Yoz,
In the case of Terri Schiavo, I agree with NYT columnist David
Brook's argument that strong proponents of both sides of the
issues, that is the right-wing conservative Christians and
Left-wing Liberal progressives such as yourself, have a serious
flaw in each of the argument. Being a Christian myself, I still
think that Governor Jeb Bush's idea of using govt militia to sieze
Schiavo by force is incorrect. So yes, youa re right to say these
people are close-minded; Brooks tells us why: in the mordern world,
we know of so many life experiences which are worse than dessath by
far. However, people like you are also close-minded: You people
fail to see that a victory by you people in the Schiavo case (as
has been obtained) would pave the way for erosion of social mores
by doctors. It seems simple: We'll give patients the right of
choice to die, since society should not impose whatever religious
codes and blablabla, but let me (and Brooks) ask you: when do we
determine that patients should start having the choice to die? When
do we decide that they are beyond cure? you left-wingers argue for
your case on the grounds that The government and religious groups
shouldn't play God and force a person who has the right to die to
live on. In a similar vein however, should we allow Doctors to play
God and advise patients on when to choose to die? What is the line
between mercy and assisted suicide? Advance Medical Directive seems
bliss, a perfect democratic change in rigid Singapore. But it
invests too much power in doctors. We must recognize that no doctor
has completely perfect expertise, and a misjudgement on the part of
a doctor could result in a patient who might have still had the
chance to live ending up choosing death, or as we call it in
softer-terms, mercy-killing.
Ya, I don't agree with religious fundamentalists either, certainly
not with PAS. But not all people who are religious are religious
fundamentalists. And there are very fine lines between religious
rules and moral codes. In fact, many religious doctrines have moral
codes instilled in them, because protecting morals is often the
cause of starting a new religion. However, generally, these codes
are generic and allow for many forms of implementation. For
example, it is wrong for a Muslim Man, Christian Man, or Hindu Man
to look lustfully at a girl, and obviously a Buddhist, but the
manner of prevention can be implemented differently.
Fundamentalists are those who assert that there is only one way of
following this code, that is their way, and that all other ways are
sinful, and people, even if they are WITHIN the same religious
grouping, who follow other ways are sinful. Fundamentalists do not
distinguish between inside and outside of religions as you claim
they do. PAS punnishes Muslims who do not follow the dress-code or
rules about holding hands in pulbic with jail in teh same way it
punnishes Chinese.
Right of Religious worship is indeed important, and I never once
disputed that. In fact, the core of most religions, which theocrats
have distorted for years, is tolerance, except perhaps for
buddhism, which emphasizes total detachment from the world. Free
thinkers should be allowed too, but their freedom should not be
entirely secular, and certainly atheists should not be allowed to
exist in practice, though agnostics can and should be accepted.
Secularism is an ill, though secularization is not. In secularism,
there is the total absence of any moral order, and teh chaos
espoused is as seen in ther regimes of hitler and Stalin, two
rulers that fully resisted religion in their countries. Communist
Russia and Nazi Germany were both police states, where the
authorities were fully secular i.e. they did not belong to any
religious group independent of the government (Nazi Churches are
not considered religion) and did policy at their own discretion,
often under the guise of "national interest".
You mentioned expressly that you do not want such insane leaders.
So I'm telling you, if we want totally no religion in government,
it means totally no moral code, and hence the generation of such
insane leaders. OF course, the gvoernment should not be entirely
one religion either. Politics should never fuse with religion, but
neither should it isolate itself from religion.
the (still moral Christian) pikamaster
