.jpg)
The past few days have been days of upheaval and deep thinking for me. The AWARE saga has produced such rich seed, though potentially painful, for political thought. Married with my present study on moral and political philosophy, I felt like the entire rhetoric in the end missed the central issue. I frame it as such:
"What is the best way to integrate divergent views in society?"
I take no stand on who is right and wrong but say that I appreciate both sides of the story. Being a religious person, I find that as objective as I try to be, and as much as I try to wade into the pool of pluralistic views, there will always be a core set of beliefs and morals that form me. I think religion is but a label, for all of us hold dear to a set of beliefs - a worldview. Religious or not, unless one is willing to morph and take on any views which marks the prevailing trend, one faces the same dillemma of being unable to move away from the beliefs they feel strongly for.
I'm not exactly sure of the exact facts of the AWARE case from start to finish. I have heard that the media was very much skewed in support of an anti-religious position, and from start to finish painting the debacle in a certain light. Far from alleging bad faith, I think I want to evaluate it in this framework:
(1) First, that the use of a pro-feminist NGO to publish views tending toward accepting a homosexual lifestyle grieved many religious conservatives (in particular the Christian community).
(2) Second, that the initial takeover, however good intentioned, grieved many pro-homosexual and liberal persons. (In the rest of this article, I use the term 'liberal' to mean persons who mostly do not have a religious view)
(3) Lastly, that the EGM became highly adversarial and polarized dominant views on a live issue.
As I see it, the printing of T-Shirts with "Feminist Mentor" and "Josie and her Pussycats" were a way of signalling the liberal camp's distaste of using religion in the public square. My question is where do we go from here?
It is easy to say that in a marketplace of ideas, the best ideas win. However, that begs the question of how those ideas become the best. For example, with no fault of theirs, it was clear that many of the supporters of the liberal camp were quickly mobilized, with great solidarity and had great media exposure to their benefit. The Online Citizen which is a growing online publication followed the issue and had great applause for their coverage. There were many YouTube videos which had video shots of worship services in Church of Our Saviour, in an attempt to portray the narrowness of the Christian view on sexuality. In a marketplace of ideas, the best ideas win.
But turning the argument around, the result is 'might makes right'. And to be utterly consistent, this would have to mean that if one day the Christians in Singapore become an elite group with the most savvy media coverage, most money for publicity and best ability to mobilize people, then if their view wins, we would settle for it. Surely not. As much as I am I firm believer in my Christian views, I cannot accept that the majority wins if the win is not a fair one even if the view that trumps is a Christian one.
People ask if ever fairness can be achieved, and because they deem it is impossible we throw it out altogether. But the same way many liberals perceived the first takeover to be in bad faith, parochial and a use of unfair force, isn't the latter EGM a similar means to use force and might to edge out a victory? The most common argument is to fall back on the fact that in a marketplace of ideas, you let all things be and the ones who gain the most support for their ideas win. Sure, but this again negates the impulse we have against an unfair jostling and majoritarian triumph.
To be consistent, one must reject the idea that a view, X, wins simply by sheer fact of more resource, more publicity, more awareness.
Everyone has a "comprehensive moral position". This idea was mooted by John Rawls and it means that religious or otherwise, everyone has a set of beliefs they won't trade off. Whether it be a Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, Post-Modernist, Christian, Mormon, etc. worldview, there are some core beliefs we won't fudge on. Yet, at the penumbra, there is also a ring of beliefs that we are able to share and cooperate on. This, Rawls calls, the "overlapping consensus". While Christians cannot believe that homosexuality is morally correct, surely they can belief that fairness and justice are essential in any contest. While liberals cannot except that homosexuality must be criminalised, they will be more than happy to promote the ideal of tolerance. These common values bind almost all groups. Freedom of conscience, fairness/justice, charity, poverty alleviation. Most of us can agree on these things.
It is here that I think the concept of fairness and civility is lost in the whole debacle.
Today, many celebrate that civil society won. That the conservatives and their desire to push back homosexuality is defeated. But at what costs? Civil society won today not because of tolerance or fairness but because they had the louder voice. What if one day Christians mobilize the most resources and trump in terms of their influence and voice. Or for that matter, any other religious group? Taking this to the extreme, so long as a group raises the loudest voice, it wins. To give extreme examples not present in today's debate: if we reject witchhunts we must surely also reject persecution? Surely we must reject the false notion of religion or liberalism but embrace a willingness to ask "what then is the right way we should do this?" What are the shared or common values that we can use, even in our contestation in the public square. Much has been said about the intolerant dispositions of the religious groups. Then the same intolerance we cannot accept, whether as a retaliation or a first instinct.
The sad take-home of the whole debacle is that we now lie very divided as a society. Surely Christians can learn things from liberals which do not augment their core beliefs, but which make them better people, and in their own words, more God-fearing and more people-loving. Ask Christians who have visited Mosques and they will tell you they learn a lot about devotion from the 5 daily prayers. Ask a Christian who has been to a less sheltered secondary school and he will tell that fact that his friends smoke, drink and gamble are no issue in his befriending them. But likewise, what are some things religious people can teach us? Boths sides have things to learn, and things which do not necessary aim at conversion.
Today, the losers are Christians who support Josie Lau and her team because the winners had the larger voice and support. Tomorrow, it may be the Muslims or Buddhists. Soon, it may also be that a overzealous religious group wins and outlaws alternative views. Can we live to accept that in the marketplace of ideas the one with the biggest voice always wins?
Some question to ask include:
"Can the government clarify the role of any comprehensive moral position in the public square?"
"What can be do to ensure contestation shows respect and is civil?"
"Can we live with the idea that might makes right in the marketplace of ideas?"
As I discussed with a friend, I would be very uncomfortable if a Christian organization used 'moral education classes' to convert little children in primary schools where parents do not consent to it and where the authorities are blind to it. But to be most consistent and fair, this must work the same for any comprehensive moral view that any group takes.
I admit, lamentably, that I can't think of a framework which sets limits on the public square. Perhaps if you push me, I might say that core beliefs should never be criminalised because we should have that freedom of conscience (which I correlate as a person's core beliefs).
Well, highlighting the similarities between an idea of reciprocity and the notion against judgmentalism, the Bible has it that you should never judge your brother and look at the speck in his eye when there is a plank in your own eye. But if we all inspected ourselves and helped each other, we may all be able to see better.
"What is the best way to integrate divergent views in society?"
I take no stand on who is right and wrong but say that I appreciate both sides of the story. Being a religious person, I find that as objective as I try to be, and as much as I try to wade into the pool of pluralistic views, there will always be a core set of beliefs and morals that form me. I think religion is but a label, for all of us hold dear to a set of beliefs - a worldview. Religious or not, unless one is willing to morph and take on any views which marks the prevailing trend, one faces the same dillemma of being unable to move away from the beliefs they feel strongly for.
I'm not exactly sure of the exact facts of the AWARE case from start to finish. I have heard that the media was very much skewed in support of an anti-religious position, and from start to finish painting the debacle in a certain light. Far from alleging bad faith, I think I want to evaluate it in this framework:
(1) First, that the use of a pro-feminist NGO to publish views tending toward accepting a homosexual lifestyle grieved many religious conservatives (in particular the Christian community).
(2) Second, that the initial takeover, however good intentioned, grieved many pro-homosexual and liberal persons. (In the rest of this article, I use the term 'liberal' to mean persons who mostly do not have a religious view)
(3) Lastly, that the EGM became highly adversarial and polarized dominant views on a live issue.
As I see it, the printing of T-Shirts with "Feminist Mentor" and "Josie and her Pussycats" were a way of signalling the liberal camp's distaste of using religion in the public square. My question is where do we go from here?
It is easy to say that in a marketplace of ideas, the best ideas win. However, that begs the question of how those ideas become the best. For example, with no fault of theirs, it was clear that many of the supporters of the liberal camp were quickly mobilized, with great solidarity and had great media exposure to their benefit. The Online Citizen which is a growing online publication followed the issue and had great applause for their coverage. There were many YouTube videos which had video shots of worship services in Church of Our Saviour, in an attempt to portray the narrowness of the Christian view on sexuality. In a marketplace of ideas, the best ideas win.
But turning the argument around, the result is 'might makes right'. And to be utterly consistent, this would have to mean that if one day the Christians in Singapore become an elite group with the most savvy media coverage, most money for publicity and best ability to mobilize people, then if their view wins, we would settle for it. Surely not. As much as I am I firm believer in my Christian views, I cannot accept that the majority wins if the win is not a fair one even if the view that trumps is a Christian one.
People ask if ever fairness can be achieved, and because they deem it is impossible we throw it out altogether. But the same way many liberals perceived the first takeover to be in bad faith, parochial and a use of unfair force, isn't the latter EGM a similar means to use force and might to edge out a victory? The most common argument is to fall back on the fact that in a marketplace of ideas, you let all things be and the ones who gain the most support for their ideas win. Sure, but this again negates the impulse we have against an unfair jostling and majoritarian triumph.
To be consistent, one must reject the idea that a view, X, wins simply by sheer fact of more resource, more publicity, more awareness.
Everyone has a "comprehensive moral position". This idea was mooted by John Rawls and it means that religious or otherwise, everyone has a set of beliefs they won't trade off. Whether it be a Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, Post-Modernist, Christian, Mormon, etc. worldview, there are some core beliefs we won't fudge on. Yet, at the penumbra, there is also a ring of beliefs that we are able to share and cooperate on. This, Rawls calls, the "overlapping consensus". While Christians cannot believe that homosexuality is morally correct, surely they can belief that fairness and justice are essential in any contest. While liberals cannot except that homosexuality must be criminalised, they will be more than happy to promote the ideal of tolerance. These common values bind almost all groups. Freedom of conscience, fairness/justice, charity, poverty alleviation. Most of us can agree on these things.
It is here that I think the concept of fairness and civility is lost in the whole debacle.
Today, many celebrate that civil society won. That the conservatives and their desire to push back homosexuality is defeated. But at what costs? Civil society won today not because of tolerance or fairness but because they had the louder voice. What if one day Christians mobilize the most resources and trump in terms of their influence and voice. Or for that matter, any other religious group? Taking this to the extreme, so long as a group raises the loudest voice, it wins. To give extreme examples not present in today's debate: if we reject witchhunts we must surely also reject persecution? Surely we must reject the false notion of religion or liberalism but embrace a willingness to ask "what then is the right way we should do this?" What are the shared or common values that we can use, even in our contestation in the public square. Much has been said about the intolerant dispositions of the religious groups. Then the same intolerance we cannot accept, whether as a retaliation or a first instinct.
The sad take-home of the whole debacle is that we now lie very divided as a society. Surely Christians can learn things from liberals which do not augment their core beliefs, but which make them better people, and in their own words, more God-fearing and more people-loving. Ask Christians who have visited Mosques and they will tell you they learn a lot about devotion from the 5 daily prayers. Ask a Christian who has been to a less sheltered secondary school and he will tell that fact that his friends smoke, drink and gamble are no issue in his befriending them. But likewise, what are some things religious people can teach us? Boths sides have things to learn, and things which do not necessary aim at conversion.
Today, the losers are Christians who support Josie Lau and her team because the winners had the larger voice and support. Tomorrow, it may be the Muslims or Buddhists. Soon, it may also be that a overzealous religious group wins and outlaws alternative views. Can we live to accept that in the marketplace of ideas the one with the biggest voice always wins?
Some question to ask include:
"Can the government clarify the role of any comprehensive moral position in the public square?"
"What can be do to ensure contestation shows respect and is civil?"
"Can we live with the idea that might makes right in the marketplace of ideas?"
As I discussed with a friend, I would be very uncomfortable if a Christian organization used 'moral education classes' to convert little children in primary schools where parents do not consent to it and where the authorities are blind to it. But to be most consistent and fair, this must work the same for any comprehensive moral view that any group takes.
I admit, lamentably, that I can't think of a framework which sets limits on the public square. Perhaps if you push me, I might say that core beliefs should never be criminalised because we should have that freedom of conscience (which I correlate as a person's core beliefs).
Well, highlighting the similarities between an idea of reciprocity and the notion against judgmentalism, the Bible has it that you should never judge your brother and look at the speck in his eye when there is a plank in your own eye. But if we all inspected ourselves and helped each other, we may all be able to see better.
