The Legal Janitor

Let me start by stating that I am not homosexual. I am undeniably straight, as those who know me personally would attest. I am also not anti-religion either. What I am, is anti-stupidity, and anti-fundamentalist. This blog post is about the pernicious influence that is fundamentalist Christianity.

Where fundamentalist Islam seeks to convert by the sword, fundamentalist Christianity seeks to convert by hijacking the powers of government to enforce their morality on all people.

It’s no coincidence that Christians think of themselves as sheep. With someone like Derek Hong leading the flock, its not difficult for the sheeple to be lead astray.

It has been a central argument of mine, since the beginning, that no matter your intention, the sincerity of your beliefs or the background of your beliefs, the moment you lie to achieve your goals, you lose all moral authority.

The ends do not justify the means.

So we find ourselves in this position where, we could possibly offend the religious feelings of a particularly nauseating individual. However, I think this is a risk I am willing to take, as public interest outweighs that risk.

In this email found here, you can see the kind of measures religious fundamentalists are willing to take in order to enforce THEIR ideas and values upon others who have nothing to do with them. This includes lying and making fraudulent claims.

I will present, and analyze, the claims one by one, and present rebuttals. You, the reader, will decide for yourselves, whether Derek Hong has behaved reasonably.

1. That there is a Gay and Lesbian Lobby.

If only that were possible. Unfortunately the numbers of people who are formally involved in advocacy for equal rights for homosexuals are next to non-existent in Singapore. You are as likely to find a Gay and Lesbian Lobby in Singapore as to find an independent press. Which is next to NIL.

2. That there are people who support the decriminalisation of homosexual sex acts.

True. The first of 3 true statements that Derek Hong makes.

3. That people who seek to decriminalise homosexual sex acts also seek to criminalise religious free speech.

False. Not only blatantly false, Derek Hong also provides a fraudulent example. There are no pastors in Victoria who have been jailed for being critical or negative towards homosexuality.

Firstly, I have been here in Melbourne for the past 6 years, and I have never encountered any news report regarding this. Secondly, verification of the truth is a simple matter of googling the news, and anyone who does so will be able to see that Derek Hong’s statement is not the truth.

There HAVE BEEN however, court proceedings against Christian pastors making negative comments about Islam. An interesting point to note: Derek Hong does not mention this.

4. Legalise same-sex marriages

I think this is perhaps a misunderstanding of what the is actually being sought. “Marriage” as a term and institution, as religious underpinnings. As such, it would be illiberal and unfair to compel religious institutions to accept into their organisations what their teachings do not allow them to.

HOWEVER, it would only be morally just and fair, to grant same-sex couples the same LEGAL rights as do heterosexual couples. Marriage is not the issue here, and therefore, what Derek Hong clearly doing, is to inflame the irrational passions of his sheeple flock by suggesting to them that Christians will be forced to accept homosexuals into their organisations, when clearly that is not the purpose for seeking equal rights.

5. Legalize adoption by same sex partners

Derek Hong provides a misleading example: “Roman Catholic adoption agencies have closed down in Britain because they now have to allow their children to be adopted by same sex partners”

Let us not conflate the 2 separate issues here: ALLOWING homosexual couples to adopt, and FORCING adoption agencies to provide adoption services to homosexual couples.

The latter does not necessarily follow from the former. The law should be amended to allow homosexual couples to adopt, but not compel adoption agencies to provide adoption services to homosexual couples. Religious adoption agencies should be allowed to reject homosexual couples. It is only fair that they have a choice in the type of people they would provide services for.

This example given by Derek Hong does not show any nefarious intent on the part of those supporting equal rights for homosexuals, but rather a flawed implementation of equal rights on the part of the UK government.

Keep in mind, that there are many sorts of adoption agencies, the religious sorts are only one of those. There is no reason why there will not be adoption agencies specifically catering to same-sex couples. In a free market, supply will follow demand.

Again, it is clear that Derek Hong conflates 2 separate issues AND chose a religious example to inflame the feelings of his flock. If intentional, then Derek Hong is clearly operating in deceit. If unintentional, then the stupidity of this person beggars belief.

6. Have homosexuals classified as an ethnic group or race so that their rights are enshrined.

It is true that people seeking equal rights for homosexuals seek to have those rights enshrined at law. It does not make sense however, to achieve that by claiming homosexuals to be an ethnic group or race.

Homosexuals deserve equal rights as other human beings, because of the simple fact that they are human beings. Period.

7. Make it compulsory by law that homosexual practices are taught to children in all schools. This is already happening in some parts of the world. They have already published colourful and explicit textbooks for this purpose!

Of course, any self-respecting religious fascist must not forget including the most inflammatory statements to rile up the sheeple mob. Your children are being corrupted! They will all become evil and twisted! And it is all because of the gays!

First, a distinction. In many countries, they have private schools which are privately funded. Therefore, the influence from governments can be said to be minimal. Any possibility of governments mandating compulsory teaching of homosexuality is a question of that jurisdiction’s law, as to whether the government has acted outside of its power.

This is not so in Singapore, because all schools in Singapore are funded and controlled by the government (all schools worth going to anyway). Therefore the result is, anything that is taught in schools in Singapore is necessarily mandated by the government.

If Derek Hong has any reason to feel upset that the government mandates the teaching of anything he objects to, then he should advocate for the government to withdraw from controlling schools, and set up his own religious school to teach what he sees fit. There are many great (and I do mean great in the sense of scholarship) schools in the US that have been set up by Christian fundamentalists independent of government control.

Secondly, Derek Hong does not make clear what he means by “teaching of homosexual practices”. The implied context is that he thinks the “gay and lesbian lobby” wants to teach everyone in school to be gay. Oh the horror! If it is true that, as many homosexuals have argued, homosexuality has a biological basis (which I think is irrelevant as to whether they should have equal rights), then it is just simply impossible for any such teaching to have any effect, no?

The more likely truth is that schools should teach children to be tolerant of those who are different from them. You do not have to love or like those who are different, or even accept them. At the very least, you should just leave them alone, rather than rain fire and brimstone from your bully pulpit like our favourite fascist Derek Hong does.

The fake conservative majority

The rest of the email are instructions from Derek Hong to his sheeple flock about how to mass generate emails to the MHA and to indicate their opposition to the repeal of s 377a. In a tribute to Herr Goebbels of the Third Reich, Derek Hong provides exquisitely crafted examples to tug at the heart strings of any right thinking Christian fundamentalist, so that the MHA will “give greater weight” to their concerns.

Mass mailing the MHA to create a false impression of a conservative majority is manifestly dishonest. Such dishonest conduct is unacceptable in civil society.

You will all live as Christians, whether you like it or not.

The most interesting aspect of that email is in this portion, which I quote:

Please share this with your church leaders and members as once the law is passed in favour of the gay agenda, there’ll be no turning back the gradual undermining and destruction of Biblical family values, as well as the freedom to preach godly sexuality standards, as in now happening in parts of Britain, Australia and the US.

Singapore is not a Christian nation. We do not all accept Biblical family values. I, as a libertarian, will defend YOUR right to free speech, to preach your message to anyone. But the moment you DECEIVE and LIE for your agenda, the moment you try to HIJACK the law to enforce YOUR religious rules on others, I will vigorously resist, and call you out.

I only accept logic. I only accept the truth.

Musings: How the ‘Conservative Majority’ was created
Megachurches and Homosexuality « Winter Is Coming
Pastors vow to go to jail on hate case - National - theage.com.au