for beauty and fury

For Beauty and Fury

Pondering upon the AWARE saga with a calmer faculty of mind, I have reorganised my thoughts into the following:

1) A monotheistic ex-co with strong conservative proclivities does not foster an image of diversity and inclusion, moreso for this secular entity that they now have the task of steering. A policy of inclusion will see the ex-co governed by strong ladies of various faith, denominations, niche and orientation.

2) The propagation of the ex-co's vision can be achieved through the formation of another entity, separate from AWARE. This is a simple enough concept, but obviously the effect would not have been the same. In creating their own NGO, they would had been free to explore whatever agendas they deem fit. The ousting of the Old Guard due to it's "wayward" and overly "diversified" interests (homosexual issues or not) sends the signal that everything the old guard hadstrived for is erroneous and has to be corrected.

3) If a homosexual woman seeks help from AWARE, what would be her recourse? Will she find acceptance or rehabilitation? If a lady, for whatever compelling reason, seeks counselling for abortion, will she be given an impartial view of the issue? Will the ex-co revise the sexual education being meted out, to exclude contraceptives, condoms and safer sex, and instead preach their message of abstinence?

4) The ex-co claims not to know each other, despite a vast majority coming from the same church, and evidently, the same feminist mentor. Why do we, as a people, continue to delude ourselves or pretend not to notice the glaring simplicity of this connection? With all threads leading back to the same spool, how can we ignore the obvious?

5) The Old Guard is equally to blame for this fiasco. For their complacency in the elections which led to this debacle, and for not straddling the fine line of inclusion well enough. Their overt tones of homosexuality cannot possibly sit well with alot of parents. If the Old Guard is about inclusion, then the views of the dissenting parents must be included as well.

6) We must continue to support the right of individuals: ladies or gentlemen, queer or straight. Regardless of religion, creed and race. This is the least we can do, to not descend into the ex-co's level.

I then asked myself, how does the AWARE issue concern me?

And my answer is that:

1) I do not like the Thio family. Blunt, but true. Their family has inclinations of anti-gay rhetorics however they sugar-coat or embellish their justifications. Their speeches in parliment, letters, overtures and deeds all reeks of propaganda. So let us not delude ourself further when we see these names being associated with this whole saga; let us not pretend that we do not know just what it is they peddle beneath their skirts.

2) I do not like christians (most of them). Over the course of my life, they have proven again and again to be highly self-righteous, ready to judge others based on the words of a book selectively printed by the policies of a human-governed organisation.

I believe in Absolutes. Love, Choice and Death are Absolutes. Do no harm unto Others, is an Absolute. Anything else; be it rituals, customs, stories or ancedotes are man-made, man-tainted. All of the above are coloured prisms through which the infinite light of the Absolutes shine through. Down the vast vista of history, man and religions endeavour to channel and prim the light of these Absolutes into messages that can be utilised for their own ends, for the harvesting of weaker minds:

I will not settle for anything lesser than the pure light of the Absolutes.

And thus, the message that this new ex-co brings, is just another layer of scum and grim attempting to control the Absolutes.

That is not acceptable to me, and should not be acceptable to you.

3) We have to fight Domionism, wherever it may rear it's ugly head.

And then I asked myself, why should you be concerned?

1) Because apathy rots our soul.

2) Because the signal that the New Guard is sending, is that the Old Guard's overtly homosexual inclusivity is erroneous and has to be stopped and brought back to it's roots. They have stated so, in crystal clear language.

This directly interdicts our freedom as well:

The taking of one is but a step that will begin a thousand miles.