Singapore still does not accord enough recognition to the arts and humanities. Many bright-minded students with deep passions in the humanities end up succumbing to what is commonly known as the herd-mentality. Courses such as business and law have an indescribable air of appeal to them : notably, the powerful image of corporate rat-race as well as the presuppositions that these are where all the "big bucks" lie. In the end, what we see is a disproportionate amount of students pursuing degrees of which they have little to no prior knowledge. Nor do they know exactly what degrees in finance and law really entail. This results in a vacuum in the humanities faculty and an overall decrease in the quality of humanities students.
This misallocation of resource is disconcerting, to say the least. Singapore needs a fair amount of intelligent, passionate arts students in order to thrive. In other major education hubs such as the USA and the UK, students with inclinations in the humanities will almost naturally pursue it to tertiary level, a phenomenom that is seldom seen in Singapore. One possible reason is that the social perceptions and stigma that usually comes along with an arts degree in Singapore do not exist in the States or the UK. In Singapore, an arts degree is perceived as a "soft" degree that does not wield the economic earning potential. There is also a widespread impression that arts faculties are usually "dumping-grounds" for the least academically-inclined students. These impressions, however egregious and misleading, do much to perpetuate the trend of pursuing "elite" subjects such as business in Singapore.
In the UK and the USA, prospective undergraduates are able to hone their interest in various huumanities courses in top instituitions such as Harvard, Yale or LSE. In these countries, there is not so much a marked distinction between an arts degree and a science degree as one between a good student and a poor student. Employers in other countries are more receptive towards arts degree graduates, namely because bright students go on to further their interest. What do I mean exactly by this?
Let me illustrate. The brighter students with interest in the humanities are more likely to pursue "elite" subjects such as accountancy and law. This results in a skewed ratio of bright students between the elite courses and the arts courses. Hence graduates
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
LOTS OF THINGS
Today I had a conversation with my colleague on the Myanmar tragedy as well as (as random as it may sound) the rise of China. The Myanmar tragedy made me realise the importance of swift and concerted response to any disaster. The occurence of the cyclone is one thing; the lack of coordinated efforts to tackle the disaster is another. The exigency of the situation means that it is imperative for the Myanmar government to allow untrammelled flow of aids and skilled aid workers into their country, which has been torn asunder by the cyclone. No one is an island really, and destruction of this magnitude cannot possibly by reversed and remedied by the effort of one country alone, much less a country which has been the victim of the disaster itself. Well, the stubbornness of the Myanmar government isnt surprising at all, given that these are the same bunch of guys who govern their countries based on astrological signs. Well done.
Now about China. China rise is remarkable by any standards and measure. Of course every country has its downsides but this should not overshadow the fact that China has progressed tremendously in most fields, particularly in the area of economic growth. However, one noteworthy point about China is that whilst it has enjoyed and will continue to enjoy sustained unfettered growth indefinitely, the progress of its people as a whole has not been commensurate. Imagine China as a locomotive with the people as its various parts such as wheels etc. The whole train is cruising at breakneck speed, but the wheels are barely able to catch up and the linkages are shaky. It appears as though China is set to be a formidable superpower, but the truth is the parts are just as important as the sum of them. There is a growing disparity between the quality of the people and the growth of the country. Whilst civility and education has widely improved, the progress in these areas are not in tandem with those in terms of economic growth.
On a side note I hope Barrack Obama wins the election. He struck me as someone who is genuinely and passionately interested in reforming the country and cleaning her image up. For too long American has suffered a dent in her reputation, partly due to her intervationalistic nature and due to (very obvious) Iraq invasion which she has shown contempt of the UN. America's standing on the international stage has diminished tremendously due to the failure of diplomatic missions and policies especially in Iraq , Iran and Israel. Many people see America as too assertive, too arrogant a nation which strong-arms and bullies other nations into submission. Part of the problem, I think, is America's tendency to see the World through their own, blinkered eyes. American government thinks that what works for America would work for everyone esle, and that America is the bastion of the west, a model to which other countries should conform to. This was evident in one of the recent documentaries cum interview Iahve watched when Americans question China's business transparency. Apparently, US seems to take the views that since being transparent is their way of doing business, it has to be China's way as well, and by extension, every other nation's way. America fail to appreciate the vastly differing nature of different countries in terms of culture, tradition, instituitions,heritage, demographics and political background. As trite as it may sound, and even though every candidate echoes for change and reform, Obama intuitively comes across as one who is as passionate as he is sincere. Throughout the whole presidential race, he came across as a cool, composed intellect who is able to fend off every bite and thrust with such panache and elegance. Talk about cool as a cucumber. When I look at this man, I have a sense of his stability and his clear headed-ness. He knows what he is talking about, he has a specific concrete directions and he is not easily swayed in his beliefs and postions. Above all, he is eloquent and charismatic. I find that quite a bonus as well.
Lastly, the speech by attorney general and the clarification by anohter guy from the A-G chambers was very very intriguing.
Some of the things he implied are -
1) judge opinion of the accused may be diff from the verdict
2) Proven beyond reasonable doubt by court to be innocent does not mean one is innocent, especially when the judge can stil see him as guilty
First thing, why is there a dichotomy between the verdict and the judge's opinion? In singapore there no jury system, hence much of the discretion lies with the judges. Whatever concludes, or whatever sentences that is passed, must have concurred with the judge's personal judgement. It makes no sense if the judge thinks he is guily and still passes a verdict of acquittal.
Secondly, legal arguments, witnesses' statement and evidence are presented to the courts as a basis to determine the accused's innocence. If an accused has been proven to be inncoent beyond reasonable doubt, through proper adminstration of these legal procedures in light of all evidences presented to the courts, it makes no sense if he "might still" be "guilty". If these evidences are no sufficient to convince the judge that he is not guilty, what is? The bearing of the man? The mannerism, the tone, the colour of the coat he wears? Through giving both the prosecutors and defendant equal rights to a trial, if a conclusion of acquittal is reached. it has to be respected by all irrespective of arbitrary personal opinions. This is the result of proper administration of legal procedures.
In conclusion, it is really wierd that judge may still find a person guilty even if he is acquitted after trial. First judges holds the autonomy to pass verdicts and if he feels that the accused is still guilty there is no reason he passes a verdict of acquittal. Second, the result of the verdict is contingent on the trial process itself - the evidence, witnesses' statement and police investigation together with arguments from both sides. A judge's verdict is a function of the outcome of the trial process, not based arbitrarily on some personal subjective caprices. Not the colour of his clothes, nor the shape of his hair. The trial process is to allow the judge to determine his innocence. If the trial process sufficiently shows that the defendant is innocent beyond reasonable doubt, the judge will be a vicarious representation of this outcome. Acquittal can only be a natural and fair consequence.
Say X was accused of murdering Y. But theres no evidence to indict X, only the word of Y's good friend. After thorough investigations and judgement, judge cannot find sufficient evidence to prove X guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on a fair trial, the judge has to acquit X. A judge personal opinion has to depend much on the trial. It is dependent on the trial, not independent of it. IF the trial proves his innocence, the judge cannot simply "Feel" personally taht he is stil guily especially when the question of whether his is guilty or not can only be answered through the trial process, not through the judge's personal eyes.
Now about China. China rise is remarkable by any standards and measure. Of course every country has its downsides but this should not overshadow the fact that China has progressed tremendously in most fields, particularly in the area of economic growth. However, one noteworthy point about China is that whilst it has enjoyed and will continue to enjoy sustained unfettered growth indefinitely, the progress of its people as a whole has not been commensurate. Imagine China as a locomotive with the people as its various parts such as wheels etc. The whole train is cruising at breakneck speed, but the wheels are barely able to catch up and the linkages are shaky. It appears as though China is set to be a formidable superpower, but the truth is the parts are just as important as the sum of them. There is a growing disparity between the quality of the people and the growth of the country. Whilst civility and education has widely improved, the progress in these areas are not in tandem with those in terms of economic growth.
On a side note I hope Barrack Obama wins the election. He struck me as someone who is genuinely and passionately interested in reforming the country and cleaning her image up. For too long American has suffered a dent in her reputation, partly due to her intervationalistic nature and due to (very obvious) Iraq invasion which she has shown contempt of the UN. America's standing on the international stage has diminished tremendously due to the failure of diplomatic missions and policies especially in Iraq , Iran and Israel. Many people see America as too assertive, too arrogant a nation which strong-arms and bullies other nations into submission. Part of the problem, I think, is America's tendency to see the World through their own, blinkered eyes. American government thinks that what works for America would work for everyone esle, and that America is the bastion of the west, a model to which other countries should conform to. This was evident in one of the recent documentaries cum interview Iahve watched when Americans question China's business transparency. Apparently, US seems to take the views that since being transparent is their way of doing business, it has to be China's way as well, and by extension, every other nation's way. America fail to appreciate the vastly differing nature of different countries in terms of culture, tradition, instituitions,heritage, demographics and political background. As trite as it may sound, and even though every candidate echoes for change and reform, Obama intuitively comes across as one who is as passionate as he is sincere. Throughout the whole presidential race, he came across as a cool, composed intellect who is able to fend off every bite and thrust with such panache and elegance. Talk about cool as a cucumber. When I look at this man, I have a sense of his stability and his clear headed-ness. He knows what he is talking about, he has a specific concrete directions and he is not easily swayed in his beliefs and postions. Above all, he is eloquent and charismatic. I find that quite a bonus as well.
Lastly, the speech by attorney general and the clarification by anohter guy from the A-G chambers was very very intriguing.
Some of the things he implied are -
1) judge opinion of the accused may be diff from the verdict
2) Proven beyond reasonable doubt by court to be innocent does not mean one is innocent, especially when the judge can stil see him as guilty
First thing, why is there a dichotomy between the verdict and the judge's opinion? In singapore there no jury system, hence much of the discretion lies with the judges. Whatever concludes, or whatever sentences that is passed, must have concurred with the judge's personal judgement. It makes no sense if the judge thinks he is guily and still passes a verdict of acquittal.
Secondly, legal arguments, witnesses' statement and evidence are presented to the courts as a basis to determine the accused's innocence. If an accused has been proven to be inncoent beyond reasonable doubt, through proper adminstration of these legal procedures in light of all evidences presented to the courts, it makes no sense if he "might still" be "guilty". If these evidences are no sufficient to convince the judge that he is not guilty, what is? The bearing of the man? The mannerism, the tone, the colour of the coat he wears? Through giving both the prosecutors and defendant equal rights to a trial, if a conclusion of acquittal is reached. it has to be respected by all irrespective of arbitrary personal opinions. This is the result of proper administration of legal procedures.
In conclusion, it is really wierd that judge may still find a person guilty even if he is acquitted after trial. First judges holds the autonomy to pass verdicts and if he feels that the accused is still guilty there is no reason he passes a verdict of acquittal. Second, the result of the verdict is contingent on the trial process itself - the evidence, witnesses' statement and police investigation together with arguments from both sides. A judge's verdict is a function of the outcome of the trial process, not based arbitrarily on some personal subjective caprices. Not the colour of his clothes, nor the shape of his hair. The trial process is to allow the judge to determine his innocence. If the trial process sufficiently shows that the defendant is innocent beyond reasonable doubt, the judge will be a vicarious representation of this outcome. Acquittal can only be a natural and fair consequence.
Say X was accused of murdering Y. But theres no evidence to indict X, only the word of Y's good friend. After thorough investigations and judgement, judge cannot find sufficient evidence to prove X guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on a fair trial, the judge has to acquit X. A judge personal opinion has to depend much on the trial. It is dependent on the trial, not independent of it. IF the trial proves his innocence, the judge cannot simply "Feel" personally taht he is stil guily especially when the question of whether his is guilty or not can only be answered through the trial process, not through the judge's personal eyes.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Heartbreak
The most bitter, most acrimonious feeling in the World would be that of a heartbreak.
"You feel as though the entire World is tumbling down on you. You can barely contain the weight of the World, and the background fades into oblivion. All the warmth and incandescence in your heart are replaced by a frigid climate of despair and self-recrimination. You feel as though life has lost its meaning and purpose, and the place which once housed your bliss and joy is now marked by a conspicuous dearth of such emotions. The footsteps get heavier, as you force yourself to trudge on a tortuous, windy path towards seemingly nowhere. Indeed, having all the love breathed out of one's life is like losing one's life compass - you get disoriented and confused, yet you meander on. The halcyon days are now shattered and replaced by a shambles of decadence and forlornness. Solitude and melancholy creeps up to you, stealing whatever happy emotions that still remain - not much, though. Consequently you lapse into a sense of self delusion, rueing on "Happier days" and instantly rejecting the events of reality, a consequence of the immense pain and hurt one could feel. Heartbreak, is one of the most wretched and lugubrious emotion one can ever go through. It is not like the grieving pain of losing a loved one, or the gloom of failing in one's career. Heartbreak is quite in a league of its own - it rips one's heart to pieces like rabid, feral beasts, leaving nothing behind but a trail of regret, dread and malaise. One is consumed by insufferable anguish and agony, and tormented by a merciless dose of misery. No wonder some says love is a devil in disguse; it can bring the greatest happiness, but at the same time, it can also demolish a person in a one single, rutheless swipe. Such are the travails of a heartbreak."
"You feel as though the entire World is tumbling down on you. You can barely contain the weight of the World, and the background fades into oblivion. All the warmth and incandescence in your heart are replaced by a frigid climate of despair and self-recrimination. You feel as though life has lost its meaning and purpose, and the place which once housed your bliss and joy is now marked by a conspicuous dearth of such emotions. The footsteps get heavier, as you force yourself to trudge on a tortuous, windy path towards seemingly nowhere. Indeed, having all the love breathed out of one's life is like losing one's life compass - you get disoriented and confused, yet you meander on. The halcyon days are now shattered and replaced by a shambles of decadence and forlornness. Solitude and melancholy creeps up to you, stealing whatever happy emotions that still remain - not much, though. Consequently you lapse into a sense of self delusion, rueing on "Happier days" and instantly rejecting the events of reality, a consequence of the immense pain and hurt one could feel. Heartbreak, is one of the most wretched and lugubrious emotion one can ever go through. It is not like the grieving pain of losing a loved one, or the gloom of failing in one's career. Heartbreak is quite in a league of its own - it rips one's heart to pieces like rabid, feral beasts, leaving nothing behind but a trail of regret, dread and malaise. One is consumed by insufferable anguish and agony, and tormented by a merciless dose of misery. No wonder some says love is a devil in disguse; it can bring the greatest happiness, but at the same time, it can also demolish a person in a one single, rutheless swipe. Such are the travails of a heartbreak."
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Morality, Science, Religion
The idea that an intrinsic, universal morality exists within us seems to me to be quaint indeed, almost quixotic. If it were to be true, insofar as a set of moral values are imbued within all of us congenitally, then I see little reason why the World could not have turned out better; but truth is, the World is in a state of disrepair, and steadily worsening. Every act of malice seems to point only towards my belief that the morality is a fluid, subjective process. We derive our set of moral values based on our personal experiences. And I believe, too, that reciprocal altruism, or "do unto others what you want others do unto you", does play an ancilliary role in shaping our morality.
There is an incredible tendency for people to confuse the normative and the positive. While it might be arguably true that, as far as morality is concerned, there definitely is some sort of objective standard we ought to follow, reality entails a rather different scenario. How we are able to discern the right from wrong wihout a proper, meaningful influence, or a sound education is baffling indeed. Do these people mean to say that, before we can walk, or learn the art of communication, we are already garnished with a set of internalised moral code, that is invariable from one individual to the other?
To me it seems queer, for it is extremely difficult to ascertain and even justify the independant nature of morality we all possess. Is it right to say that, every individual have common code of morality, nonwithstanding differences in personality, upbringing and external influences?
Take the case to the extreme. Is it not true that everyone recognises that cetain acts are unpardonably opprobrious? Acts such as murder, rape or even robbery? I would like to say that, as usual the distinction between normative and positive is smudged. And in this case even if we would like to acknowledge in unison the repugnance of such acts, clearly reality doesnt concur. And if we were to have an imbued sense of morality, does it not make sense when there are individuals who stray and commit on intent, knowing fully well the deploration of their acts?And of course, there are even cases whereby serial killers find no wrong in what they do, despite the sheer,naked brutality of their crimes. What has happened to this inherent sense of morality? Has it been casually jettisoned for something more arbitrary, more self-referencing and comfortable?
Moral views might be tangential, or even overlapping, but that does not mean morality in its entirety is congruent. For if we were to assert that a certain common set of moral views is internalised in a child since birth, then this must mean therefore, there is universality and consistency among all individuals, but reality is far from the that. What I am suggesting, is that the underlying reason that actually subdues the barbarianism, the streak of malice within us, and that propels the seemingly orchestrated human nature towards attaining the "standard" as aforementioned, is what many scholars termed as "recirocal altruism". We look at murder and grimace in fear at its raw cruelty. We look at rape and we are shaken with apoplectic rage at the foul nature of it itself. Why so? It is highly probable that we see ourselves, subconsciously,as the victim and our brains are tuned to such a hypothetical scenario when we begin to see vicariously through the plights of victims, and being to experience the feeling of being in their shoes. We look at mass muder such as pogroms or even WW2, and we are filled with sorrow and condemnation because we imagine a world of violence, and subsequently a bitter life of struggle that is elucidated, all the more, by the moving accounts of survivors and victims. Indirectly, our perceptions and sensories are heightened and we take the place of these victims.
There is an incredible tendency for people to confuse the normative and the positive. While it might be arguably true that, as far as morality is concerned, there definitely is some sort of objective standard we ought to follow, reality entails a rather different scenario. How we are able to discern the right from wrong wihout a proper, meaningful influence, or a sound education is baffling indeed. Do these people mean to say that, before we can walk, or learn the art of communication, we are already garnished with a set of internalised moral code, that is invariable from one individual to the other?
To me it seems queer, for it is extremely difficult to ascertain and even justify the independant nature of morality we all possess. Is it right to say that, every individual have common code of morality, nonwithstanding differences in personality, upbringing and external influences?
Take the case to the extreme. Is it not true that everyone recognises that cetain acts are unpardonably opprobrious? Acts such as murder, rape or even robbery? I would like to say that, as usual the distinction between normative and positive is smudged. And in this case even if we would like to acknowledge in unison the repugnance of such acts, clearly reality doesnt concur. And if we were to have an imbued sense of morality, does it not make sense when there are individuals who stray and commit on intent, knowing fully well the deploration of their acts?And of course, there are even cases whereby serial killers find no wrong in what they do, despite the sheer,naked brutality of their crimes. What has happened to this inherent sense of morality? Has it been casually jettisoned for something more arbitrary, more self-referencing and comfortable?
Moral views might be tangential, or even overlapping, but that does not mean morality in its entirety is congruent. For if we were to assert that a certain common set of moral views is internalised in a child since birth, then this must mean therefore, there is universality and consistency among all individuals, but reality is far from the that. What I am suggesting, is that the underlying reason that actually subdues the barbarianism, the streak of malice within us, and that propels the seemingly orchestrated human nature towards attaining the "standard" as aforementioned, is what many scholars termed as "recirocal altruism". We look at murder and grimace in fear at its raw cruelty. We look at rape and we are shaken with apoplectic rage at the foul nature of it itself. Why so? It is highly probable that we see ourselves, subconsciously,as the victim and our brains are tuned to such a hypothetical scenario when we begin to see vicariously through the plights of victims, and being to experience the feeling of being in their shoes. We look at mass muder such as pogroms or even WW2, and we are filled with sorrow and condemnation because we imagine a world of violence, and subsequently a bitter life of struggle that is elucidated, all the more, by the moving accounts of survivors and victims. Indirectly, our perceptions and sensories are heightened and we take the place of these victims.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Science
Sometimes my scientific knowledge is admittedly inadequate, and I am sorry for it, in all sense of the word. I am sorry because I have missed out on the wonderful repository of scientific knowledge that has defined,shaped and transformed the World for the past centuries. I am thankful for everything that I have today, for all this would not have been possible wihout scientific advancement.
The sheer incandescent brilliance of our scientific predeccessors is arguably unparalled and incontrovertibly breathtaking. As much as I marvel at the intricate wonders of nature and the environment, I hold my breath with just as much awe and trepidation at the millions of advancements made possible by Science. I am thankful, truly, because Mankind is ensconced safely on the net of new medical technology and Science. Millions of illnesses and diseases, of which treatment is nearly unthinkable centuries ago, are now open to new cures and remedies. DNA advancement has made a breakthrough in forensic science, allowing Scientist to solve highly complicated criminal cases with greater efficacy and precision.
And here I shall bring in the main topic of discussion. Recently, a convict was exonerated due to new DNA evidence after 16 painful years in the prison, convicted wrongfully of rape and murder.
Firstly, wihout Sciences, is it possible that he might just be stranded in that squalor for his entire life? Highly probable
2nd, does this introduce some really tricky questions to the sanction of the death penalty? Yes.
Death is a be all and end all situation. Sometimes cases like this points to us so dearly that we are but human beings. Imperfect human beings that are just as capable of making mistakes as one another.Death penalty cases are usually highly controversial and very tricky. And we can never rule out the possibility that somewhere down the road (10 , 20 years?) new evidences or even new scientific technology might actually prove the innocence of the convicted. One might argue that robbing 10 full years from an innocent person is cruel and ludicrous, but how about when you rob an innocent person of his life? 10 years worth of life might be hard to compensate, both in the material or non material sense, but life itself?
A person' life, whether a murder or not, wihout guilty or not, is not up to us to manipulate. It is precisely the kind of mistakes, that once committed fills us with despair and regret, and that can never be atoned, let aloned reversed or salvaged, that is driving us to question the need and the validity of a death penalty.
The sheer incandescent brilliance of our scientific predeccessors is arguably unparalled and incontrovertibly breathtaking. As much as I marvel at the intricate wonders of nature and the environment, I hold my breath with just as much awe and trepidation at the millions of advancements made possible by Science. I am thankful, truly, because Mankind is ensconced safely on the net of new medical technology and Science. Millions of illnesses and diseases, of which treatment is nearly unthinkable centuries ago, are now open to new cures and remedies. DNA advancement has made a breakthrough in forensic science, allowing Scientist to solve highly complicated criminal cases with greater efficacy and precision.
And here I shall bring in the main topic of discussion. Recently, a convict was exonerated due to new DNA evidence after 16 painful years in the prison, convicted wrongfully of rape and murder.
Firstly, wihout Sciences, is it possible that he might just be stranded in that squalor for his entire life? Highly probable
2nd, does this introduce some really tricky questions to the sanction of the death penalty? Yes.
Death is a be all and end all situation. Sometimes cases like this points to us so dearly that we are but human beings. Imperfect human beings that are just as capable of making mistakes as one another.Death penalty cases are usually highly controversial and very tricky. And we can never rule out the possibility that somewhere down the road (10 , 20 years?) new evidences or even new scientific technology might actually prove the innocence of the convicted. One might argue that robbing 10 full years from an innocent person is cruel and ludicrous, but how about when you rob an innocent person of his life? 10 years worth of life might be hard to compensate, both in the material or non material sense, but life itself?
A person' life, whether a murder or not, wihout guilty or not, is not up to us to manipulate. It is precisely the kind of mistakes, that once committed fills us with despair and regret, and that can never be atoned, let aloned reversed or salvaged, that is driving us to question the need and the validity of a death penalty.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Death Penalty
It is dejecting when you realise that something as egregarious as the death penalty is still sanctioned in a good number of States. I once thought, rather puerily, that every crimes begets a punishment of some sort, and there are those which almost definitely deserve the death penalty. Its was not until when I reached 15, then I started to question the value in killing as a "solution" to a crime (particularly when killing is the crimes itself), and when I started to learn the virtue of compassionate altruism.
Sometimes the idea of revenge fritters away when the very subject of vindictive hatred gets indicted and incapacitated by the law. Consider a close relative of a murder victim. At the heat of the moment, he/she might be predisposed to emotively violent notions of revenge, and might even wish that he/she might be able to dispose of the killer himself. But what purpose does the killing serve after the victim is already dead, and the killer, already imprisoned? George Orwell,in his essay "Revenge is Sour", remarked rather cryptically and facetiously at the same time, that the condition for a victim to exert revenge on Mussolini,the heinous Italian Facist leader, is that he must be dead. So going along with his argument, what purpose does revenge serve after all when the target of it has already been incapacitated?
Sometimes the notion of revenge is abstract. As time withers off, so does the raging impulse to avenge, and the angst, the pulsating desire to effect vengeance on a particular target slowly subsides and then disintegrates. I am not proscribing punishment altogether; I am merely questioning the need to effect punishment in such a way that it takes someone esle's life away (as if lives lost due to the crime itself is not enough). The erudite Mahatma Ghandi remarked that "an eye for an eye makes the world go blind" and if the death penalty were to be dispensed with disregard to human conditions such as compassion and mercy, then the World we live in is a very unstable one indeed. As many opponents have mentioned (and i emphasize), taking away someone esle's life does not offer restituition or an absolute bouleversement of the criminal event itself. As in the case of murder, the only satisfaction comes in the form of superficial, very cursory comfort that the killer has been hanged for his crimse, but in real terms, there has not been redemption of any sort. Redemption and restituition occurs when one makes up for his crime by offering various means of compensation, in other words, doing good to make up for one's bad. This I believe is much more sensible and productive than the death penalty, because in the end it is a zero sum conclusion. What can either party gain from the death penalty itself?
Singapore's unflinching attitude in the wake of greater anti death penalty sentiments is embarrassing, and disturbing too. It reminds me of those time when witches were burnt, adulterors were stoned and even at present, of the Middle East where thieves have their limbs severed and women have their faces disfigured for contravening the extremely dysfunctional Islamic laws, which would seem absurd by any standards in the Modern World. And precisely when we judge the penalty through the same vein ,we realise that Singapore is just as regressive and archaic (in its implementation of the death penalty) as the aforesaid nations. A rather enlightening aphrodism I read somewhere, stated that things that would seem most absurd by today's standard, would be completely quotidian and ordinary during the time in which they were being practised. Public flogging, and even buring people at the stakes, seemed too gruesome for us to stomach, yet during those times, these were totally mundane routine punishments, and the people at those times were unlikely to bat their eyelids or give 2 hoots about these sort of punishment.
Yet the World presently has evolved significantly. The reason is too complicated and tenuous for me to properly explain within the constraints of this post itself, but in essence, Mankind has evolved to such an extent that the standards with which we judge certain actions have changed in tandem with the World. We recognise that stoning and public flogging are barbaric, uncivil actions and it is quite unthinkable to actually prescribe punitives that carries a tone of sexual discrimination, as in the Middle East laws whereby men are more likely to get away with sexual crimes than women.
I am not here to be didactic and I am perhaps not qualified to decide whether this changing standards is a progression or a regression, although I am confident that many of us would like to think so. And Singapore, for all her state of art technology and flourishing economy, should know better than most of them that backsliding into archaic territories is not the path we ought to take. We all know how insignificantly small Singapore is and how powerless it is against the overwhelming tides of changes, and when the tide dictates that death penalty is no longer relevant in today's context (and for very good reasons as well), it is time we bite the bullet and concede. This is not about being sycophantically and fawningly obsequetious to the World itself. It is about being able to acknowledge that this piece of our law is indeed a pastiche, an incongruity with our image as a modern nation, an archaic form of punishment that can no longer be justified by today's standards, and no matter how much we try to fight the tides, this fight is ultimately self defeating.
I find it incredibly hypocritical when Singapore argues that each and every country should be left to their own when it comes to enacting the laws that governs them. When Singapore requires trade, foreign talent to bolster its economy, the clarion call for greater foreign trade, investment and even immigration is sounded. Yet when it comes to international consensus and arbitration on issues like this, Singapore remains obstinately enclosed in its own World and defiantly unheeded to international pressure. Singapore is a myrmidon of the World, because her circumstances need her to be so. Is being so resistant to the change damaging to our reputation and our economy? Yes, and I believe the damage is far reaching and manifold.
The death penalty, as argued previously, is an anachronistic piece of legislation that is no longer convincing in Today's world. Singapore leader ought to have been more judicious when reviewing this issue. Right now the damage has already been done. For how long more can we shoulder the effects of the damage before we finally realize the inexorable hurt it has done to our country?
Sometimes the idea of revenge fritters away when the very subject of vindictive hatred gets indicted and incapacitated by the law. Consider a close relative of a murder victim. At the heat of the moment, he/she might be predisposed to emotively violent notions of revenge, and might even wish that he/she might be able to dispose of the killer himself. But what purpose does the killing serve after the victim is already dead, and the killer, already imprisoned? George Orwell,in his essay "Revenge is Sour", remarked rather cryptically and facetiously at the same time, that the condition for a victim to exert revenge on Mussolini,the heinous Italian Facist leader, is that he must be dead. So going along with his argument, what purpose does revenge serve after all when the target of it has already been incapacitated?
Sometimes the notion of revenge is abstract. As time withers off, so does the raging impulse to avenge, and the angst, the pulsating desire to effect vengeance on a particular target slowly subsides and then disintegrates. I am not proscribing punishment altogether; I am merely questioning the need to effect punishment in such a way that it takes someone esle's life away (as if lives lost due to the crime itself is not enough). The erudite Mahatma Ghandi remarked that "an eye for an eye makes the world go blind" and if the death penalty were to be dispensed with disregard to human conditions such as compassion and mercy, then the World we live in is a very unstable one indeed. As many opponents have mentioned (and i emphasize), taking away someone esle's life does not offer restituition or an absolute bouleversement of the criminal event itself. As in the case of murder, the only satisfaction comes in the form of superficial, very cursory comfort that the killer has been hanged for his crimse, but in real terms, there has not been redemption of any sort. Redemption and restituition occurs when one makes up for his crime by offering various means of compensation, in other words, doing good to make up for one's bad. This I believe is much more sensible and productive than the death penalty, because in the end it is a zero sum conclusion. What can either party gain from the death penalty itself?
Singapore's unflinching attitude in the wake of greater anti death penalty sentiments is embarrassing, and disturbing too. It reminds me of those time when witches were burnt, adulterors were stoned and even at present, of the Middle East where thieves have their limbs severed and women have their faces disfigured for contravening the extremely dysfunctional Islamic laws, which would seem absurd by any standards in the Modern World. And precisely when we judge the penalty through the same vein ,we realise that Singapore is just as regressive and archaic (in its implementation of the death penalty) as the aforesaid nations. A rather enlightening aphrodism I read somewhere, stated that things that would seem most absurd by today's standard, would be completely quotidian and ordinary during the time in which they were being practised. Public flogging, and even buring people at the stakes, seemed too gruesome for us to stomach, yet during those times, these were totally mundane routine punishments, and the people at those times were unlikely to bat their eyelids or give 2 hoots about these sort of punishment.
Yet the World presently has evolved significantly. The reason is too complicated and tenuous for me to properly explain within the constraints of this post itself, but in essence, Mankind has evolved to such an extent that the standards with which we judge certain actions have changed in tandem with the World. We recognise that stoning and public flogging are barbaric, uncivil actions and it is quite unthinkable to actually prescribe punitives that carries a tone of sexual discrimination, as in the Middle East laws whereby men are more likely to get away with sexual crimes than women.
I am not here to be didactic and I am perhaps not qualified to decide whether this changing standards is a progression or a regression, although I am confident that many of us would like to think so. And Singapore, for all her state of art technology and flourishing economy, should know better than most of them that backsliding into archaic territories is not the path we ought to take. We all know how insignificantly small Singapore is and how powerless it is against the overwhelming tides of changes, and when the tide dictates that death penalty is no longer relevant in today's context (and for very good reasons as well), it is time we bite the bullet and concede. This is not about being sycophantically and fawningly obsequetious to the World itself. It is about being able to acknowledge that this piece of our law is indeed a pastiche, an incongruity with our image as a modern nation, an archaic form of punishment that can no longer be justified by today's standards, and no matter how much we try to fight the tides, this fight is ultimately self defeating.
I find it incredibly hypocritical when Singapore argues that each and every country should be left to their own when it comes to enacting the laws that governs them. When Singapore requires trade, foreign talent to bolster its economy, the clarion call for greater foreign trade, investment and even immigration is sounded. Yet when it comes to international consensus and arbitration on issues like this, Singapore remains obstinately enclosed in its own World and defiantly unheeded to international pressure. Singapore is a myrmidon of the World, because her circumstances need her to be so. Is being so resistant to the change damaging to our reputation and our economy? Yes, and I believe the damage is far reaching and manifold.
The death penalty, as argued previously, is an anachronistic piece of legislation that is no longer convincing in Today's world. Singapore leader ought to have been more judicious when reviewing this issue. Right now the damage has already been done. For how long more can we shoulder the effects of the damage before we finally realize the inexorable hurt it has done to our country?
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Morality and religion
I find parts of Richards Dawkins "The God Delusion" most enlightening. For example, Richard Dawkins stylishly debunked the popular strawman created by creationist, that some of the most pernicious, noxious leaders in the 20th century, such as Hitler and Stalin, were atheist, and therefore atheism is "Evil". Henceforth, religion is better than no religion.
I find it impossibly difficult to not laugh at such ludicrous beliefs. Hitlers and Stalins were both as short as they are atheist. So by the same vein, being short also implies a causal link to opprobrious, miasmic acts of evil. This fallacy is stupefyingly obtuse, and it speaks volumes of the people who believe,or advance their arguments through the employment of the fallacy itself. Unless people could establish some sort of link between them being aetheist, and the nefarious crimes they commit, (which I doubt they could), this strawman is doomed to crumple. Hitler or Stalin has never invoked "aetheism" as the reason for their indiscriminate persecution, unlike religious wars whereby leaders have invoked the God of Islam, or any other religion, as their trigger point for conflict.
I find it quite interesting though, even though I am a Christian, but nevertheless reading some of the arguments put forth by Dawkins really fascinates me till no end. For example, Dawkins mentioned that the reason why a particular individual is bornt, say, a Christian, and not a Buddhist, mormonist, islamist or any other religious subject, is because we grow up in the particular influence. Our parents carry that sort of religion, and so do our grandparents, and so on ad infinitum. But even though this may be true of America and presumably parts of Europe, what is going on in Asia clearly contradicts his point of view. In Asia, there is an accelerated trend of religious conversion, and more often than not, converts include people who are into adulthood (and hence possess the maturity to make decisions for themselves), who have had religious influence for past many years, and who have been brought up in another religion, usually provincial and traditional in the particular area of living, and which conflicts with the religion to which they switch. The tidal wave of Christianity proselytization in South Korea and China, and even the rest of Asia, is gaining grounds. And this phenomenom defies conventional saying that religion is passed down from one generation to another. Because truly by observing this present trend, one can surmise that these people, thinking conscientious adults, must have had their reasons for choosing that particular religion - Christianity, Islamism etc, especially when they have had many years of past religious teachings imibibed into them and when the scale of conversion is widespread and appears to be gaining greater momentum.
Likewise he mentioned an interesting point, that the reason why Bible is wholly and unquestioningly followed by believers is due to the fact that we have been brought up in a manner devoid of critical thinking, perspective and choices. For example, replace the Bible (while keeping the circumstances i.e teaching someone to believe, to learn in faith etc constant) with any hosh-posh book and the outcome is likely to be very similar, to the point of being predictable. However, what makes the Christian faith so enduring and so widespread is the kind of standing that it has established in modern society. It is not so easy, so to say, that any tosh conjured by any individual, could easily lead to the same effect. There are millions of churches world wide, with even more followers. And theology, especially the Christian faith, is itself a subject with a rigorously researched base and a deep history behind it. So what he said was not entirely right, in the sense that we cannot simply claim that any hosh posh religion conjured arbitarily by any individual (with a certain degree of influence) can achieve the same effect of perpetuity and deep seated beliefs in its subjects, unlike Christianity.
I think one thing noteworthy is that religious followers' unfaltering beliefs in their religions is predicated on one thinking: that their God is true, and his words, absolute. His argument could work only when religious subjects are able to open up to the slightest possibility that their God might be non existent, and then debate from this onwards. But the difference between Scientist and a pious subject is highlighted, in a stunningly crystal-clear description : A scientist will, at the earliest possible time, turned against his own scientific beliefs if there were clear, succint evidence that contradicts it. A religious subject, however, would remain steadfast and resolute in his beliefs, even if all evidence turns againt it. The reason is simple : Science itself is built on evidence and logical reasoning. Religion itself, is built on stilts of faith - unwavering, deep seated faith. How do you use evidence and reasoning to challenge something that has never stemmed from, or established itself on evidence or reasoning?
One thing I definitely concur is that morality and religion are two disparate fields. The argument that the possession of morality is conditional upon one's belief in religion is entirely myopic and is fraught with some measurement of condescension as well as smug, high-handed egoisticism. It is akin to giving a tight slap to non believers, especially decent, civilized ones who have lived their lives honestly and uprightly, only to be labelled as being morally deficient, or in the worst case, bankrupt, just because they did not have any particular beliefs. Richard Dawkins argued quite cogently, using a particular research as his focal point, and advanced that right and wrong are concepts that are almost agreeable between believers and non believers alike. The research results was very telling; save for the slight anomaly of about 3%, most of their views (based on the scenario given to them) were converged and extrapolated to an almost absolute consensus. However, this research isnt very adequate, because the most contentious, disputed fields are left out of his reasoning. Fields such as homosexuality, abortion and cloning, were (perhaps deliberately) left out of the table of discussion. I guess Dawkins has foreseen this point, because he laid a subtle disclaimer that there were certain issues that both believers are non believers believe to an almost unanimous degree. To me it seems kinda ambiguous, as though he is saying that the moral views of both believers and non believers coincide, to the extent that they coincide when contentious, factious issues are left out. I can safely assert that if there ever were such a survey, where non believers and believers are given a questionaire regarding homosexuality, the results are likely to be polarised.
Nevertheless, Dawkins also laid out a long explanation of why religious subject could not possibility construct their morality based on religous teachings. He highlighted various passages from the Bible, describing the sheer malice and repugnance in the contents, and I must admit I was duly shaken. This begets a good question. One cannot possibly derive his morality on such teachings. This led Dawkins to further expound his view that religion is picked and chosen by religious subjects capriciously, and tailored to their wishes and arbitration. For example, he mentioned that peole are likely to gloss over grossly violent texts as being symbols, allegories or with various kinds of dismission. He then expressed his disbelief that people who claimed to follow a particular religion, could actually decide, in a self referencing and discretional way, what to follow in the literal sense and what to follow in the symbolic sense. And further on, since individuals cherry-pick, there must have been a criterion which they follow. This leads him to think that this criterion, is the general, universal morality which we all possess, in spite of religion or not. I must concede that some of the texts in the bible itself is rather distasteful and even unbearably chauvinistic ( as in women are subjects of men), gory( as in the smitings and stonings) and even odiously macabre and morbid ( as in many instances of sacrificial).
This is as much as I can say today, but still I would like to end with a note that what makes religion so unprecedentedly antagonistic, inflammatory, and rancourous is because of the way people are taught, and even more the way people carry their beliefs. Belief itself, reduced to its very essence, is simply the belief in the betterment of the World and the people in this World, and this betterment could be achieved wholly and successfully only through God's might. But lamentably, religion has been distorted, convoluted, caricatured,twisted and manipulated (perhaps unintentionally, since beliefs passed down through generations are bound to be marinated with half truths, unreliabilities and myths) by people themselves. My personal view has always been that of moderation and respect. Faiths should never be imposed and impinged upon other people. More importantly, echoed by Richard Dawkins, faith should never, more so, be spread wihout the individual autonomy and availability of choice. Recently, I have witnessed a strong, aggressive desire from the Church to aggrandize and spread their influences and beliefs. While this itself is not inherently wrong, since from a rather benign view, spreading faith in goodwill, whilst maintaining the individuals autonomy and freedom isnt really a harmful thing. However,rather sadly, I have seen religious factions and groups aggressively, and even antagonistically, advancing their beliefs on other territories and having complete disregard to individuals fundamental right. Such example is manifested in a report I read, where a group of Christians picketed the funeral of a deceased soldier, who was believed to be a homosexual. Religion takes its form in many different shapes and size, but this form is spectacularly deleterious and baneful. The poor solider went to the frontline, sacrificed his life for the country and all he got was this from a group of pharisiac believers. No religion, in my view, can have the monopoly over what is right, what is wrong, what kind of life is worth living etc. Why? 4 simple reasons. One, there are too many religions. Neither can prove itself, or be proven , that it is above all. Two, religion itself is not exempt from internal schism, factions and partisan-ship. 3, religious subjects themselves are as imperfect, and as capable of committing crime and sin, as non religious ones. 4 The veracity of religion cannot be validated. But saddeningly what is happening is that some Christians are getting bellicuse and didactic, expecting or even wanting people to adhere, to their way of teaching, against their will and consent, which is absurb. We should never proscribe the individual's right of choice, as we are no moral authority. We can not assert upon others our beliefs behind the false veneer of God, which is shameful and sanctimonious. God's name should never be exploited or contrived for one's own purposes. I believe in explaining to people the meaning of God, and my religious beliefs if need be, but never press upon others to follow suit, never colour my religion , never provide blinkered, false information ,and most importantly, never hate or strong-arm non believers. I live my my life in the name of God, and truly, why care excessively about other people when we cannot even take care of our own backyards? I am contented to live a quiet life holding a personal fruitful relationship with God in a peaceful, non infringing way. Maybe its just me.
I find it impossibly difficult to not laugh at such ludicrous beliefs. Hitlers and Stalins were both as short as they are atheist. So by the same vein, being short also implies a causal link to opprobrious, miasmic acts of evil. This fallacy is stupefyingly obtuse, and it speaks volumes of the people who believe,or advance their arguments through the employment of the fallacy itself. Unless people could establish some sort of link between them being aetheist, and the nefarious crimes they commit, (which I doubt they could), this strawman is doomed to crumple. Hitler or Stalin has never invoked "aetheism" as the reason for their indiscriminate persecution, unlike religious wars whereby leaders have invoked the God of Islam, or any other religion, as their trigger point for conflict.
I find it quite interesting though, even though I am a Christian, but nevertheless reading some of the arguments put forth by Dawkins really fascinates me till no end. For example, Dawkins mentioned that the reason why a particular individual is bornt, say, a Christian, and not a Buddhist, mormonist, islamist or any other religious subject, is because we grow up in the particular influence. Our parents carry that sort of religion, and so do our grandparents, and so on ad infinitum. But even though this may be true of America and presumably parts of Europe, what is going on in Asia clearly contradicts his point of view. In Asia, there is an accelerated trend of religious conversion, and more often than not, converts include people who are into adulthood (and hence possess the maturity to make decisions for themselves), who have had religious influence for past many years, and who have been brought up in another religion, usually provincial and traditional in the particular area of living, and which conflicts with the religion to which they switch. The tidal wave of Christianity proselytization in South Korea and China, and even the rest of Asia, is gaining grounds. And this phenomenom defies conventional saying that religion is passed down from one generation to another. Because truly by observing this present trend, one can surmise that these people, thinking conscientious adults, must have had their reasons for choosing that particular religion - Christianity, Islamism etc, especially when they have had many years of past religious teachings imibibed into them and when the scale of conversion is widespread and appears to be gaining greater momentum.
Likewise he mentioned an interesting point, that the reason why Bible is wholly and unquestioningly followed by believers is due to the fact that we have been brought up in a manner devoid of critical thinking, perspective and choices. For example, replace the Bible (while keeping the circumstances i.e teaching someone to believe, to learn in faith etc constant) with any hosh-posh book and the outcome is likely to be very similar, to the point of being predictable. However, what makes the Christian faith so enduring and so widespread is the kind of standing that it has established in modern society. It is not so easy, so to say, that any tosh conjured by any individual, could easily lead to the same effect. There are millions of churches world wide, with even more followers. And theology, especially the Christian faith, is itself a subject with a rigorously researched base and a deep history behind it. So what he said was not entirely right, in the sense that we cannot simply claim that any hosh posh religion conjured arbitarily by any individual (with a certain degree of influence) can achieve the same effect of perpetuity and deep seated beliefs in its subjects, unlike Christianity.
I think one thing noteworthy is that religious followers' unfaltering beliefs in their religions is predicated on one thinking: that their God is true, and his words, absolute. His argument could work only when religious subjects are able to open up to the slightest possibility that their God might be non existent, and then debate from this onwards. But the difference between Scientist and a pious subject is highlighted, in a stunningly crystal-clear description : A scientist will, at the earliest possible time, turned against his own scientific beliefs if there were clear, succint evidence that contradicts it. A religious subject, however, would remain steadfast and resolute in his beliefs, even if all evidence turns againt it. The reason is simple : Science itself is built on evidence and logical reasoning. Religion itself, is built on stilts of faith - unwavering, deep seated faith. How do you use evidence and reasoning to challenge something that has never stemmed from, or established itself on evidence or reasoning?
One thing I definitely concur is that morality and religion are two disparate fields. The argument that the possession of morality is conditional upon one's belief in religion is entirely myopic and is fraught with some measurement of condescension as well as smug, high-handed egoisticism. It is akin to giving a tight slap to non believers, especially decent, civilized ones who have lived their lives honestly and uprightly, only to be labelled as being morally deficient, or in the worst case, bankrupt, just because they did not have any particular beliefs. Richard Dawkins argued quite cogently, using a particular research as his focal point, and advanced that right and wrong are concepts that are almost agreeable between believers and non believers alike. The research results was very telling; save for the slight anomaly of about 3%, most of their views (based on the scenario given to them) were converged and extrapolated to an almost absolute consensus. However, this research isnt very adequate, because the most contentious, disputed fields are left out of his reasoning. Fields such as homosexuality, abortion and cloning, were (perhaps deliberately) left out of the table of discussion. I guess Dawkins has foreseen this point, because he laid a subtle disclaimer that there were certain issues that both believers are non believers believe to an almost unanimous degree. To me it seems kinda ambiguous, as though he is saying that the moral views of both believers and non believers coincide, to the extent that they coincide when contentious, factious issues are left out. I can safely assert that if there ever were such a survey, where non believers and believers are given a questionaire regarding homosexuality, the results are likely to be polarised.
Nevertheless, Dawkins also laid out a long explanation of why religious subject could not possibility construct their morality based on religous teachings. He highlighted various passages from the Bible, describing the sheer malice and repugnance in the contents, and I must admit I was duly shaken. This begets a good question. One cannot possibly derive his morality on such teachings. This led Dawkins to further expound his view that religion is picked and chosen by religious subjects capriciously, and tailored to their wishes and arbitration. For example, he mentioned that peole are likely to gloss over grossly violent texts as being symbols, allegories or with various kinds of dismission. He then expressed his disbelief that people who claimed to follow a particular religion, could actually decide, in a self referencing and discretional way, what to follow in the literal sense and what to follow in the symbolic sense. And further on, since individuals cherry-pick, there must have been a criterion which they follow. This leads him to think that this criterion, is the general, universal morality which we all possess, in spite of religion or not. I must concede that some of the texts in the bible itself is rather distasteful and even unbearably chauvinistic ( as in women are subjects of men), gory( as in the smitings and stonings) and even odiously macabre and morbid ( as in many instances of sacrificial).
This is as much as I can say today, but still I would like to end with a note that what makes religion so unprecedentedly antagonistic, inflammatory, and rancourous is because of the way people are taught, and even more the way people carry their beliefs. Belief itself, reduced to its very essence, is simply the belief in the betterment of the World and the people in this World, and this betterment could be achieved wholly and successfully only through God's might. But lamentably, religion has been distorted, convoluted, caricatured,twisted and manipulated (perhaps unintentionally, since beliefs passed down through generations are bound to be marinated with half truths, unreliabilities and myths) by people themselves. My personal view has always been that of moderation and respect. Faiths should never be imposed and impinged upon other people. More importantly, echoed by Richard Dawkins, faith should never, more so, be spread wihout the individual autonomy and availability of choice. Recently, I have witnessed a strong, aggressive desire from the Church to aggrandize and spread their influences and beliefs. While this itself is not inherently wrong, since from a rather benign view, spreading faith in goodwill, whilst maintaining the individuals autonomy and freedom isnt really a harmful thing. However,rather sadly, I have seen religious factions and groups aggressively, and even antagonistically, advancing their beliefs on other territories and having complete disregard to individuals fundamental right. Such example is manifested in a report I read, where a group of Christians picketed the funeral of a deceased soldier, who was believed to be a homosexual. Religion takes its form in many different shapes and size, but this form is spectacularly deleterious and baneful. The poor solider went to the frontline, sacrificed his life for the country and all he got was this from a group of pharisiac believers. No religion, in my view, can have the monopoly over what is right, what is wrong, what kind of life is worth living etc. Why? 4 simple reasons. One, there are too many religions. Neither can prove itself, or be proven , that it is above all. Two, religion itself is not exempt from internal schism, factions and partisan-ship. 3, religious subjects themselves are as imperfect, and as capable of committing crime and sin, as non religious ones. 4 The veracity of religion cannot be validated. But saddeningly what is happening is that some Christians are getting bellicuse and didactic, expecting or even wanting people to adhere, to their way of teaching, against their will and consent, which is absurb. We should never proscribe the individual's right of choice, as we are no moral authority. We can not assert upon others our beliefs behind the false veneer of God, which is shameful and sanctimonious. God's name should never be exploited or contrived for one's own purposes. I believe in explaining to people the meaning of God, and my religious beliefs if need be, but never press upon others to follow suit, never colour my religion , never provide blinkered, false information ,and most importantly, never hate or strong-arm non believers. I live my my life in the name of God, and truly, why care excessively about other people when we cannot even take care of our own backyards? I am contented to live a quiet life holding a personal fruitful relationship with God in a peaceful, non infringing way. Maybe its just me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)