Is there a law to ban evangelizing in public?
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
Firstly, i did not say the law does not allow for propagation. I merely asked for proof this is provided under the Constitution. Please do not change this fact. Hence i will disregard the remainder of your personal attack.
Secondly, you should be grateful I asked you to read further. Propagation is not defined nor discussed in laws of courts in Singapore. I am not interested in your English dictionary. I am more interested in how the judges, appointed by the His Excellency the President of the Republic of Singapore, with the advice of the demoractically elected Prime Minister and his Cabinet, within the confines of legal discussions, define propagation. As of now, you have repeatedly fail to establish how banning evangelism is unlawful.
Lastly, from xtian perspective, if evangelism is decreed by god (thats for you to prove), do you have to care if secular laws allow it or not? I am just aghast that you centre the entire conversation based on laws made by man.
Its understood that godly laws dont hold up anyway. I guess secular laws is the centrepiece and source of moral authority?
laurence,
Again let's take a trip down memory lane, just yesterday only!
YESTERDAY you challenged me, "Which part of the Constitution specifically allows people to freely propagate their religion?"
The way I see it, either you acknowledge that you have no idea of what is in our Constitution (or perhaps never even know there is one), or that you simply admit you were wrong on this part. Remember also that you REFUSED to up on the Constitution and gave a smart alec retort. I was being nice. You were being nasty and hostile.
Please don't change the subject. Whether the word "propagate" has been deliberated or not in our courts is IRRELEVANT. The word exists in our Constitution (which you apparently did not know). Your refusal to heed the dictionary is not my problem. The word "propagate" has a simple definition. I think you know that you do not have a case here, so you are just going off topic here. In any case, I have already told you that it is unlawful to ban evangelism because that would violate the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land. Anything that violates the Constitution is unlawful. But of course, you can change all that by lobbying that the right to propagate religion be removed. You up to it?
I see no need to prove the mandate of evangelism for you from the Bible, since you don't even give two hoots about it. Or are you also being patronising as Tcmc? Anyway, why should you be aghast that I am using the secular law? Are you aghast because I managed to use that against your objection on evangelism? Is there any reason why I cannot appeal to our own laws of the land to answer you? If your argument is lousy and has been refuted, then be the man to admit it rather than invoke another fallacy of irrelevant thesis.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
laurence,
Again let's take a trip down memory lane, just yesterday only!
YESTERDAY you challenged me, "Which part of the Constitution specifically allows people to freely propagate their religion?"
The way I see it, either you acknowledge that you have no idea of what is in our Constitution (or perhaps never even know there is one), or that you simply admit you were wrong on this part. Remember also that you REFUSED to up on the Constitution and gave a smart alec retort. I was being nice. You were being nasty and hostile.
Please don't change the subject. Whether the word "propagate" has been deliberated or not in our courts is IRRELEVANT. The word exists in our Constitution (which you apparently did not know). Your refusal to heed the dictionary is not my problem. The word "propagate" has a simple definition. I think you know that you do not have a case here, so you are just going off topic here. In any case, I have already told you that it is unlawful to ban evangelism because that would violate the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land. Anything that violates the Constitution is unlawful. But of course, you can change all that by lobbying that the right to propagate religion be removed. You up to it?
I see no need to prove the mandate of evangelism for you from the Bible, since you don't even give two hoots about it. Or are you also being patronising as Tcmc? Anyway, why should you be aghast that I am using the secular law? Are you aghast because I managed to use that against your objection on evangelism? Is there any reason why I cannot appeal to our own laws of the land to answer you? If your argument is lousy and has been refuted, then be the man to admit it rather than invoke another fallacy of irrelevant thesis.
I do perfectly remember what i talked about yesterday. Asking you to provide references to the Constitution should have helped you prove that banning evangelism is unlawful, however, you have failed to.
Defining the term propagation is rightfully done in Courts and Parliament, not by you. You quote the Constitution, you jolly well follow the law and its rightful process. If I do stuff the way you do, I could say i can spit and litter because i say so, not because courts and police say so.
You dont have to prove mandate of evangelism is given by bible, after all, its not defined in the Constitution right? From xtian perspective, its so silly to define god words from point of view of secular laws
As for the rest of your personal attacks, irrelevant and infactual so i wont dwell on those...its very christian-like of you to make personal attacks
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
I do perfectly remember what i talked about yesterday. Asking you to provide references to the Constitution should have helped you prove that banning evangelism is unlawful, however, you have failed to.
Defining the term propagation is rightfully done in Courts and Parliament, not by you. You quote the Constitution, you jolly well follow the law and its rightful process. If I do stuff the way you do, I could say i can spit and litter because i say so, not because courts and police say so.
You dont have to prove mandate of evangelism is given by bible, after all, its not defined in the Constitution right? From xtian perspective, its so silly to define god words from point of view of secular laws
As for the rest of your personal attacks, irrelevant and infactual so i wont dwell on those...its very christian-like of you to make personal attacks
In the other topics, I have also told BIC to produce evidence for the claims he made but he seems to be on a monologue, talking about what he wants to hear and see. He has failed to produce evidence to me too.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
No. I'm saying that:
1. Selling the idea of a Christian God.
2. Selling the idea that human rights are more important than religious views.
3. Selling the idea that environment is being depleted by our everyday actions.
4. Selling the idea that vegetarianism is the more humane choice.
And the opposing ideas:
5. Selling the idea that we have insufficient proof for God.
6. Selling the idea that God takes precedence over gay rights.
7. Selling the idea that our everyday actions play little part in the global warming.
8. Selling the idea that consuming meat is the natural way of humans.
These are all efforts at evangelizing a particular idea. They vary in terms of popularity, controversy, and amount of evidence. However, if you accept the importance of free speech, you have to accept freedom for people to sell ideas that you are personally hostile to.Sorry I fail to see how asking governements to let gays have basic human rights to a HOUSE or MARRIAGE is a kind of selling.
So you're saying it's ok for straight ppl to have 100 basic human rights but gays to have one less human right because religious people should also have the right to preach their gods?
Doesnt make sense. You're comparing an apple to a car.
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
I do perfectly remember what i talked about yesterday. Asking you to provide references to the Constitution should have helped you prove that banning evangelism is unlawful, however, you have failed to.
Defining the term propagation is rightfully done in Courts and Parliament, not by you. You quote the Constitution, you jolly well follow the law and its rightful process. If I do stuff the way you do, I could say i can spit and litter because i say so, not because courts and police say so.
You dont have to prove mandate of evangelism is given by bible, after all, its not defined in the Constitution right? From xtian perspective, its so silly to define god words from point of view of secular laws
As for the rest of your personal attacks, irrelevant and infactual so i wont dwell on those...its very christian-like of you to make personal attacks
laurence,
Please check back what I wrote earlier. I said that for you to suggest banning evangelism is unlawful because it violates the Constitution. And you were clearly ignorant of what the Constitution said about propagating one's religion. Otherwise why would you ask me to provide the reference? You did not believe me when I said the Constitution provided that right to propagate. Quit trying to save face here and move on.
Indeed, it is because I follow the law that I am telling you that for you to suggest banning evangelism is against the law! However the courts choose to define "propagate" or yet to draw lines around it, the fact remains that there is freedom to propagate one's religion. I am free to propagate (so long as it does not violate other laws) my faith and you have no basis to say that what I am doing is wrong.
Since when did I use secular law to define God's Word? I am telling you that the law allows for the propagation of one's religion. You either agree with the law or you don't.
Lastly, I made no personal attacks on you. Pointing out your ignorance of things is not a personal attack. I wasn't calling you names. Instead the truth is that you are guilty of personal attacks because you accused me of playing punk and lying my way through. Are you going to deny that these are personal attacks?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Sorry I fail to see how asking governements to let gays have basic human rights to a HOUSE or MARRIAGE is a kind of selling.
So you're saying it's ok for straight ppl to have 100 basic human rights but gays to have one less human right because religious people should also have the right to preach their gods?
Doesnt make sense. You're comparing an apple to a car.
I don't know whether I can frame it any clearer than I already have. This is about the process of evangelizing an idea, not about the idea itself.
I'm saying that if you (a) ban people from selling the idea that there is a God, you have to (b) ban people from selling the idea that gay people can get married.
I'm not saying that gay people deserve fewer rights than heterosexuals. (In fact, my personal position seems to be similar to yours.) However, if we ban the selling of such ideas, individuals would have to come to that conclusion through other means, such as reading books and making their own inferences.
-
parliament should enact a law from insulting other religions, whether in church premises, public places, as long as it is in Singapore. penalty is $1,000 and 1 month in jail, esp in a country like Spore, where there are so many religions here.
-
Originally posted by Rooney_07:
parliament should enact a law from insulting other religions, whether in church premises, public places, as long as it is in Singapore. penalty is $1,000 and 1 month in jail, esp in a country like Spore, where there are so many religions here.
-
Originally posted by winsomeea:
yes this is no laughing matter. insulting other religion as false and satanic are despicable and laughable in itself, not to mention moronic to say the least.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
laurence,
Please check back what I wrote earlier. I said that for you to suggest banning evangelism is unlawful because it violates the Constitution. And you were clearly ignorant of what the Constitution said about propagating one's religion. Otherwise why would you ask me to provide the reference? You did not believe me when I said the Constitution provided that right to propagate. Quit trying to save face here and move on.
Indeed, it is because I follow the law that I am telling you that for you to suggest banning evangelism is against the law! However the courts choose to define "propagate" or yet to draw lines around it, the fact remains that there is freedom to propagate one's religion. I am free to propagate (so long as it does not violate other laws) my faith and you have no basis to say that what I am doing is wrong.
Since when did I use secular law to define God's Word? I am telling you that the law allows for the propagation of one's religion. You either agree with the law or you don't.
Lastly, I made no personal attacks on you. Pointing out your ignorance of things is not a personal attack. I wasn't calling you names. Instead the truth is that you are guilty of personal attacks because you accused me of playing punk and lying my way through. Are you going to deny that these are personal attacks?
Asking you to provide reference does not construe an ignorance. To be honest and in all fairness, you could not prove evangelism is unlawful after all the hubbah
I wonder if laws are defined in Supreme Court or in meeting rooms of Oxford University Press. If the Court didnt define it, its not up to you to say its unlawful.
Of course you did use secular laws. In all specifics, you used Article 15 of the Singapore Constitution. Do your god need to be backed up by Article 15? Haha
Pointing out ignorance without the ability to prove is making personal attacks. And all the rubbish about pride and ego...seriously you have no materials left to fight for?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
In the other topics, I have also told BIC to produce evidence for the claims he made but he seems to be on a monologue, talking about what he wants to hear and see. He has failed to produce evidence to me too.
AgreeIf something was never defined or made clear by the proper authority, its not proven. Simple. Period.
He insist and insist until i thought we have King of Singapore here who craft his own laws. Sheesh
-
Originally posted by Rooney_07:
parliament should enact a law from insulting other religions, whether in church premises, public places, as long as it is in Singapore. penalty is $1,000 and 1 month in jail, esp in a country like Spore, where there are so many religions here.
no no noaccording to BIC, Oxford English Dictionary is the final authority on laws of Singapore, not Parliament nor Court of Justice
Who are we to challenge him?
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
Frankly, I don't care if you label me a Christian. It is however important to me that atheists do not fall into the trap of groupthink, which I've seen in evidence here.
I think that a blanket ban on religious evangelism on the grounds that it is a public nuisance is not a strong enough argument. There are plenty of things that annoy me: burning of stuff during the Chinese seventh month, the getais that go late into the night, the neighbor next door who plays his trombone (badly), the people who ask me to fill up surveys at train stations.Yes, religious evanglism can be annoying to us. However, the right to free speech is so important that I'm willing to accept that public nuisance. If one day the religious movement becomes dominant in Singapore, I also want to be able to go door-to-door and promote the ideas of curiosity, critical thinking and science.
Atheists? Groupthink? Who are the atheists and how this groupthink play out here? BIC until now cannot prove so...so you are...?
I think banning religious evangelism due to the nature of it being public nuisance is a strong argument, although Singapore apply restrictions on public nuisance on different levels, from outright ban on touting to curbing unsolicited emails.
Why would right of free speech be more important than curbing religious evangelism? You might as well say we can kill our neighbours because we have right to whatever we do with our hands.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
I don't know whether I can frame it any clearer than I already have. This is about the process of evangelizing an idea, not about the idea itself.
I'm saying that if you (a) ban people from selling the idea that there is a God, you have to (b) ban people from selling the idea that gay people can get married.
I'm not saying that gay people deserve fewer rights than heterosexuals. (In fact, my personal position seems to be similar to yours.) However, if we ban the selling of such ideas, individuals would have to come to that conclusion through other means, such as reading books and making their own inferences.
I know we have similar stands.
Because these are BASIC rights we're talking about as a human being. All of us are born of this earth, gay, lesbian, bi, transgender, fat, slim, poor, rich. So why should ANY human being have one less right ?
To me advocating a basic human right is very different from selling a religion.
To you advocating a human right is "selling". To me it is not. I guess thats where we differ.
If I advocate for the freedom of women to work and to study, is that "selling"? ........No. That's a humane thing to do.
Selling =/= Advocating rights, to me.
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
Asking you to provide reference does not construe an ignorance. To be honest and in all fairness, you could not prove evangelism is unlawful after all the hubbah
I wonder if laws are defined in Supreme Court or in meeting rooms of Oxford University Press. If the Court didnt define it, its not up to you to say its unlawful.
Of course you did use secular laws. In all specifics, you used Article 15 of the Singapore Constitution. Do your god need to be backed up by Article 15? Haha
Pointing out ignorance without the ability to prove is making personal attacks. And all the rubbish about pride and ego...seriously you have no materials left to fight for?
laurence,
Let's take ANOTHER trip down memory lane, shall we?
Yes, the mere asking for references does not necessarily imply ignorance. I mean it could, but not necessarily. You just want me to back up my point. But in your case you cannot feign innocence here.
I specifically told you that the Constitution provided for the propagation of one's religion. I asked you to check the Constitution and you claimed that I was the one who was mistaken and needed to find out what it really says. This clearly shows that you THOUGHT the Constitution did not specifically provided for the propagation of religion, but you tried to give the impression that you were absolutely right about it. And what happened when I quoted the Article 15 of the Constitution and you realised (to your horror that you had self-pwned) and that the word "propagate" was sitting there happily? You did a face-saving move and twisted the issue to be about the lack of judicial deliberation on the word "propagate".
In all honesty and fairness, you are utterly confused. Since when do I have to prove that evangelism is unlawful? The whole point of my initial rebuttal to you was that evangelism (which is propagating one's religion) is lawful, and that banning it would be a violation of the Constitution. Unlike you, I am not arguing based on what the courts did not do, I am basing my argument on what the Constitution clearly says. Just because the courts are silent on the word "propagate" it does not therefore mean that nothing can be said about that word by anyone. You are basing your argument on silence whereas I based mine on the written law. Therefore it is entirely legitimate of me to say that to ban evangelism (whether it be religion in general or Christianity in particular) is unconstitutional and thus unlawful.
And you are again shifting goal post. When you have been bested by a Christian who used the law against you (how ironical when you were intending to use the law against the Christian!), you then tried to talk about whether God needed the secular laws to support Him. You probably have no idea how lame this face-saving red herring tactic is. I have exposed your ignorance on this thoroughly. Your continued denial is proof of the very pride and ego that you said you were not defending. It is not me who have no materials to fight for (the Constitution is on my side, not yours) but it is you who have nothing to fight for. Here's a challenge for you, you go lobby for banning propagation of religion and I assure you that you would be thrown out of court.
I rest my case.
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
no no noaccording to BIC, Oxford English Dictionary is the final authority on laws of Singapore, not Parliament nor Court of Justice
Who are we to challenge him?
laurence,
Why are you still sulking and pouting when it is clear that the Constitution SPECIFICALLY allows for the right to propagate one's religion which would mean that your suggestion to ban evangelism is unconstitutional and thus unlawful?
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
Atheists? Groupthink? Who are the atheists and how this groupthink play out here? BIC until now cannot prove so...so you are...?
I think banning religious evangelism due to the nature of it being public nuisance is a strong argument, although Singapore apply restrictions on public nuisance on different levels, from outright ban on touting to curbing unsolicited emails.
Why would right of free speech be more important than curbing religious evangelism? You might as well say we can kill our neighbours because we have right to whatever we do with our hands.
laurence,
You seemed to have entirely missed reasonable.atheist's point.
Does the fact that something is deemed a public nuisance means that it should be criminalised and banned, rather than being moderated or regulated? Please think carefully. And you would do well to do a little bit more reading http://www.enotes.com/topic/Article_15_of_the_Constitution_of_Singapore
-
You used the term "sell his religion" in a previous message, so I've just extended the term to other ideas. But there's no need to get stuck on it, since I can easily substitute the word "sell" with "promote" or "evangelize".
Still, I think that we are getting somewhere now.
The fundamental problem I have with your argument is that you are using the (a) quality of the position to (b) judge its right to propagation. In other words, you are saying that:
- (a) equal rights for all is a laudable goal, therefore (b) we should be allowed actively promote it, but
- (a) religion is a lie, therefore (b) Christians shouldn't be allowed to actively promote it.
Do you see the flaw in this? Who decides the quality of the position?
You may think that equal human rights is a worthy and obvious goal, but someone else might say it is not. You may think that religion is a lie, but Christians think that it is the Truth, in fact the most important Truth in our existence.Also, if I have no chance to explain the idea to you, how do you decide if it is worthy of propagation?
Few movements start off as being clearly correct. If they were that obvious, then there would have been no need for those movements in the first place. Even today, how do you decide whether vegetarianism or environmentalism activists should be allowed to evangelize? -
Originally posted by laurence82:
Atheists? Groupthink? Who are the atheists and how this groupthink play out here? BIC until now cannot prove so...so you are...?
I think banning religious evangelism due to the nature of it being public nuisance is a strong argument, although Singapore apply restrictions on public nuisance on different levels, from outright ban on touting to curbing unsolicited emails.
Why would right of free speech be more important than curbing religious evangelism? You might as well say we can kill our neighbours because we have right to whatever we do with our hands.
First of all, I hope you are also reading my responses to Tcmc, because I suspect that your position is similar to his in some ways.
Now, let me illustrate my point further.
You don't like Christians going door-to-door politely asking to share their views on Christianity. You want to ban them for being a public nuisance. Would you also ban Buddhists or MPs or salesmen from knocking on your door?
You don't like Christians politely asking you on the streets whether they can share their views with you. You want to ban them for being a public nuisance. Would you also ban street surveyors, flag sellers, and that woman who sells tissue?
Yes or no?
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
You used the term "sell his religion" in a previous message, so I've just extended the term to other ideas. But there's no need to get stuck on it, since I can easily substitute the word "sell" with "promote" or "evangelize".
Still, I think that we are getting somewhere now.
The fundamental problem I have with your argument is that you are using the (a) quality of the position to (b) judge its right to propagation. In other words, you are saying that:
- (a) equal rights for all is a laudable goal, therefore (b) we should be allowed actively promote it, but
- (a) religion is a lie, therefore (b) Christians shouldn't be
allowed to actively promote it.
Do you see the flaw in this? Who decides the quality of the position?
You may think that equal human rights is a worthy and obvious goal, but someone else might say it is not. You may think that religion is a lie, but Christians think that it is the Truth, in fact the most important Truth in our existence.Also, if I have no chance to explain the idea to you, how do you decide if it is worthy of propagation?
Few movements start off as being clearly correct. If they were that obvious, then there would have been no need for those movements in the first place. Even today, how do you decide whether vegetarianism or environmentalism activists should be allowed to evangelize?I know what you mean.
1. I guess then it all boils down to the context and the culture of the country/society we are in. Which one is less likely to create tensions/conflicts and which one is more likely to create trouble.
From there we decide which is "more permissible".
2. Let's discuss the value of both then. Let's discuss the value of promoting christianity (in this case) and promoting equal rights for gays in the context of Singapore then
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
I know what you mean.
1. I guess then it all boils down to the context and the culture of the country/society we are in. Which one is less likely to create tensions/conflicts and which one is more likely to create trouble.
From there we decide which is "more permissible".
2. Let's discuss the value of both then. Let's discuss the value of promoting christianity (in this case) and promoting equal rights for gays in the context of Singapore then
Tcmc,
Problem is, once you want to argue about which is "more this, more that" you are treading on subjective waters, and arguing about degrees of differences. Something can be "more this" now and banned. So after when it is "less this" you now lift the ban? Who decides when the line is crossed? It becomes really arbitrary.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
Problem is, once you want to argue about which is "more this, more that" you are treading on subjective waters, and arguing about degrees of differences. Something can be "more this" now and banned. So after when it is "less this" you now lift the ban? Who decides when the line is crossed? It becomes really arbitrary.
BIC,
I think you have misunderstood my intentions.
I do agree with reasonableatheist that it is very difficult to decide which is more valuable than the other.
That is why I bring up the subject of the context of the culture. We narrow it down so that it is easier to discuss and decide.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC,
I think you have misunderstood my intentions.
I do agree with reasonableatheist that it is very difficult to decide which is more valuable than the other.
That is why I bring up the subject of the context of the culture. We narrow it down so that it is easier to discuss and decide.
Tcmc,
There's a good reason why there are such things as basic right to propagate religion, or some other basic human rights. They are there REGARDLESS of contexts. They are FUNDAMENTAL rights. You can manage or regulate their expression (and these are often the areas of debate and controversy), but you cannot ban them outright.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
There's a good reason why there are such things as basic right to propagate religion, or some other basic human rights. They are there REGARDLESS of contexts. They are FUNDAMENTAL rights. You can manage or regulate their expression (and these are often the areas of debate and controversy), but you cannot ban them outright.
Sure, regardless of context. Try distributing insulting brochures to muslims and catholics like what the christian couple did.
There is a context. And context is important.
-
i was juz tinking...since u ppl are so bent on getting evangelism banned in singapore, why nt write in to our govt asking them to include it in our law? evangelism is banned in china but take note tat china is nt a multi-religious country...singapore on the other hand is...if our govt start a law banning evangelism, will singapore still be multi-religious?