I have gained a better understanding.

Oh, the font sizes are really too small – even at 148% of the original size.

Oh no! =P

“Give us a break”

Who?
—

“The thrust of the Author’s letter is merely an anti-religion rant: Assertions without substance, and imposition of particular moral and religious standards under the shameful guise of ‘tolerance’, ’secularism’ and ‘intellectualism’.”

Don’t speak too soon. Have you seen the original letter the author was replying to? I’m interested to know what you think of that, and how he hijacked an important topic for his own ends. http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Online+Story/STIStory_405677.html
—

“shameful guise of ‘tolerance’, ’secularism’ and ‘intellectualism’. ”

Shameful? You just smear-campaigned a lot of people on the planet.
—

“Assertions without substance”

Exactly what you have done there above.
—

“Then she asserts “To describe a person who is non-religious as a heathen is wrong, and such a view has no place in a secular Singapore”.

Isn’t this itself a morally absolute statement?”

Are you nitpicking? “Heathen” is a perjorative. Read the bible and note its use. It might have been acceptable in that religious context and to the religious, but not here, not now, in Singapore. Notice, too, that I mention context. What does that say about the supposed absolutism of the statement?
—

“Statements concerning any value that she rejects, has “no place in a secular Singapore” (clearly she uses her own conception of ’secularism’ to fit her personal beliefs).”

Elaborate where the author is wrong about secularism.
—

“What arrogance and hypocrisy!”

The hallmark of arrogance is seemingly not having read the original letter and then taking the author’s reply out of context. It was obvious you didn’t read it – “Do the Author have an axe to grind?” – I wonder if you would say the same about the original.

Also, the epitome of hypocrisy is if you have indeed have read the original and take the stand you have taken against the author while condoning the original.

Just by the way you start your comment, you’re at about the same level as you claim the author to be, methinks.

—–

Yes I think Miss Indulekshmi has a very valid axe to grind.

If she makes assertions without “substance”, consider that perhaps her substantiation couldn’t be squeezed into a pathetically-sized 400-word letter. (I know; I’ve tried.)

Any particular set of values, of necessity, excludes others that don’t agree with them. The point is that tolerance and secularism, by definition, exclude the least. Consider this statement: “the only thing I can’t tolerate is intolerance”.

Moral absolutism refers to the belief that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, no matter what the justification. For instance, one might believe that abortion is morally wrong, even to save the life of the mother – that’s moral absolutism.

What the author asserts – describing someone as “heathen” is wrong – is an issue of FACT, not MORALITY (although many often conflate the two, as they are judged by the same confusing words “right” and “wrong”). Heathen is an outdated, outmoded and highly offensive word that implies that the “heathen” are to be converted to the right path – and there are many right paths for us all to discover.

To describe someone else as heathen is as good as saying: I am morally right, you are wrong, and therefore beneath me. It is an elitism of morality, as dangerous as any other Wee-Shu-Min-esque social faultline.

Pathological religiosity of the George Lim variety has no place in a secular Singapore. No religion or ideology has a monopoly on goodness, ethics or truth.

I think what the author means is, let’s have an open-minded, constructive dialogue. Agree to disagree, if need be. That’s what freedom of speech and religion really means.

George Lim wrote to what is called the “Forum” page – “Forum” for a reason. It is a place for reasonable, logical discourse. For ideas to flow and for people to argue in search of a higher truth. (Not just for complaints about bad taxi drivers or restaurant service.) If he wishes to come to the Forum, he better be ready to defend his views – not simply assert that they are right, on the force of his misguided interpretations of God or Morality.

Cheers!

The thrust of the Author’s letter is merely an anti-religion rant: Assertions without substance, and imposition of particular moral and religious standards under the shameful guise of ‘tolerance’, ’secularism’ and ‘intellectualism’.

Is the Author guilty of what she accuses others of doing?

The Author declares that one cannot be morally absolute (normative statement/judgment)

Then she asserts “To describe a person who is non-religious as a heathen is wrong, and such a view has no place in a secular Singapore”.

Isn’t this itself a morally absolute statement?

Is the Author really saying that:-

1. Statements concerning moral, sexual or religious values acceptable to her are ‘good’ for our ’secular’ society in line with ‘religious tolerance’

2. Statements concerning any value that she rejects, has “no place in a secular Singapore” (clearly she uses her own conception of ’secularism’ to fit her personal beliefs).

3. Freedom of speech and religion should protect only those who uphold certain views and beliefs.

What arrogance and hypocrisy!

some do some don’t