« Wall Street Journal Asia Publisher Fined In Singapore | HomePage | Wall Street Journal Asia unjustly found in contempt of court and fined »
26/11/2008
DBS: Don't Support Focus on the Family
Listen to this article
From Glass Castle
(Via Sayoni.) DBS has pledged to give money to Christian evangelical group Focus on the Family (FOTF) whenever someone spends $300 on a DBS card at The Cathay, Cathay Cineleisure Orchard, Great World City and Tanglin Mall: see their website for details of the promotion.
The website for the Singapore branch of FOTF is not explicit about the evangelical character of the organisation, but it describes itself as founded by Dr. James Dobson (who heads the American chapter) and as part of the international Focus on the Family group. The website for the American FOTF is less coy. It states that “Focus on the Family's primary reason for existence is to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ through a practical outreach to homes”.
Some of the activities of FOTF include:
Spreading disinformation about health. The American FOTF supports “abstinence-only” sex education, which discourages condom use. This has been shown to be ineffective in its stated aims and in some places in the world, like Uganda, has contributed to the spread of HIV by hindering the spread of accurate information about the use of contraceptives.
Limiting women’s reproductive health choices. The American FOTF also campaigns for the disastrous “Global Gag Rule” which ties American assistance to health NGOs to conditons (the NGOs must not perform abortions except in cases of rape, incest or danger to a woman’s life, provide counselling or referrals to abortion services, or lobby for access to abortion: even if these activities are funded by other sources). In countries like Kenya this has jeopardised contraceptive supplies and HIV prevention education, and in the Dominican Republic it has impeded much-needed reforms which would reduce deaths from illegal abortions.
Promoting homophobia. FOTF in Singapore promoted the activities of Liberty League, which describes queer sexuality with terms like “sexual brokenness” and “addiction and abuse”.
DBS has a diverse customer base and a diverse workforce, which include people of varying religions and sexualities. Should they be making donations to a divisive and discriminatory organisation such as FOTF, on behalf of their customers?
If you think not, and especially if you are a customer, please contact them by phone, website or mail. Let them know what FOTF represents and if you are considering moving your business away from them, make sure they are aware of that as well.
Please share with us any responses that you receive.
12:36 Posted by soci | Permalink | Comments (21) | Trackbacks (0) | Email this | Tags: singapore, christian right, dbs, gay right
Trackbacks
The URL to Trackback this post is: http://singabloodypore.rsfblog.org/trackback/1633504
Comments
FOTF is a registered charitable organisation, and so what if its takes the philosophy of established biblical principles as oppose to secular ones.
Their doing alot of good work to make Singapore a good place. Gays hate the Church because the Chrch disapproves of their lifestyle. The Church however, still loves gays because he Bible tells us we're all Gods children. lets face it for a long time, this "greek vice" only breeds homophobia and bible phobia, and vice versa. But I'm sure two ideologies can exist together right? Like a two party political system? HARMONIOUS EQUILIBRIUM IN Dialectics. Every ones free to choose. FOTF is informing, educating, helping, lending a listening ear, not forcing. Only God can change an individuals heart, not FOTF.
"1 Corinthians 1:18
For the story and message of the cross is sheer absurdity and folly to those who are perishing and on their way to perdition, but to us who are being saved it is the [manifestation of] the power of God."
Posted by: Rajwin | 26/11/2008
Rajwin, as far as I am concerned. FOTF can do whatever it wants. What I object to is DBS using money 'made' off my banking with them and donating it to FOTF.
And how/why did you get sidetracked into your long why 'Gays hate the Church' spiel?
You are the one (like FOTF) obsessed with homosexuality and that says more about both you and them than about this protest against DBS using 'our' money to generate a donation we object to.
Are you saying a secular banking institution like DBS should also adopt 'the philosophy of established biblical principles as oppose (sic) to secular ones'?
Posted by: Ovidia | 27/11/2008
Huh?
Rajwin how did you get sidetracked into such a long spiel on 'Gays hate the church' etc? (btw I may hate FOTF but I certainly do not hate the church. The church is what gives me strength & support against the Scribes & Pharisees in that whited sepulchre called FOTF)
You sound as obsessed with homosexuality as the FOTF people are, which says more about you than anything else.
The problem here is: DBS, a secular banking institution is donating money profits made off the savings of people who object to FOTF to FOTF.
FOTF is free to do & believe whatever they want.
DBS should either consider the feelings of people banking with them or lose them as clients.
Surely you're not claiming it's right that DBS should take 'the philosophy of established biblical principles as opposed to secular ones'?
Maybe you should go back to your bible and remind yourself of the biblical principle 'render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's'
Posted by: Ovidia | 27/11/2008
(Sorry for the double post. I thought first was a preview--admin, please help delete!!!)
Posted by: Ovidia | 27/11/2008
What I meant by 'Church' was the whole universal ecclesial body, and its agencies, including its doctrines, and its ethos. Well, I apologise if I was too general in my previous post. The stand of the Church on homosexuality can be found in Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination." This is why FOTF runs its establishment on its ethos that homosexuality is as such that it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. FOTF cherishes the functional family unit in Singapore, and they deserve all the charity the hearts of Singaporeans can give.
And I am claiming that it is the right of DBS to give money to FOTF, just as it is right for anyone to give money to Anglo-Chinese Methodist Schools, St Andrews Anglican Schools, Catholic Schools and whatever agency regardless of Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Sikh to helping Singapore society to be a less bloody place. To help the people. Alot of charitable organisations have religous backgrounds no harm helping.
In saying this, I also must say that the Church is not homophobic. Homosexual Christians are still the Brothers and Sisters of heterosexual Christians. It is the faith of the Christians that the power of the Word of God will change them to be more like Christ.
Christ said 'render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's' in the context of being obedient to the Law of the Land.
Former President Yusof Ishak's face is on our money shall we give our money to him?
Posted by: Rajwin Singh Sandhu | 27/11/2008
Hi Rajwin,
All replies referencing your second comment post:
Re: your first paragraph - but Singapore is not a Christian nation, nor a nation of any single religious denomination. Always remember this - and then I ask, on what basis does FOTF has to ask for any help based on one their beliefs?
Re: your first paragraph on "functional family" - I agree the utmost importance of "family units" - so why not engage and extend and invite gay couples into these 'family units'? I can see benefits and social improvements where FOTF only sees imagined negativity.
Re: your third paragraph - "faith of the Christians" - Human faith is a wonderful thing, but this is a wonderful secular nation encompassing all faiths and races and faith is not only available to Christian, I respectfully remind.
Re: your third paragraph - "Alot of charitable organisations have religous backgrounds no harm helping." This is very very true, because in Singapore's founding years of hardship, our forefathers whom immigrated from different locations would bond at places and venues of differing faiths, races, clans. These organizations are undoubtedly important in our heritage and history. FOTF however, is related to FOTF (America). A quick independent news and fact check will reveal the political- and social-Right alignment of FOTF (America). I believe as a fellow Singaporean citizen, you would agree Singapore has a strong political and proud social system and does not need FOTF (America).
Re: "Adam and Eve." If one believes in Evolution, not Creation, what basis does FOTF or your kind self for that matter, to impose any form and sort of evangelism on us - and having FOTF fund their evangelistic operations through the secular dollars of secular citizens of Singapore?
Re: "Right of DBS." - And just as it is the right of DBS to direct proceeds to FOTF and the right of FOTF to engage in a promotional drive with DBS, it is the absolute right of any DBS customer to boycott and question this promotional drive, and building on DBS/POSBank being the national bank - the right of any Singaporean citizen (and always remember - a Singaporean citizen, not a Christian citizen) to question this promotion.
Re: 'render unto Caesar' and Law of the Land. It is the Law of the Singapore Court that we are subjected to, not biblical law.
Re: your last line on Former President Ishak - this doesn't even make sense on this thread. His image is a sign of progress of our nation - it is disturbing to even imagine you trying to appropriate a proud mark of our secular strong national history into a religious debate.
Thank you for your time in reading my reply - and I'm happy to engage further. As is with Ovidia.
Posted by: Jiovinder Singh | 27/11/2008
Re: 'render unto Caesar' and Law of the Land. If it is the Law of the Singapore Court that we are subjected to, then gay men should stop engaging in sodomy, which is an offence under the law of this land.
Posted by: David | 28/11/2008
Dearest Jovinder and Ovidia,
Thank you for critically analyzing my arguments.
Instead of clarifying my nitty-gritty arguments which I may come about if i have the time, please give me the oppotunity to let me share with you some of my thoughts that I feel underlie the issue of the artical "DBS: Don't Support Focus on the Family".
The underlying issue is the role of the state(goverment (DBS included here since Jovinder said its the "national bank" and from what I have read and deduced also has government links) in 'Secularism Vs. Religion'.
Role of Government in Secularism Vs. Religion.
Please take into consideration the overall aspirations and hopes I have for Singapore to move in this direction in comming to terms with Charities (secular or religious).
I come from the avant-garde school of thought which looks beyound the issue of Secularism Vs. Religion; instead, it would be more useful to look at the similarity of these two opposing forces which is that they are both 'Belief Systems'. Everyone should be free to choose to have his or her belief system; be it secularism, buddhism, Taoism, Sikhism, Christianity or Islam. It would be very sad if secularist impose their belief systems upon the other group because people wont be free to choose. You may now be thinking that this Rajwin got it wrong, because secularism cannot parallel religion, because by first definition secularism is
" not connected with religious or spiritual matters".
Well, my deduction to parallel these to conflicting forces is based on the observations I see between the masses who believes in the secular and the masses who believe in religion.
Firstly, their both people(i don't mean this sarcasticly, but its impt), secondly, the only difference is their philosophy in life which can be simplified to their belief system. Let me use the analogy of an equal sign "=". The perfectly parallel straight lines shows the similarity that they are people, but the gap in between the lines shows the diffirence in belief system. It is my hope that these two masses of people coexist. I can infer from the form the perspective of your arguments that the two of you Jovinder and Ovidia are liberals and Ovidia is probrably partial secularist since she finds strength in the church, you two definately know from my perspective that I am a conservative but let me tell you I am not religious, perhaps I am only interested in spirituality therefore partially religious. So we somewhat parallel each other like the equal sign...but let us not be critical and press that the ideology of secularism be superior to religion, or vice versa. I am sure you know that this sort of arguments have been going on in North America and Europe for a long time and is still being vehemently pursued. Let us constuctively find equilibrium point, let the equal signs become a cross; "X", at a point we can harmoniously coexist. I implore you.
In the context of coexisting, please see that secularism and religion are a matter of belief systems.
Secularism has its own tenets of scientific inquiry and utilitarian ethics.
Religion has its own tenets; a common one being faith and works(do good).
However, I have to address a limitation that sometimes 'Religion' steps on the toes of 'Secularism' and 'Secularism steps on the toes of 'Religion'. The article we are commenting on is one classic example, where the authors beliefs steps on the toes of FOTF, and FOTF steps on the toes of the authors; exclude for now the role of the goverment/DBS. FOTF is for abstinence, anti- abortion and it discourages homosexuality (not homophobia). The author is for recreational sex with the use of contraception, abortion and homosexuality.
In this case, let both ideologies agree to disagree, but let not one ideology impede on the work of alleviating societies problems. Perhaps both should be left to its own devices to help society in their different way in a two prong approach, because what is good will eventually show for itself.
On the role of goverment/DBS, whether they are charitable to a secular charity or religious one, it should not matter, because they do not have any bad intentions and only want to help. DBS has helped many charities of various profiles, and it should not be penalised with such sentiments to boycott it. I once donated to a Sikh charity for flag day and on the sticker i was given, i saw Sikh soldier giving water to a dying enemy soldier. We should not be so legalistic but help those who helps, even if they are different. Once we can do that without any ill- feelings in our hearts then we will be a gracious society. And if the government/ DBS have decided to help FOTF, then in this case they are very gracious indeed.
I am not pro- goverment or pro DBS, but I am pro those who help regardless of their beliefs.
Posted by: Rajwin Singh Sandhu | 28/11/2008
Rajwin, not disagreeing with your statements though I consider them off point here. I may choose to help members of FOTF if I want to, yes.
BUT--I object to DBS using profits gained in part from my $ to support a group I strongly object to.
If DBS had claimed to support fundamental christian groups I would not be banking with them.
So as their customer I feel deceived and betrayed by them taking this step.
You say you would donate/help others without ill feeling. I agree to that too. My difficulty is feeling FOTF is taking every opportunity to kick me with every indication of ill feeling and now they will be funded by the bank I once trusted?
Posted by: Ovidia | 28/11/2008
Hi Rajwin, I'd like to build further on your example of "="
Society as it is cannot be purely polarizing ends. Based on a one-vs-one value system (which is regrettably easy for any society to fall into), societal attitudes, beliefs, customs and practices usually form a bell curve - on one end we have one key set of value(s) and on the other end another key set of value(s) while the overwhelming majority falls somewhere in the middle. America is an important example, due to its relevance internationally as a superpower, with its Republican vs Democratic landscape. From these two labels we extrapolate entire set of values - i.e Republican (right-wing, red states, conservatives, religious, free-market, anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc) and Democrats (left-wing, blue states, liberal, human rights advocate, interventionist governance, pushes for stem-cell medical research, etc). The ease of which we identify these values into a one-vs-one value system overlooks that people do not identify with any one single set of values. We have gay republicans, we have socially liberal businessmen preferring riskier free-market monetary policies, we have undeniably massive number of pious church-goers voting for Barack Obama and so on.
The problem with such a one-vs-one value system becomes clear - most of us do not want to pick a side, we always have multiple vested interests and concerns that do not fit into either side of the one-vs-one system. Rarely do we fit into one end - instead, we comfortably fit in the middle; where your "=" space is.
It is possible for society to progress while two opposing values (religion and secularism) co-exist based on your "=" model. But inevitably one will crosses into the blank "=" space where the majority of the population lay. And that is when it gets tricky. It can be observed, with full backing of examples that come from FOTF (US and Singapore's own materials) that FOTF holds a right-wing agenda that is built on religious-right values. Most of the population in the middle "=" space do not care much for polarizing religion or advancing in-your-face-type gay rights.
But we must agree that, time and time again, FOTF launches first assault into the middle "=" space with religious-based anti-gay activities (e.g. claiming homosexuality is an illness which can be converted/healed - when this is clearly not the case as backed by hard solid science. FOTF Founder James Dobson has also mis-quoted scientists to back his own beliefs). Regarding your Sikh example, it is entirely true that non-profit organizations are capable of doing some good. (remember my earlier introduction of how a one-vs-one system doesn't make sense?) FOTF Singapore's manner of promoting "the family" is proud-worthy in theory. But when its work touches on sexuality issues, FOTF takes a clearly anti-gay, misguiding to the point of deliberate dishonesty, religious stance. It is one thing to promote social coherence and stability through secular support schemes for family (e.g. providing extra maternity support, policies on schooling options based on proximity to family's residence, household financial assistance based on income bracket etc). It is completely another thing to promote one's religious beliefs i) together with, ii) hiding behind, iii) masquerading as, such secular support - all of which FOTF has been doing (again, a claim that I can substantiate with materials from FOTF's own resources).
Put yourself on the other end of this religion vs secularism system. Now since FOTF has been throwing shots at you into the blank "=" space, why in the world would you not start explaining your own facts and stand?
In this case with DBS's promotional drive - DBS cannot escape responsibility for picking FOTF. It is either that DBS purposefully opted into this promotion (which means DBS is taking a side on this system - why should a secular bank pick to be religious and still gain from all their clients who are either secular or have other religious values) or that DBS has overlooked its due diligence (which means it is guilty of negligence). Either way, it is clear DBS must explain this promotional partnership. Hiding behind the excuse of "FOTF is registered under...." is of no use. It is one thing to support, say, Children's Cancer Foundation after doing due diligence that Children's Cancer Foundation has audited results of showing how funds provide for its charitable operations. It is either political or negligent to use that lame reason to support FOTF now that this promotional drive has caught on buzz and news.
Again, my entire reply above skips an in-depth arguing of "pro- or against-religion" but merely builds on your blank "=" space. To drive home the point my capability of engaging on FOTF's religious stance (capabilities which exists because I'd like to think they exists on verifiable facts), you mentioned "In this case, let both ideologies agree to disagree, but let not one ideology impede on the work of alleviating societies problems." The problem with FOTF's engaging on anti-gay (come' on now - FOTF runs about claiming 'homosexuality is an illness, can be converted etc, labeling it as a social ill etc' when research continues to show quite the opposite) is that it completely undermines its own ability to do real good in the blank "=" space. If FOTF were to promote family values (such as anti-spousal abuse) I would love to contribute to them. But they are not, because plain and simple as FOTF (America)'s mission statement writes - "To cooperate with the Holy Spirit in sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as possible by nurturing and defending the God-ordained institution of the family and promoting biblical truths worldwide."
FOTF has violated the blank "=" space of co-existence first by evangelizing using "promoting family" as a vehicle. So for any society that demands harmony and balance, an equal movement by the secular side will be in place.
Great to have you and Ovidia on board this discussion - wondering how can we move this onto DBS's radar?
Posted by: Jiovinder Singh | 28/11/2008
Hi Rajwin, I'd like to build further on your example of "="
Society as it is cannot be purely polarizing ends. Based on a one-vs-one value system (which is regrettably easy for any society to fall into), societal attitudes, beliefs, customs and practices usually form a bell curve - on one end we have one key set of value(s) and on the other end another key set of value(s) while the overwhelming majority falls somewhere in the middle. America is an important example, due to its relevance internationally as a superpower, with its Republican vs Democratic landscape. From these two labels we extrapolate entire set of values - i.e Republican (right-wing, red states, conservatives, religious, free-market, anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc) and Democrats (left-wing, blue states, liberal, human rights advocate, interventionist governance, pushes for stem-cell medical research, etc). The ease of which we identify these values into a one-vs-one value system overlooks that people do not identify with any one single set of values. We have gay republicans, we have socially liberal businessmen preferring riskier free-market monetary policies, we have undeniably massive number of pious church-goers voting for Barack Obama and so on.
The problem with such a one-vs-one value system becomes clear - most of us do not want to pick a side, we always have multiple vested interests and concerns that do not fit into either side of the one-vs-one system. Rarely do we fit into one end - instead, we comfortably fit in the middle; where your "=" space is.
It is possible for society to progress while two opposing values (religion and secularism) co-exist based on your "=" model. But inevitably one will crosses into the blank "=" space where the majority of the population lay. And that is when it gets tricky. It can be observed, with full backing of examples that come from FOTF (US and Singapore's own materials) that FOTF holds a right-wing agenda that is built on religious-right values. Most of the population in the middle "=" space do not care much for polarizing religion or advancing in-your-face-type gay rights.
But we must agree that, time and time again, FOTF launches first assault into the middle "=" space with religious-based anti-gay activities (e.g. claiming homosexuality is an illness which can be converted/healed - when this is clearly not the case as backed by hard solid science. FOTF Founder James Dobson has also mis-quoted scientists to back his own beliefs). Regarding your Sikh example, it is entirely true that non-profit organizations are capable of doing some good. (remember my earlier introduction of how a one-vs-one system doesn't make sense?) FOTF Singapore's manner of promoting "the family" is proud-worthy in theory. But when its work touches on sexuality issues, FOTF takes a clearly anti-gay, misguiding to the point of deliberate dishonesty, religious stance. It is one thing to promote social coherence and stability through secular support schemes for family (e.g. providing extra maternity support, policies on schooling options based on proximity to family's residence, household financial assistance based on income bracket etc). It is completely another thing to promote one's religious beliefs i) together with, ii) hiding behind, iii) masquerading as, such secular support - all of which FOTF has been doing (again, a claim that I can substantiate with materials from FOTF's own resources).
Put yourself on the other end of this religion vs secularism system. Now since FOTF has been throwing shots at you into the blank "=" space, why in the world would you not start explaining your own facts and stand?
In this case with DBS's promotional drive - DBS cannot escape responsibility for picking FOTF. It is either that DBS purposefully opted into this promotion (which means DBS is taking a side on this system - why should a secular bank pick to be religious and still gain from all their clients who are either secular or have other religious values) or that DBS has overlooked its due diligence (which means it is guilty of negligence). Either way, it is clear DBS must explain this promotional partnership. Hiding behind the excuse of "FOTF is registered under...." is of no use. It is one thing to support, say, Children's Cancer Foundation after doing due diligence that Children's Cancer Foundation has audited results of showing how funds provide for its charitable operations. It is either political or negligent to use that lame reason to support FOTF now that this promotional drive has caught on buzz and news.
Again, my entire reply above skips an in-depth arguing of "pro- or against-religion" but merely builds on your blank "=" space. To drive home the point my capability of engaging on FOTF's religious stance (capabilities which exists because I'd like to think they exists on verifiable facts), you mentioned "In this case, let both ideologies agree to disagree, but let not one ideology impede on the work of alleviating societies problems." The problem with FOTF's engaging on anti-gay (come' on now - FOTF runs about claiming 'homosexuality is an illness, can be converted etc, labeling it as a social ill etc' when research continues to show quite the opposite) is that it completely undermines its own ability to do real good in the blank "=" space. If FOTF were to promote family values (such as anti-spousal abuse) I would love to contribute to them. But they are not, because plain and simple as FOTF (America)'s mission statement writes - "To cooperate with the Holy Spirit in sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as possible by nurturing and defending the God-ordained institution of the family and promoting biblical truths worldwide."
FOTF has violated the blank "=" space of co-existence first by evangelizing using "promoting family" as a vehicle. So for any society that demands harmony and balance, an equal movement by the secular side will be in place.
Great to have you and Ovidia on board this discussion - wondering how can we move this onto DBS's radar?
Posted by: Jiovinder Singh | 28/11/2008
Dearest Friends,
I enjoyed reading your comments especially Jovinder's.
As we delve deeper into discussion, I see that FOTF has clashed into a set of value systems and morals. A set of principals that are secular. The word secular is in Christian Latin to mean 'Worldly'; that which is not sacred and void of the poetic disposition of divinity.
Whilst Worldly principals pervade,
it seems that the primary thing running against its current is Judaeo-Christian philosophy.
It is a proponent of abstinence, because healthy sex is a Holy act that celebrates the communion of marriage; therefore, teens ought to learn self- control, and to focus on other endeavours that are uplifting and edifying. This is of apex importance because the union of marrige is not secular but divine. It is a proponent of anti- abortion, because a child is a blessing from God, and a fetus is a life.It is a proponent of heterosexuality, because healthy sex is for copulation not fornication. Sex for copulation is holy......... Its a doctrine that was given to th Jews (Moses) at around 6500BC, and even then it was revolutionary because the world(secular) is the same then and now.....and here we are today, proponents of the sacred(religion) and secular.
But let me inform you that the family is a Sacred entity, and the secular has no concrete philosophy or doctrine to help the family but to borrow much from the sacred to help. Family Therapy takes alot from christian concepts, Carl Rogers was a pastor and to overcome strong addictions in is standard counselling procedure to acknowledge that the individual is powerless and needs help from a supreme being. That which is sacred can help people effectively, its not some ogeedy bogedy toungue speaking hocus-pocus, it works!
In all honesty and without prejudice, I could sense a gay agenda behind secularism, pro recreational sex and pro-abortion. The issue here for DBS is ultimately the 'pink dollar' Vs the 'conservative family dollar'.
FOTF(America) strongly believes that "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people" Proverbs 14:34 and I stand by it and it is my prayer that one day a generation of Singaporeans will be bold enough to transcend to the next level.
To persecute DBS on FOTF would be to persecute people who believe in abstinence, persecute people who are anti- abortion and the heterosexual lifestyle.
Posted by: Rajwin Singh Sandhu | 29/11/2008
btw, DBS has removed the promotion. God Bless!
Posted by: Dean | 30/11/2008
Hi Rajwin,
It would appear that you have left your blank "=" space argument behind. Your latest reply is thoroughly religious rhetoric - which I have stated earlier if one either belongs to other faith/religon or does not believe in any religion, what right does Judaeo-Christianity has to impose itself (including the act of evangelism) onto non-believers or believers of other faiths?
With regards to "secularism" - you place it opposite "religion" - but again, in the terms of someone who doesn't believe in the very idea of religiosity or a divine supreme being, "secularism" itself doesn't mean anything by itself at all.
This entire thread is about how DBS has either overlooked due to negligence or purposely endorsed FOTF Singapore via the promotional drive, and the direction of this thread - which was further pushed by your very own second reply on the blank "=" space - was to discuss this matter within the merits of
co-existence of both religion and secularism, or rather Progression I would say. (it is interesting how secularism becomes roped in together with gay and other equality issues. FOTF is also anti-feminism and the preaching of abstinence when the international health community wants to educate the population on safe sex which trumps abstinence any day. Thus it is instead Progression which religion is against).
Regarding the rest of your post (doctrines etc) - it is entirely up to oneself to either believe in some religiosity or not. But my reading of religious materials always, always, leads to questioning of "how can one be sure?"
It is one thing to believe in a higher divine power, it is entirely another to believe in a specific set of religious doctrines. Who is to say a devote to Hasidic Judaism is more or less 'correct' than one in Roman Catholicism? Just because you re-read what is written thousand of years ago does not make it 'correct' or 'true'.
Even within Christian community, there are different factions and beliefs. Is one Christian denomination 'superior' to another - and WHY? Who says it?
Finally, your last sentence: "To persecute DBS on FOTF would be to persecute people who believe in abstinence, persecute people who are anti- abortion and the heterosexual lifestyle." - this is pure conflation and trigger-happy baseless fear-mongering accusation. This discussion has never been about people who are anti-abortion or heterosexuality. The facts are that a general 10-20% are gay (not taking into account bisexuality or other statistical measurements) which leaves about 80% of the population with a heterosexual orientation. Gay people want to live in harmony with straight people and there are straight people who want to live in harmony with gay people. It is that some religions actively persecute gay people and indulge in damaging gay-conversion, never the other way around. E.g. google Ted Haggard - a prime example of an homophobic Christian evangelism powerhouse in US who had direct access to President George W Bush until 2006 when his long-time male prostitute and drug supplier 'outed' to the mainstream media. Or read up on Roman Catholic priests abusing alter boys - these are perfect negative examples of self-hating self-deceiving people who "pretend" to turn straight.
The very nature of backward fear-mongering religion that impends human progression is in my books, irresponsible at least and the very definition of 'sin' at worst. There are entire religious doctrines that are built on guilt and sin - but it is really guilt and sin that make up these doctrines and guilt and sin that these doctrines sell - not salvation.
- re: Dean's posting on DBS removing the posting - woohoo!
Posted by: Jiovinder Singh | 30/11/2008
Well, besides the point of FOtF being controversial, doesn't anyone smell the rat about DBS calling it "CSR"? Sounds more like a cloaked up marketing ploy. Calling it CSR is just as honest as balls.
Posted by: thingso | 01/12/2008
We need to be careful about saying DBS has removed the promotion. All they've done is take done the reference on the website. Until they confirm that they are no longer giving money to FOTF, the problem is still there (although removing the reference would be a good sign that consumer pressure has an effect, and should encourage us to keep pushing).
Posted by: Jolene | 02/12/2008
DBS has done the right right thing - to repent and turn away from FOTF.
+
Posted by: Gentle Lamb | 03/12/2008
DBS will still be donating to FOTF, instead of publicly donating, they are cutting away all the marketing and donating directly to FOTF.
DBS has fooled you if you believe they would stop the donation.
Posted by: Truth | 03/12/2008
DBS will still be donating to FOTF, instead of publicly donating, they are cutting away all the marketing and donating directly to FOTF.
DBS has fooled you if you believe they would stop the donation.
Posted by: Truth | 03/12/2008
If my bank was attempting to do this, I will remove my funds and go to another bank.
Let's keep banking and charity into 2 separate groups.
When dealing with peoples' funds, it is prudent to keep the bank doing its job...let's not mesh in charity work here.
Posted by: MC Harding | 05/12/2008
Just adding a little echo:
The wonderful thing about being a free person in a free market, is that the customer is sovereign.
I wouldn't bank with DBS in a fit. People who work there have the same bad attitude as govt employees... oh wait, they * are * govt employees... afterall who owns DBS?
Now that it has come to light that this bank — who has the right to do whatever it wants with regards to who or what to support for charity, because they're "not really" govt but "sort-of privatised" — this is just one more reason for me to have nothing to do with these idiots and do my business with some other financial institution — preferably a foreign one which I know is totally PRIVATELY owned.
It is also clear to me that FOTF main gig is to turn families into judgemental, intolerant units.
May god smite you FOTF for carrying on like total douche-bags. (Gee, I hope you guys aren't protecting any child molester now... or god may smite you again!)
Have a safe christmas!
Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 05/12/2008