Dear Sir,

I refer to the report: “TOC Report: 150 call for vote of no confidence” by Choo Zheng Xi.

I write this letter in response to two objections I have about what the author of the article wrote. :

1) Christian Fundamentalism

Firstly, I object to the pigeonholing of AWARE ex-co members as “Christian Fundamentalists”, a term which the author employs in his article. After quoting a statement by Angela Thiang about her stance against homosexuals, Mr Choo then makes the logical leap (and a huge one that is) in the very next line to conclude that AWARE is now run by a group of “Christian Fundamentalists.”

I take issue with making this huge leap because (i) nowhere in the article is there suggestion or evidence that the ex-co is now Christian fundamentalist, (ii) an anti-homosexual stance does not equate to Christian fundamentalism.

True, Jenice Chua and Angela Thiang had both previously attracted attention for their anti-homosexual stance. But is that evidence of Christian fundamentalism? Is that a good ground for labelling them as such? How is the Author sure that they are Christians in the first place? And even if they are Christians, why must they be pigeonholed as being “fundamentalist” as opposed to “misguided” or “uninformed Christians” or “Christians who may not be totally familiar with Christ’s teachings as a whole.”

Attaching the “fundamentalist” label on them just results in tarring public perception of their reputation because “fundamentalist” as a term carries with it a negative connotation. A glance through some of the comments on TOC using the search function to look for the term “fundamentalist” would perhaps make this point of mine much clearer.

Mr Choo needs to be more aware of the implications of using certain terms before using them loosely as he has done.

2) Christianity and Regressiveness

The second grouse I have is Mr Choo’s quoting of the Glass Castle Magazine’s editor, Jolene, whose view is that Christian fundamentalism leads to effects that are “regressive to women’s rights.”

Firstly, I think that there must be more justification on Mr Choo’s part first to show why Christian fundamentalism leads to a regression in terms of women’s rights. Simply putting a quote there will not do. Again, we see here a large logical leap that it unjustified. It seems as though the Author has made the erroneous assumption that Christianity is against women having rights or worse, that Christianity leads to a diminution of women’s rights – both of these are untrue.

Many questions follow from his quoting of Jolene’s views:

– What is the Christian stance on women’s rights?

– Does it in the first place negatively affect women’s rights or does it promote women’s rights?

– Is Mr Choo even aware of how Christianity views the issue of women’s rights? If he does not, is he therefore justified in making such an equation between Christianity and regression of women’s rights?

One perspective that I hope Mr Choo will consider is that Christianity holds women in high regard. The Bible affirms that women are equally valued, equally treated and share the same divine image of men. Husbands are to love and honour their wives just as they love themselves. Let it also not be forgotten that the Biblical accounts of Christ’s resurrection sees women as the first ones at the empty tomb. 

From this and from other articles on the TOC website, it seems to me that TOC is trying to side with the old committee of AWARE. Based on what Mr Choo wrote and based on the lack of evidence, it seems very contrived for him to try and link the new committee to anti-homosexual and “Christian fundamentalist” stances, both of which are deeply dividing terminologies.

Concluding, I wish to urge against the use of such divisive labels such as “fundamentalist” as it is unhelpful in promoting civil discourse. Even if one believes bona fide that someone is a “fundamentalist,” perhaps there are other less offensive terms that can and should be used.

Yours Sincerely,

Tang Shang Jun

—–

Editor’s note:

TOC apologizes for any offence caused by the terminology employed in the article in question and highlights that it was not our intention to criticize the Christian community as a whole. 

——

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

AVA voted against proposals to conserve endangered species in CITES

On Saturday 13th July 2013, in a public forum held during the…

Christians join Muslims in protest against Pink Dot

In what could be a rare show of solidarity between two faiths,…

照常开课引批评 王乙康发长文以三大原因解释

上周,教育部宣布将在今日(23日)照常开课,但随着疫情日益严重,我国新增许多境外移入的确诊病例,让不少家长表示担忧,甚至发出网络请愿书,要求教育部继续延长关闭学校的日期。 此外,教育部长王乙康也透露,有些家长也写信给教育部质询为何要在23日开课。 对此,王乙康也在脸书上发长文解释,开课背后的三大考虑。他表示,如今也有研究证明,武汉冠状病毒(COVID-19)对于年轻人的影响不如成年人,如同水痘对年轻人的影响。 引述国大、世卫组织专家说法 多数年轻患者都是因为家里或学校以外的缘故被感染,他也引述新加坡国立大学医学部主任、世卫组织全球疫情和警报响应网络主席费舍尔(Dale Fisher)的说法,学生如今能够上学可能会更安全,因为他们会与同侪一起相处而不是与到其他社区闲晃,增加感染机率。 其次,延长关闭时间也会打乱许多家庭的日常生活,尤其是前线工作人员,以及无法找到协助或保姆的父母。 “学校采取更多预防措施” 王乙康也向家长保证,学校会采取更多预防措施,保证学生的安全,若出现任何不适症状,如喉咙痛或咳嗽,学生也将立即被送回家进行隔离。 针对3月初到海外旅游的学生或教职人员,也已发出缺席假通知。同时学校也会在学校门口再三确定学生的旅行史。 另一方,课外活动与校外活动也将暂停,学生待在教室内,教室内的桌椅也将分开进行安全隔离,并随时留意他们的卫生。 对于王乙康的解释,许多网民纷纷斥责学业难道比命还重要吗?也有网民认为学校内除了学生,还有其他教职人员,甚至有些学生会搭乘公共交通,所以难以避免,应该先实施停课。…

黄埔小贩也申诉富食客接手后运营成本增

2016年11月20日,环境局宣布委托职总富食客合作社,作为七座小贩中心的新管理代理。环境局根据观察,职总富食客自2014年来管理勿洛小贩中心“运作良好”,而作出以上决定。 目前,由职总富食客管理的七座小贩中心如下: 大巴窑大牌75 旧机场路小贩中心 黄埔通道第90座小贩中心 黄埔通道大牌91小贩中心和大牌92巴刹 义顺忠邦小贩中心 兀兰71通道第676A 座小贩中心(新) 巴西立中路小贩中心(新) 环境局指出,勿洛小贩针对富食客的管理、对小贩反映的回应、可负担食物价格和干净环境等事项,给与正面的反馈。 黄埔通道90座小贩中心 …