My friend brought my attention to two rather interesting things to read on the web today.
One is an article in the New York Times about how the conservative evangelical churches and lobby group in the US seem to be changing directions. Among some of the reasons put forward is the retirement or passing on of the politically inclined leaders like Falwell and Dobson, while at the same time the evangelical congregants have grown tired of the endless political tirade of their spiritual leaders at the expense of their personal faith and growth.
...In the past, Hybels has scrupulously avoided criticizing conservative Christian political figures like Falwell or Dobson. But in my talk with him, he argued that the leaders of the conservative Christian political movement had lost touch with their base. "The Indians are saying to the chiefs, 'We are interested in more than your two or three issues,' " Hybels said. "We are interested in the poor, in racial reconciliation, in global poverty and AIDS, in the plight of women in the developing world"...
..."I thought in my enthusiasm," he (Rev. Gene Carlson) told me with a smile, "that somehow we could band together and change things politically and everything will be fine." But the closing of Dr. Tiller's clinic was fleeting. Electing Christian politicians never seemed to change much. "When you mix politics and religion," Carlson said, "you get politics."
In more recent battles, Carlson has hung back. On the Sunday before the referendum on a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, Carlson reminded his congregation that homosexuality was hardly the only form of sex the Bible condemned. Any extramarital sex is a sin, he told his congregation, so they should not point fingers.
"We wouldn't want to exclude some group because we thought their sin was worse than ours," Carlson told me with a laugh...
(NYT: The Evangelical Crackup)It's a pretty long article, but worth the read to get a sense of how the religious-political landscape of the US is changing. And though some might argue otherwise, it also has possible political ramifications in Singapore considering how some churches here seem to be aping the political stance of their co-religionists in the US.
Another article (or rather a blog post) I read is this "
Reverse Redacting Thio Li Ann" which attempts to draw parallels between her speech in parliament and her article in the Straits Times with "The Homosexual Rights Agenda: Reframing the Debate" published on "The Road to Emmaus: A School of Judeo-Christian Apologetics".
Pretty interesting I must say. I think it helps people see where she is coming from and where she gets (or who she shares) some of her ideas (with).
Which brings to mind what I wrote about her in my post dated
19 January 2007:
..."There're a whole myriad of factors, from the treatment of maids to education issues, to political liberalisation, free speech issues, human rights and women's rights."
Promote human and women's rights but deny equal treatment to gays and lesbians? How schizophrenic is that. Or has reactionary and conservative religion contaminated her more progressive and liberal views towards such basic rights as equality of everyone regardless of sex, age, race, sexuality, religion, economic class, etc.
I wouldn't be surprised if she'll use this new platform to sprout and pursue her homophobic agenda. Or maybe that was the PAP's idea when they selected her as a new NMP. Then again, those who make the loudest noise usually have something to hide. Remember the former Pastor Ted Haggard from the Nov 2006 scandal?...
Thank god for people like NMP Siew Kum Hong and the PAP MPs who spoke up against the retention of 377a. At least there's some people in the house who could speak in opposition to her.
I don't know, but maybe I might have been wrong about it being PAP's idea to have her chosen as an NMP because of her homophobia. Then again, that was pure speculation on my part.
Labels: america, lgbt, politics, religion, singapore
I just saw this
report on BBC news about the Chinese PRC government and the selection of the next Dalai Lama.
..."No outside organisation or individual will influence or control the reincarnation of living Buddhas [eminent monks]," states one article of the new regulations.
They also say that any reincarnation has to be approved by various levels of government.
In the case of the most pre-eminent monks, who would include the Dalai Lama, China's cabinet has to give its seal of approval...
This is so effing hilarious! What... now the commie heads are going to decide on who can reincarnate as whom?
Okay folks, maybe you can use this to your advantage. Just write in to the PRC's State Administration for Religious Affairs to request for your choice of reincarnated being.
Hmmm... I think I will request to be reincarnated as a tall, tanned, hunky and drop-dead gorgeous East Asian (Japanese, Chinese, etc) model-type of gay man.
Labels: china, politics, religion, tibet
I was having dinner last night with my friend when the topic veered towards religion. He is administratively Christian but he quoted something that I thought was rather interesting:
"When one man believes in something unproven (or does not exist), it is delusion. When many people believe in it, it is religion."But regardless of whether you believe in a greater deity or not, the fact that political theology is reasserting itself again is a fact we cannot deny.
Just when we thought we have moved out of the dark ages of religious warfare and political control because of divine right into the enlightened era when God (and its accompanying acts of irrationality by men who profess divine guidance) has been removed from the public and political sphere, we find ourselves coming back full circle.
It is undeniable that religion and faith is an intrinsic part of the human existence. We have always depended on the "existence" of a greater being to explain things beyond our understanding and will continue to do so. And hence, no matter how much we wish otherwise, political theology will always exist.
The only question is to what degree and damage.
In the light of all that has happened in recent years, Mark Lilla has written a very interesting and timely essay (based on his upcoming book, "
The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics and the Modern West") that tries to shed light on this resurgent phenomena.
When 9/11 happened, it was convenient to explain it by using convenient catchphrase like "They hate our freedom", etc. etc.
But what liberal democracy failed to realise and understand is that Islam and the Islamic world operates on a completely different system of logic and rationale. The act of those hijackers and Al-Qaeda cannot just be diluted to poverty, oppression and opposition to American foreign policy. Yes, they may contribute to some of the reasons, but it is way too simplistic to believe that it's only that.
In "
The Politics of God", Mark tries to remind us all that almost everyone in the world is a part of that same tradition. And it is to our detriment if we ignore it or fail to understand and engage it in its own language.
We should also not make the mistake of thinking that this is only an issue with the Islamic world. As we sit and ponder, Christian political theology is making its presence strongly felt in the US. While here at home, we have people of "influence" using Christianity and the bible as justification to pursue a certain agenda and shape policies that affect the shared public sphere.
And lest we be mistaken, this is not only confined to the two great monotheistic faiths of Christianity and Islam. For example, we see it resurging in India through the pantheistic Hindu
Bharatiya Janata Party.
There is no way for us to ignore it and wish it away. In the whole history of mankind, 99% of it has seen religion (and the belief in god's divine revelation as a way to live our life) intertwined with politics in a way that affects both the public as well as private individual sphere. It is only in recent history that man has somewhat successfully (depends on how you see it) separate religion from politics.
To assume that we are successful and that's the way things are going to be from now on is plain folly.
After all, we are atavistic creatures who often depend on the divine when we exhaust our intellectual cache.
New York Times - The Politics of God (the article in question)
Amazon.com - The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics, and the Modern West (Hardcover)
The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics, and the Modern West (by Mark Lilla)
Editorial Reviews - From Publishers Weekly:
Starred Review. This searching history of western thinking about the relationship between religion and politics was inspired not by 9/11, but by Nazi Germany, where, says University of Chicago professor Lilla (The Reckless Mind), politics and religion were horrifyingly intertwined. To explain the emergence of Nazism's political theology, Lilla reaches back to the early modern era, when thinkers like Locke and Hume began to suggest that religion and politics should be separate enterprises. Some theorists, convinced that Christianity bred violence, argued that government must be totally detached from religion. Others, who believed that rightly practiced religion could contribute to modern life, promoted a liberal theology, which sought to articulate Christianity and Judaism in the idiom of reason. (Lilla's reading of liberal Jewish thinker Hermann Cohen is especially arresting.) Liberal theologians, Lilla says, credulously assumed human society was progressive and never dreamed that fanaticism could capture the imaginations of modern people-assumptions that were proven wrong by Hitler. If Lilla castigates liberal theology for its naïveté, he also praises America and Western Europe for simultaneously separating religion from politics, creating space for religion, and staving off sectarian violence and theocracy. Lilla's work, which will influence discussions of politics and theology for the next generation, makes clear how remarkable an accomplishment that is. (Sept. 14)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Labels: politics, religion
Since Malaysia's 50
th birthday is coming up on the 31
st of August, I thought it would be a good time to see what was on the minds of their founding fathers when they drafted the constitution with the
Reid Commission. So if you're interested in what's happening religiously up north, I would like to direct your attention to this very interesting article. It gives a historical perspective on the current issue/controversy about the country being an Islamic state even though the constitution says otherwise.
http://www.jeffooi.com/2007/07/merdeka_50_years_of_islamic_st.phpThe first and third
PM of Malaysia say "secular", then the fourth and the fifth's DPM say "Islamic". So when did it change? I think it was during the tenure of the fourth when he tried to out-islamise PAS.
Labels: malaysia, politics, religion
OOH... CONTROVERSY?
James Cameron claims that the tomb of Jesus and his *GASP!* wife Mary Magdalene have been found in east Talpiot, Jerusalem.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6397373.stmBut I am more incline to take the view of Israeli archaeologist Amos Kloner who said that the names marked on those coffins were very common at the time.
Your take?
Labels: religion
CURRENT
TOP