Some times, I get really annoyed with the actions of my fellow believers. First, it was Thio Su Mein and Josie Lau with their coup stunt at AWARE. Now, it’s Rony Tan with his offensive remarks of other religions.
I do not know what goes on in their minds. Perhaps for Thio and Josie Lau, they felt themselves to be champions defending good Christian values against homosexuality. While I can understand the ends, I definitely cannot agree with the means. In the case of Rony Tan, perhaps he was overjoyed that someone has come to embrace the love of God and would like to show case it, but he does not need to sound like a jerk while doing so.
In my opinion, the result of the action of both groups had put all Christians in a bad light. Not only did it do nothing to further the Christian message, it is now a set back as more people will be convinced that Christians are religious bigots who are incapable of tolerance and condescending of other religions.
Rony Tan got off lightly just like the person who made offensive comics on Jesus Christ. The ISD merely slapped him on the wrist by warning him. He could have been fined (or jailed?) for sedition just like the couple who put offensive tracts into the mailbox of their Muslim neighbours. Fortunately for him, the magnanimous leaders of the other religious communities he so offended had accepted his apology. Unfortunately for the rest of us Christians, the general animosity against Christianity from members of other faiths probably raised a few notches.
Looking back at the entire matter, I had originally wondered why would Rony Tan made such offensive remarks to the general public. I then discovered that he did so to his congregation, and the video was then made available on the public domain – the church website. His biggest mistake was to believe that since this is meant for the consumption of his church members or other Christians, they would perhaps have found it inspiring or acceptable. Sadly, not only did he fail to consider the possibility that among the congregation there could be non-believing visitors invited by Church members, who would hope that they would be inspired by the message and turn to Jesus, he obviously also failed to understand anyone could have accessed the website to view those videos and make a copy due to the open nature of the Internet.
Though without a doubt his message was offensive in nature, I must also ask why a person who does not already agree with the Christian message is viewing the video on the church site. It would suggest to me the objective of this person was to clearly seek contention and clearly he ‘hit a gold mine’ this time. I absolutely question the intention and the purpose of the person reposting those videos to the Internet since some of the reaction would definitely not be directly at Rony Tan, but would spew over to the rest of the Christian community. But before I go further into that, I must point out that unless Rony Tan (or his church) was dumber than I thought, it is unlikely they would have given permission to post these videos on Youtube. As such, some copyright laws have already been broken in this case when the video was produced by and legally belonged to the church. The person who post it should be wary of this on top of the other associated troubles.
Now, back to the objective of the posting those videos on Youtube, I would hope that the intention is not sinister and solely for the purpose of getting Rony Tan to understand the seriousness and stupidity of his remarks. However, I wondered had the person first confronted Rony Tan directly, and only chose the drastic action of publicising the videos only after the pastor was unrepentant and uncompromising. After all, the videos on Youtube will now alert and even anger more people who would otherwise not have known of those offensive remarks.
Since Rony Tan has apologised and the leaders of the offended religious communities have accept his apology and even gone so far to declare they do not intend to unnecessarily pursue the matter any further, I cannot help but suspect there is a more sinister intent – to incite public anger targeted at the Christian community at large – for every other minute the videos remain online.
I believe the Internal Security Department (ISD), which is ever vigilant in preventing any outbreak of animosity between racial and religious communities in our country has already considered this and planned to take appropriate action. Otherwise, it would indicate to everyone that it is perfectly alright to incite anger and hatred against Christians when there is now no further purpose for the videos to remain online. Since the comments of Rony Tan are seditious, shouldn’t anyone who continue to publicise them now be considered an accomplice of sedition, no matter what his original intentions and purposes are? Just like when the Far East Economic Review (FEER) published the libelous comments of Chee Soon Juan, it was also sued for libel by our esteemed leaders of the government gahmen. To further elaborate, if these videos are allowed to stay on Youtube, does it not suggest it is alright for anyone else (or even me) to publish those tracts online even after the couple who distributed offensive tracts about the Muslim Prophet has been convicted by a court? I doubt the court would look at it kindly even if I argue (or justify) my intention as educating the public on what is offensive to our fellow Muslim Singaporeans.
While the ‘delivery method of the offense’ between the tracts and Rony Tan’s comments is different – the former being active (delivered to the doorstep), while the latter being passive (brought to attention by someone else), the question now would be who should now be held responsible for ‘delivering the offense when those video are left online after the culprit has admitted and apologised. Consider the scenario: When this matter has blown over, another person who may have no recollection of the entire affair may come across these videos several years down the road. Would it not then have caused continual distress and anger to this person, even when Rony Tan may no longer have made any such comments for a long time?
I would also want to point out, now that a pastor can be criticised for his message to his congregation, the pandora box is now opened for anyone to take any religious teachers to task using the same methods as long as they considered the remark offensive. While I am not suggesting that it is wrong to take Rony Tan to task, it is possible that instead of promoting religious tolerance the exact opposite is now achieved. It certainly implied to me that it is now ‘open season’ for anyone to criticise a teacher of another faith as long as he didn’t like what is spoken about his religion.
To think of it… atheists who considers all faiths to be hogwash and superstition should take note of the plight of Rony Tan and be wary whenever they mock believers of a religion.
Addendum: I was informed that one of the users have removed the video from his Youtube channel.
With Brayden, you have just validated my words.
Alas, I can only hope that there is more sensibility in Singapore.
To your health and better discernment.
Regards.
.-= Azmodeus´s last blog ..The Ow family =-.
I don’t understand this demonisation of Pastor Rony Tan. As a practising Christian, he has a duty and obligation to win souls for Christ. He has to highlight what he feels is incorrect in other religious/pseudo-religious practices. As shepherd of his flock, it is his calling to point out the crevasses and ravines, and where the wolves lie in wait. And I expect the Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist leaders to be doing the same – if they are truthful to themselves. How can you teach your sons/daughters to avoid drugs if you don’t point out the negatives? Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts, expect Rony Tan to tell his congregation that it’s perfectly acceptable to experiment in various practices and still attend church? Don’t fall for the trap of the politicians. Hitler went after the communists first, then he went for the gays, and then when it was the turn of the Jews, there was nobody else to fight for them. Do we want a situation like that of Russia, where there is freedom of worship, except that you must worship in private?
Anyway, I have deleted a comment with the links to the videos still on Youtube. I will not allow those links to be published as it is my opinion that anyone who do so is guilty of ‘abetting sedition’.
Well, since you felt that what he said had nothing to do with the message of Jesus Christ, I have nothing more to say on that.
I suppose even the bible is subjected to interpretations of its followers.
I do not personally believe that personal insults would aid in anyway towards the flow of our exchange. I am merely offering my views of this particular event, and should you choose not to respond; that is your perogative, and I respect it.
Unfortunately, your analogy is flawed, true I may perhaps wouldn’t bat an eyelid to a casual remark or snide joke from someone I know in a casual conversation. But to mouth derogatory insults in the context of a service before thousands of fellow believers in a church setting? I would definitely not placed that in the same level of the analogy you are even trying to imply. No self respecting religious leader with an ounce of common sense should have done that. And as for the thousands of people sitting in the church and celebrating 30 mins worth of a show that Rony put up, you are pushing it in your analogy of a bad joke.
And as you mentioned in your earlier reply, that what Rony did was similar to sectarian violence – and he had just attacked another religion, recorded it and put it up on his website to glamorised it.
If the congregation could not have realised the extent of Rony’s actions during his service, they should have begun to realised that the series of videos on their church website is a bad idea; something which the rest of Singapore apparently realised. Thus, if there is no one had even begin to question their pastor’s actions, it is in my opinion that the congregation had willingly and implicitly condone the actions of their pastor.
A bad joke? Indeed, and he had put it up on the front page of Straits Times.
.-= Azmodeus´s last blog ..The Ow family =-.
Maybe I wasn’t clear enough in what I was trying to say.
In this world, everything you say or do has a consequence, regardless of whether you mean it or no. In this case as you mentioned, the ISD inviting Rony to have a cup of coffee, is an obvious consequence. And you can call me a consequentialist for that.
So what is the crime or mistake that he made that caused that consequence? Its the fact that Rony Tan in his position as the Pastor, using Lighthouse Evangelism as a platform to denounce and insult other religions to further the message of Christianity.
It has to be clear who or what we are condemning here. Are we codemning Rony the Senior Pastor of Lighthouse Evangelism, or the religion which he is practising – in which case is Christianity in question?
Well, based on most of the comments we have seen so far, most are condemning Rony the Pastor. Would I see the rest of Christians as religious bigots as Rony? No, not exactly, maybe just those several thousand people whom had attended his service on the day of his offending remarks and were laughing to his ‘humorous’ sermon. Do I look at Christianity in bad light now simply because Rony the Pastor decides to bad mouth other religion to further his own? No, at least not yet, this is still a matter that is incited by Rony, and should end with Rony.
Should the Christian religion be implicated by Rony’s fracas?
The crux of the matter here is, did he feel that he truly did wrong? By the teachings of Christianity, he would be correct, he has done no wrong from a viewpoint of Christianity to condemn other religions as false. Because in his own words, there is only one true way, and that is the Christian way.
Thus, should we then condemn the teachings of Christianity for raising a senior pastor in Rony Tan? I do not have the answer, for that I’ll leave it to Christians to decide if Christianity is able to accept that there is more than one faith/religion, or more than one God/Creator for that matter. If not, what is there to stop other evangelists to advance the Christian message by degrading other religions, other than by utilizing the blunt tool of ISA?
In my view, there were several hundreds of people whom had attended Mr Rony’s service that day. If any of the Christians in the field that day, had any decency or initiative to tell Mr Rony that he had said something wrong, would we have to wait till that particular ‘someone’ to post it on Youtube to elicit ISD’s response? – Food for thought.
As with regards to the person who posted it on the internet. To perhaps use an analogy, he is merely a bystander whom had witnessed a crime committed by Rony and decides to report the case – Which in this instance, he/she reported the crime to the world. Do I think that the person who reported the crime or the criminal who committed the crime is at fault?
The answer is undoubtedly obvious.
Would the video incite religious hatred on the basis of Rony’s words? That would depends on how highly you rate the ability of Singaporeans to segregate Rony from Christianity, and their ability to interpret their role in this event.
To answer your question more pointedly, I am du lan, but its towards Rony, and not Christianity… yet.
.-= Azmodeus´s last blog ..The Ow family =-.
Lets put it this way, as a Pastor of as large a congregation in the Lighthouse Evangelism, one would have assumed that he would have enough wisdom conferred upon him by God or even a little bit of common sense to know that what he had said was obviously wrong in the context of our multi religious society.
But, he did not just made one insensitive remark, and from the videos, he had made a whole host of it. It was perhaps even apparent to an EQ deficient mole that one would have realised that; Rony obviously felt that he did no wrong putting down other religious faiths to reinforced his flock’s belief in Christianity. And from his position, he probably wasn’t wrong at all, as a pastor of the Christian faith, all other religious beliefs to him are either false, related to satanism or simply a David Copperfield trick – a view which he obviously implied in his videos.
If a person truly believed in his views as what he had obviously expressed, would anyone apologised for what he truly believes in?
There is one term for it, its called hypocrisy.
Let us perhaps ask the question, if the person had not posted the video to Youtube, would the videos still have caused an uproar with the local netizens? And if not for the uproar on Rony Tan’s insensitive and obviously offensive remarks, would the ISD have intervened on this matter? And in the process induce him to make a public apology to the leaders of the faiths whom he had explicitly or implicitly insulted?
If he had publicly apologised upon causing the uproar prior to the ISD dropping him call. I might have even admired him for his willingness to accept that he had did something wrong, and might even have withdrew my charge of him being a hypocrite. Unfortunately, if one have exercise legal authority to admonish another prior to that person making an apology. That definitely doesn’t imply moral courage to admit that he is wrong, but pure simple cowardice in the shadow of the ISD.
.-= Azmodeus´s last blog ..The Ow family =-.
Actually considering that there are so many christians whoare against what what Rony Tan did, i would not be surprised if the videos were viewed by a fellow believer who found them offensive and highlighted them in other related blogs. Lets not assume that t was a non-believer or someone with sinister objectives; the way the net works these days, a simply innocuous action can spread into a rapid fire in no time.
As for religious tolerance the point of the matter is that freedom of speech does carry responsibilities in a muti-racial and religious society like ours. As i havementioned elsewhere before i thibnk no one would have any issue against me saying i do not believein reincarnation, karma or rebirth; but its a whole different matter when these beliefs and opinions are conveyed across in the manner which Rony Tan did. First rule (and most important) – do not insult or degenerate any other faith to promote your own. If your prefer a more open and ‘tolerant’ society, then perhaps we cna look to what happens in the US or even in Malaysia when insensitive comments and a more lax authritarian appraoch has led to demonstrations, protests and even voilence. I rather live with some OB markers then none at all.