Exactly what merits the idea that our youth can develop cultural and religious sensitivity by putting them to work in temples, mosques and churches is, to put it mildly, misplaced. Mooted by the National Youth Council last week, the motion was to introduce community projects in which young people helped out in other religions’ places of worship caring for the sick, holding events and the odd ceremony--in the name of building cohesion and interfaith respect.
Now these aren’t the ravings of an I’m-right-everyone-else-is-wrong isolationist. I’m certainly as in favour of religious harmony as the next man. Note carefully the following: I’m not slamming the NYC, the Inter-Religious Organisation, or the need for a common understanding between religions. If at best we don’t stare daggers at anyone “different”, that still won’t be enough. After all, what is religious extremism but a deep-seated fear of everyone not one of “us”, and a desire to control them into thinking as we do? We in Singapore work with, accompany, befriend and laugh with people of different faiths, in a 100% tension-free environment, unless someone goes about ensuring otherwise.
And that’s a good thing!
But the NYC, in this idea, have mistaken the cause for an effect. We do not continue to enjoy such freedom because we put forward such initiatives—it is due to the fact such an environment is already in place that we get to live without fear of a pogrom, a terrorist-interpreted jihad, or any such religion war. Does the NYC think they are going to further improve ties by forcing our youth to learn what they already know?
Yes, we are united. Yes, we are stable. Yes, we are safe.
And we owe a great deal to the fledgling PAP of the 70’s, which put in place safeguards that ensure we continue to live together “regardless of race, language or religion.” While you cannot control the opinion of every deluded individual in Singapore, you can create conditions set against his holding and propagating such ideas. And with the average citizen with a mind of his own firmly resolved to reject extremism should it show up, religious divide ought not to be too much of an issue. But the NYC’s motion, should it ever be implemented, will in my opinion achieve the exact opposite effect it intended. Instead of unity, it will sow division; instead of submission, rebellion; and instead of guidance as to the meaning of life, darkness and confusion. As such I must say that though it has good intentions at heart, this is a bad idea at best, and clear-cut heresy at worst. For it to become a reality encouraged by the NYC and Government ministries would be the single worst thing to happen for cultural respect and diversity in Singapore.
Want proof? Even without drawing on the Bible or philosophers for pointers, there’s plenty of messages that come through. What follows is from a Christian point of view, though what I say probably applies to any faith that is put through this trial.
If my school gave me notice that I'd have to spend nine hours in a temple in order to graduate, or if anyone at all were to go through such an experience... religion always loses out. The false idol of community-at-all-costs is upheld, but at what price? The first thing to go through my mind would be that my faith does not matter. Why give your all to God and His Word when it’s all basically interchangeable anyway? If it will truly help a Buddhist to serve in a mosque or a Christian in a temple in the name of gaining interfaith understanding, the contradictions I’d be forced to swallow would be intellectually insurmountable at best and downright hypocritical at worst. And here the NYC is saying none of it matters in the first place. So is salvation possible by good works or not? Which saves you, karma or grace? To give up time or energy towards serving a god who teaches otherwise is saying “Oh, what does it matter? It’s probably nearly all the same anyway.” Interfaith dialogue and understanding is based around the knowledge that differences exist and deserve to be addressed and respectfully disagreed upon; but the NYC’s motion is suggesting that said differences do not matter. Now I don’t know about you up there, but I see a whole lot of opposites in here.
Second, community is Lord. Pardon me if I sound a little extreme, but Christians went to the lions in Rome precisely because they did not want Christ to join the pantheon of gods already worshipped by the Romans, in addition to their practice of Caesar-worship. Citizens were required by law to swear that “Caesar is Lord”, and this was generally done so you didn’t have to bother which divinity your neighbours followed, and they didn’t bother about yours. Community was achieved—at the cost of thousands of lives surrendered to the gospel rather than it. True, we’re commanded to submit to earthly leaders, for there is no authority that God has not allowed to exist at this place and time. But what we may not do is place these aims of tolerance, peace and dialogue over and above faith, hope, grace and love. If the state decided to commit genocide, no way we’re joining in, man. If the NYC decides that different religions, in all their contradiction, be served by unbelievers, toward an entirely secular aim… I’m pretty sure Christians won’t be alone in condemning such a hypocritical notion. Service to God is over and above service to country—at times when the state demands you give up what makes your faith unique, is it really so unlikely that you will refuse?
And what will weaker believers think?
When the state makes its aims a divine edict, don’t be surprised if you have heretics beneath the cracks.
Third, what about life’s ultimate meaning? Religions answer that question differently, however contradictorily. I do not think these meanings are interchangeable. It could well be that they’re one big joke, that man is alone in the universe with no destiny but to fall into oblivion—if what secular cosmologists say is correct.
You know, if different answers to such questions can be so casually tossed aside, maybe the answers don’t exist. And if they don’t exist, then religion is all a sham to be got rid of as soon as possible. Besides, I don’t know anyone who’s been able to believe two completely contradictory things at the same time—to be exposed to something that contradicts your thinking is one thing, but to be actively immersed in it is another.
Not all of us are Daniels. In fact, too few are for faith to be wasted on a venture like this. This is not one of the National Youth Council's better ideas.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Saturday, July 15, 2006
Sunday, July 09, 2006
PC game review: Rise of Great Strategy, Rise of Bad Storylines
I’ll be the first to admit this—Rise of Nations: Rise of Legends is the only fantasy-themed game I’ve ever bought because I was just so darn intrigued by what it had to offer. I’m no fantasy reader or gamer, but the intermingling of "steampunk" tech, magic and divinity to the extent the game provided would’ve led to some great The Longest Journey-style storytelling; scientific and magical worlds, things between them going wrong, and a hero(ine) rising to put everything right back where it should be.
You know, classic stuff. What can go wrong? Quite something, if you ask me.
Please note: I am not panning this game. Anyone who thinks it deserves a place on the Greatest RTSs Ever Hall of Fame, I’m on your side. Besides, not having played Rise of Nations I don’t think I’ve any basis to review its sequel, save for the fact I paid $54.90 for it and I deserve to get my money’s worth. Sure I did; it’s just that it could’ve been better. Having followed but never joined the oversaturated RTS market, I must comment you need a great innovation beyond where cool units and settings will take you not to look like a re-skinned Warcraft III. Does RoL have what it takes?
Milieu-wise, RoL is a fantasist’s um... fantasy. The three civilisations that inhabit the planet of Aio are done to a level of detail that rivals some of the literary works out there. And it is pretty refreshing to deviate from stock formulae—you know, Nazis, dwarves, demons, etc. True, in many places the game copies elements… but anything imported blends so seamlessly in you never feel it’s been ripped off.
The Vinci, the first civ under your control, are clearly modeled on Renaissance Italy. They have mastered the power of metal and steam, forging them into machines of war; Mechanical walking tanks, gyrocopter designs torn straight from Leonardo da Vinci’s notebooks, even a giant spider tank out of the movie Wild Wild West, and Renaissance-type buildings with smoke-belching chimneys. I had a blast playing as the Vinci, and to date they are my favourite side to play every time the computer AI needs a thrashing. Plus, they upgrade quickly… all the better to administer said thrashing with if you’re in a hurry.
The second civ, the Alin, are a magical race of fire elementals and genies, sand monsters and golems, giant spiders and scorpions. Clearly inspired by Arabian folklore, their magical system is built upon the elements of sand, fire and glass. Thrashing-wise, they take a little more getting used to than the Vinci, and even now I don’t think I’ve had time to unlock all that the Alin are capable of. Believe me though, as a civ they are so-truly-cool to play. And near the campaign’s climax, when your combined Vinci and Alin armies march into Coutl territory, well…
The Coutl are by far the most mysterious civ, but that doesn’t mean you can’t kick butt with them. Originally shipwrecked aliens, they’ve subjugated the local people and built an entire technology around them—anyone who’s read National Geographic will recognize the Mayan inspiration that goes into their blend of magic, advanced machines and ancient rituals. (Indiana Jones would’ve been proud.) Butt-kicking-wise, as the Coutl you start out relatively weak, but once you unlock the higher research levels the battlefield will practically fall at your feet.
Which brings us to the highlight of the game—its single-player story-driven campaign. This is divided into three sub-campaigns that have you controlling each civ in turn as you try to avenge a Vinci vendetta with far, far wider implications than originally thought. Its beginning got me hooked, and I think there was a great tale of courage, sacrifice and settlement somewhere in there.
Too bad my brother, who played through the entire campaign, never found it.
The story, to put it bluntly, is bad game narrative and even worse fiction; too much happens without explanation. Moral of this whole story: Buy the game for it, and you'll be sorely disappointed. Focus on the skirmishes, what each army can do against the others--and RoL pays for itself over and over.
All told this game is worth buying for the skirmishes alone, which are challenging and brilliantly done. Only it seems to take a while to get the cool stuff the AI ALWAYS seems able to get right from the beginning...
FINAL SCORE: 8.0 (out of 10)
You know, classic stuff. What can go wrong? Quite something, if you ask me.
Please note: I am not panning this game. Anyone who thinks it deserves a place on the Greatest RTSs Ever Hall of Fame, I’m on your side. Besides, not having played Rise of Nations I don’t think I’ve any basis to review its sequel, save for the fact I paid $54.90 for it and I deserve to get my money’s worth. Sure I did; it’s just that it could’ve been better. Having followed but never joined the oversaturated RTS market, I must comment you need a great innovation beyond where cool units and settings will take you not to look like a re-skinned Warcraft III. Does RoL have what it takes?
Milieu-wise, RoL is a fantasist’s um... fantasy. The three civilisations that inhabit the planet of Aio are done to a level of detail that rivals some of the literary works out there. And it is pretty refreshing to deviate from stock formulae—you know, Nazis, dwarves, demons, etc. True, in many places the game copies elements… but anything imported blends so seamlessly in you never feel it’s been ripped off.
The Vinci, the first civ under your control, are clearly modeled on Renaissance Italy. They have mastered the power of metal and steam, forging them into machines of war; Mechanical walking tanks, gyrocopter designs torn straight from Leonardo da Vinci’s notebooks, even a giant spider tank out of the movie Wild Wild West, and Renaissance-type buildings with smoke-belching chimneys. I had a blast playing as the Vinci, and to date they are my favourite side to play every time the computer AI needs a thrashing. Plus, they upgrade quickly… all the better to administer said thrashing with if you’re in a hurry.
The second civ, the Alin, are a magical race of fire elementals and genies, sand monsters and golems, giant spiders and scorpions. Clearly inspired by Arabian folklore, their magical system is built upon the elements of sand, fire and glass. Thrashing-wise, they take a little more getting used to than the Vinci, and even now I don’t think I’ve had time to unlock all that the Alin are capable of. Believe me though, as a civ they are so-truly-cool to play. And near the campaign’s climax, when your combined Vinci and Alin armies march into Coutl territory, well…
The Coutl are by far the most mysterious civ, but that doesn’t mean you can’t kick butt with them. Originally shipwrecked aliens, they’ve subjugated the local people and built an entire technology around them—anyone who’s read National Geographic will recognize the Mayan inspiration that goes into their blend of magic, advanced machines and ancient rituals. (Indiana Jones would’ve been proud.) Butt-kicking-wise, as the Coutl you start out relatively weak, but once you unlock the higher research levels the battlefield will practically fall at your feet.
Which brings us to the highlight of the game—its single-player story-driven campaign. This is divided into three sub-campaigns that have you controlling each civ in turn as you try to avenge a Vinci vendetta with far, far wider implications than originally thought. Its beginning got me hooked, and I think there was a great tale of courage, sacrifice and settlement somewhere in there.
Too bad my brother, who played through the entire campaign, never found it.
The story, to put it bluntly, is bad game narrative and even worse fiction; too much happens without explanation. Moral of this whole story: Buy the game for it, and you'll be sorely disappointed. Focus on the skirmishes, what each army can do against the others--and RoL pays for itself over and over.
All told this game is worth buying for the skirmishes alone, which are challenging and brilliantly done. Only it seems to take a while to get the cool stuff the AI ALWAYS seems able to get right from the beginning...
FINAL SCORE: 8.0 (out of 10)
Saturday, July 01, 2006
Why don't I cover the World Cup?
Because the only thing I do worse than play football is watching and telling about it. Don't get me wrong; I know this from hard experience. (What kind of ball player am I? The first thing I ever kissed was a falling volleyball in secondary school.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)