Hmm...I should stop allowing news articles and comments on political issues to dominate my blog. This blog is going to turn into a political commentary. But...cannot...resist. The sheer ignorance: it is bliss.
MCA President Datuk Ong's remarks concerning disgruntled PSD scholarship rejects who surface annually in Malaysia after the scholarship results are released. Taken from: The Star Online http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/5/14/nation/3903342&sec=nation
***
The MCA, [Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat] said, received many complaints where students considered the best in certain states were not selected for the scholarships.
“Instead, the moment they were informed about their unsuccessful bid to obtain scholarships to study overseas, the students were asked whether they would accept offers to study at local public universities or foreign universities based in Malaysia.
“This is a very serious situation where students do not get enough time to consider their decision,” he said, adding that such circumstances must be stopped.
Currently, Ong said, the selection is based on four criteria - merit (20%), race (60%), Sabah and Sarawak citizens (10%) and students from underprivileged groups (10%).
He said if meritocracy was part of the criteria, the students’ co-curriculum activities and interviews should not be included for consideration.
“Meritocracy means it should solely be the students’ results and not any other areas,” he said.
***
I can hardly believe they quoted him right. He talked about everything except the glaring 60% race criteria. Ok, that's to be expected since race is counted as merit according to his party line. But not to use interview results? Co-curricular activities not involved in meritocracy? (ok, I dislike the CCA benchmark too, but a candidate should at least show ability to employ his or her time usefully). What if the interviewee reveals that he or she cannot commit to the bond? Sorry Datuk Seri, but the red herrings you throw out won't make your performing seals clap for you anymore.
This article is an example of the artful arrangement of information which I wrote about earlier, which leaves interpretive gaps for the readers where something cannot be said out loud. Another example can be found in the Bukit Botak investigative report, at:
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/5/14/nation/3840470&sec=nation
It doesn't take much to figure which political party the grassroots leaders belong to as the opposition only recently took over Selangor, and the Bukit Botak fiasco started well over ten years ago. The Star's pretty nifty for an MCA-owned paper. But they still spike columns, sadly. No choice lah. Almost all main newspapers are owned either directly or indirectly by political parties. Almost.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Friday, May 08, 2009
7 May according to UM--er, I mean Utusan Online
Apparently Sivakumar had to be carried out by policemen in the DUN Perak May 7 drama. In Singapore, highlights like the AWARE EGM are a once-in-a-lifetime event. In Malaysia, there's always something exciting to look forward to. So of course I'd like to return. I'm a sucker for television drama, especially when it happens in real life. The bad scripts, the extreme polarization of viewpoints and over-the-top acting: it's all there. In parliament and state councils, no less. I agree with the pro-UMNO reporter in this article: "menghina institusi diraja" indeed. It is an insult to royalty when royalty has to be insulted in order to uphold the democratic institution. Possibly democracy is an insult to royalty. Certainly the opposition brand of democracy (which is very much about people's action) is an insult to royalty. Apparently the UMNO brand of democracy, which seems to be a mish-mash of old-world feudalism and democratic forms of parliament, is entirely in support of the king--or that's what the newspaper would have us believe (conspiracy!). Too bad nobody asks the king what he actually wants.
I felt like putting up this article (even though it is unworthy of being called a piece of reporting) in order to highlight one of the largest contributing factors to the terrible mess of racial polarization and institutional confusion that is our imaginary nation. Media itself is highly racialized and downright biased. In case you can't read Malay, this article--probably headlines in the hardcopy issue--unequivocally blames the opposition leaders' pride and disrespect for the ruckus at the Perak DUN (State Assembly). Of course the opposition leaders were causing the ruckus. Any newspaper would report that. Yet surely no self-respecting newspaper would put down such a libellous spin to the matter. Alas, I am too naive to believe in media objectivity in the first place. The English newspapers have learnt to veil their insults to get past the army of scrutineers waiting to shout "sedition!" and release a gag order. For example, The Star artfully complimented Hishamuddin as the 'smiling tiger' and said it was only reasonable that Najib demanded that his cousin change portfolio from education to home affairs in order to concentrate power. The opposition-sided newspapers usually resort to quoting the worst and most thoughtless speeches of the politicians, refraining from making any comment themselves but framing the comments to bring out the best effect of the politician's self-destructive stupidity. Newspapers biased towards the ruling party have no such need. The problem: very few news sources (especially hardcopy) are biased towards the objective perspective, or biased towards their own evaluation of democracy. Everyone likes to be part of a herd, I suppose. It's a survival instinct, especially in the political minefield.
For the record, Utusan sells itself as a self-respecting newspaper, and many people buy it as such, thinking that the act of reading constitutes knowing the truth of a matter and therefore makes them intelligent. Fortunately, Malaysia's readers are growing more and more discerning by the year, but that still does not solve the problem of the gaps in information flow between the
different language streams of Malaysia's mass media. Malay newspapers report on Malay parties while vilifying Chinese politicians, and the Chinese newspapers vice-versa. The English newspapers are maturing slowly, though there is a risk of heading for the easy route of sensationalism in seeking to speak against political stupidity as well. The gap between perspective and truth. The gap between the democratic institution and the constitutional monarchy. Totally exploited by conniving foxes in politics. Yes, yes, I'm too unkind. I'll fix my viewpoint a little: most of them don't have the kind of intelligence to actually be that crafty. They just lack the self-reflexivity to understand what they do instinctively to protect themselves, and therefore are unaware that it is in fact unethical and destabilizing. In Conrad's universe, these are the foolish, flabby, weak-eyed pretending devils, who don't have the vision to go all the way into the heart of darkness and see what actually lies at the core of evil. These are the most persistent kind. They never go far enough to self-destruct.
I felt like putting up this article (even though it is unworthy of being called a piece of reporting) in order to highlight one of the largest contributing factors to the terrible mess of racial polarization and institutional confusion that is our imaginary nation. Media itself is highly racialized and downright biased. In case you can't read Malay, this article--probably headlines in the hardcopy issue--unequivocally blames the opposition leaders' pride and disrespect for the ruckus at the Perak DUN (State Assembly). Of course the opposition leaders were causing the ruckus. Any newspaper would report that. Yet surely no self-respecting newspaper would put down such a libellous spin to the matter. Alas, I am too naive to believe in media objectivity in the first place. The English newspapers have learnt to veil their insults to get past the army of scrutineers waiting to shout "sedition!" and release a gag order. For example, The Star artfully complimented Hishamuddin as the 'smiling tiger' and said it was only reasonable that Najib demanded that his cousin change portfolio from education to home affairs in order to concentrate power. The opposition-sided newspapers usually resort to quoting the worst and most thoughtless speeches of the politicians, refraining from making any comment themselves but framing the comments to bring out the best effect of the politician's self-destructive stupidity. Newspapers biased towards the ruling party have no such need. The problem: very few news sources (especially hardcopy) are biased towards the objective perspective, or biased towards their own evaluation of democracy. Everyone likes to be part of a herd, I suppose. It's a survival instinct, especially in the political minefield.
For the record, Utusan sells itself as a self-respecting newspaper, and many people buy it as such, thinking that the act of reading constitutes knowing the truth of a matter and therefore makes them intelligent. Fortunately, Malaysia's readers are growing more and more discerning by the year, but that still does not solve the problem of the gaps in information flow between the
different language streams of Malaysia's mass media. Malay newspapers report on Malay parties while vilifying Chinese politicians, and the Chinese newspapers vice-versa. The English newspapers are maturing slowly, though there is a risk of heading for the easy route of sensationalism in seeking to speak against political stupidity as well. The gap between perspective and truth. The gap between the democratic institution and the constitutional monarchy. Totally exploited by conniving foxes in politics. Yes, yes, I'm too unkind. I'll fix my viewpoint a little: most of them don't have the kind of intelligence to actually be that crafty. They just lack the self-reflexivity to understand what they do instinctively to protect themselves, and therefore are unaware that it is in fact unethical and destabilizing. In Conrad's universe, these are the foolish, flabby, weak-eyed pretending devils, who don't have the vision to go all the way into the heart of darkness and see what actually lies at the core of evil. These are the most persistent kind. They never go far enough to self-destruct.
Sidang DUN Perak kecoh
 |
| Perasmian Sidang Dewan Undangan Negeri Perak Ke-12 tertangguh kira-kira lima jam akibat kekecohan yang berlaku antara penyokong kerajaan dan pembangkang. Dr. Zambry Abd. Kadir cuba mententeramkan keadaan di Bangunan Perak Darul Ridzuan, Ipoh semalam. – HANAFI KHAMIS |
IPOH 7 Mei – Kecoh dan menghina institusi diraja. Begitulah suasana sidang Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) yang berlangsung hari ini. Majlis perasmian yang sepatutnya berlangsung kira-kira pukul 10 pagi tertunda ke pukul 3.15 petang.
Hanya selepas kira-kira lima jam drama keangkuhan dan kedegilan barisan Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri (ADUN) pembangkang ‘ditayangkan’, barulah majlis pembukaan Mesyuarat Pertama Penggal Kedua DUN Perak Ke-12 berjaya disempurnakan.
Itu pun selepas Pemangku Raja Perak, Raja Dr. Nazrin Shah dan Raja Puan Besar, Tuanku Zara Salim yang tiba kira-kira pukul 9.30 pagi terpaksa menunggu di kamar diraja kira-kira lima jam.
Sedangkan sebelum itu, baginda telah pun memeriksa barisan kawalan kehormat dan sepatutnya merasmikan majlis pembukaan selepas itu.
Peliknya, selepas menimbulkan kekecohan sehingga berlaku adegan tolak-menolak, pergelutan kecil dan hamburan kata-kata kesat, ADUN pakatan pembangkang akhirnya sanggup pula untuk akur.
Kesemuanya itu didorong oleh sikap angkuh, degil dan tindakan mempermainkan kemuliaan Dewan sehingga mewujudkan suasana tegang dan menuntut Raja Dr. Nazrin supaya ‘menunggu’.
Dengan diketuai bekas Speaker, V. Sivakumar, Aturan Mesyuarat yang sepatutnya membantu melancarkan perjalanan sidang DUN diketepikan.
Malah, pakatan pembangkang seolah-olah lupa diri dan tidak menerima hakikat bahawa mereka bukan lagi suara majoriti.
Sebaik berakhirnya upacara membaca doa, Sivakumar bertegas tidak mahu memulakan sidang DUN selagi Menteri Besar, Datuk Seri Dr. Zambry Abd. Kadir dan enam Exconya berada di dalam Dewan.
Beliau turut mengarahkan tiga Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri (ADUN) Bebas iaitu Hee Yit Foong (Jelapang), Mohd. Osman Jailu (Changkat Jering) dan Jamaluddin Mohd. Radzi (Behrang) meninggalkan Dewan dengan segera.
Beliau juga mengumumkan tempat duduk ADUN adalah berdasarkan status quo seperti sebelum ini.
‘‘Saya tak mahu ketujuh-tujuh orang (Zambry dan enam ahli Exco) yang digantung berada dalam Dewan. Keputusan ini dibuat oleh Jawatankuasa Hak dan Kebebasan yang telah diterima pada 3 Mac lalu, bukan saya.
‘‘Saya juga arah ketiga-tiga orang yang saya anggap telah meletak jawatan keluar daripada Dewan. Saya hendak 10 orang ini (tujuh ADUN BN dan tiga ADUN Bebas) keluar Dewan dulu baru mulakan sidang,” katanya sebaik mengambil tempat duduk Speaker dalam DUN di sini hari ini.
Bagaimanapun, Zambry dan sembilan lagi ADUN terbabit tidak mempedulikan arahan Sivakumar.
Kekecohan berlarutan sehingga ada ketikanya hampir bertumbuk apabila kedua-dua pihak cuba menegakkan pendapat masing-masing.
Dalam suasana kelam kabut itu, Zambry membuat usul memecat Sivakumar sebagai Speaker dan Timbalan Speaker, Yit Foong mengumumkan mengambil alih tugas menggantikan Sivakumar.
Bagaimanapun Sivakumar menegaskan, usul itu tidak boleh diterima daripada seseorang yang telah digantung keahliannya sebagai ADUN.
Keputusan menggantung 10 ADUN tersebut daripada menghadiri sidang DUN dibuat oleh Sivakumar menerusi Jawatankuasa Hak dan Kebebasan yang bersidang di bawah pokok pada 3 Mac lalu.
Zambry kemudian mengulangi usul yang sama dan sekali lagi disokong oleh semua ADUN Barisan Nasional (BN) dan tiga ADUN Bebas.
Sebaik sahaja usul pelantikan Speaker baru diluluskan oleh penyokong BN, Yit Foong mengisytiharkan R. Ganesan sebagai Speaker baru sebelum dipakaikan jubah oleh Zambry.
Selepas mengangkat sumpah jawatan di bahagian tempat duduk ADUN BN, bekas ADUN Sungkai itu mengambil alih sidang Dewan daripada Yit Foong.
Empat usul telah diluluskan oleh Ganesan iaitu pelantikan ahli baru bagi Jawatankuasa Kira-Kira Wang Negeri, Jawatankuasa Perintah-Perintah Tetap dan Jawatankuasa Hak dan Kebebasan.
Turut diluluskan ialah usul membatalkan sidang DUN Perak di bawah pokok pada 3 Mac lalu.
Sivakumar yang sejak awal mempertikaikan kedudukan Ganesan kemudian menegaskan beliau menolak kesemua usul tersebut.
Memandangkan situasi yang semakin tegang, Zambry mengusulkan supaya sidang Dewan ditangguhkan selama sejam bermula pukul 11.15 pagi.
Walaupun ditangguhkan, Sivakumar tetap tidak berganjak daripada tempat duduk Speaker sejak pukul 9.45 pagi.
Sidang Dewan sekali lagi ditangguhkan pada pukul 1 petang. Ketika ini Sivakumar masih juga berada di tempatnya.
Keadaan agak terkawal apabila polis mula memasuki Dewan dan mengarahkan Sivakumar bangun daripada kerusi Speaker yang didudukinya.
Kedegilannya menyebabkan polis dan beberapa petugas Dewan terpaksa ‘mengangkat’ serta mengusung beliau ke luar.
Walaupun bekas Menteri Besar, Datuk Seri Ir. Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin dan ADUN pembangkang masih lagi mempertikaikan tindakan terhadap Sivakumar, namun kehadiran Raja Dr. Nazrin berjaya menenangkan keadaan.
Selepas baginda berjumpa dengan Mohammad Nizar dan ADUN Sitiawan, Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham, pembangkang dilihat mula mematuhi peraturan Dewan.
~dipetik dari Utusan Online, 7 Mei 2009 http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/info.asp?y=2009&dt=0508&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&sec=Muka_Hadapan&pg=mh_01.htm
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Observations and Reflections on the AWARE EGM.
Dies Irae
Out of curiosity and concern, I made my way to Suntec to observe the happenings at AWARE. I couldn't go in for the first part of the meeting; at 2pm there were still 600 people queuing up to get in. I managed to slip in towards the end, about two hours before the results came in.
While the votes were being counted, concerned members made their way to the front to speak (each person has a right to three minutes on the floor). Some spoke on sex education, sexuality and choices, addressing the exco's agenda concerning AWARE's education programs. Some spoke on equality and representation. But most spoke about their disgust at the way the exco had taken power and about the exco's actions from then up to the EGM. The exco were pretty brave to sit at the table, poker-faced, taking in hours and hours of heckling, jeering and verbal attacks. I will say I witnessed the best and worst of human nature. It was exhilirating to see people--Singaporeans--so concerned about advocacy and representation, about the direction of one of the pillars of Singapore's civil society. Yet that passion often burst out in ungracious displays of anger and ad hominem speeches. The crowd's anger was justified, I suppose, and overall was channeled productively. The anger was part of the damage that the exco had caused, and not just a reaction to the damage, and that is why I was not exactly overjoyed to see people so angry. By taking power through unfair means, the exco had structured the discourse surrounding AWARE leadership into an "us" versus "them", winner and loser mentality. This isn't just damaging for AWARE, it is damaging to any effort for concerted action--whether between nations, between civil society and the government, or between secular and religious groups. By using manipulative means to take power, by failing to see their lack of integrity and resigning honourably even before the vote of no confidence, by failing to resign immediately after the results of the vote came in, the exco triggered a mode of action which involved othering and retribution towards themselves. The victory speeches by the new exco then were bittersweet, because of the necessity of winning at all, of re-establishing good values on a mode of action and retribution. The honourable thing to do would have been to resign and apologise in order to prevent the downward spiral of reprisals.
Specifically, the church's relations with secular society have gone through a shake-up. As an AWARE founding member said, she was very disappointed in their actions and their "Christian" agenda which had eroded the good faith between the church, AWARE and groups of different religions. She gave the best (and most gracious) three-minute speech, in my opinion. She started in good faith, believing that the ladies of the exco were nice women who meant well--not something that anyone else was able to do with their finger-pointing, shouting and accusations. Yet her point was the most powerful and relevant. Like her, I am disappointed. The church throughout history already has a lot to answer for: the political entanglements of medieval times which resulted in the Crusades, the political entanglements now which resulted in the Iraq War taking on a religious slant. We have to be very careful as to how we approach the sacred/secular divide that was the fallout of religious-political pursuits like the crusades and the witch-hunts. We will continue to have matters to apologise for, I suppose. Learning to impact a society obsessed with and oppressed by discourses of power through an ethic of powerlessness is difficult. After all, we are of the same imperfect substance as the hell-bound that we preach so often about.
Beyond AWARE
The challenge for the church in getting involved with politics and secular social movements is to build a common platform for social progress, not to ensure that the church's perspective on issues of gay rights or abortion supercede that of other groups in society. There is a difference. The church should continue to represent what it believes is the best way of social progress, but our duty is to represent, to be witnesses, not to be law enforcers and winners of the global gameshow by trumping others and proving that God is right through loud (sometimes not even clever) arguments and power plays.
In any case, the church's first duty is to God and therefore to high standards of integrity when committing to actions to relieve suffering. Too often, God's agenda for the welfare of mankind is hijacked to justify verbal abuse, alienation or unethical actions. How different is that from suicide bombers who kill in the name of Islam? The Bible's standards are clear, and very high. To call another "fool," to hate another, is the same as committing murder in one's heart. Perhaps the visible consequences are drastically different--people don't die from being hated. But Jesus' point is that the degree of guilt is the same. Whether personal or political, big or small, hidden or known, there is no difference in the degree of badness that goes into words and actions that violate the individual. What a high standard that is. No wonder God won't let anyone into heaven on their own terms. Our standards are a little too low.
All too often we Christians suffer from this world domination mentality, because we are people of one truth, like the Jews and the Muslims. Yet between that one truth and the first good action that arises from believing in it is a chasm filled with misperception, the limits of human judgment, hypocrisy and such-like. We see as through a glass darkly. That phrase has always expressed for me the idea that human perception can never see truth in its entirety. Life on this side of eternity is composed of fragmented perceptions and unstable interpretations (maybe I will write on the Christian view of human access to truth after I read up on theology and philosophy, but for now let's just leave it at this). If we really believe that Christ is God and coming back to judge the world, then who are we to set ourselves up as arbitrators and judges of the world's morality? Or to think that we have all the answers? We think that God has all the answers. That's a different ethic altogether.
There. Now I can look back at what I've written and know the potential that I have to mess things up if I forget that truth and perspective are different things. That was what was bothering me. What if I am living by a "failed paradigm," in the words of an acquaintance? What's also bothering me--but only slightly--is the list of assertions I have just made. Been hanging around too many philo friends, maybe. But then this isn't an argument. Just a series of reflections on conclusions I have already drawn for myself, or which, one might say, were drawn for me by my religion. Being raised a Christian, and having accepted Christ as a child, I only knew that I had been saved. One does not necessarily know what one has been saved from, and if one doesn't know, then what does one really believe in? A set of religious principles to live a good life? Or a God who has saved me from an eternity of recursive reasoning that cannot escape the condition of guilt? Dishonour descends upon one's shoulders, and who will take it away from you?* I will spend my entire life thinking backwards, I suppose, in order to work out my salvation. I guess that's why I like questions from non-Christian friends on Christianity and faith. They're always interesting to consider.
___________
* from Diary of a Bad Year by J.M Coetzee
Out of curiosity and concern, I made my way to Suntec to observe the happenings at AWARE. I couldn't go in for the first part of the meeting; at 2pm there were still 600 people queuing up to get in. I managed to slip in towards the end, about two hours before the results came in.
While the votes were being counted, concerned members made their way to the front to speak (each person has a right to three minutes on the floor). Some spoke on sex education, sexuality and choices, addressing the exco's agenda concerning AWARE's education programs. Some spoke on equality and representation. But most spoke about their disgust at the way the exco had taken power and about the exco's actions from then up to the EGM. The exco were pretty brave to sit at the table, poker-faced, taking in hours and hours of heckling, jeering and verbal attacks. I will say I witnessed the best and worst of human nature. It was exhilirating to see people--Singaporeans--so concerned about advocacy and representation, about the direction of one of the pillars of Singapore's civil society. Yet that passion often burst out in ungracious displays of anger and ad hominem speeches. The crowd's anger was justified, I suppose, and overall was channeled productively. The anger was part of the damage that the exco had caused, and not just a reaction to the damage, and that is why I was not exactly overjoyed to see people so angry. By taking power through unfair means, the exco had structured the discourse surrounding AWARE leadership into an "us" versus "them", winner and loser mentality. This isn't just damaging for AWARE, it is damaging to any effort for concerted action--whether between nations, between civil society and the government, or between secular and religious groups. By using manipulative means to take power, by failing to see their lack of integrity and resigning honourably even before the vote of no confidence, by failing to resign immediately after the results of the vote came in, the exco triggered a mode of action which involved othering and retribution towards themselves. The victory speeches by the new exco then were bittersweet, because of the necessity of winning at all, of re-establishing good values on a mode of action and retribution. The honourable thing to do would have been to resign and apologise in order to prevent the downward spiral of reprisals.
Specifically, the church's relations with secular society have gone through a shake-up. As an AWARE founding member said, she was very disappointed in their actions and their "Christian" agenda which had eroded the good faith between the church, AWARE and groups of different religions. She gave the best (and most gracious) three-minute speech, in my opinion. She started in good faith, believing that the ladies of the exco were nice women who meant well--not something that anyone else was able to do with their finger-pointing, shouting and accusations. Yet her point was the most powerful and relevant. Like her, I am disappointed. The church throughout history already has a lot to answer for: the political entanglements of medieval times which resulted in the Crusades, the political entanglements now which resulted in the Iraq War taking on a religious slant. We have to be very careful as to how we approach the sacred/secular divide that was the fallout of religious-political pursuits like the crusades and the witch-hunts. We will continue to have matters to apologise for, I suppose. Learning to impact a society obsessed with and oppressed by discourses of power through an ethic of powerlessness is difficult. After all, we are of the same imperfect substance as the hell-bound that we preach so often about.
Beyond AWARE
The challenge for the church in getting involved with politics and secular social movements is to build a common platform for social progress, not to ensure that the church's perspective on issues of gay rights or abortion supercede that of other groups in society. There is a difference. The church should continue to represent what it believes is the best way of social progress, but our duty is to represent, to be witnesses, not to be law enforcers and winners of the global gameshow by trumping others and proving that God is right through loud (sometimes not even clever) arguments and power plays.
In any case, the church's first duty is to God and therefore to high standards of integrity when committing to actions to relieve suffering. Too often, God's agenda for the welfare of mankind is hijacked to justify verbal abuse, alienation or unethical actions. How different is that from suicide bombers who kill in the name of Islam? The Bible's standards are clear, and very high. To call another "fool," to hate another, is the same as committing murder in one's heart. Perhaps the visible consequences are drastically different--people don't die from being hated. But Jesus' point is that the degree of guilt is the same. Whether personal or political, big or small, hidden or known, there is no difference in the degree of badness that goes into words and actions that violate the individual. What a high standard that is. No wonder God won't let anyone into heaven on their own terms. Our standards are a little too low.
All too often we Christians suffer from this world domination mentality, because we are people of one truth, like the Jews and the Muslims. Yet between that one truth and the first good action that arises from believing in it is a chasm filled with misperception, the limits of human judgment, hypocrisy and such-like. We see as through a glass darkly. That phrase has always expressed for me the idea that human perception can never see truth in its entirety. Life on this side of eternity is composed of fragmented perceptions and unstable interpretations (maybe I will write on the Christian view of human access to truth after I read up on theology and philosophy, but for now let's just leave it at this). If we really believe that Christ is God and coming back to judge the world, then who are we to set ourselves up as arbitrators and judges of the world's morality? Or to think that we have all the answers? We think that God has all the answers. That's a different ethic altogether.
There. Now I can look back at what I've written and know the potential that I have to mess things up if I forget that truth and perspective are different things. That was what was bothering me. What if I am living by a "failed paradigm," in the words of an acquaintance? What's also bothering me--but only slightly--is the list of assertions I have just made. Been hanging around too many philo friends, maybe. But then this isn't an argument. Just a series of reflections on conclusions I have already drawn for myself, or which, one might say, were drawn for me by my religion. Being raised a Christian, and having accepted Christ as a child, I only knew that I had been saved. One does not necessarily know what one has been saved from, and if one doesn't know, then what does one really believe in? A set of religious principles to live a good life? Or a God who has saved me from an eternity of recursive reasoning that cannot escape the condition of guilt? Dishonour descends upon one's shoulders, and who will take it away from you?* I will spend my entire life thinking backwards, I suppose, in order to work out my salvation. I guess that's why I like questions from non-Christian friends on Christianity and faith. They're always interesting to consider.
___________
* from Diary of a Bad Year by J.M Coetzee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)