I REFER to Mr Jonathan Lin's response to my online forum letter on Monday.

Full Story

Euthanasia bad? Fully agree, whether one reasons from the side of Religion or Humanism.

"The poverty of secularism" -- Secularism bad (inferior)? Respectfully, disagree!

Mr Alex Tan asserts that "secularism has not provided a clear compass for societies at large".
I can't disagree with him more.

If our Government policies are not secular in nature, BIG DISASTER !!
In multi-faith and multi-ethnic Singapore, all policy-makers MUST take a secular stand.
This has worked well for Singapore over the past 30 over years.

Imagine PAP policies being based on the Supernatural as against Logic and Reasoning aka Secularism/Humanism!
- "I dreamt that God asked me to attack Iraq" by you-know-who, is a good example.

Just cannot imagine the outcome if our National policies are formulated by clerics?
- Recently the Christian-dominated S. Korean government had to re-print their national map after the Buddhists staged street protests
to register their anger that places of worship in the map reflected only Christian churches and not Buddhist temples.

Mr Alex Tan also implied that secualrism is not capable of "deriving normative principles of behaviour".
Btw, are our National schools secular?
Are the moral education programmes in government schools based on "normative principles of behaviour" or religious dogmas?
Are our science programmes, from primary to tertiary level, based on observation, logic and reasoning?
Do school educators teach "evolution" or "creation" in the science lessons?

On 1 Aug 2006, there was an article in Straits Times titled "350 years on, voice of reason resonates".
Philosopher Buruch Spinoza reasoned that ..."no religion could rightly claim infallible knowledge of their creator's partiality to its
beliefs and ways". Spinoza studied the varieties of religious intolerance and the conclusions he drew are still relevant to this very day ..
viz the Middle East conflict, not to mention the hundreds of religious conflicts around our tiny Earth from the ancient to the present.

Democracy (based on reasoning & not religion) was and still is the most superior form of government.
It is our responsibility to strive to justify our beliefs in the light of evidence (the sciences and reasoning).
"A government that impedes the development of the sciences subverts the very grounds for state legitimacy".
That is why Spinoza argued very adamantly against the influence of clerics in government!

what is "secular" in the context of a faith-based worldview - does the latter not apply to everyone to whatever extent individually at any given point in time? does it mean that people who profess an organized religious belief aren't and/or can't be rational?

Many misuse 'secularism', a label used to include subjective values.

How is it less 'imposing' or 'neutral' than values promoted by religions?

If we accept a formal 'secularism' without values as a compass for society, we are deluded and something else drives society.

If we accept a substantive 'secularism' that prefers one value or morality over another, then society has a compass, and depending on one's morality, may be progressive or regressive.

Instead of misusing and hiding behind concepts and labels, isn't the debate about 'I hate your values'.

So what now? Which value is better (beyond the individual's preference)? This question is asked each time society decides to criminalise or promote an activity, e.g., insider trading, market manipulation, drunk driving, drug consumption, corporate social responsibility, incest, peadophilia, pornography, rape, molestation, sexual grooming, homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexualism, abortion, euthanasia.

Which is your cup of tea? Or What is Good for All?

Indeed, globalisation has brought about ills and goods. Have we lost our moral discernment and compass in our search for a good life?

Isn;t Singapore Government pragmetic? And aren't Singaporeans pragmatic too? If the patient is going to die, say in the next 12 months, instead of forcing them to waste resources on medications and expensive hospitalisation bills, thus becoming a burden to their love ones, why not given them a CHIOCE to decided whether to end all these?
Of course there have to be laws in place to protect the vulnerable ones less they are exploited. As our people's education-level improves, and we know our rights, with proper protection by the law, certainly we can work to prevent exploitation.
For whatever religious reasons a person does not opt for euthanesia, so be it. But give others a choice. Let's respect everyone.

wolke...

Secularism is embodied in the principle of separation of church from state, as correctly noted by the letter writer. This understanding presumably applies in all contexts.

Even people with religion can be rational of course. But to the extent that they subscribe to notions that most religious people subscribe to -- god, soul, spirit, angel, devils, heaven, hell, rebirth etc.... -- without clear proof -- is symptomatic of the extent of their irrationality.

I agree with freenfair that euthanasia may be problematical even from the secular perspective but secularism remains the best way we should approach public affairs in any society.

witness, your evidentialism is lop-sided.

How do you believe in the veracity of history then? Evidence? From where may I ask? From books written by human authorities isn't it? Can you travel back in time to see for yourself historical facts? Then how do you believe and accept as true any form of historical account? How do you believe in the history of humanism and secularism then? Do you start from scratch yesterday? Of course not isn't it?

The case for religion, specifically Christianity, is the same. The historical record speaks for itself. If you accept the general history of mankind, then you must consider seriously the historical record of the Christian religion.

Hence, to say that 'religious people' believe in unsubstantiated beliefs is not true. You couldn't be further from the truth in the case of Christianity.

Why is the writer attributing this issue about euthanasia to secularism?

Many modern societies are secular, whether they support euthanasia or not. The writer might be a religious rightwing nut, who has zero tolerance for those without religions. This trait is very common among religious zealots.

witness,

"But to the extent that they subscribe to notions that most religious people subscribe to -- god, soul, spirit, angel, devils, heaven, hell, rebirth etc.... -- without clear proof -- is symptomatic of the extent of their irrationality."

Not exactly referring to you, generally speaking, majority of the people here really lack of religion knowledge. Just like a primary school student trying to explain physics taught in the Universities - uncomprehensible.

Let me take Taoism (道教） as an example;

What is the philosophy of Taoism?

What is "道" or TAO?

Have you master the TAO of Euthanasia?

If you do not master the TAO of Euthanasia; then how are you going to balance the YING (-ve) and YANG (+ve) sides of Euthanasia?

Not to make the topic so "deep"; let me explain this using our ecosystem. Our ecosystem must be in equilibrium, or simply YING (-ve) and YANG (+ve) balance. It is precisely that we did not understand the TAO of our ecosystem that we are facing global warming now. In other words, we have made it unbalance. Just imagine how much efforts and resources must be used to resolve this global warming issue. Most important, will we succeed?

Introducing Euthanasia in Singapore is like introducing new species of animals into Australia's ecosystem. Potentially, we will have some kind of unpredictable social problems, which we may not be able to foresee.

So, I would appreciate those pro-euthanasia people to explain the TAO of euthanasia. So that, at least our society will know how to ajust to "balance" the positives and negatives of Euthanasia.

Originally Posted by witness

Secularism is embodied in the principle of separation of church from state, as correctly noted by the letter writer. This understanding presumably applies in all contexts.

how did the principle of separation of church and state arise, do you know? and what does it mean?

Even people with religion can be rational of course. But to the extent that they subscribe to notions that most religious people subscribe to -- god, soul, spirit, angel, devils, heaven, hell, rebirth etc.... -- without clear proof -- is symptomatic of the extent of their irrationality.

isn't this just a bare assertion? conversely, where's the proof that there's no god, soul, spirit, angel, devils, heaven, hell, rebirth etc? can't i say that people who cannot prove their belief (however, and to whatever degree or burden of proof required) that there's no god, soul, spirit, angel, devils, heaven, hell, rebirth etc just bec they haven't seen or experienced it themselves (for instance) are just as irrational, and even foolish, to deny the existence of the same, which others have either seen or experienced (for) themselves?

I agree with freenfair that euthanasia may be problematical even from the secular perspective but secularism remains the best way we should approach public affairs in any society.

how so?