Wow....I learnt a new phrase today - "militant secularism".
Prof Thio's speech in parliament was report in today's TODAY:
Prof Thio argued: “Secular fundamentalists are oppressive where they seek to mute religiously-informed convictions in public debate.” They do so “by demonising a view as religious in attempting to make religious faith a cause for embarrassment, or to distract citizens from the merits of an argument by discounting a speaker whose values are shaped by a religious” faith. Such militant secularism is “a recipe for social disharmony”, she added.
Actually, she's right. The environment for public discourse at the moment seems to me, a little lop-sided. One one hand, views based on religious convictions are easily demonized and discounted because of the religious affiliations of the proponent, while the opponent camp is relatively free to scream foul at every turn of the debate. I can understand and accept this if the secular voices are un-organized and free roaming, but if the secular views are part of an orchestrated chorus, shouldn't they be subject to the same criticisms and scrutinies levied against religious groups? I mean, isn't organized secularism just another religion?
I have raised this issue previously, independently of Prof Thio (whom I am not acquainted with at all), but it appears that she is voicing similar reservations that I had.
5 years ago