In his book, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Daniel Dennett writes about a mythical substance known as “universal acid”, something so corrosive that it will eat through anything that it came into contact with, transforming everything it applies to.

While such a substance is mythical, the same cannot be said for certain “dangerous ideas”. With the potential to revolutionise how we understand what it means to be human, these ideas, when widely accepted, would “eat through just about every traditional concept, and leave in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways.”

As such, it seems that Roland Chia has rightly recognised the issue of euthanasia as precisely such a “dangerous idea”, and has produced a comprehensive Christian response to this vexed topic. Not simply a question of medical or Christian ethics, Chia’s book The Right to Die? demonstrates that euthanasia has profound implications on the identity of the medical profession, the way society views the sick, and finally how a person approaches the question of sickness, suffering and death.

Yet as Chia has himself noted, one difficulty for opponents of euthanasia was the framing of the debate as that between progressive policies facing the (irrational) obstruction of conservatives. Chia, for instance, has noted that such proponents often appeal to ideas of “social progress” to justify their reasoning. When framed in such a manner, those who oppose euthanasia would be somehow seen as opponents of progress (however vaguely defined), and most likely on the “wrong side of history”.

Without detracting from Chia’s important work, this essay suggests that Chia’s comprehensive response to the issue of euthanasia can be supplemented by reference to Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae, especially through the use of the concepts of the “culture of death” and the “culture of life.” The advantages of this overarching frame are as follows

i) That it provides an effective rhetorical counterpoint to those who link euthanasia and social progress
ii) That it is conceptually helpful as it analyses the problem of euthanasia as part of a deeper cultural malaise
iii) That it envisions in concrete terms what a culture of life would look like as an alternative to a society which accepts euthanasia.

CEMPAKASLOT

I) An effective rhetorical counterpoint to those who link euthanasia and social progress

The importance of effective rhetorical catchphrases cannot be underestimated in the debate over euthanasia. Proponents of euthanasia have commonly used phrases like “death with dignity”, “compassion” and “mercy” to make their case. As Chia has noted, the word mercy is “the principle for which people from various faith communities, including Christians, may have the most sympathy. As such, advocates often “speak as if they have a monopoly on this virtue” In a very insightful article on the rhetoric surrounding euthanasia, Jacqueline Harvey notes that right to die groups quickly realise that certain words like “suicide” do not sit well with the public. They have been quick to rebrand themselves accordingly. The Hemlock society now calls itself “Compassion and choices”. As such, it would be important for Christians who oppose euthanasia to resist such euphemisms and to call things by their proper name.

John Paul II seems to be helpful in this respect. In his 1995 encyclical “The Gospel of Life”, John Paul II painted a dramatic clash between two irreconcilable ways of life prevalent in the world today; namely that of the culture of death and the culture of life. Situating the issue of euthanasia as a manifestation of the culture of death, the Pope diagnoses this culture as one which embodies “a…failure to recognise the sanctity of human life and human relations in favour of…personal autonomy, self-assertion and the consequent instrumentalization of social relations.” By contrast, the culture of life “requires as its cornerstone the recognition that Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of Man is the centre and purpose of human history’ and therefore the humanity in which he shares is worthy of reverence, not domination and exploitation.”

Raymond Dennehy has noted the rhetorical genius in the introduction of the phrase “culture of death”. It was “the kind of term that people who create advertisements dream about. It immediately catches the attention and sparks curiosity, and it is addictively repeatable. It was destined to adorn the title page of books” More importantly, in this narrative, so-called progressives are no longer seen as heroes. Instead, they are “the barbarians at the gates” and “conservatives” are the defenders of civilization. As such “instead of coming across as inhumane obstructers of medical research…[critics of euthanasia] can assume the positive stance of defending the most fundamental of all values, life.”

 The disruption of the narrative of progress and compassion which proponents of euthanasia promote would be important in making the case against euthanasia to members of the public. Jacqueline Harvey further notes that there was at least a 20-percentage point difference in public support for euthanasia in opinion polls, depending on how the question is phrased. For instance, about 70 percent of respondents in the United States say that they support “ending a patient’s life by painless means”. The support drops to 51 percent when the question asks if they supported “assisting the patient to commit suicide.”

ii) Conceptually helpful in analysing the problem of euthanasia as part of a deeper cultural malaise.

 Jack Kevorkian, a leading proponent of euthanasia, declares his impatience at Western society’s apparent reticence in accepting euthanasia, as compared to other socially “progressive” trends. Noting that there is a widespread acceptance of the idea of “planned births”, which is seen as rational and responsible, Kevorkian exhorts western societies if it is not time “for a society obsessed with planned birth to consider diverting some of its attention and energy from an overriding concern with longevity of life at all costs to the snowballing need for a rational stance on planned death, i.e. the purposeful ending of human life by direct human action.”

Kevorkian remarks illustrate what he sees as the logical connection between attitudes which drive a desire for “planned birth” and that which should also that of a “planned death.” Ironically, he would likely agree with John Paul II’s description of contemporary culture possessing a “Promethean attitude which leads people to think they can control life and death by taking the decisions about them into their own hands,” though unlike the Pope, he would see it as a good, rather than a bad thing.

Attitudes held by Kevorkian ought to be understood within a particular cultural context, embodying certain social attitudes and outlook on life and the nature of the human person. In Evangelium Vitae, they embody attitudes characteristic of a “culture of death.”

Nevertheless, while Evangelium Vitae does not say so explicitly, some scholars have noted that the encyclical has at its crosshairs, the culture of liberal modernity, “a tradition of theory and practice aiming to organise political life around the rights of the individual understood as a primarily self-interested being” and which despite its talk about the dignity of the human person, would nevertheless see it fitting to extinguish the lives of innocent human beings both at the moment of conception and also towards the end of life.

slot gacor

This s equating of liberal modernity with a culture of death would seem inaccurate at first sight and even if accurate, irrelevant to the Singapore context. As Carson Holloway observes, liberal politics would consider “the right to life” as the source of human rights. As such, the irreverence towards life in liberal societies seems a deviation of liberal principles. Moreover, this debate over liberal modernity seems academic as Singapore has largely attempted, since independence, to emphasise that it is an “Asian” or “communitarian democracy” with the emphasis on the importance of the family and eschews hedonistic individualism.

However, Holloway argues that it is not so much that liberal democracies offer defences for the right to life. Rather, it is the flawed logical basis in which it grounds the right to life “which “leads to the widespread selective disregard for the right to life we see today”. Unlike the Christian vision, which grounds the right to live in the fact that the human person is made in the image and likeness of God, liberal modernity’s account tries to do so “from the desire for self-preservation.” Holloway explains,

Thus the modern account of the right to life in principle opens the door to the very culture of death described in Evangelium Vitae, a society in which the inviolability of the weakest, most defenceless human lives is not recognised. Hobbes may be correct that the weakest man may kill the strongest, and that both, therefore, have an interest in agreeing not to kill each other. But it is certainly true that even the strongest unborn baby (or the strongest terminally ill bedridden patient) poses no threat whatsoever to even the weakest normal adult. The latter therefore has no reason to agree not to kill the former- that is, no self-interested reason, no reason that modernity recognises.

Similar concerns are present in communitarian democracies. Beneath the rhetoric of community and family, Michael Barr has noted that Singapore is an example of “the triumph of the modernist project at the level of the nation-state” where policy justifications and assessments of success or failure are often made in quantitative terms, with economic survival as the overriding criterion. Indeed, Chia himself has pointed out the problem when he notes that one can easily make the communitarian case for euthanasia,

When the interests of the community outweigh the interests of the individual, the former will determine the proper course of action that should be taken. It is not uncommon for advocates of euthanasia to argue that ending the life of the chronically ill individual is justifiable if it brings relief to family and friends from the pain and sorrow having to helplessly watch their loved one deteriorate, and if it ends the drain on limited medical resources.

As shown in the previous paragraphs, whether intentionally or not, both the liberal and communitarian models carry seeds of the culture of death. It would be thus necessary to provide an alternative cultural lens if Christians are to unmask these dangers and build a culture of life.

iii) That it envisions in concrete terms what a culture of life would look like as an alternative to a society which accepts euthanasia.

So open your eyes, nurses, open and see,
not a crabby old woman, look closer, nurses — see ME!

The last two verses of the famous poem “See me”, invites healthcare workers in a nursing home setting to see an elderly person not simply as “a crabby old woman”, but someone with a history. In the final analysis, it is an appeal to society at large to experience a kind of metanoia, a new way of seeing, especially its elderly and vulnerable members.

One could make the case that this poem may well be a poetic response to what it means to build a culture of life. It begins with how we “see”. The encyclical Evangelium Vitae argues that for this to happen, there is a need to develop a “contemplative outlook”. John Paul II explains.

Such an outlook arises from faith in the God of life, who has created every individual as a wonder (Ps 139:14). It is the outlook of those who see life in its deeper meaning, who grasp its utter gratuitousness, its beauty and its invitation to freedom and responsibility. It is the outlook of those who do not presume to take possession of reality but instead accept it as a gift, discovering in all things the reflection of the Creator and seeing in each person is living image (Gen 1:27; Ps :5). This outlook does not give in to discouragement when confronted by those who are sick, suffering, outcast or at death’s door. Instead, in all these situations it feels challenged to find meaning, and precisely in these circumstances, it is open to perceiving in the face of every person a call to encounter, dialogue and solidarity.

This outlook will enable Christians to develop critical cultural awareness within them and in the world at large. Too often, they may well imbibe uncritically, attitudes which are contrary to the Gospel of life. They may well be guilty in creating and participating in “structures of sin” which provide the background to cultural attitudes which make the push for euthanasia thinkable and reasonable in the first place.

Conclusion

 The question of euthanasia is part of a larger clash between two irreconcilable ways of looking at the world. It is in the final analysis, fuelled by a clash of cultures. It is hoped that this paper may help suggest further areas of research, especially the cultural roots of euthanasia, and to help develop practices, institutions and beliefs conducive to nurturing a culture of life and a civilization of love. For the proclamation of the Gospel of life is in the final analysis not “simply a reflection, however new and profound on human life. It is the “proclamation of the very person of Jesus” has come so that we may have life to the full.

For anyone living in this century, it is evident that one of the contemporary issues facing the world today is that of religious diversity. From the perspective of a Christian, the question of the role of other religions is especially acute given the ultimate claims to truth and salvation that Jesus Christ has made.

However, this phenomenon of multiple religious traditions is not a new one. The books of the Old Testament were written during times when peoples of other faiths surrounded the nation of Israel. The same holds true for the New Testament when Greco-Roman religions proliferated alongside the newly established religion of Christianity.

CEMPAKASLOT

slot gacor maxwin

In some ways, this necessity to learn how to understand other religions is not unique to the Christian faith.  Every major world religion in its history has had to grapple with the existence of the “others” ever since they become conscious of the existence of one another. Each tradition has had to learn to navigate its way through its social, historical and religious contexts.

The contemporary theologian of religions, Harold Netland, has pointed out that it is increasingly important for Christians in the twenty-first century to respond to the changing religious landscape. He asserts it is possible for Christians to be firmly committed to Christ as Lord and be responsible citizens in their own countries. At the same time, he calls for new ways for Christians to respond to the other faiths rather than merely repeating the practices of the past.

As different religions attempt to co-exist, co-operate or even compete with one another for converts, it is crucial that a shared framework or language be found to avoid misunderstandings. This is especially so given there is always some level of incommensurability to religions. Words such as “God” and “salvation” can mean very different things to a Christian or a Buddhist.

The scholar of religion and philosopher, Robert McKim, has proposed that when it comes to determining what he calls “attitudes to and beliefs about others,” it is helpful to note the ranges of positions that one may adopt. He proposed that for any religion, its self-understanding with respect to another tradition can be classified under one of the following categories. That it is:

1. The only tradition that is any good in the relevant respect
2. The tradition that is better than other traditions in the relevant respect
3. A tradition that is as good as other traditions in the relevant respect

These constitute the starting points for what is commonly known in the field of theology of religions as the traditional three-fold typology of exclusivist, inclusivist, and pluralist positions respectively. McKim also argues that this schema is suitable not only for theistic faiths but non-theistic ones too.

If that is so, then by utilizing a common vocabulary of terms and conceptual structure, this may allow the various traditions to participate in a form of dialogue that promotes understanding of the other. While it may not wholly nullify the difficulties to attempt to read another using only its categories, it could represent an initial step towards reducing isolationism and enhancing greater concordance.

The typology proposed above may be used with respect to issues of truth and salvation. It may also be employed concerning other matters, such as the ethical guidance provided in each religion.

While some Christian scholars have argued that the tri-fold typology which was initially proposed by Alan Race and Gavin D’Costa is skewed towards pluralism, subsequent analysis by others have shown it is, in fact, a relatively neutral logical construct that each respective position could claim to be biased in or against its stance.

Also, despite these objections, since its first proposal in the 1960s, the tri-polar schema has continued to play a significant role within Christian theology for scholars to clarify their assertions. In addition, while many other competing proposals have been put forth, none seems to be capable of replacing the traditional proposition, as seen in the recent numerous scholarly articles that continue to argue based on, either explicitly or implicitly, its underlying logical structure.

It is possible that this analytical framework could be one of the tools that the Christian tradition may offer to the broader world of inter-religious understanding, given that it was developed within itself and undergone robust discussion. As an Adjunct Lecturer at the NTU S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) for a post-graduate course entitled “Christianity and Religious Diversity,” I have found it serves as a common platform for students from various religious backgrounds to discuss features of their faiths vis-à-vis another as part of the M.Sc program.

In one of his epistles, the apostle John exhorts his readers not to believe every spirit, but to ‘test the spirits to see whether they are from God’ (1 John 4:1). John was of course urging his readers to exercise spiritual discernment ‘because many false prophets have gone into the world’.

While John’s exhortation sought to warn Christians of falsehood within the church, it can surely be extended beyond that context. Christians must be cautious and prudentially critical in processing the tsunami of information that comes their way every day.

They must not believe everything they read in the media and embrace every idea that they encounter. Instead they must ‘test them’, that is, subject them to careful and critical evaluation to ascertain their truth or falsehood, and to discern the subtle ideologies and hidden agendas that fuel and shape each perspective.

One of the most politically and socially debilitating phenomena that we witness today, especially in the West, is arguably the curious ‘alliance’ between Islamism and left-wing ideology and politics.

In the context of this article, ‘Islamism’ refers to that ideology that seeks to impose a version of Islam, namely, political Islam over society. ‘Left-wing’ broadly refers to that species of politics that exhibits a radical and socialist bent.

This strange alliance, which is sometimes described by the neologism ‘Islamo-Leftism’, has captured the attention of numerous scholars and social commentators. It has also been subjected to severe criticisms by some leftist thinkers, notably Michael Walzer who offered an interesting analysis of this phenomenon in Dissent.

The circumstances and reasons that led these two quite disparate parties to become bedfellows are intriguing and merit careful study.

One of the reasons why the left wittingly or unwittingly colludes with Islamists is the former’s vociferous anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist attitude. The left vehemently condemns western intervention in Iraq, Libya or Syria, believing that these powers – the United States or Britain – are not acting in good faith but are attempting to increase their wealth and influence at the expense of the people living in these countries.

The left supports the Islamists because they not only see them as victims of ruthless western powers, but also as a resistance movement against imperialism. This has inspired wildly outrageous statements from leftist academics and public intellectuals.

For example, the Slovenian Marxist philosopher Slavoj Žižek could declare that Islamic radicalism is ‘the rage of the victims of global capitalism’. And Judith Butler, the American feminist philosopher, opines that ‘understanding Hamas and Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the left, that are part of the global left, is extremely important’.

This has led the left to turn the proverbial blind eye to the atrocities committed by the Islamists.

Deepa Kumar suggests in his book, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire that even though the left recognises the crimes committed by Islamists, they are slow – almost reluctant – to lay the blame on them because they perceive the Islamists as opponents of western – especially American – imperialism. As Walzer puts it starkly: ‘So “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”’.

Additionally, the leftists have naively conflated the Islamic supremacists with Muslims. Consequently, criticisms of Islamism are equated with criticisms of Muslims, and are swiftly and decisively condemned. But in doing so, the leftists have willy-nilly supported the very narrative that the Islamists are promoting in an attempt to feign representation.

Consequently, the left commandeers ideas like inclusivism, multiculturalism, group rights and Islamophobia – along with many others – to condemn the actions of people with whom they disagree, regardless of whether these actions are justified or not. The Islamists have much to thank the left for providing the rhetorical tools that they can employ to their fullest advantage.

Take ‘Islamophobia’, for instance. Now anti-Muslim sentiment is a real phenomenon in the wake of the current situation, and a potential threat to social peace.

But both leftists and Islamists have used Islamophobia (and racism) as a political and rhetorical devise to scaremonger people to silence. This has led Pascal Bruckner to observe in his book, The Tyranny of Guilt that Islamophobia is ‘a clever invention because it amounts to making Islam a subject that one cannot touch without being accused of racism’.

The same can be said of ‘multiculturalism’. The left has used multiculturalism (again, with racism) to defend the oppressors – the Islamic supremacists – whom, as we saw above, they had regarded as the oppressed. ‘Multiculturalism’ is employed to silence dissenters without even giving them the chance to articulate their views and their reasons for holding them.

As Maryam Namazie puts it, ‘this politics doesn’t merely ignore dissent, in many ways it forbids it. The likes of StWC, Socialist Workers Party, Unite against Fascism, Islamophobia Watch, and Respect Party or Ken Livingstone and George Galloway are there as prefects to silence dissenters and defend Islamism as a defence of “Muslims”’.

bonus slot cempakaslot

OSB99

Namazie has rightly described the pro-Islamist Left as promoting a ‘politics of betrayal’ that is extremely dangerous and that has and will continue to cause the deaths of innocent people.

In the West, leftist ideologues have made their presence felt in many sectors of society – in academia, media and the law – imposing their vision of the human community, very often with an undercurrent of threat and coercion.

‘Do not believe every spirit’, John writes. Instead, ‘test the spirits’. In our complex world, this call for discernment is something that the Christian simply cannot afford to ignore.

Without a doubt, the LGBT advocacy movement may be said to be one of the most successful in modern history. Within a short space of fifty to sixty years (slightly beyond one generation), we have seen the seismic shift in cultural sensibilities, from viewing homosexual behaviour as a reprehensible taboo to legalizing same-sex marriage.

These winds of change are not only blowing in liberal societies in the West, but are also felt in more conservative countries in Asia. The ruling of the Taiwanese Constitutional Court on 24 May 2017 that same-sex couples have the right to marry is a case in point.

LGBT advocates have exerted influence in different sectors of society – education, business, media and even religion – taking full advantage of the internet and social media to advance their agenda. Some have tried to repeal prohibitive laws against homosexual conduct by challenging the constitutionality of such legislations.

cempakaslot slot gacor terbaru

The main strategy of these advocates is to convince the world that homosexuality is normal, that people who are same-sex attracted are born that way. Many have appealed to the modern concept of sexual orientation and insist that the genetic and neurological basis for homosexuality is well supported by science.

If homosexual orientation has a biological basis, then discrimination against people with same-sex attraction amounts to bigotry and the infringement of their fundamental rights and liberties – so goes the argument.

How should Christians respond to the obvious agenda of LGBT activists to normalize homosexuality in society? Because of the multi-faceted nature of the LGBT strategy, the Christian response must take different forms and be made at various levels of society.

Church

 We begin with the Church. A recent study conducted by the Ethos Institute for Public Christianity revealed that the majority of church leaders and young adults think that not enough is being done to educate Christians on the LGBT issue.

Pastors and leaders could do more to help members appreciate what the Bible and the Christian tradition teach about sexuality, marriage and family through sermons, seminars and discussion groups. They must also be aware of the work of revisionist scholars who try to show that the Bible only prohibits certain forms of homosexual acts but not faithful homosexual relationships. And they must be able to show how these arguments are fundamentally flawed.

In addition, the church must also engage members who are struggling with same-sex attraction, and create an environment of trust where they can receive prayer, support and encouragement to choose obedience.

The National Council of Churches of Singapore has also played an important role in addressing this issue, and will continue to do so. In 2003, the Council issued a statement that clearly articulates its position on homosexual behavior and current legislations (377A) against such behavior. It also urged the government not to put in place liberal policies that would promote the homosexual lifestyle.

nawatoto

The Council has continued to intermittently address the issue since its 2003 statement whenever it has been necessary to do so.

Parents

Parents have a special responsibility to nurture their children in such a way that they would take the teaching of the Bible and the Church on human sexuality seriously. A number of studies have shown that the home environment and parental guidance play an important role children’s understanding of sexuality.

Parents should be willing to discuss with their children the liberal notions about sexuality that they may encounter in social media and in popular TV networks such as Netflix. They should also take an interest in the books and website articles that their children might be reading.

Education

One of the strategies that LGBT activists employ to normalize homosexuality is to influence public education – its curriculum, policies of inclusivity and ethos. Here, Christians involved in public education at various levels – from ministers to policy makers to principals and teachers – must be especially vigilant.

Parents should also take a special interest in what their children are being taught and the books they are required to read, especially on topics like sexuality and the family.

In Singapore, vendors are engaged by the school or the Ministry of Education to provide sexuality education in public schools. Christian principals and teachers should be aware of the background of the vendors and their views on human sexuality. Parents must likewise be aware of the assumptions and values of the vendors engaged by their children’s schools.

Social Policies

Christians involved in shaping policies should try to prevent the promotion of radical views on sexuality or the gay lifestyle. This includes, for example, granting licenses to operate explicitly gay bars or clubs or to organize big public events that promote the LGBT cause.

Much of the rhetoric for allowing LGBT to organize themselves in ways that make their presence more prominent in society revolves around cherished ideals and values such as inclusivity, equality and rights. For Christians, these values are important, but they must always be tempered by other considerations that are of no less importance, such as morality and the well-being of society.

Here, Christian politicians and civil servants can also play a crucial role in checking the information posted on government websites. For example, in 2014 the Health Promotion Board of Singapore posted its ‘FAQs on Sexuality’ that encourages readers (mostly youths and young adults) to explore their own sexuality.

The FAQs used the Kinsey Scale that originated from Alfred Kinsey, a controversial sex researcher who argued that human sexuality is fluid and therefore cannot be neatly classified as either heterosexual or homosexual. This theory has been refuted by a number of studies that show that human sexuality is not as fluid as Kinsey would have us believe. They indicate that the majority of adults are distinctly heterosexual while a small minority has homosexual or bisexual tendencies.

The National Council of Churches of Singapore flagged this with the authorities. Unfortunately, the reference to the Kinsey Scale has not been removed from the FAQs and the document still promotes a version of the Kinseyan theory of sexuality.

Christian civil servants should try to prevent the publication of materials for public consumption if there is cause to believe that they are either based on dubious science or promoting liberal theories about sexuality.

Politicians

Christian politicians play an important role in preventing the normalization of homosexuality in society. For example, in 2007 when the status of Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalizes male homosexual sex was discussed in Parliament, a number of Christian (and some non-Christian) MPs argued against its repeal.

In his speech in Parliament Christopher de Souza argued that a ‘repeal of 377A will not merely remove an offence. It is much more significant than that. Because of the concept of negative liberty, the removal of section 377A puts homosexual lifestyle on par with heterosexual life. It is to accord both lifestyles a sense of parity’.

De Souza goes on to show the undesirable consequences that the promotion of this lifestyle would have on marriage, spousal rights, adoption, and education. Christian politicians must have the courage to make such arguments even in the face of domestic pressures and global trends.

Conclusion

Much more could of course be said on this important subject. What is offered here is merely a sketch of how Christians at various levels and playing different roles can respond to this threat.

However, Christians must always assert their influence in a civil and respectful manner. Ours is a religiously and ideologically plural society that is subjected to numerous influences. In this multicultural and multi-religious context, the Christian position on this issue (on any issue for that matter) is often reduced to one viewpoint amidst many conflicting and competing opinions.

The church, however, must never be cowered by this. She must always speak the truth clearly, courageously and without compromise. But she must always do so with gentleness and love. But above all, the church must pray for those in authority so that they may always seek the welfare of the nation and not simply act for the sake of political and economic expediency.

On September 24 (2018), The Straits Times published an article by Professor Tommy Koh entitled ‘Section 377A: There is a difference between a sin and a crime’. This article was written in the wake of renewed debate in Singapore on Section 377A, sparked by the recent decision by the Indian apex court to repeal Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

Both the ‘repeal’ and ‘retain’ parties have organised online petitions to garner support for their positions. Several prominent public figures, including Koh, have jumped into the fray and expressed their support for its repeal. The National Council of Churches, the Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church and the Islamic Authorities have issued official statements arguing against the repeal.

slot gacor maxwin 2026

In his article, Koh discusses a wide range of issues. They include the concepts of sin and crime in relation to homosexual sex, the scientific evidence for sexual orientation, the role of the courts and the place of religion in debates on the law.

However, Koh’s article, in my view, is riddled with a number of distorting generalisations and sweeping statements that have the potential to mislead. I hope to address some of them in this brief article.

LAW AND MORALITY

Koh argues that with respect to homosexual acts a distinction must be made between a sin and a crime. Sodomy, he asserts – in agreement with former attorney-general Walter Woon – may be seen as a sin by some religions, but it should not be regarded as a crime by the state.

On the surface, this argument may seem quite compelling. But upon closer scrutiny, this way of framing the issue can be misleading because it fails to capture the profound relationship between morality and the law. Although there are distinctions between morality and the law, there is also an intricate relationship between them that should never be trivialised or ignored.

It must be said at the outset that the entire legal system is in some profound sense based on the moral vision of a particular society. Thus we can say that there can be no law without morality.

This moral vision, expressed in part in the laws of the land, is absolutely vital for the well-being of any society. As Lord Patrick Devlin has famously put it in his essay entitled ‘Morals and Criminal Law’: ‘Society means a community of ideas; without shared ideas of politics, morality and ethics, no society can exist’.

Laws are made because they bring to concrete expression the moral sensibilities of a society, that is, its understanding of right and wrong. This proposition is so self-evident that it requires very little elaboration or defence.

A few examples would be sufficient to illustrate this.

Homicide is a crime because it is wrong to intentionally take the life of another human being. Rape is a crime because society deems sexual violence on a woman or a man as a morally reprehensible offence that should never be countenanced.

The recent review of the Penal Code also brings this out very clearly. New laws pertaining to marital rape, the protection of minors from sexual predators and crimes against the vulnerable are made because they uphold the moral vision of our society.

In other words, they are put in place to reflect the shared moral convictions and commitments on the basis of which we want to order our society. Lord Devlin would say that these laws are there to give voice to ‘society’s constitutive morality’.

Incidentally, in all of the examples cited above, what religion (in this case, Christianity) calls sins, the state also regards as crimes punishable under the law.

In relation to section 377A, we must therefore ask what is the moral stance of the Singapore public on the issue of homosexual intercourse and lifestyle.

In a survey conducted by IPS in 2014, 78.2 per cent of the respondents said that they were against the homosexual lifestyle, and 72.9 per cent were against same-sex marriage. In the recent IPSOS survey (2018) on section 377A, 55 per cent of the respondents were not in favour of the repeal of the law, while only 12 per cent wanted it removed.

PM Lee is surely right when he said in a 2014 BBC interview that the status of section 377A is a ‘matter of society’s values’. To use Lord Devlin’s expression, its presence in the Penal Code is an articulation of ‘society’s constitutive morality’.

However, it must be stressed that the relationship between the law and morality is a reciprocal one. This means that while societal values can shape the legal system, the lawmaker can also exert influence on the social habits of society.

This applies to section 377A. As Christopher de Souza has succinctly put it in the 2007 debate in Parliament:

A repeal of section 377A will not merely remove the offence. It is much more significant than that. Because of the concept of negative liberty, the removal of section 377A puts homosexual lifestyle on par with heterosexual lifestyle. It is to accord both lifestyles a sense of parity.

In other words, the repeal of this piece of legislation can gradually result in significant changes in the ‘constitutive morality’ of our society (Devlin).

GOBERTOTO

The National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) understands this very well. Its recent statement expresses its concern that the repeal of section 377A ‘would result in the normalisation and promotion of this [i.e., homosexual] lifestyle, which in turn would lead to undesirable moral and social consequences’.

The Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church, William Goh, also understands the importance of maintaining the status quo. In his pastoral letter, he writes:

I am of the view that S377A should not be repealed under the present circumstances. This is because, by accepting homosexual acts as a social norm, the dreadful consequences for the stability of our families, the well-being of our children, and the risks to the common good will be long-term and irreversible.

The relationship between morality and the law is complex. It defies the simplistic dichotomies suggested by Koh in his article.

PUBLIC LAW, PRIVATE MORALITY?

In his article, Koh briefly alluded to the landmark ruling by the United States Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas that the criminalisation of sodomy was unconstitutional. He cited Justice Anthony Kennedy, who said that: ‘The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The state cannot demean or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime’.

The debate concerning the role of the law in the spheres of public and private morality in modern jurisprudence need not detain us. However, Koh seems to suggest, in concert with Justice Kennedy, that private sexual conduct of consenting adults should be off limits to the law.

While this may generally be the case, there are notable exceptions, adult incest being a compelling example. As section 376G of Singapore’s Penal Code makes clear, an incestuous sexual relationship between adults, even if it is consensual and conducted in private, is an offence punishable by imprisonment.

In 2012, The Straits Times reported that a 24-year-old woman was sentenced to 12 months’ probation for having consensual sex with her father and ordered to see a psychiatrist. Her father was sentenced to three years imprisonment for incest.

This means that not every private sexual activity between consenting adults is beyond the reach of the law. The onus is therefore on Koh to show why the argument that the law should not intrude on private sexual relations applies to section 377A and not to section 376G of the Penal Code.

In the famous Hart-Devlin debate, Lord Devlin argued persuasively that private acts should not be free from public sanction if they pose a threat to society’s morality. The sodomy laws of England and America were originally made in part on the basis of this reasoning.

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

In his article, Koh asserts that while scientists do not know what determines sexual orientation, they ‘favour biologically based theories, which point to genetic factors’. He maintains that scientists do not view sexual orientation as a choice, giving the impression that the scientific community has achieved consensus on the matter.

This, however, is not the case at all, and to make such sweeping and unqualified statements is surely to mislead.

From the 1990s onwards, a slew of scientific studies have been conducted to find a biological basis for homosexuality. These studies have failed to show conclusively that homosexual orientation is determined by genetic factors.

In fact, these studies suggest the contrary. For example, the twin studies, originally conducted in 1991 by John Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard and subsequently replicated by many other scientists, show quite conclusively that biology does not determine homosexuality.

In an article in Scientific America, William Byrne concludes that the Bailey and Pillard study ‘clearly challenges a simple genetic hypothesis and strongly suggests that environment contributes significantly to sexual orientation’.

This conclusion is supported by the extensive studies on twins conducted by Peter S. Bearman and Hannah Brückner in 2002 and Niklas Långström in 2010.

In their wide-ranging report on sexuality published in 2016 by The New Atlantis entitled Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences, Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh conclude:

Some of the most widely held views about sexual orientation, such as the “born that way” hypothesis, simply are not supported by science. The literature in this area does describe a small ensemble of biological differences between non-heterosexuals and heterosexuals, but those biological differences are not sufficient to predict sexual orientation.

‘[H]ard science’ writes Jeffrey Satinover in his book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, ‘is far from providing an explanation of homosexuality, let alone one that reduces it to genetic determinism’.

Although science has hitherto failed to demonstrate that there is a biological determinant for homosexuality, gay lobbyists have repeatedly used ‘science’ to advance their claim that homosexual orientation is innate and immutable. Koh appears to be uncritically parroting that narrative.

In his article, Koh also mentioned the removal of homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

In 1974, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from the list of pathological psychiatric conditions published in DSM (II). The revised verdict states that ‘… homosexuality per se is one form of sexual behaviour and, like other forms of sexual behaviour which are not themselves psychiatric disorders, is not listed in the nomenclature of disorders’.

This change of status, however, was not the result of new scientific evidence for the genetic or neurological basis for homosexual orientation. As Ronald Bayer has clearly shown in his book entitled Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis (1987), this revision was made due to political pressure by the gay lobbyists within APA.

‘The result’, writes Bayer, ‘was not a conclusion based upon an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times’. Albert Dean Byrd and Stony Olsen could therefore declare that ‘The stigma of a disease was gone due to politics’.

In his 1992 article entitled ‘Sexual Politics and Scientific Knowledge’, Charles W. Socarides warns that the APA decision

… remains a chilling reminder that if scientific principles are not fought for, they can be lost – a disillusioning warning that unless we make no exceptions to science, we are subject to the snares of political factionalism and the propagation of untruths to an unsuspecting and uninformed public, to the rest of the medical profession and to the behavioural science.

This is a story that is not widely known and needs to be told.

THE ROLE OF RELIGION

We turn finally to Koh’s remarks on the role of religious communities in the debate on section 377A.

‘I would respectfully remind them [Christian and Islamic authorities]’, Koh writes, ‘that Singapore is a secular state. It is not a Christian country or a Muslim country. It is not the business of the state to enforce the dogmas of those religions’. He goes on to stress that in Singapore, there is a separation between religion and the state and that ‘Church leaders and Islamic leaders should respect that separation’.

Koh’s tone is condescending and paternalistic. He assumes that the religious leaders in Singapore need to be tutored by him on the proper relationship between religion and the state.

To suggest that religious bodies like NCCS issue statements because they want the state to enforce their dogmas is ludicrous. When NCCS makes a statement on an issue, it is not trying to impose its worldview on society or to transform Singapore into a Christian theocratic state. Its purpose is merely to help its member churches to understand its position on that particular issue.

It is therefore extremely unhelpful for a public figure like Koh to politicise the statements that the Council issues for the purpose of guiding Christians on social and moral issues in this melodramatic fashion. In fact, such a suggestion coming from him may sow the seeds of suspicion and distrust that can compromise the fragile social harmony and cohesion that we have worked so hard to achieve.

In reminding the religious authorities that in Singapore there is a separation between religion and politics, Koh is implying that they have no right to comment on section 377A.

But the institutional separation between religion and the state, enshrined in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act of 1990, does not banish religion altogether from the public square. Neither does it prohibit faith communities from commenting on moral and social issues that affect their members.

In the past few decades, NCCS has issued a number of statements on a variety of issues including euthanasia, organ trading and homosexuality. The Council made these statements to educate and guide Christians, and for the sake of the common good – not to impose its views on others.

The Council understands that Singapore is a multi-religious society and no single religion can pontificate on social and moral issues. But in similar vein, no individual or minority group can impose their views on sexuality on the majority.

Religion’s input is especially important in debates on issues pertaining to public morality, like section 377A, which as PM Lee has so clearly said, has to do with ‘society’s values’. Insofar as religious people and their communities are part of our society and are committed to the latter’s flourishing, their views have a right to be heard on this issue.

To exclude faith communities in such conversations is to deny them of their rightful place in our multi-religious society. In fact, we can go so far as to say that censoring religious voices from such debates is an affront to the spirit of deliberative democracy. It flies in the face of the inclusive society that we have been trying so hard to build.

To steer public discourse by silencing religious voices instead of encouraging an ever-greater inclusivity is to fuel a new and insidious form of intolerance.

Thankfully, the Singapore government does not share Koh’s perspective. Instead of excluding religious communities, it has made every effort to seek their views and feedbacks on important issues.

For example, in the recent Penal Code review, the Ministries of Home Affairs and Law organised special meetings with religious leaders to obtain their comments. In fact, Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam even took the trouble to meet up with the different religious communities separately to explain the reviews and solicit their views.

Unlike Koh, the Singapore government recognises the secular state should not exercise hegemony on matters of public morality. It recognises that in such matters, the view of religious communities must be sought and taken seriously. This is especially pertinent to multi-religious Singapore, where more than 80 per cent of the population professes religious affiliation.

In contemporary society, a trend towards incivility seems to be rising. This article registers my observations about the shifts. I hope this article will invite many others to consider how we may pushback incivility for the sake of our society and for posterity.

Though the idea of civility may be traced to Confucius in the Eastern hemisphere, and Aristotle and Kant in the Western hemisphere, for this article, I take my reference from George Washington’ recommendation against displaying repulsive behavior and using vulgarity, whether in public or in private conversations (cf., Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation, 1888).

I define civility as relating to another person with respect in speech and conduct, regardless of their achievement, educational level, ethnicity, race, religion, social standing or acquired status of honor. Though the measure of civility, i.e., who defines right and wrong, is contextually dependent, my premise is that, people ought to have learned to respect others, in the light of a longstanding tradition in advocating for civility and in recognizing the equality of fellow humans.

Political Incivility?

While partisanship and political rudeness are not unfamiliar in America’s political landscape, Donald Trump’s presidential election and first year presidency have reached a new level of incivility. Trump degraded women, interrupted opponents in public debates, mocked the disabled, name-called, and used sexist comments on nations and women journalists and nations. After he was sworn into office, he has roused discord nationally and insulted various international leaders. Recently, he called two National Football League players who knelt at the singing of the national anthem, “son of a b—h.” A hyper-partisan media that uses blustering further aggravated the political incivility.

Aung San Suu Kyi, the de facto leader of Myanmar, was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 for standing up for the powerless. Yet, she denied Rohingyan “minority-ethnic cleansing,” and seemingly condoned the killing of Rohingyan Muslims in 2017. In 2013, she too denied occurrence of ethnic troubles in Rakhine.

To these incidents, we add the brawling and throwing of chairs against fellow politicians in recent Uganda parliamentary debate, occurred at the end of September 2017.

Should not the highest public office seek incumbents who would lead with impeccable character and etiquette to reflect the dignity of their office, despite the realities of corruptions and politicking? Is condoning injustice, and keeping silent about abhorrent, inhumane socio-political situations acceptable? Though politics manifests differently in America and in Myanmar, I am troubled about a consistent wave of political incivility.

Journalistic Civility?

When news readership expects fair and even coverage of significant and pertinent news globally, between August and September 2017, many news agencies in the USA gave focal attention to Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma, and almost to the exclusion of covering the even more devastating floods caused by monsoons in Sierra Leone, Nepal, India, and Bangladesh. Has the US media normalized disasters in other regions just like how they sometimes normalized violence in other regions?

Social Media Incivility?

The social media has seen incidents of incivility. The circulation of “fake news” via social media is what most people do not intentionally commit. While not verifying sources before forwarding to one’s social network may be harmless in some situations, fake news can produce consequences far deeper, even as it may add as a social cost.

Social media incivility is also observable in the circulation of viral pictures and videos, staged or un-staged, and the comments generated thereafter. The viral videos include the staged videos intended as advocacy for interest-groups, and the filmed, real life incidents of inappropriate social behaviors (e.g., bullying, sexual preying, cheating, and stealing).

The incivility with regards to viral videos pertains not just to filming someone else in public without their permission (thereby infringing another’s privacy) or shaming them thereafter on social media (which makes us vigilantes of sorts). Perpetuators of impropriety, injustice and violence against others have to be stopped. Alerting the public may deter some from committing impropriety, injustice and violence.

The incivility also pertains to 1) whether to make public the viral video, and 2) how viewers respond to incidents. The public may feel “safer” when incidents are made public. Yet, a viral circulation tends to affect lives, and injure persons and institutions, anger a crowd, risk breaking up social cohesion, and can cause other social problems.

Social Incivility?

Each society develops its culture in light of what it values and prioritises. I believe that given a choice, we would choose to live in a charitable, friendly, gracious, hospitable, kind, inclusive, and respectful society. Yet, have signs of social incivility crept up unnoticed in our hurried and driven lifestyle?

In our phone-distractible society, people check their phones in the middle of a conversation, at a meeting, or over dinner. On MRT rides, some commuters would blast their music without regard for other commuters. In fast-food and coffee outlets, boy and girls, who come from literate and well-to-do family backgrounds, use vulgarities like punctuation marks in their sentences.

ASOKASLOT

Many passengers have had Grab and Uber drivers shouting rudely at them. Many are still aggravated over the SMRT technical problems, train delays, and the groundswell of discontentment with the SMRT CEO’s steep and swift pay increment, amid a fare increment that is not commensurate with a reliable, world-class operation.

On social medias, citizens respond curtly and with vulgarities to express their dissatisfaction and outrage. Name-calling, death threats, profanity, and all manner of insults are hurled at the perpetrator, the victims, and by-standers. In recent years, we have seen, on viral videos, by-standers watching bullying in schools without intervening.

I am betwixt between 1) my desire to encourage citizens to stand up for injustice or call out on inappropriate behaviors, and 2) my concerns about the unintended consequences that comments can stir in an already angry crowd.

On the one hand, as the saying goes – “he/she brought it on himself.” But on the other hand, no one deserves to be treated with violence. When persons in the viral videos are identified in public, some have “given them the finger.” Society judges victims too. The personal stigma, the social stigma, and the implications can continue for years, to the extent of destroying lives, families, institutions.

cempakaslot slot gacor

Postscript

To be sure, incivility is not a unique manifestation in our milieu. Rudeness, hate-speech, and shock jocks existed during Washington’s era too. Even then, philanthropic activities are also readily evident in our generation just as charity was evident in bygone eras. I perceive value in inquiring into the state and development of civility in our time. Is our milieu characterized as what Pankaj Mishra calls, the Age of Anger (Farrar Straus & Giroux, 2017)? How did we get here in sociality? How can we pushback the trends of incivility in our time? May this article be a step in the exploration of what may be possible, for re-envisioning our world together.

The findings of a recent Ethos Institute survey titled “On Christian’s Attitudes Towards LGBT” reveal that even though a large majority of Christians did not agree with the legalization of same sex marriage, both young adults and youths were “more open to the idea of legalizing same-sex marriage”. The report then made the observation that “churches’ equipping and teaching efforts are inadequate for the task of helping young people make sense of public morality issues, against the shifting tides of societal attitudes.” Based on the survey, church members felt that more focused teaching and dialogues on LGBT issues, together with the impartation of practical skills to help church members dialogue with friends on the topic of LGBT were needed.

As one of the members involved in the survey, let me state that I agree fully with the observations made. However, my limited time in pastoral ministry has also opened my eyes to the limitations of such didactic approaches. A more coherent faith formation must take into account the possible influence that this secular age may have on our ecclesial practices, and how these practices together with instruction mature or hinder us as disciples. Therefore, in this brief article, I will highlight certain features of this secular age as well as the way it has impacted the church, and why the church must look beyond its didactic approach to Christian education in order to equip and mature her members more coherently.

A Secular Age—The Culture of “Authenticity”

cempakaslot terpercaya

In his highly influential work A Secular Age, philosopher Charles Taylor argues that today’s secular age is marked by a culture of “authenticity”. By “authenticity” he refers to:

…the understanding of life which emerges with the Romantic expressivism of the late-eighteenth century, that each one of us has his/her own way of realizing our humanity, and that it is important to find and live out one’s own, as against surrendering to conformity with a model imposed on us from outside, by society, or the previous generation, or religious or political authority.” (A Secular Age, 475)

Taylor’s definition is a loaded one. But, in essence, what Taylor is saying is that today’s secularism is marked by a quest for individuals to discover their “authentic” self. This journey of discovery requires the individual to decide for him/herself who the individual is and what the individual wants by means of expression. Crucial to this process lies a certain notion of freedom that is not bound by any grand narrative that imposes itself on the individual nor by any external authority. The individual must be free to decide.

Examples of this can be seen in motivational slogans telling us to “Be who you want to be” or “Discover your true self”. Quite naturally, choice becomes the celebrated value within such a framework. At times, this highly prized value of choice takes on different words such as “rights” or “freedom” as we see in the popular slogan “Freedom to Love”.  To be fair, choice has always been an important feature in the history of mankind’s moral deliberation. But what marks this culture of authenticity as different is its elevation of choice to the extent that it potentially serves as an argument stopper.

In Taylor’s words, choice is “regularly invoked in our society as an all-trumping argument in weighty contexts… It is a word which occludes almost everything important: the sacrificed alternatives in a dilemmatic situation, and the real moral weight of the situation.” (A Secular Age, 478-479).

Yet choice has such a premium only because the identity of the self has undergone a shift. If, previously, meaning and identity were discovered in relation to the purpose of created order as well as the larger community, meaning and identity has now come to be defined according to psychological categories where feelings take centre stage. The referential point takes an inward turn to the self—you are whoever you genuinely feel you are and your authenticity is lived out by your ability to express yourself in the manner that you choose. Questions of the self are thus viewed in an open-ended manner limited only by choice.

The Culture of Authenticity in the Church

In response to this, churches have generally been quick to offer a counter response against this culture of authenticity by rightly pointing out that, from a Christian perspective, identity is not open-ended. All of us, by virtue of being created, have been defined. We are God’s image bearers. With the coming of Christ, we can go a step further to say that humanity’s identity is rooted in the life and work of Christ. Identity and human expression, from a Christian perspective, thus takes reference not from the self but from God who assigns meaning and purpose.

However, while our verbal response may seem to counter the claims of the secular age, the decisions that guide our practices together with our practices may suggest otherwise. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the area of worship, particularly when it comes to youths or youth ministry.

CEMPAKASLOT

In my time working with youths, one of the most contentious issues has always been the integration of youths into the church. Solutions can vary between starting an entire youth service specifically for the youths or tailoring the main service in order to make it more accessible to them. This often results in the modifying of the liturgy into something more free flowing to make space for the youths to express themselves in a manner that feels most authentic to them.

However, in taking this approach, features of the secular age immediately reveal themselves. As with the culture of authenticity, what counts as authentic (and true) worship has now become dependent on how one is able to freely express him/herself based on the subject’s identity. Because of this, repeated actions, or rituals, are often treated with suspicion. At most, they are insincere attempts at worshipping God precisely because rituals lack the authenticity that can only be attained through freedom of expression. Worship thus no longer becomes about what God does to us as His people, mandating the need for a collective response. Instead, it becomes the sum total of each individual’s human expression. Put differently, if previously human expression took its cue from the meaning and purpose of worship, today, human expression, enabled by the freedom of choice, is what gives meaning to worship. Just like the secular age we live in, the central act of the church too, succumbs to that inward turn where feelings and the self take centre stage (i.e., true worship is determined by how authentic I feel through the way I am able to express myself).

Therefore, on the one hand, while the church may verbally denounce this culture of authenticity as found in the secular age, on the other hand, the church reinforces it through one of its core practices—worship.

A Call for Greater Coherence

If the above observation is true, the need for greater deliberate reflection on our ecclesial practices is crucial. This is because, as embodied human beings, our worldview or, in the words of Taylor, our “social imaginary” is not shaped and formed purely through instructions or reading a manual. On the contrary, we are more heavily influenced and formed by the years of daily practice that we have accustomed ourselves to. The Christian philosopher James Smith elaborates:

How do we learn to be consumerists? Not because someone comes along and offers an argument for why stuff will make me happy. I don’t think my way into consumerism. Rather I’m covertly conscripted into a way of life because I have been formed by cultural practices that are nothing less than secular liturgies. (You Are What You Love, 45)

Applying this to the church, if the youths and young adults today are more open and receptive to same-sex marriage and the debates surrounding sexuality and gender identity, it may not be due purely to a lack of focused teaching. An equally probable reason could be that they have been formed by practices found in both society and the church that leans them towards the secular age.

To be clear, this article is not advocating any one particular style of worship. The point simply is that, when we think of Christian education in the church, we must go beyond the didactic approach that often seems to be the default mode of education. If anything, a thorough examination of our practices as well as the philosophy that undergirds them is needed to ascertain that our beliefs and practices are consistent, so as to enable a more coherent faith formation.

More urgently, if formative practices are ultimately what conscript people into a way of life (rather than arguments), as proposed by James Smith, an overemphasis on the didactic to the neglect of the church’s formative practices runs the risk of overlooking how we may in fact be subtle yet effective promoters and practitioners of the culture of authenticity that drives the secular age. The result is an incoherent faith formation of our members that potentially sets us back three steps for every two steps we take forward through didactic teaching.

One of the most significant and yet controversial developments in genetic science in recent decades is the Human Germline Genetic Modification (HGGM) technology. By employing a set of techniques, scientists hope to be able to change the genetic composition of the human germline (i.e., eggs, sperm, the cells that give rise to eggs and sperm, or early embryo) for the benefit of future descendents who will inherit them.

The main purpose of HGGM is to ‘cleanse’ the gene pool of ‘deleterious’ and inheritable genes that would predispose people to certain diseases. This approach, according to some scientists, is to be preferred to traditional therapeutic strategies. For example, molecular biologist Daniel E. Koshland, Jr. could argue that ‘keeping diabetics alive with insulin, which increases the propagation of an inherited disease, seems justified only if one ultimately is willing to do genetic engineering to remove diabetes from the germline and thus save the anguish and cost to millions’.

The ultimate goal of HGGM is therefore to eradicate harmful genes responsible for diseases like cystic fibrosis from the whole population.

In this sense, HGGM must be distinguished from somatic cell therapy that involves the genetic modification of cells in the body apart from the reproductive cells. Somatic cell therapy treats the person with a genetic disease in a way that does not affect his or her offspring. While there is currently an international moratorium on HGGM, many countries in the world allow somatic cell therapy.

Although it is the intention of many scientists to use HGGM for therapeutic purposes, some are advocating that it should also be used to enhance certain desirable traits in the future generation. While many theologians and ethicists are opposed to this, the debate is complexified by the fact that the distinction between eliminating harmful genes and improving hereditary is very often blurred.

The main concern about HGGM is safety. Because these techniques edit the genetic makeup of the gametes, the changes inherited by future generations are deemed irreversible. Thus, the European Council for the Protection of Human Dignity states in its 1997 document that ‘Whilst developments in this field may lead to great benefit for humanity, misuse of these developments may endanger not only the individual but the species itself’.

Many scientists and ethicists maintain that it is simply impossible to envision the consequences of HGGM at this point. The debate sometimes gravitates to the question about the acceptable criteria for ascertaining whether it would be safe to proceed with HGGM. Although the current standard and protocol for research states that an intervention is considered adequate if it enjoys 70% success, some are arguing (for obvious reasons) that in the case of HGGM the requirement should be no less than a success rate of 100%.

In 1979, the influential philosopher and ethicist Hans Jonas in his remarkable book, The Imperative of Responsibility reminded us that in the midst of the tantalising progress of science and technology we must always pause to consider our responsibility to the future generation. The advance of science should not only fill society with a sense of hope, Jonas argues. It should also fill us with a sense of fear.

daftar slot cempakaslot

It is only when fear has its rightful place in our reflections on the promises of science and technology, he wisely counsels, that we will come to see that the ‘starry-eyed ethics of perfectibility has to give way to the sterner one of responsibility’.

nawatoto

Because the long-term adverse consequences of HGGM for future generations are not yet known or fully understood by scientists, and in light of the ethics of responsibility that Jonas emphatically advocates, both religious and secular institutions are opposed to the use of this technology on humans.

Dignitatis Personae, issued by the Roman Catholic Church in 2009, states that ‘Because the risks connected to any genetic manipulation are considerable and as yet not fully controllable, in the present state of research, it is not morally permissible to act in a way that may cause harm to the resulting progeny’.

This is echoed in a statement on HGGM issued by the United Methodist Church in 2012, which states quite categorically that ‘We oppose human germ-line therapies (those that result in changes that can be passed to offspring) because of the possibility of unintended consequences and of abuse’.

‘With current technology’, it continues, ‘it is not possible to know if artificially introduced genes will have unexpected or delayed long-term effects not identifiable until the genes have been dispersed in the population’.

In similar vein, the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) calls for a moratorium on HGGM in a statement issued in 2015: ‘The ISSCR calls for a moratorium on attempts to apply nuclear genome editing of the human germ line in clinical practice. Scientists currently lack an adequate understanding of the safety and potential long-term risks of germ line genome modification’.

The call to acknowledge our responsibility towards future generations serves to remind us that no human being – present or future – should be excluded from our moral community or moral consideration. It must therefore be taken very seriously.

One of the most common Gospel passages that is read in churches across the globe during the season of Advent is Matthew 1.

This chapter, located at the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew, describes the circumstances surrounding the conception and birth of the Messiah. In this passage we also find the ancient prophecy of Isaiah, that “a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel (which means God with us)” (Matt 1:23).

slot gacor maxwin

OSB99

Commenting on this verse, the great 18th century nonconformist minister and Bible expositor Matthew Henry writes that Emmanuel is a “mysterious name, and very precious”. And, indeed, it is!

That mysterious name is especially precious to us today, in the strange and dangerous circumstances in which we find ourselves. For in the past months, our world has been ravaged by a deadly pandemic that it has not witnessed for more than two generations.

As I am writing this article in Oct 2020, there are more than 43 million cases of infection worldwide and more than one million deaths. A pathogen that is invisible to the naked eye has pushed healthcare systems to the brink of despair, brought the economies of many countries to their knees and many cities to an eerie standstill.

In the grip of this global health crisis where many have perished, the question that is repeatedly asked (by religious and non-religious people alike) is: Where is God? Where is God in this pandemic?

The Lectionary readings for the season of Advent supply the answer to this question. It is found in that “mysterious and precious” name, Emmanuel.

Indeed, Emmanuel—God with us—has brought comfort and strength to untold millions whose lives have in one way or another been molested or devastated by coronavirus. For Emmanuel does not only point to the nature of the God who is revealed in Jesus Christ; it also contains a promissory element.

To profess that name, to affirm that God is with us, is therefore not only to acknowledge His omnipresence. It is also to be assured that He is faithfully pursuing us in every way, always inviting us into a deeper communion with Him. For the ever-present God is the God of the covenant, whose very nature is unconditional love.

The omnipresent God is never passive. Not only is He close to us, He is also actively at work in our world. Thus, even in the midst of the chaos and confusion inflicted by COVID-19, the ever-present God is mysteriously and undauntedly working out His purposes in creation.

To affirm the presence of God at a time unprecedented crisis is therefore to be assured of His sovereign control over the situation.

To be sure, Emmanuel is a name that can only be uttered by faith. The truth it declares can only be received by faith. And the vision of reality it presents is perceptible only to the eyes of faith—for they see much deeper and with greater clarity than do our physical eyes.

If faith’s vision seems incredulously counterintuitive—finding hope where others see only despair and perceiving the good where only evil and destruction are evident—it is because it sees all of reality in light of its supreme object: the almighty God who is redemptively governing this world by His sovereign love.

As we look at the months ahead, the forecast is indeed frightfully bleak. Many countries and regions across the globe—the US, the UK, Europe, the African sub-continent, India, Indonesia and Malaysia—are seeing troubling spikes in the number of infections. And with winter approaching, many countries are bracing for the coronavirus to spread exponentially.

In the wake of such uncertainties, the lectionary readings for this season urge us not to be afraid or despair.

The God whom we worship does not stand at a distance, aloof from the suffering and misery of humanity. He is the God who has become one of us in the incarnation, the God who suffered and died to redeem this sin-marred world. And He is at this very moment working out His purposes by His faithful presence.

Emmanuel is God’s word to us in this time of global crisis. It is a word of faith. It is a word of hope. And where faith and hope are present, there is no place for fear.