I find this teaching rather strange - a religion that claims superiority over others because its believers do good deeds out of a self-serving desire to be rewarded by God, in constrast to non-believers who do good out of "politeness or good manners" !  I would have thought that the more noble person is the one who is motivated to do good for no better reason than his love for others or his altruistic spirit !

"… some non-[believers] may do these things out of politeness or good manners, but they are not seeking reward from [god] or salvation of (sic) the Day of Judgement [and they are therefore, by implication, bad]." 

(Some parts of the original text have been paraphrased.  Read the original text here.)

A friend recently received an e-mail from a religious extremist who, while not threatening him with death, did the next most cowardly thing.

"I do not want to start an argument or debate as to the true Faith - XXX or YYY - but I do want to make one thing clear, if you contiunue to insult and blaspheme against the Holy XXX and create further dissent among XY bloggers on the net, then, there is a newly passed law that can be used against ignorant people like yourself who wish to create discord withing (sic) the inter-religious community here in Singapore.

I’m not insisting that you recant. All I’m asking if for you to remove all the posts that critize or insult the XXX and it’s clergy; posts that may offend XXX bloggers.

Do take this humble request or I’m sorry that I’ll have to pursue this matter."

(Proceeds to quote verbatim from section 8 of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act.)

I wonder who is the truly ignorant person here - the person who made the withering (albeit somewhat abrasive) comments about the other faith, or …

  … the aggrieved believer who finds that his faith (and that of his fellow believers) cannot stand the test of slight criticism and insult ?

  … the aggrieved believer who finds himself unable to defend his faith rationally and intellectually ?

  … the aggrieved believer who finds that even the slightest criticism and insult (regardless of its merit) creates, in his feeble mind, "discord withing (sic) the inter-religious community" ?

  … the aggrieved believer who cannot spell "within" ("withing"), and who doesn’t realise that under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, it is only an offence to breach a restraining order made by the Minister (and not to merely say things that cause feelings of "enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility") ?

It is very sad, and rather immature, of a person to have to resort to death threats and threats to file police reports when he is unhappy with what other people say about what he believes. 

And this is a double-edged sword.  How would a religious extremist be able to propogate his cherished beliefs (which he would presumably wish to propogate if he believes in the absolute rightness of his faith so much), if every other person complained to the authorities about every comment made by him concerning another religion ?  Has the religious extremist never made a disparaging remark about another religion before ?  (I find that very hard to believe, considering that even his holiness the Pope has recently stumbled here).

Well, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

(Note : As the intention of this post is not to shame any individual (publicly) or to insult any religion, names of individuals, e-mail and blog addresses, as well as the names of the religions referred to above, have been removed / de-identified).

—–

Postscript : In view of the Char incident, it would be imprudent to provoke religious extremists to anger.  We can all do without the excitement of having our computers siezed and being called up for questioning by the police.  (Read about the "Char" incident on this blog here and at tomorrow.sg here).

Then she called, "Samson, the Philistines are upon you!" He awoke from his sleep and thought, "I’ll go out as before and shake myself free." But he did not know that the LORD had left him.  Then the Philistines seized him, gouged out his eyes and took him down to Gaza. Binding him with bronze shackles, they set him to grinding in the prison.

- Judges 16 : 20 - 21

Faith does not grow cold overnight.  It is eroded by months, perhaps even years, of neglect.  In the face of busyness at work, set-backs in ministry, family difficulties, or a calamity, or other (pleasurable) distractions that the world has to offer, it is easy to neglect our fellowship with God and the disciplines of the Christian life.

That is what happened to Samson in Judges 15 - 17.

And before you know it, the closeness once shared with God is lost, faith becomes but a husk of its former self, spiritual authority is neutered, and its power rendered powerless.

That is why, discouraged as we may be by these troubled times, we must - wherever we may go - cling on to our fellowship with God and the disciplines of the Christian life.

According to ChannelNewsAsia, Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar had said that Malaysia is not satisfied with Pope Benedict XVI’s apology for his remarks linking Islam with violence, and will continue to insist on a full apology.

Well, I’m pretty sure that many people are not satisfied with the apologies (if there were any to begin with) issued for and on behalf of the terrorists responsible for the 9/11, and Madrid, and London, and Bali, and Bali (Marriot), and Hebron, and Hatyai, and other Southern Thailand, attacks.

At least I’m not.  I continue to insist on a full apology.

And so Pope Benedict XVI has apologised for the fact that Muslims were offended by those awful, awful comments that he made about Islam at his recent speech in Bavaria, Germany, where he quoted a dead (obviously) Byzantine Emperor who criticised the waging of "holy war" by Arabs.  (For some not inexplicable reason, people aren’t as offended when the comments are directed the other way, at infidels).

I wonder what was on the Pope’s mind when he prepared the text of his speech. 

Was he hoping that, by using a dead man’s words, he could present a valid point without offending those who were listening, perhaps to initiate a rational dialogue with a majority of a people who continue believe in and wage holy war ?

Or was he just trying to educate his flock about the erroneousness of holy war ?

Considering the insensible furore over the cartoons not too long ago, I think the Pope was being really naive.

One of the cheap thrills of being a lawyer is seeing how people blanch and go weak in the knees when you breathe the word "sue". 

Like in this case - yesterday after receiving news of a potential lawsuit (for the record we had not decided on any course of action yet; it was my silly sister who leaked our inchoate plans out) the party at fault very quickly visited my father in hospital, seeking to resolve the dispute.  Unfortunately for him, my father was semi-conscious from a fever - hardly in a position to listen to what he had to say.  Unfortunately for him too, I am now even more upset at his inconsideration.

So in the wickedness of our hearts, Joyce and I are thinking of paying his church a visit for the joy of watching him wet his pants as we walk through the door.

But since we are quite nice Christians in reality we probably won’t carry it out.  It won’t be pleasant to have someone collapsing from a cardiac arrest in the middle of a church service.

I had the opportunity yesterday evening to grieve over my previous church.

Joyce and I had discussed with the family the possibility of taking legal action against someone from that church, over a dispute that he has with my father.  Nothing was decided.  And I had intended to speak to that someone first before taking any drastic action.

My sister, who is also from that church, foolishly (turncoat !), went and told a leader from that church that we were intending to sue the someone who is involved in the dispute with my father.  Who told someone else.  Who told someone else.  Who told someone else.  Who told a church elder.  Who finally told the somone who is involved in the dispute with my father.

Who called my mother.  And said that he wouldn’t be doing anything about it.

Who told my father about what the someone who called her said. And I haven’t even spoken to my father about the matter of taking legal action !

I’m grieved.  Partly because that leader who first heard it from my sister, and all the other church leaders whom the information was communicated to, did not have the sense to speak to me or my family to clarify if what they had heard was true.  Instead, like little girls gossiping at the kindergarten playground, they perpetuated the misinformation.  (Wisdom is not one of the virtues of my previous church).

Speaking to my former pastor from that church last night, I was surprised to learn that I had actually disclosed the details of this dispute to him when I left the church some three / four years ago.  I had told him that one of my reasons for leaving was the unwillingness of the church leadership to encourage such members to put their life and finances in order, and that the church in fact did the exact opposite by appointing such members as leaders !  I had actually forgotten about this.

Which brings me to the other reason for my grief.  Three to four years since the time I spoke to my former pastor, nothing has been done to put the church in order.  The dispute with my father is unresolved.  And the someone who is involved in the dispute with my father remains in a leadership position.

In the present circumstances, I suppose about the only thing in life to cheer about.