I Applaud the Keeping of Section 377A
Written by ED on October 26, 2007 – 9:16 am - Tags: , Christianity, homosexuality, law, morality, Singapore, social backlash, social issuesPosted in Blogosphere, Christianity, Current Affairs, Singapore, Society |
It sounds arrogant, or perhaps provocative to some that I would openly applaud the keeping of Section 377A. However, I am quite appalled that Section 377 itself was repealed and not amended. I will touched on this later.
Back to the point on Section 377A, we have read quite a big amount of views from everywhere, official or not. The diverse exchange of arguments is one of the rare occasions where Singaporeans literally took to the “stages” instead of the usual practice of hearing only the politicians’ words. No doubt I am not the biggest fan of our ruling party & the political scene here, I have to be fair that for once they have become spectators and they didn’t set the rules all by themselves or based on what they think is right. The citizens - Singaporeans - did.
Over the course of debating on the proposed repeal, we have seen arguments from all directions rooting from all kinds of philosophies. One thing however, whether Section 377A is repealed or not, Christianity will always be under fire for all sorts of reasons. Yet, it is indeed laughable how baseless accusations (or perceptions) towards Christianity are being used in their debate to justify the repeal.
Let’s just face it, with a successful repeal many would claim victory over Christianity. Without the repeal, many will still attack Christianity. Therefore be it with repeal or not, Christianity will always remain an eyesore to some in many ways. I am not saying the pro-repeal camps are not entitled to do so but I will indicate that through the debates on Section 377A, I have seen many ugly Christians. If someone bothered to dig through my archives, it is not hard to see that I am very much a Christian and like what I conversed with Xizor and Sicarii, I will speak out against my fellow Christians when I have to.
Let’s take a look at some baseless accusations and assumptions that have been used in the course of justifying the proposal for the repeal of Section 377A.
1. If Christianity founded in western countries can be brought in, why can’t alternative lifestyles?
This is one accusation which I often laugh out loud. Since when was Christianity ever founded in western countries? I am amazed that even fellow Christians gotten this complete warped founding of Christianity, can I blame the non-believers?
For your information, Christianity was founded in Middle-East along with Islam almost at the same time. That is precisely why Christianity and Islam are very much similar if you compare the Quran & Bible. They are the closest in relation, than to any other religions. Countries like Israel & Iraq are commonly mentioned countries in the Old Testament. In Christianity, it’s about Jesus Christ and his followers are termed Christ-ians! In Islam, it is about Mohammad, to whom they refer to as God’s final prophet.
Even in the history of many other civilisations, the Chinese Emperors in China and British Kings are often referred to as “Son of God”. If you’re lost, in China their Emperors are known as “天子”. Before these rulers made any big decisions, they will always seek advice through their holy fathers. Of course, nobody can force you to believe in it.
Sorry, I just cannot accept that Christianity was founded in Western countries.
2. The keep-377A efforts are nothing more than a Christian’s attempt to influence the law structure in Singapore.
This is another funny version, because Singapore’s law structure was mainly inherited from our British colonial masters in the past. Over the years, we have seen a fair share of changes in our law to suit to our Asian’s context, therefore to accuse and charge that our law system is built and maintained based on Christian laws is utterly hilarious. You didn’t understand the roots of Christianity because you ain’t a believer, I really cannot blame you. But can you be forgiven if a Singaporean does not even know the historical attributes of Singapore?
3. The starters of keep-377A efforts are mainly Christians preachers who want to influence the world, or Singapore’s society.
The attacks on the founders of this petitioned movements can get very personal. Their personal faith and beliefs are one of the most talk-about issue, like in Yawning Bread. To attack Christianity with such a reasoning, you are also telling us that all Muslim Ministers and chairperson in Parliament must denounce their Muslim faith before they can stand for elections. In addition, you are also telling us that someone who speaks about social issues cannot be a person with any form of religious beliefs, since according to you the stand will be biased. Is this reasonable? I leave it to you to decide.
4. The supporters are nothing more than Christians in support of their religious teachings.
Again, Christians who signed the keep-377A petition are under-fire for their vote. Can we say, Christians should be barred from voting in General Elections? It is very interesting to see how Yawning Bread plucked out selective evidence to support its claim, and allow me to show you stuffs that Yawning Bread hope you will never see. This is what a voter in the petition wrote;
Beng, Singapore Citizen
I am a Buddhist and I support the Penal Code 377A too. Not just the Christian people. My Buddhist and Taoist friends too support keeping the code for the good of Singapore. I think it has nothing to do with religion and it seems to me those pro-repeal supporters are stirring trouble here.
Ok fine, I finally realised Buddhists and Taoists attend church services too according to the manner Yawning Bread puts it across. Is this a direct slap across the face of the author who penned that article?
As you can see, the “war-on-377A” becomes a “war-on-Christianity” aka George Bush’s style. From the war on terror, it became a war on Iraq propoganda. Surprisingly, many supporters of the repeal who bore similar criticism of George Bush’s action, are actually using the same technique indirectly. So what justification are you in seek of?
It is of little wonder why the repeal of Section 377A collapsed with little fanfare. Given my previous two posts on this issue, there is nothing much substantial they can argue with when I wrote with ZERO biblical references. If they can’t even argue well on the basics, let alone on the faith issue.
ADDITION: Your unhappiness and displeasure with public policies by the government should not be vented on religious groups. You are basically barking up the wrong tree.
I mentioned earlier that I am appalled by the repeal of Section 377. As much as I agree that this repeal would do good for legitimate man and woman, I am surprised that it is not even retained for the animals sake. Does the repeal of Section 377 actually means carnal intercourse with animals are legal? In addition, how do you supposed that an animal agreed to carnal intercourse with a human? It’s… ridiculous.
EDIT: Thanks to Xizor for highlighting this. The act with animals and corpses will be covered under another act.
Take for example, a woman who climax during the process of rape does not amount to agreement of sexual intercourse. To climax, is a natural body reaction when aroused. However, whether she is willingly aroused or forcefully aroused is another matter altogether. That is why it is called “rape”.
Perhaps, that’s an indication how lowly animals are viewed in our first world & highly civilised country. No wonder the punishment for animal abuser is much lesser than when the same crime is committed against humans.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Good article, Ed!
You said most of what I wanted to write since our three-way conversation the other day with Xizor.
Just one little note: I disagree with the sentence “Christianity was founded in Middle-East along with Islam almost at the same time”. To state so mean that both faiths were established alongside each other in almost the same time period.
However, historically, Islam was founded in the early part of the 7 Century A.D., about more than 600 years after the birth, death and resurrection of Christ Jesus.
My point is a 600-year gap is not almost at the same time.
God bless, and Shabbat Shalom.
[Reply]
October 26th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Isaiah: Under that context, yes - you are right in the disagreement. 600 years is quite a big gap on numerical terms. I based that statement in comparison with other religions as a matter of fairness that our world does not consist of only these two religions. So based on that, 600 years apart compared to other religions is seriously a very small difference.
I definitely do not mind being enlightened. However, for the issue of Section 377A I always prefer, as told to you guys, to see it beyond faith and religious teachings. It can be a religious issue to us but overall in Singapore it is a social issue.
[Reply]
October 26th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Socially or religiously, the reasons given for the retention of Section 377A are almost alike — for example, the importance of the family unit is cited many times over.
However, the justifications for that reason can both come from a social or religious basis.
And much as people love to say that you should not color your judgments with religious convictions for social issues, the fact is that once you are identified as a member of a certain faith detractors will pin that label on you no matter what.
The irony, of course, is that these detractors themselves cannot separate the faith/religion from a person when they keep insisting on such separations.
[Reply]
October 26th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Isaiah: Which is why the collapse of their arguments are very well anticipated.
[Reply]
October 26th, 2007 at 11:58 am
I strongly feel that religion shouldn’t be mixed with this debate. But sad to say, many people are linking this debate with religion. (both christian and non-christian)
And sad to say, we aren’t mature enough to have an adult debate on issue that is related to religion.
[Reply]
October 26th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Although I agree to some degree that this is a social issue more than a religious one, I still hold to the premise that what constitutes a person’s perception of morality and principles in life are strongly linked to his cultural and religious background/upbringing.
It is _impossible_ to not have cultural and religious views represented in some way when people give their opinions on any issue. Ultimately, we are who we are because of these factors.
Social views are shaped from cultural and religious beliefs. For example, the Chinese put emphasis on respecting and honoring one’s ancestors which is in actuality shaped by a good mix of cultural, philosophical and even religious views and practices. Every aspect is interlinked to form one’s identity; it will be fallacious and naive to think otherwise.
[Reply]
October 26th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Isaiah: I am not sure if I should agree to that, knowing that there are people with no religious beliefs who voted against the repeal. This is a very dangerous assumption in my opinion that everyone who voted must stem from some religious beliefs. Cultural maybe, but religious is subjective.
I am still very much in favour of taking Christianity out of the issue for now, even though I know you are a staunch Christian. What’s the point of forcing Christianity on people who do not believe in it? God seeks not to convert… but to lead to enlightenment. The only reason why I had to talk about it in a third post is only because of false understanding by individuals, which will eventually go on to pass on inaccurate hear-say information as demonstrated.
We can be backed by religious beliefs but however, it is not necessary nor is it a must to bring it into the discussion. That is precisely why Christians are being attacked now, Christianity is being forced on them. I think we need to draw a very thick line such that, Christians do not impose our beliefs on them forcefully. If we ourselves are linking everything together, who are we to start pointing our fingers at others? Perhaps Christians should also do some self-reflection?
I told you before, being a Christian myself I have encountered many aggressive preachings which I myself cannot stand. Let alone non-believers.
[Reply]
October 26th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Ed: I wasn’t talking about Christianity alone in my comment. I was pointing to the fact that it is fallacious to think that people aren’t influenced at some level by cultural and religious doctrine to arrive at their decisions on such issues.
Neither was I saying that Christianity or Buddhism or Islam or any religion or faith should be forced down anyone’s throats. I don’t like that done to me either.
Yes, even those without a religion do and can have their views influenced by religious points of view. Let’s put it this way — an atheist is simply someone who chooses to not believe in a superior being.
However, that does not exclude the person from holding on to or adopting values that have been influenced by some religious views indirectly. Atheists aren’t people without values; they are just people who choose not to believe in a god. And from whence do they found their values on?
Maybe I wasn’t too clear in the last post, so I hope this will be clearer — I agree with you that if this issue is indeed branded as a social issue, then religion shouldn’t be brought into the picture. HOWEVER, I am also of the opinion that everyone’s views are already influenced one way or another by our differing cultural and religious backgrounds because those factors define who we are.
[Reply]
October 26th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Isaiah: My point is, we needn’t surface it even if we are influenced in some ways. The manner fellow Christians are doing it, we can’t blame non-believers for relating it openly because we ourselves are also relating it openly. It’s like a case of pot calling kettle black.
[Reply]
October 26th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
I am not going to judge if it’s right or wrong. Some think it is ok to state their stand that way while some don’t, but to me there’s no right or wrong. It all comes down to personal preferences.
There’ll always be people who won’t take kindly to what others say, no matter the religious persuasion of the speaker.
[Reply]
October 26th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Isaiah: The thing is, is it not possible to speak without a single bit of religious reference even if the person has religious belief in him? And does speaking without religious references make a person less religious committed to his faith?
[Reply]
October 26th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Ed: Totally possible is my answer to your first question. As for question two, an emphatic no.
[Reply]
October 26th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Hi Ed, I got this off MHA.
‘ Section 377 will be repealed and re-scoped by the introduction of new sections to clearly define unnatural sexual acts that will be criminalised, i.e. bestiality and necrophilia. As part of the re-scoping, the phrase “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” will also be removed. ‘
bestiality and necrophilia refers to sex with animals and corpses.
Also on the MHA site: Section 377 (Sexual penetration of a corpse): Imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years.
[Reply]
October 26th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
http://www.mha.gov.sg/news_details.aspx?nid=1115 <- all taken off here. I didn’t make it up.
[Reply]
October 26th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Maybe we’ll see some requests for that to be repealed too, eh? After all, what people do behind closed doors to animals and corpses and which don’t hurt the rest of us in society is ok.
[Reply]
October 26th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Xizor: Thanks for highlighting that. So they have it covered under elsewhere. Then that certainly sounds better.
Isaiah: Are you kidding me? LOL!
[Reply]
October 26th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Ed: You know I am, ha ha ha!
Shabbat Shalom, brother.
[Reply]