. But joining on others' urging is a different matter. A sudden influx of Christian women turning up at the EGM is unlikely unless church machinery is used (like pastors speaking in church, emails being sent out, etc). But religious organisations here are prohibited from meddling in politics (however that is construed). So I was just wondering if there was such evidence to be collected. And that would put them in the doghouse.

.

 

[lancheowman]

You have raised some interesting points here no doubt...however I am not so sure that you are correct on the highlighted one though...now back to the polarising issues, again I say why not let both parties have their say and then take it to a vote?

you are just trying to support yout christian agenda. what's the point of putting it to a vote when you have alreday subverted the organisation from inside?

 

[lancheowman]

Is AWARE a "political party/org"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bellepepper02
No, there's nothing wrong with Christian women joining AWARE on their own accord. But joining on others' urging is a different matter. A sudden influx of Christian women turning up at the EGM is unlikely unless church machinery is used (like pastors speaking in church, emails being sent out, etc). But religious organisations here are prohibited from meddling in politics (however that is construed). So I was just wondering if there was such evidence to be collected. And that would put them in the doghouse.

pork fillet babi rosa,
you do not have to be a political party to be politically involved. you cannot fool all the ppl all the time with this kind of half past six logic

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Err Red Devil, so you are saying that I am taking sides with Josie and her Pussycats is it?

you are just trying to support yout christian agenda. what's the point of putting it to a vote when you have alreday subverted the organisation from inside?

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Local Pappy context Red Devil.

pork fillet babi rosa,
you do not have to be a political party to be politically involved. you cannot fool all the ppl all the time with this kind of half past six logic

 

[lancheowman]

Err Red Devil, so you are saying that I am taking sides with Josie and her Pussycats is it?

did i say that? do you think there are objectively grounds for me or anyone else to suggest that?

 

[scoopdreams]

Locke, not sure if you read this piece? Found it quite interesting although I am still trying to be on the neutral side

...

1) Christian Fundamentalism

Firstly, I object to the pigeonholing of AWARE ex-co members as “Christian Fundamentalists”, a term which the author employs in his article. After quoting a statement by Angela Thiang about her stance against homosexuals, Mr Choo then makes the logical leap (and a huge one that is) in the very next line to conclude that AWARE is now run by a group of “Christian Fundamentalists.”

...

Mr Choo needs to be more aware of the implications of using certain terms before using them loosely as he has done.

"What's in a name? A rose called by any other name will smell just as sweet." However, the term 'fundamentalist(s)' has been over-abused, as the letter-writer said. I very much prefer the term '<insert name="" of="" belief="" here="">(insert belief name here) conservatives'.

This is not so much to make the other party look good, as it is more to make me sound rational and measured. Your choice of words will make or fall your credibility, and in a battle of words, the chances of victory.

By the way, did he just agreed with Mr Choo? 'he made the logical leap' - that's agreeing to Mr Choo's reasoning right? Was that a Freudian slip?

2) Christianity and Regressiveness

The second grouse I have is Mr Choo’s quoting of the Glass Castle Magazine’s editor, Jolene, whose view is that Christian fundamentalism leads to effects that are “regressive to women’s rights.”

Firstly, I think that there must be more justification on Mr Choo’s part first to show why Christian fundamentalism leads to a regression in terms of women’s rights. Simply putting a quote there will not do. Again, we see here a large logical leap that it unjustified. It seems as though the Author has made the erroneous assumption that Christianity is against women having rights or worse, that Christianity leads to a diminution of women’s rights – both of these are untrue.

Many questions follow from his quoting of Jolene’s views:

- What is the Christian stance on women’s rights?

- Does it in the first place negatively affect women’s rights or does it promote women’s rights?

- Is Mr Choo even aware of how Christianity views the issue of women’s rights? If he does not, is he therefore justified in making such an equation between Christianity and regression of women’s rights?

One perspective that I hope Mr Choo will consider is that Christianity holds women in high regard. The Bible affirms that women are equally valued, equally treated and share the same divine image of men. Husbands are to love and honour their wives just as they love themselves. Let it also not be forgotten that the Biblical accounts of Christ’s resurrection sees women as the first ones at the empty tomb.

From this and from other articles on the TOC website, it seems to me that TOC is trying to side with the old committee of AWARE. Based on what Mr Choo wrote and based on the lack of evidence, it seems very contrived for him to try and link the new committee to anti-homosexual and “Christian fundamentalist” stances, both of which are deeply dividing terminologies.

Concluding, I wish to urge against the use of such divisive labels such as “fundamentalist” as it is unhelpful in promoting civil discourse. Even if one believes bona fide that someone is a “fundamentalist,” perhaps there are other less offensive terms that can and should be used.

Yours Sincerely,

Tang Shang Jun

If Mr Tang needs hard evidence, just look at modern developments in pro-life/pro-abortion (modern term: pro-choice) issues, creationism/evolution education issues, sexual awareness in young people, etc. Modern developments in these issues have not generally followed or acceded to Christian views. I'm not saying Christian views are bad, but I am of the belief that Christian views are not very applicable in modern day society.

If we all follow Mr Tang's view - all is not contrary unless proven otherwise - we will have lost our faculties for assessment and evaluation, and let the wild dogs of wanton 'experiments' loose.

Don't ever say 'see how lah', before you ask the question 'what do I think will happen?'. Reactive vs active, apathy vs concern. No choice vs Your Choice.
</insert>

 

[lancheowman]

Local Pappy context Red Devil.

wat local pappy context?

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Wanna get involved in local politics on a public level then you gotta start a political party...

anyways I am inclined to agree with these comments below

11) Doctor on TOC April 21st, 2009 9.13 pm I do think there is too much concern about the goings on at AWARE. And much of this write-up is nit picking. So Josie gave a lame excuse (no President) for quietude … and maybe wants to project conciliation whilst actually embroiled in antagonistic politics. All that is not surprising in ‘politics’, is it? Even in an NGO.

So why all the angst. I can understand it from the yawningbread pt of view - watch out, these guys are anti-gay! Because yawningbread is focussed on being pro-gay.

But from the TOC pt of view? If this group manages to seize AWARE legitimately and have the support to push their anti-gay agenda, then isn’t it more important to uphold their right to take the position they want (even if it is anti-gay)?

The ‘dangerous’ angle, which should be of interest to TOC, is the alleged mixing of religion with politics - but that is not borne out of ppl being from the same church - it comes out of ppl actually using religious arguments in what they say etc. I’ve not seen anyone do that yet. And if they do, I expect it won’t be just TOC which has something to say abt it.

The other reason for TOC to go on abt the AWARE goings on is a regret that the old guard has been ambushed - an old guard which did good work. So it is a loss. That is why we will hope that the old guard will be restored, especially after seeing how the newbies have handled themselves. But that will happen in its own time, without unnecessary sniping at the newbies over trifles. The newbies look like a bunch who will dig their own graves anyway!

wat local pappy context?

 

[lancheowman]

Wanna get involved in local politics on a public level then you gotta start a political party...

anyways I am inclined to agree with these comments below

11) Doctor on TOC April 21st, 2009 9.13 pm I do think there is too much concern about the goings on at AWARE. And much of this write-up is nit picking. So Josie gave a lame excuse (no President) for quietude … and maybe wants to project conciliation whilst actually embroiled in antagonistic politics. All that is not surprising in ‘politics’, is it? Even in an NGO.

So why all the angst. I can understand it from the yawningbread pt of view - watch out, these guys are anti-gay! Because yawningbread is focussed on being pro-gay.

But from the TOC pt of view? If this group manages to seize AWARE legitimately and have the support to push their anti-gay agenda, then isn’t it more important to uphold their right to take the position they want (even if it is anti-gay)?

The ‘dangerous’ angle, which should be of interest to TOC, is the alleged mixing of religion with politics - but that is not borne out of ppl being from the same church - it comes out of ppl actually using religious arguments in what they say etc. I’ve not seen anyone do that yet. And if they do, I expect it won’t be just TOC which has something to say abt it.

The other reason for TOC to go on abt the AWARE goings on is a regret that the old guard has been ambushed - an old guard which did good work. So it is a loss. That is why we will hope that the old guard will be restored, especially after seeing how the newbies have handled themselves. But that will happen in its own time, without unnecessary sniping at the newbies over trifles. The newbies look like a bunch who will dig their own graves anyway!

so are you taking sides with Josie and her Pussycats?

 

[n01215]

so are you taking sides with Josie and her Pussycats?

ay lancheow.. why donch u wise up and argue with a bit more facts rather than yelping like n irritating little bitch.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Another POV that I am inclined to agree with

Aware should neither promote nor reject homosexuality

I READ with great interest the continuing Aware saga, and the opinions held by some that religion and homosexuality are irrelevant to the roles of the new executive committee.
I do not believe that the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) should be in the business of promoting or rejecting homosexuality. In its 24-year history, homosexuality has never been an issue of contention on Aware's agenda.

As it sought to protect and promote the rights of women, Aware respected the existence of individuals with alternative lifestyles and diverse religious backgrounds, without calling undue attention to these differences.

It is fair to say that accepting and tolerating homosexuality are not equivalent to the promotion of it. Call it the "live-and-let-live" stance, one that is also taken by the secular Singapore Government. To put the issue at the forefront of Aware's charter would have been wrong.

The current cloud of suspicion arose not because of the personal beliefs held by members of the new exco. They are entitled to these opinions. It is the possibly the means by which the new exco took office that have caused the current controversy.

The spirit of democracy has an underlying assumption: that the electorate is legitimate. If there was election engineering at work, and members have not been completely forthcoming about their motives, democracy would have failed in its purpose, and Aware will suffer as a result over the long term.

While Aware should not be a proxy for gay interest groups, neither should it stand for the rejection of homosexuality. Being "pro-women, pro-family, pro-Singapore", in the words of newly appointed president Josie Lau, does not mean one is anti-gay. Likewise, I hope people pause to recognise that being gay does not mean one is anti-women, anti-family and anti-Singapore.

In an educated society, people should be free to speak for or against the issue of homosexuality, as long as they do it in the spirit of peace, order and responsibility. Both points of view need to be heard so that balance and consensus can be achieved.

Aware is Singapore's most established non-governmental organisation, and it is unfortunate that the spirit of unification that has long been the hallmark of its reputation has been shredded to pieces within a matter of weeks.

Daniel Tan

so are you taking sides with Josie and her Pussycats?