I am surprised u say tat after I had cited examples of
fathers and nun. Personally I do not think I have become softened
on point (1).
Since u r interested in point (2), lets talk about point 2 then.
U break it into A & B, so lets talk about them
a) Why I use the word hijacked ? Originally the
orgnisation is piloted by the old exco and they chart a destination
for it to go. Now a new group completely oust out the old
group, pilot themselves and set off to a completely opposite
direction. I think hijack is quite a god description on the
situation
U mention tat he the exco get in without breaking any laws or
regulations. I completely agree with u. So there is nothing to
talk about here
The point of contend is provided in the first reply I made
1) Why the religious people not form their own group and set
their agenda as religious with the aim of helping women instead ? R
they respecting other people's belief (helping lesbian by the old
exco alleged by the new exco) ? R they going to storm into all
the other groups tat offer support to lesbian or homosexual to
achieve their censorship ?
2) Those who need support from the group will be pressurised
into becoming religious since the whole group is religious and
promoting religious belief. If they started off declaring they r
religious, I have nothing to say. However they stormed into secular
group and declaring they r secular yet r actually promoting
religious sentiments. Anti homosexual is religious
sentiments
3) Isn't lesbian women ? So is lesbian a diesease or
something ? No. However to some people, they r a diesease and
should be "counselled". IMO, bigoty is the real diesease and should
be counselled
4) On one hand they talk about fear, hostility, intimidation
and irrational fear, aren't religious doing the same thing to
homosexual ?
If u ask me, yes. They r religious, they wanna stop homosexual
publicity, and they r all linked together. Is there intention to
"hijacked" the organisation ? From the words of Thio Si Mien, she
claimed "she began urging people she knew to challenge aware's
attempts to redefine marriage and families". So we can be clear
they have planned and wanna take over the group to run it for
themselves.
b) I think u should be clear tat from today's newspaper, they
have officially declared they r from the same
church and they wanna stop the old AWARE because they feel
they r too cosy with homosexual. I do not malign
them. This is no coincidence u r seeing. It is planned and
plotted.
Lets see Thio words on homosexual
"I have nothing wrong with homosexual. I have ministered them. I
have counselled them. They r in
pain. And very often from families where u have
abusive fathers. They do things to their daughter
and they revolt, rebel against society. And we understand this is
wat it is all about"
Why they join the group ? From the newspaper
They had joined AWARE because, like her, they had been
concerned that the group had a hidden agenda to promote lebianism
and homosexuality as being acceptable
Wat does tis tell u ? She treats homosexual as a disorder ! How
is tat gonna be "inclusive" in any way ? Why do u say I am
prejudiced when they declared all these themselves ? They
r all from the same church, they r all christians, they all have
plotted to replace the group, there r only 4000 (1/2 r males)
people in the church and 100 of them suddenly turn up to join tis
group and they spread religious view on homosexual. How do u expect
me to see it ?
It is most clear that you have developed a prejudical and
one sided perception which I will not be able to penetrate
through, despite my reasonable attempts to break through to you
with the simpliest of conceptualisations, therefore I would have to
leave you to your own system of fanatical beliefs and
misconceptions.
To continue would only be churlish and a repetition, with no new
substances, akin to a schoolyard brawl, common among
thickheaded opponents and an absolute waste of time.
I would only leave here with an addeum as a response to
your crazy notion that views from civil society groups
are immediately accepted and rectified as law as evident in
your fears.
There is and must be no fear of civil society groups. They only
present a viewpoint to our elected representatives for
legislation. Their views carry no heavier weight than yours
and my views when we present our woes to our MPs at those meeting
sessions.
The more professionally run a civil group is, the more chance it
will be heard, and heard only, not accepted unless such views are
debated before our elected representatives. Thus, any civil group
that seeks to be heard would have to ensure that they do have
people of credibility in their ranks, mostly made up of
volunteers.
And volunteers are something that our country lacks, even to
serving as our elected representatives is a difficult chore to
find. Therefore should a civil group cease to exists just because
they find that their volunteers are friends and came from the same
social group?
If such beliefs are held, why then, we ought to ban NUS
graduates from serving the nation, for they came from the same
social group. We ought to ban clans, ban medical associations, ban
every civil society group then!
Please do broaden your mind and not allow narrow views to filter
through. If AWARE is an organisation in Germany of the 30s, rest
assured that with such fiasco, it would be terminated and replaced
with another called Hitler's Women Reform Society, and any views
would come from the Fuhrer alone after a night's sleep.
Singapore's political EVOLUTION had came a long
way, from a necessary authoritarian democracy to
administer to a largely uneducated population on a do or die
mission, to a conservative democracy, on the way to socialist
democracy and one day a liberal democracy ( may i be long
dead and the population fully educated to handle
such liberisation).
The previous committee had sadly taken our new found
freedoms for granted and had allow emotions to take the better of
them, and may have destroyed a budding society capable of
uplifting the lives of womenhood, as determined by our society you
and i share. If it is shut down, it would be a loss to
womanhood.
The only fanaticism seen in the episode is a desire
to stir up religious hate by some, totally disregarding the
need for religious tolerance as well as a total disregard to
our secular society's demand to uphold the law and not promote
same sex activities
