Race, religion transcend sexuality

I agree with the writer of “Efforts of Pink Dot ambassadors should be lauded, not condemned” (May 13) that any name-calling and character assassinations are deplorable and deserve no space in civil discourse, regardless of our dispositions or beliefs.

However, we must be careful not to misrepresent facts. For example, it would be unfair to say that the Islamic State group represents Islam or that the Westboro Baptist Church represents Christianity. Such representations must always be subjected to the orthodoxy of their respective doctrines, to differentiate between black and white, what to reject and what to proliferate, for the good of societies.

Similarly, the ambassadors do not speak on behalf of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) people and their families. They may speak for Pink Dot participants, but not the overall LGBT community. Also, mentioning the transcendence of a sexual disposition over race and religion is stretching the limit of credulity.

Our Constitution protects the expression of languages, the inviolable nature of races and the practice of religion. Thus, race and religion transcend sexual disposition, not the other way round.

The ambassadors would do better to protect Singapore’s racial and religious harmony, to send the message that Pink Dot is truly supportive and inclusive. Otherwise, its position would seem to be contra-society and anti-establishment.