Christian Army Officers association
-
I will like to divert a little by sharing my experience.
When I was a cadet, the OCS Comd like to have this Comd's parade which will be held monthly and followed by his speech. Due to training schedule, I had (fortunately) attended only 2 times, but they were quite terrible experience because the Comd, after introducing that he has a theology certificate (sorry don't know what qualification is that called), went on to give his supposedly inspiring talk on leadership quoting examples from the Bible. I'm really fine with listening to sermon as I had been to church before, but out of 'respect', sitting there for around an hour and the forbid of visiting the washroom surely had 'impressed' us with all the God-loving talk.
And then came the Christmas where we were treated with ham and log cake, and the Comd went on explaining the usual Christmas-is-not-about-Santa-but-Christ-the-Saviour, etc. There was even a carolling performance given by a group from a church somewhere. I was naive enough to think that it was quite cool to have speech and performance like that. But it ain't happening when comes Vesak or Hari Raya Puasa. They were treated like any other normal PHs.
Is this tacit support? I don't know.
As a buddhist, when comes to the monthly PC interview, I used whatever limited knowledge I know from Buddhism to advise and counsel my men who had problems with no intention of evangelising or converting them.
From an individual's position, it's how we want to use our positions to influence others positively and constructively.
I would have surely hope that there will not be an official recognition of any religious group in the Army. Let's just keep it secular.
-
Hi yamizi-- That is not tacit support but outright abuse of his position and authority in order to push his religious ideology onto others. This is exactly what I suspect has happened, and it brings me no joy to see my suspicions confirmed.
I would have to say that ALL or almost all evangelisation within the military is wrong-- mainly because the military is a strongly hierachal environment where it would be easy to abuse one's position for the 'good' cause of spreading the message.
I am very sorry that you had to go through that-- given your position at that time I could see that it would be nearly impossible to raise any concerns. I am glad that your recognised that it was inappropriate.
Maybe this thread will raise the interest of the people from SIB and they could look into it (if they haven't already :P)
-
so wats next?
cookhouse tables segregated according to race, religion, skin colours, etc?
-
Now I would not say all evangelism is wrong in the military. Evangelism is not and should not be forced imposition of religious belief on other people. We should only evangelise if people are willing to be evangelised to.
What is wrong is abusing position in the leadership hierarchy to turn events into evangelical ones. The Forces and the Church are SEPERATE. Keep evangelism to a strictly personal level and it should be fine. It should not be that we make an outreach out of the SAFTI Dining Hall.
On another note, perhaps only mostly Christians are actively trying to evangelise. Note that this is a crucial aspect of their faith. It is, in fact, a command by Jesus to "Go forth and make disciples of all nations."
And another thing. They only attempt to seperate cookhouse tables if the commander of a certain unit hates a certain group of other religious affliation and wants them isolated. Now Christians aren't supposed to hate their neighbour, right?
Again, notify me if this offends you.
-
Originally posted by ixidor:
they organise crusade against JI and mas selamat
Such irresponsible and flippant remarks are extremely unhelpful and can get you into serious trouble. I strongly advise those who believe that because they're "just" posting on the net, they can mouth off or babble extremist or unsubstantiated things irresponsibly "for fun", many times things they don't even mean, to think twice.
The last time such people did such things on a blog, they went to jail.
More than protecting yourself by refraining from making such actions, it also prevents irresponsible remarks one makes from hurting the feelings of people involved, or sabotaging genuine causes. We're all humans. Let's live through life like it counts.
-
Originally posted by lam_sheng_hong:
Now I would not say all evangelism is wrong in the military. Evangelism is not and should not be forced imposition of religious belief on other people. We should only evangelise if people are willing to be evangelised to.
What is wrong is abusing position in the leadership hierarchy to turn events into evangelical ones. The Forces and the Church are SEPERATE. Keep evangelism to a strictly personal level and it should be fine. It should not be that we make an outreach out of the SAFTI Dining Hall.
On another note, perhaps only mostly Christians are actively trying to evangelise. Note that this is a crucial aspect of their faith. It is, in fact, a command by Jesus to "Go forth and make disciples of all nations."
And another thing. They only attempt to seperate cookhouse tables if the commander of a certain unit hates a certain group of other religious affliation and wants them isolated. Now Christians aren't supposed to hate their neighbour, right?
Again, notify me if this offends you.
I don't think the association seeks to evangelise.
Christians know that many non Christians have this beef against them for supposedly evangelising, and most of the Christians I know do NOT evangelise (no time and can't be bothered).
An association is formed for the betterment and unification of the PEOPLE IN IT. This is the case for almost all associations in the world. And in this example, the MCF also clearly stated that its primary objective is to provide a spiritual MINISTRY for Christian believers in the force.
There are Christian ministries in other armies too, and in the US army alone, there are hundreds. This one is not unique.
All non Christians should only worry if any of its activities affect people OUTSIDE of the association, aka NON Christians in the SAF.
As clearly can be seen, the association's circle of influence is limited to its members aka Christians in the SAF who wish to join it.
I have pasted each of the missions that the MCF officially declares. I will go through each one and if you can find anything to defend your views from mine, pls go ahead.
- To maintain a Christian Fellowship among Christian servicemen and servicewomen in the Armed Forces for worship, witness and service.
- To foster national consciousness and maintain a moral standard among the service personnel through the applications of the principles and ideals of the Christian faith (AMONG ITS MEMBERS).
- To provide a spiritual ministry to servicemen and women in time of military actions for national defence. (Original: To provide counselling to the servicemen and servicewomen).
To maintain a Christian fellowship is to provide Christians in the SAF a platform where they can exchange views and garner spiritual support in a Christian brotherly way. Christians interact with everyone with love, but with other Christians, there exists a Christian fellowship, which is how the term "brother in Christ" comes about. The platform serves to provide this fellowship, and this platform could just as well exist in any other organisation.
Principles and ideals of the Christian faith are applicable to every day life of Christians (whether it's soldier, janitor, housewife, president). And this "everyday life" encompasses work, family, relationships, etc. The association does not exhort its members to evangelise, and clearly if you didnt even know about it until this thread came up, it shows how low profile it is. If its members have gone around evangelising aggressively, as often is the accusation against Christians, how could this association have escaped from the radar of so many people?
In fact your allegation was that the association abuses the SAF HIERARCHY of rank to evangelise?!?! That is a very serious charge and I seriously ask you to retract that false allegation with an apology, when you mouthed that off out of nowhere with no substantiating proof.
If you want to have an idea of how the assocation APPLIES the principles and ideals of the Christian faith, you can read it on "Onward Soldiers Magazine" click on issue June 2006, that issue was dedicated to the life of COL Bernard Tan Cheow Han, who collapsed and died during an Army Biathlon run. He was then ACGS Per, and in an eulogy written by COL (Now BG Tan Chuan Jin), BG Tan wrote about how COL Tan exemplied the life of a Christian man in his daily living, both at work (The way he loved his soldiers, his dedication to the nation), and at home (how much he loved his family). http://www.mcf.org.sg/jun2006_01.html
Spiritual ministry in times of military action simply means providing a counselling and support platform during times of conflict. Being in the military means having to take certain actions or make certain decisions that are necessary for the force and country (even during peace time), but stir certain feelings in you that require spiritual counselling.
There is no witch hunt, crusade, scary propaganda which was all what you had imagined in your mind.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Divisive? Whats so divisive about an association? Every officer regards himself as an officer of the SAF, not of a Christian Army Officers Association.
You got it spot on. All officers in the association see themselves as SAF officers, and also Christians.
They relate to other Christians in the military through the association on matters of spiritual support and ministry, but do not see themselves as anything other than SAF officers in their day to day work and when all's said and done.
Saying that one cannot have an association that is religion-based in the armed forces, is as unconstitutional as saying, because I'm Chinese, I cannot join a Chinese Christian Association. Why? Because the govt (or rather YOU people) claims it may make me see myself as less Chinese than I would have, or cause divisiveness. I may end up only pledging allegiance to OTHER Christian Chinese, and not other Chinese. In that case, why don't we spread this wider, and make it more ridiculous? All Singaporeans cannot join assocations of individual race. Eg Chinese Singaporean Association, SINDA. Why? Cos it may make us identify ourselves by Chinese Singaporean, and not Singaporean, and cause divisiveness.
Basically, this is how ridiculous it is when anyone says a Christian assocation within any form of organisation causes divisiveness. unless of cos you think that the Singapore constitution of nationality is less sacred than any other.
-
Originally posted by yamizi:
I will like to divert a little by sharing my experience.
When I was a cadet, the OCS Comd like to have this Comd's parade which will be held monthly and followed by his speech. Due to training schedule, I had (fortunately) attended only 2 times, but they were quite terrible experience because the Comd, after introducing that he has a theology certificate (sorry don't know what qualification is that called), went on to give his supposedly inspiring talk on leadership quoting examples from the Bible. I'm really fine with listening to sermon as I had been to church before, but out of 'respect', sitting there for around an hour and the forbid of visiting the washroom surely had 'impressed' us with all the God-loving talk.
And then came the Christmas where we were treated with ham and log cake, and the Comd went on explaining the usual Christmas-is-not-about-Santa-but-Christ-the-Saviour, etc. There was even a carolling performance given by a group from a church somewhere. I was naive enough to think that it was quite cool to have speech and performance like that. But it ain't happening when comes Vesak or Hari Raya Puasa. They were treated like any other normal PHs.
Is this tacit support? I don't know.
As a buddhist, when comes to the monthly PC interview, I used whatever limited knowledge I know from Buddhism to advise and counsel my men who had problems with no intention of evangelising or converting them.
From an individual's position, it's how we want to use our positions to influence others positively and constructively.
I would have surely hope that there will not be an official recognition of any religious group in the Army. Let's just keep it secular.
Your experience was not caused by the MCF. I hope you can get that clear in your post. Your experience happened, because of ONE person. Your OCS Comd. Not the MCF.
As you said yourself, you used whatever knowledge you gleaned from your own religion to counsel your men. Isn't that your own way of spiritual influence, even if it's not intentional? Yes you stated that you had no intention of evangelising. And I believe you. But that does not mean that your advice was not religion-tainted, REGARDLESS of your intentions.
Next, if you could unwittingly and quite casually give religion-biased counsel to your men, and that is in effect, causing spiritual influence OUTSIDE of your circle of buddhists, don't you think an association that officially LIMITS its influence to WITHIN its circle of members, aka its members (to provide ministry to its own members) is much less harmful than something that is done so frequently, easily and casually by people throughout the SAF?!
-
Originally posted by edwin3060:
Given the sensitive race and religion issues that may well be the crux of any conflict in South East Asia, such a group would be extremely unwise, to say the least. Even in a more homogeneous (religiously speaking, at least) military like the US Army, the issue of religion, and evangelical Christianity in particular, is a perpetual bugbear, with non-Christians being ostracised. In Singapore, the situation would be even worse. For reasons such as these, there should never be any official recognition or support for such an organisation.
Still, what people do in their private time is their own business, within limits. Such an organisation, privately founded and privately run, would be hard to argue against unless there could be demonstrable proof that it was detrimental to the interests of the military. I hope the leaders of this organisation are aware of the dangers that the organisation poses to the stability of the military and society as a whole, and always tread tactfully. In my personal experience, anybody who tries to promote a religion will definitely step on other peoples toes. Given the big hoo-hah about Christian nurses trying to convert patients one or two years back, any attempt to bring the works of these organisation into military life would be heavily frowned upon, as it would undermine the ideals of our military, and our society as a whole.
Shotgun: Would you have the same reaction if you heard that there was a Muslim Army Officers Association? Obviously not right? For this very reason I don't think that a Christian Army Officers Association is a good idea, but as has been mentioned, if these officers are discreet about it and form an association in their private time, so be it.
I disagree strongly with your statement about 'melding the interests of religion and the military'. In a multi-religious society like ours, there is no way that religion can be brought into the military, regardless of the numerous historical and present day precedents, which, I might mention, happen in more religiously homogeneous populations. The stance of the SAF therefore is that religion is your own private business, and, given the circumstances we are in, this is the best stance to take in my opinion.
I found on the net more than a dozen US Army Christian soldiers associations. They seek to provide fellowship for Christian soldiers who are at the war and even during peace time.
I hope you can also prove your allegation "dangers that the organisation poses to the stability of the military and society as a whole".
The assocation has never evanglised, so I hope you can prove to me how providing spiritual fellowship for its own members, can cause "dangers that the organisation poses to the stability of the military and society as a whole".
I had no idea that a subset fellowship WITHIN a bigger organisation can cause "danger to the whole organisation".
That is a very communist/marxist ideology really. The first thing the Mao govt did was to turn the whole nation into a marxist state, and no Chinese was allowed to have a religion or refer to him/herself as anything other than a member of the Chinese Communist Government. Temples, statues of guan yin, universities and university students were razed to the ground by fire and burnt.
Ironically, the ethos that are being espoused in this thread from the reaction to a group within a large organisation are the very values of unconstitution and anti human rights. When such accusations are normally charged against the religious. Hahaha!
-
Originally posted by RoyFang:
So you will find it okay if atheist or agnostic servicemen form a SAF Atheism Association or Agnostism Association and encourage others to join them/convert them?
Please prove to me that the MCF has ever tried to convert a non member. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by yamizi:
I will like to divert a little by sharing my experience.
When I was a cadet, the OCS Comd like to have this Comd's parade which will be held monthly and followed by his speech. Due to training schedule, I had (fortunately) attended only 2 times, but they were quite terrible experience because the Comd, after introducing that he has a theology certificate (sorry don't know what qualification is that called), went on to give his supposedly inspiring talk on leadership quoting examples from the Bible. I'm really fine with listening to sermon as I had been to church before, but out of 'respect', sitting there for around an hour and the forbid of visiting the washroom surely had 'impressed' us with all the God-loving talk.
And then came the Christmas where we were treated with ham and log cake, and the Comd went on explaining the usual Christmas-is-not-about-Santa-but-Christ-the-Saviour, etc. There was even a carolling performance given by a group from a church somewhere. I was naive enough to think that it was quite cool to have speech and performance like that. But it ain't happening when comes Vesak or Hari Raya Puasa. They were treated like any other normal PHs.
Is this tacit support? I don't know.
As a buddhist, when comes to the monthly PC interview, I used whatever limited knowledge I know from Buddhism to advise and counsel my men who had problems with no intention of evangelising or converting them.
From an individual's position, it's how we want to use our positions to influence others positively and constructively.
I would have surely hope that there will not be an official recognition of any religious group in the Army. Let's just keep it secular.
You can counsel your men using Buddhist principles without giving the appearance of propogating Buddhism, because Buddhism's teachings is grounded in experience and wisdom... i.e. you can give your advice as they are and not have to phrase the advice by quoting from some Buddhist religious texts.
I wish I have you as my PC... back in my NS days I have the misfortune to serve under a Christian platoon commander who showed unrestrained favouritism to my other Christian platoon mates. The 1 year or so under him was the worst period of my NS days. Thankfully, he was posted out after Ex Starlight and the replacement PC is a far better officer interms of his command style, leadership, personality and irreligious behaviour.
In the case of the MCF, I happen to think that this organization will not significantly detract from the cohesiveness of the SAF because (1) It has not been given due recognition by the authorities, (2) It is quite obscure. It has been around since the 70s but I only get to hear of it now, and (3) Its web front does not give any indication that it is affiliated to the SAF or other government body. Under the circumstances, the MCF appear to be nothing more than an informal congregation of SAF personnel united by a common faith. Having said that I remain concerned that SAF resources is being misused to serve MCF's agenda.
I remain firmly opposed to the SAF giving tacit or official support and recognition to any religious military subgroups.
-
Man, I wasn't referring to MCF in that last post. I was responding to edwin3060's post before mine. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
He was saying that "I would have to say that ALL or almost all evangelisation within the military is wrong-- mainly because the military is a strongly hierachal environment where it would be easy to abuse one's position for the 'good' cause of spreading the message."
and so I was referring to this statement to make that post.
Well, MCF AFAIK does not actively evangelise, but it used to produce tracts (you know, those little booklets they hand out on the streets), dunno whether they still do.
Hope that clears things up a bit.
-
Originally posted by Beyond Religion:
Yes indeed. This issue has already caused a difference of opinion in this small community of SG forumners. If such military religious organizations are allowed to prevail there is no telling what kind of divide and damage it can cause.
On a separate note I wish to highlight another point; it does not matter whether organizations like MCF is for fellowship of evangelical purposes. Its very existence (especially if endorsed or recognized by the SAF itself) will compromise the cohesiveness of SAF as a fighting organization.
Let me draw an analogy from the accounting profession. We all know that reporting accountants must be independent and objective in their conduct. Hence, the code of ethical conduct for many professional accounting bodies will require its members to “…be, and be seen to be, free of any interest which is incompatible with objectivity and independence.” (Acid test: Would you believe a reporting accountant if he certifies that the Renci hospital is free of any financial and accounting irregularities, if the said accountant is also a student of Ven. Shi Ming Yi?) Likewise, the existence of military-religious organizations (regardless of their mandate) can be seen as compromising the secularity of the SAF, and by extension, our secular government.
Your accounting analogy is 100% irrelevant to this issue. Because it is totally off-base.
In your analogy, the accountant is tasked to audit another party (external). So any link between internal A to external B, will affect the credibility of A when he's appraising B. A scenario that is correctly analogous would be a pageant judge (internal A) having links with external B (a contestant). eg one of the judges is the husband of one of the contestants. Clearly this is ridiculous and everyone knows internal A has vested interest with external B.
There is nothing analogous with this scenario with having a group within a larger organisation. please explain further how a society within the SAF for some of its personnels can compromise the secularity of SAF. In that case, should we make all regulars robots? They should not have any hobbies, be of any race, have any non military friends.
Please note that human beings are multi facted and multi dimensional. We're not robots. Someone is a husband, a father, a son, a soldier, an officer, a boss, a Christian/Muslim/Taoist, all at once. Having a fellowship within his company (and in this case his company happens to be SAF) that is religious in nature is not going to turn the person into a religious renegade.
-
Originally posted by Beyond Religion:
You can counsel your men using Buddhist principles without giving the appearance of propogating Buddhism, because Buddhism's teachings is grounded in experience and wisdom... i.e. you can give your advice as they are and not have to phrase the advice by quoting from some Buddhist religious texts.
I wish I have you as my PC... back in my NS days I have the misfortune to serve under a Christian platoon commander who showed unrestrained favouritism to my other Christian platoon mates. The 1 year or so under him was the worst period of my NS days. Thankfully, he was posted out after Ex Starlight and the replacement PC is a far better officer interms of his command style, leadership, personality and irreligious behaviour.
In the case of the MCF, I happen to think that this organization will not significantly detract from the cohesiveness of the SAF because (1) It has not been given due recognition by the authorities, (2) It is quite obscure. It has been around since the 70s but I only get to hear of it now, and (3) Its web front does not give any indication that it is affiliated to the SAF or other government body. Under the circumstances, the MCF appear to be nothing more than an informal congregation of SAF personnel united by a common faith. Having said that I remain concerned that SAF resources is being misused to serve MCF's agenda.
I remain firmly opposed to the SAF giving tacit or official support and recognition to any religious military subgroups.
How do you know anything about Christian teachings when you are not a Christian? Christian teachings are most susceptible to misconception by non Christians because of the misunderstandings conveyed by pop culture - of which Christianity is most closely linked due to western culture.
Your claim that buddhist teachings are grounded in "wisdom and experience" already prove your bias in this argument and also portends your ignorance of Christian teachings. Morever as a NON Christian, how do you know how Christian teachings can be conveyed or its "limitations", or even so don't you think it's ridiculous you're saying that as though you KNOW for a fact how ALL CHRISTIANS in this world (all 2.1 billion of us) could influence their speech to others with Christian teachings? I mean, if someone died and made you God, then perhaps you can come back to discussion with some credibility.
-
Originally posted by cookiecookie:
There is nothing analogous with this scenario with having a group within a larger organisation. please explain further how a society within the SAF for some of its personnels can compromise the secularity of SAF. In that case, should we make all regulars robots? They should not have any hobbies, be of any race, have any non military friends.
I did not ever say that I expect military personnel to not have any hobbies etc. etc. They are free to do what they want in their spare time, including forming informal worship groups with fellow soldiers. What I take issue is for the SAF to give tacit support to such groups.
Different religions are inherently irreconcilable. Yes, we may emphasize their common points but in essence, they are very different. Eg. Christainity and Buddhism's common teachings is to be "good" etc. But the respective religions are more than just being 'good'. In Christianity you have to accept the Christian God in addition to being 'good' (I was told you still won't go to heaven just by being 'good'). In Buddhism, being 'good' is nice but the true objective of a Buddhist is enlightenment and be awake to the 'truth' (including a certain truth that the is no God in Buddhist belief). I could go on about Islam too but I hope you get my point. Add in the historical/ cultural elements attached to each religion and you see why wars are fought in the name of religion.
We live in a multi-racial/ multicultural society run by a secular government. The SAF is an arm of that government. If the SAF starts allowing religious subgroups within its hierarchy, it will amplify an awareness of "us" against "them" even within the SAF. It will detract from the feeling that "We are SAF soldiers" replace it with "We are Christian/ Muslim/ Buddhist SAF solders".
The soldiers are free to practice their respective faith of course. They can form informal groups as long as the SAF makes it clear that it does not recognize such groups (much like the MCF).
-
Originally posted by cookiecookie:
How do you know anything about Christian teachings when you are not a Christian? Christian teachings are most susceptible to misconception by non Christians because of the misunderstandings conveyed by pop culture - of which Christianity is most closely linked due to western culture.
Your claim that buddhist teachings are grounded in "wisdom and experience" already prove your bias in this argument and also portends your ignorance of Christian teachings. Morever as a NON Christian, how do you know how Christian teachings can be conveyed or its "limitations", or even so don't you think it's ridiculous you're saying that as though you KNOW for a fact how ALL CHRISTIANS in this world (all 2.1 billion of us) could influence their speech to others with Christian teachings? I mean, if someone died and made you God, then perhaps you can come back to discussion with some credibility.
I might ask how well do Christians themselves know about Christian teachings? Can Christians agree among themselves unequivocally on all teachings of Christianity? Look at the number of churches and denominations. Look at the numerous different versions of Christian teachings; propriety of gay issues, heaven vs. hell, Methodist vs. Catholics etc.
Have I remarked about the "limitations" of Christian teachings in my post? Have I criticized Christianity? Have I even referred to Christianity in my post? I am merely stating my observation of Buddhist teachings as a Buddhist, and I am responding to a fellow Buddhist no less. Yet you clearly do not like what I say, and I get the impression that you are trying to curb my speech.
Look at the way we disagree with each other here, in this tiny community of SG forumners. We are usually a very cordial lot, but look at us when the element of religion is introduced. If the SAF really endorse religious subgroups among its hierarchy, this tiny disagreement here may get blown out of proportion and seriously affect the SAF’s effectiveness.
-
Originally posted by cookiecookie:
Your experience was not caused by the MCF. I hope you can get that clear in your post. Your experience happened, because of ONE person. Your OCS Comd. Not the MCF.
As you said yourself, you used whatever knowledge you gleaned from your own religion to counsel your men. Isn't that your own way of spiritual influence, even if it's not intentional? Yes you stated that you had no intention of evangelising. And I believe you. But that does not mean that your advice was not religion-tainted, REGARDLESS of your intentions.
Next, if you could unwittingly and quite casually give religion-biased counsel to your men, and that is in effect, causing spiritual influence OUTSIDE of your circle of buddhists, don't you think an association that officially LIMITS its influence to WITHIN its circle of members, aka its members (to provide ministry to its own members) is much less harmful than something that is done so frequently, easily and casually by people throughout the SAF?!
Hey cool it cookie, why sound so work up? I will like to clarify some points:
In no way did I say my experience is contributed by MCF. Rather, I'm trying to say that because of one person, it can have such influence already, let alone if it would be recognise officially by the SAF.
I don't know do you know how buddhist counselling work. The thing in which I speak, generally revolve in analysing the situation that landed my men into trouble. In no where, did I say "pray to this or that Buddha, practice generosity by donating money to print buddhist materials or temples". These would be really religious cultivation.
Rather, I use the logic of kamma - cause, condition and effect, to address my servicemen's issue.
Simple example, newbie to unit for like a month but can't get along. 'cos I got feedback that the guy had an attitude problem. So when doing my PC interview, I went on trying to understand his family background (which I assume would have contribute in certain way that he was then), his friends, etc. Gradually allowing him to explore and realize that it is his own shortcoming (usually the lack of the aptitude to adapt as my unit is really a lot of these Pes C and below who came in) that cause his own trouble.
I don't say things like problems are God's test on men, etc...I don't know how you define the perimeters.
-
I think this not meant to be a theological debate to begin with and lets not end up there.
In a way, what I am indirectly imply and now directly stating is, "There is no avoiding of Religious 'Organizations' in SAF." The servicemen will identify with other servicemen sharing similar religious beliefs. Be they muslim, christians, hindu or buddhist. They face the same struggles of balancing their beliefs and their role as soldiers.
Therefore, if by institutionalising Religious Associations in SAF helps to 'control' (its a bad word to use, but its a bit late for me...) these "organizations", why not? SAF already has the most senior ranking muslim NCO/Officer as the "head" of Muslim affairs in every unit, why not do so for every other religion?
With some clear guidelines in place, and responsible "heads" to mediate and regulate, I see more good out of it than the continuation of this discussion.
-
Originally posted by Beyond Religion:
I did not ever say that I expect military personnel to not have any hobbies etc. etc. They are free to do what they want in their spare time, including forming informal worship groups with fellow soldiers. What I take issue is for the SAF to give tacit support to such groups.
Different religions are inherently irreconcilable. Yes, we may emphasize their common points but in essence, they are very different. Eg. Christainity and Buddhism's common teachings is to be "good" etc. But the respective religions are more than just being 'good'. In Christianity you have to accept the Christian God in addition to being 'good' (I was told you still won't go to heaven just by being 'good'). In Buddhism, being 'good' is nice but the true objective of a Buddhist is enlightenment and be awake to the 'truth' (including a certain truth that the is no God in Buddhist belief). I could go on about Islam too but I hope you get my point. Add in the historical/ cultural elements attached to each religion and you see why wars are fought in the name of religion.
We live in a multi-racial/ multicultural society run by a secular government. The SAF is an arm of that government. If the SAF starts allowing religious subgroups within its hierarchy, it will amplify an awareness of "us" against "them" even within the SAF. It will detract from the feeling that "We are SAF soldiers" replace it with "We are Christian/ Muslim/ Buddhist SAF solders".
The soldiers are free to practice their respective faith of course. They can form informal groups as long as the SAF makes it clear that it does not recognize such groups (much like the MCF).
You are right that religions are irreconciliable, but so what? You are stating A, which is true, and using it to infer B, but you cannot connect the link with evidence.
Does adhering to the respective religious faith cause divisiveness within a common unit? That is unproven, and is the pivot of your argument. only when that is proven can you say that forming sub religious groups within a larger context is harmful to the latter. Please prove that
Also, I have raised the hypothetical analogy of common citizens being deprived of forming their individual racial groups eg SINDA, CDAC. What if going by your UNPROVEN allegation, it corrodes the national identity of us being Singaporean? Yet tell this to parliament today that SINDA and CDAC, all racial or religious groups in Singapore should be banned lest our national identity be eroded, lest we identify ourselves as Singaporean Hindus, instead of Singaporean, or Chinese Singapore instead of Singapore, and see if you will not get laughed away by the members of parliament.
I have disproved your allegation, which was in the first place unproven, but you fail to answer my point.
-
A IS FOR AIRBORNE!
-
China tried that... fat load of good it did them.
Being a part of a religion and being an SAF servicemen are not mutually exclusive events. Hence policies pertaining them don't have to be mutually exclusive. Doing so MIGHT actually serve to cause the "divisions" mentioned. You seperate the events of being a religious person and a soldier, you end up causing more problems.
Hence, the way to go is integrate and reinforce that they are Christians/Hindus/Buddhists/Muslims AND Defenders of Singapore at the same time. That religion and national security are not mutually exclusive.
-
Originally posted by Beyond Religion:
I might ask how well do Christians themselves know about Christian teachings? Can Christians agree among themselves unequivocally on all teachings of Christianity? Look at the number of churches and denominations. Look at the numerous different versions of Christian teachings; propriety of gay issues, heaven vs. hell, Methodist vs. Catholics etc.
Have I remarked about the "limitations" of Christian teachings in my post? Have I criticized Christianity? Have I even referred to Christianity in my post? I am merely stating my observation of Buddhist teachings as a Buddhist, and I am responding to a fellow Buddhist no less. Yet you clearly do not like what I say, and I get the impression that you are trying to curb my speech.
How well Christians themselves today, or the ones you know know about their teachings is completely irrelevant!!! So you're saying that if Christians know their teachings better, this religious group within SAF could be sanctioned? Clearly you're talking about something irrelevant again, for what reason I do not know.
Next, I think non Christians should take a step back before they go around passing judgment about the knowledge of other believers. Who are you to say that you KNOW the extent of Christians and their knowledge? Are you God? Also, do you know ALL Christians? Are you even a theologian, who can then say you have done some kind of conclusive studies on the ACTUAL DIFFERENCES between each denomination? What do you know how the methodist differs from the anglicans? What do you know about the actual compositions of these intricacies? are you claiming that you know MORE about this than actual Christian, when you're NOT a Christian? It appears so to me.
As a Christian I can safely tell you that the charge of different denominations under the umbrella of Protestantism is a well-loved target board used by many non Christians. But it's really as futile and baseless as anyone making statements from the outside, with no knowledge of what goes on within. Until you know the DIFFERENCES between each denomination, you cannot know the extent of their SIMILARITIES. Logical? ALL Protestant denominations believe that Christ is the only way to eternal life, and are bounded by common principles about 1) original sin 2) Christ 3) Grace.
The differences between the mainline denominations (please note that there are denominations that are not mainline, which exist but are not recognised), are limited to practices of service (how solemn or not solemn) and other superficial differences mostly not pertaining to scriptures. Some denominations quibble about the necessity of baptism for salvation, but none of the disputes are about the core and heart of the common principles of Christianity. ALL Christian mainline denominations are against homosexuality and view it as a sin. Those that claim otherwise are considered by mainline denominations to be cults eg Safehaven.
You didn't literally remark the word "limitations" but you inferred it under no question. You made the point that buddhist teachings are about "wisdom and experience", which makes it more sanctioned and more orthordox for the person I quoted yamizi who confessed that as a PC, used his buddhist knowledge to counsel his men. There's no need to deny that that was your point.
1) I told yamizi that even if he had no intentions, he used his knowledge gleaned from buddhism to counsel his men, that is in effect extending his spiritual influence, even if unintentionally, on them.
2) YOU in turn replied this "You can counsel your men using Buddhist principles without giving the appearance of propogating Buddhism, because Buddhism's teachings is grounded in experience and wisdom... i.e. you can give your advice as they are and not have to phrase the advice by quoting from some Buddhist religious texts."
3) So isn't it clear that you're saying that if the PC in question was a Christian, he cannot do the same, use Christian principles without "giving the appearance of propagating Christianity"? I'm not 12 yrs old you know? What you meant to say was so clear to everyone, I don't even know why you're bothering to deny it now. Stand by your statement lah if you have the gumption to make it. Clearly, you're saying that buddhism principles allow for this, but Christian principles don't. So that's a limitation on Christian principles. Why isn't that inaccurate? Something poses as a limitation, when it causes something else an impediment to present itself in one way that ANOTHER thing when compared to, can without impediment. That is the meaning of LIMITATION.
So why isn't my question to you valid, on what do you know about Christian principles and teachings for you to make such a comparison, for you to conclude that only a buddhist PC in that situation can do so and so, and a Christian PC wouldn't be able to due to Christian principles? If you could make such a comparison, I would like you to back up your knowledge on Christianity so your comparison is an educated one.
I'm not trying to curb your speech, contrary to your claim. I'm asking you to back up your statements.
-
Originally posted by yamizi:
Hey cool it cookie, why sound so work up? I will like to clarify some points:
In no way did I say my experience is contributed by MCF. Rather, I'm trying to say that because of one person, it can have such influence already, let alone if it would be recognise officially by the SAF.
I don't know do you know how buddhist counselling work. The thing in which I speak, generally revolve in analysing the situation that landed my men into trouble. In no where, did I say "pray to this or that Buddha, practice generosity by donating money to print buddhist materials or temples". These would be really religious cultivation.
Rather, I use the logic of kamma - cause, condition and effect, to address my servicemen's issue.
Simple example, newbie to unit for like a month but can't get along. 'cos I got feedback that the guy had an attitude problem. So when doing my PC interview, I went on trying to understand his family background (which I assume would have contribute in certain way that he was then), his friends, etc. Gradually allowing him to explore and realize that it is his own shortcoming (usually the lack of the aptitude to adapt as my unit is really a lot of these Pes C and below who came in) that cause his own trouble.
I don't say things like problems are God's test on men, etc...I don't know how you define the perimeters.
Cause and effects are also natural laws that atheists believe in. So this example is not a good example of an exclusively buddhism teaching in practice.
There are teachings in Buddhism that is exclusively in the realm of Buddhism and not under the subset of natural laws. eg Attainment of nirvana so this clearly disputes Beyond Religion's claim that Buddhism teachings are all grounded on worldly "wisdom" and what not, and none of its principles are exclusively religious.
Conversely in this example you raised, a Christian PC may tell his charge to forgive his enemies and offer his other cheek. This is part of Christian teachings and are not exclusively Christian. So please Beyond Religious, back up your claims about what you claim to know about Christian teachings for you to make that juxtaposition about Christian and buddhist teachings.
-
Originally posted by cookiecookie:
Cause and effects are also natural laws that atheists believe in. So this example is not a good example of an exclusively buddhism teaching in practice.
There are teachings in Buddhism that is exclusively in the realm of Buddhism and not under the subset of natural laws. eg Attainment of nirvana so this clearly disputes Beyond Religion's claim that Buddhism teachings are all grounded on worldly "wisdom" and what not, and none of its principles are exclusively religious.
Conversely in this example you raised, a Christian PC may tell his charge to forgive his enemies and offer his other cheek. This is part of Christian teachings and are not exclusively Christian. So please Beyond Religious, back up your claims about what you claim to know about Christian teachings for you to make that juxtaposition about Christian and buddhist teachings.
Attainment of Nirvana is part of natural laws. Buddhism encompass both worldly and supra-mundane wisdom. Supra-mundane doesn't mean that it is not natural. It is a perception that one has to realise for that it's these truth and principles that are behind running this threadmill producing the phenomenon that we are observed. And these truth and principles are part of natural law, like impermanance, emptiness, etc. It is our experience and realisation that enable us to attain Nirvana. Nirvana is not a place where people go to after death. Nirvana is the very here and now that anyone can realise. Both worldy and supra-mundane wisdom are like the feet of a human. One cannot has a complete experience if there is an absence of the other.
However, I think this thread is not meant to discuss on doctrinal issues but on the topic of religious group in the SAF.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
China tried that... fat load of good it did them.
Being a part of a religion and being an SAF servicemen are not mutually exclusive events. Hence policies pertaining them don't have to be mutually exclusive. Doing so MIGHT actually serve to cause the "divisions" mentioned. You seperate the events of being a religious person and a soldier, you end up causing more problems.
Hence, the way to go is integrate and reinforce that they are Christians/Hindus/Buddhists/Muslims AND Defenders of Singapore at the same time. That religion and national security are not mutually exclusive.
Nobody is disputing that. Nobody is suggesting that an SAF soldier cannot be religious. I am all for SAF personnel joining their own religious organizations. I am just against the SAF recognizing these religious-military organizations. I already mention that I am fine with organizations like MCF.