Is there a law to ban evangelizing in public?

• Veggie Bao

  5 Dec 11, 17:51

  If someone pesters you and make you uncomfortable, just decline and walk away.......like this also need a law...?

   

• BroInChrist

  5 Dec 11, 18:07

  Originally posted by laurence82:

  Nope, you were so lazy and distracting

  A simple search in Google would come up with this

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_15_of_the_Constitution_of_Singapore

  "Singapore courts have not yet interpreted the word propagate in Article 15(1) of the Constitution.

  Article 25(1) of the Indian Constitution, which is in the same terms as in Article 15(1) of the Singapore Constitution, guarantees to individuals the right to freely "profess, practise and propagate" their religions. The term propagate was considered by the Supreme Court of India in Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977...."

  Not copying the rest of the paragraph for the benefit of someone's laziness

   

  Hence,banning evangelism/proselytism is nothing unconstitutional. Offending other religion is unlawful going by past/current cases.

  if the courts need to sit down to define it, or if its to be struck off the Constitution for being 'unconstituitional', so be it.

  So, dont talk big throwing up big words such as 'constitutional' and make yourself look silly.

  

   

  laurence,

  You are shifting goalpost here. You were clearly ignorant about the part on the freedom to propagate one's religion as enshrined under our Constitution. Whatever the word "propagate" means in legal terms, it definitely does not negate the dictionary definition. So because the courts did not interpret the word "propagate" we don't know what it mean? Now that would be a silly conclusion.

• sgdiehard

  5 Dec 11, 18:23

  Originally posted by Veggie Bao:

  If someone pesters you and make you uncomfortable, just decline and walk away.......like this also need a law...?

   

  Spot on man.....when will some of these people grow up?

  There are people at the MRT, Mall atrium....promoting insurance, credit cards, household items, even holidays packages....you got time, you stop and listen, you like it, you buy it, you got no time, just walk by, you bei song, tell him off. Like that also cannot handle, wait till they meet the con men at the bridge linking City Square and the Immigration building in JB....

   

• laurence82

  5 Dec 11, 19:22

  Originally posted by BroInChrist:

  laurence,

  You are shifting goalpost here. You were clearly ignorant about the part on the freedom to propagate one's religion as enshrined under our Constitution. Whatever the word "propagate" means in legal terms, it definitely does not negate the dictionary definition. So because the courts did not interpret the word "propagate" we don't know what it mean? Now that would be a silly conclusion.

  I never did, you are the one shifting from my view on evangelism to trying to wrangle with constituitional terms which you do not even have basic understanding

  I do not care about dictionary term if i am concerned with the legal aspects of it, with so many caveats to consider. If the law does not provide or determine, then its not unlawful

  I cannot help but notice 2 changes in paradigm from your end

  And i cant help also but noticing you are determining what is right from secular laws perspective, what a laughable action

• laurence82

  5 Dec 11, 19:23

  Originally posted by Veggie Bao:

  If someone pesters you and make you uncomfortable, just decline and walk away.......like this also need a law...?

   

  
  Yes

  Singapore banned touting, and there are recent steps to curb unsolicited spam emails and phone calls

  If you dont like these, go bring up to your MP?

• Tcmc

  5 Dec 11, 20:33

  Originally posted by laurence82:

  I never did, you are the one shifting from my view on evangelism to trying to wrangle with constituitional terms which you do not even have basic understanding

  I do not care about dictionary term if i am concerned with the legal aspects of it, with so many caveats to consider. If the law does not provide or determine, then its not unlawful

  I cannot help but notice 2 changes in paradigm from your end

  And i cant help also but noticing you are determining what is right from secular laws perspective, what a laughable action

  Laurence,

  BroInChrist believes the earth is 6000 years old.. So what else can he not believe?

• winsomeea

  5 Dec 11, 20:39

  Originally posted by Tcmc:

  Laurence,

  BroInChrist believes the earth is 6000 years old.. So what else can he not believe?

  Er um  er em .. ..    the earth is definitely older than 6000 years old.

  Strange, bible does not state how old the earth is, where did he get the figure from?  

• winsomeea

  5 Dec 11, 20:39

  Originally posted by Tcmc:

  Laurence,

  BroInChrist believes the earth is 6000 years old.. So what else can he not believe?

  Er um  er em .. ..    the earth is definitely older than 6000 years old.

  Strange, bible does not state how old the earth is, where did he get the figure from?  

• laurence82

  5 Dec 11, 20:46

  Originally posted by Tcmc:

  Laurence,

  BroInChrist believes the earth is 6000 years old.. So what else can he not believe?

  
  I dont care what he believe in

  But when he try to play punk and lie his way through, he has another thing coming

• winsomeea

  5 Dec 11, 20:50

  Originally posted by laurence82:

  
  I dont care what he believe in

  But when he try to play punk and lie his way through, he has another thing coming

  
  That fellow is full of self righteousness.   he can do it, when others do it, he makes a hoo ha.    Damn, another hypocrite.

• laurence82

  5 Dec 11, 21:02

  Originally posted by winsomeea:

  
  That fellow is full of self righteousness.   he can do it, when others do it, he makes a hoo ha.    Damn, another hypocrite.

  
  Ditto

  Beginning to see that

  He even rashly blamed atheists, when i do know some here are not atheists

  I think we should alert ISD on him, he can be from some organised hate group

• winsomeea

  5 Dec 11, 21:05

  Originally posted by laurence82:

  
  Ditto

  Beginning to see that

  He even rashly blamed atheists, when i do know some here are not atheists

  I think we should alert ISD on him, he can be from some organised hate group

  Serious, he sounds like anyone not believing in his God is atheist.    

  Yes, alert the ISD, yes yes!    

• reasonable.atheist

  5 Dec 11, 22:23

  I'm with BIC on this. As a society, it is important to have processes for dialog and persuasion, even if it concerns beliefs that are immediately repugnant to you. It is through exchanges and debates that we learn and understand the views of other people, and then we can decide their validity or lack thereof.

  As an example, if you think someone is doing something wrong, the responsible thing to do is to discuss and advise the person to do otherwise. Many people would choose to look away because of apathy or a perceived inability to change others. However, those who do make the attempt should be encouraged, not silenced.

  This applies to advocates of environmentalism, gay/human rights or certain religions.

  Of course, caveats apply. If an individual is especially vulnerable (e.g. a child, or intellectually challenged) or has asked to be put on a do-not-call list, evangelicals should accordingly avoid them.

  Bottomline: You have the right to walk away or refuse to engage in conversation with anyone. But they, too, have the right to respectfully invite you to a conversation.

• BroInChrist

  5 Dec 11, 22:50

  Originally posted by Tcmc:

  Demon,

   

  I am sure BroInChrist would dislike it if someone preaches aggressively to him about islam or buddhism. But then it would be ok for HIM and his fellow christians to keep preaching about their religion to others.

  Talk about "doing unto others what you want others to do unto you"

   

  Lol.

   

  Tcmc, You are wrong. I would be happy (qiu zi bu de) if a buddhist or muslim approach me because it would also mean that I am free to share my views to them and they cannot accuse me of approaching them or pestering them!
• laurence82

  5 Dec 11, 23:18

  Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:

  I'm with BIC on this. As a society, it is important to have processes for dialog and persuasion, even if it concerns beliefs that are immediately repugnant to you. It is through exchanges and debates that we learn and understand the views of other people, and then we can decide their validity or lack thereof.

  As an example, if you think someone is doing something wrong, the responsible thing to do is to discuss and advise the person to do otherwise. Many people would choose to look away because of apathy or a perceived inability to change others. However, those who do make the attempt should be encouraged, not silenced.

  This applies to advocates of environmentalism, gay/human rights or certain religions.

  Of course, caveats apply. If an individual is especially vulnerable (e.g. a child, or intellectually challenged) or has asked to be put on a do-not-call list, evangelicals should accordingly avoid them.

  Bottomline: You have the right to walk away or refuse to engage in conversation with anyone. But they, too, have the right to respectfully invite you to a conversation.

  Ban against evangelism/proselytism doesnt mean no dialogue

  Agree with your caveats

• Susanteo2011

  5 Dec 11, 23:19

  Originally posted by laurence82:

  Ban against evangelism/proselytism doesnt mean no dialogue

  Agree with your caveats

   

   

  waaaah............your English so deep ah...........

   

  i no understand leh................

• laurence82

  5 Dec 11, 23:20

  Originally posted by Susanteo2011:

   

   

  waaaah............your English so deep ah...........

   

  i no understand leh................

  At least you are humble enough to be forthright and say you dont understand

  Better than people trying to 'overwhelm' others with consitutionality which they have no grasp of

• lce

  5 Dec 11, 23:36

  they r the siao ppl nothin better to do

• reasonable.atheist

  5 Dec 11, 23:36

  Originally posted by laurence82:

  Ban against evangelism/proselytism doesnt mean no dialogue

   

  But if we ban evangelism outright, we lose a key form of dialog -- that which is aimed at persuasion. That means that all discussions about religion would have to be purely intellectual exercises, which is impractical and will create chilling effects on all religion-related conversations.

  Also, if we ban evangelism, would you ban those who are trying to change your mind about the environment or gay rights? Religion should be treated no differently from other non-religious belief systems. Let it be tested in the marketplace of ideas.

• laurence82

  5 Dec 11, 23:40

  Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:

  But if we ban evangelism outright, we lose a key form of dialog -- that which is aimed at persuasion. That means that all discussions about religion would have to be purely intellectual exercises, which is impractical and will create chilling effects on all religion-related conversations.

  Also, if we ban evangelism, would you ban those who are trying to change your mind about the environment or gay rights? Religion should be treated no differently from other non-religious belief systems. Let it be tested in the marketplace of ideas.

  
  They can have dialogue without evangelism

  This topic is about religious proselytism. I think you can set up separate topics to discuss if you want to talk about environmental or rights activism

   

• reasonable.atheist

  5 Dec 11, 23:49

  What exactly is evangelism, and how does it differ from regular dialog?

  And the point about environmentalism or gay rights is to test your argument to ban evangelism. To rephrase, if you were to ban religious proselytizing, would you then also call for a ban on door-to-door advocacy on environmentalism, vegetarianism or gay rights?

  If your answer is yes, where does it end? Would you also ban attempts to persuade others that the free market is damaging, that IE is better than Firefox, that LoTR is better than Star Wars?

  If your answer is no, what makes religion different from these other stances or positions such that we need a special law to restrict it?

• laurence82

  5 Dec 11, 23:56

  You still have not conclusively state how banning religious proselytism should be lumped in the same light as environmental activism or promoting gay rights

  If i wash my hair daily, i should should wash my buttock every minute? Your reasoning isnt strong enough

  Coming from an "atheist" that advocate religious evangelism and insist on lumping them together, i also question your business here other than to support your fellow christians

   

• reasonable.atheist

  6 Dec 11, 00:24

  Originally posted by laurence82:

  You still have not conclusively state how banning religious proselytism should be lumped in the same light as environmental activism or promoting gay rights

  If i wash my hair daily, i should should wash my buttock every minute? Your reasoning isnt strong enough

  Coming from an "atheist" that advocate religious evangelism and insist on lumping them together, i also question your business here other than to support your fellow christians

   

  As I've stated before, religion is a belief system backed by various (debatable) points of evidence, as is environmentalism and support for gay rights. In my mind, there is no need to single out one from the others, and demand a different set of rules for it. Now, your response is to explain why religion does require that special treatment.

  You don't have to doubt my position. I have plenty of posts on HWZ using the same nick, and had a lengthy debate with BIC ther. I also just posted a paper co-authored by Dennett on another topic in this forum.

  However, I will debate anybody -- including fellow atheists -- on issues I disagree on. On HWZ, I certainly have challenged other atheists on vegetarianism and free will. That, I think, is more valuable than blind support.

• Addmerican

  6 Dec 11, 00:25

  yeah very common in woodland area too, even my dog has stop barking when see them, probably , my dog also silently converted liao

• laurence82

  6 Dec 11, 00:33

  Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:

  As I've stated before, religion is a belief system backed by various (debatable) points of evidence, as is environmentalism and support for gay rights. In my mind, there is no need to single out one from the others, and demand a different set of rules for it. Now, your response is to explain why religion does require that special treatment.

  You don't have to doubt my position. I have plenty of posts on HWZ using the same nick, and had a lengthy debate with BIC ther. I also just posted a paper co-authored by Dennett on another topic in this forum.

  However, I will debate anybody -- including fellow atheists -- on issues I disagree on. On HWZ, I certainly have challenged other atheists on vegetarianism and free will. That, I think, is more valuable than blind support.

  Similar to my very simple analogy of washing my hair daily does it require same washing to the buttock or even armpits? Even you yourself have make the distinction from other atheists. Are all atheists the same and should hold same view?

  Your response is simply to prove they are one and the same thing. Its also akin to saying apple and orange are the same thing and should be treated with equal favour just because they are fruits.