Christians are hence prevented from preaching to non-Christians (especially Muslims). To non-Christians, that is good. To Christians, that is restricting their “freedom of speech”.

Muslims, who have been used to informal religious classes taught in homes for generations, are now not allowed to do so (fallout of this “war on terror”). All religious classes must be conducted by religious teachers who will have a certification by MUIS (a government body).

To non-Muslims, that is good because it prevents “deviant teachings” from being spread. To Muslims, it is an interference of their practice, which has been part of their culture for generations.

There is also a clampdown on the Falungong movement. Isn’t this a violation freedom of speech?

Everyone likes to voice his own grievances. No one seems to realize his problem is not unique.

Secularists should not worry too much about the “special privileges” religions have been accorded. The religion supporters have had their freedom suppressed too.

Yes, TwoHeads, you continue to misrepresent the “secularists”.

It doesn’t have to be careless words. A considered, factually-based statement can also be said to wound religious feelings.

Say we have a debate on a public policy that will affect all of us, religious or not. Say a religious organisation has a position on it based on their religious beliefs. Suppose I think that their position is wrong. Suppose that I have scientific evidence, or a valid moral argument against thier position. How do I argue against them if by making a statement, I will call into question the foundation of their beliefs and risk wounding their religious feelings?

Like I said, try turning the law around. Imagine if religious people were not only not allowed to bring their religious beliefs into public debate, but will in fact risk being sent to jail for up to three years for wounding “secular setiments” if they did so.

Why should religion be gagged like that?

Why should secularism be gagged like that?

Generally, people don’t usually get careless with words for no reasons. We need to examine the root cause and resolve discontent at its roots before resorting to rigid laws.

And yes, I am wounded by your misinterpretation of my vaguely worded comment. Wait for my lawyer’s letter. ; )

You misrepresent the position of “secularists” in your post.

You depict “secularists” as people who feel themselves “victimised” by religious teachings, and who “get emotional” when discussing religion. They just want to lash back at religion, don’t they?

No one – or at least I am not, and I don’t think Joel was in his post either – is asking for the right to “let out tirades of obscenities or insults” against religion, or to “go round scolding others, especially in public”.

It would be rude to do those things, but note that one does not need to do any of them to be charged under the law.

In fact, the law states quite clearly that “whoever… utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of” a person whose religious feelings are wounded may be charged.

Read that again carefully.

Utters any word.

Makes any sound in the hearing of.

It can be a quiet whisper.

It can be in a calm, moderate tone.

It can be factual.

It can be something you have good reason or evidence to believe in.

But it won’t matter if it “wounds religious feelings”. You are already in the wrong.

When evaluating a rule or law to see if it is fair, it is sometimes helpful to imagine the tables being turned.

Substitute the word “religious” with the word “secular” in that law, and see if your perception of such a law changes. Ironically, this reworded law is perhaps exactly what Gerald fears will be passed.

I hope I have not wounded your religious feelings with my comment.

This is-ought problem is something one cannot hope to clarify. There probably isn’t an objective IS, but there are a lot of OUGHTs, and people think that what they do ought to apply to others as well.

If i reach my idea of God through logical reasoning and not through a miracle, some Christians feel that that God must be the Christian God. Well and good for them, but i don’t believe them.

Is this hurting? Even if i can explain why? Challenging faith can get you into a lot of hot water, and not even in the other world. The law is skewed to the religious, because most people are religious in one way or another, and secularism-bashing is allowed any day. But religion-bashing isn’t.

The wording of the law includes everything, as long as it can be interpreted to fit the mould. So we don’t have reason to be fearful?

Even if you have been victim to misleading teachings that had ruin or destroy your life – and or society, you are still expected to contain your emotions and not let out tirades of obscenities or insults.

Remember, all humans are born saint and therefore should not go round scolding others, especially in public,even if you had been rip off big time.

Insults are worse than deception.

Bankruptcy as a result of court action is far more just than hurling disparaging remarks at your opponents or critics.

The difference is that secularists do not try to persuade the religious to discard their own world-view in favour of the secular world-view. I will venture to write that most secularists often allow others their choice of faith and practice without encroaching upon their beliefs (or lack of). Can we say the same for proselytising evangelists? Not having a religion is not equivalent to being fair game for conversion.

That’s the whole issue, isn’t it?

We must be “nice”. The moment the discussion is deemed to “wound religious feelings”, we must stop, regardless of whether what we are saying is relevant or right.

Who decides what’s “nice” and what’s not?

Who decides when someone’s religious feelings have been “wounded”?

Why should the feelings of someone who has chosen to adopt a belief in a divine entity be protected by law (the Penal Code, no less), while the feelings of someone who does not or has chosen not to have such beliefs not?

The law may have its utility, but it is unequal, and its wording ambiguous.

Yes, I am ‘fearful’. I believe I have reasons to be fearful.

I find his articles very interesting.

patriot.

Secularists as mentioned by angrydoc, fearful of a whiny religious tout who might invoke the law when someone criticizes; and the Religious fearing of an overreacting agnostic/atheist crackpot.

This is religious harmony? It seems more like a pot that is slowing simmering, until one fine day, it explodes.

I am agnostic, so I may be biased when I say I agree with angrydoc that if you want the right to proselytyse (which you can already do) without some backlash from the secularists, then allow us to criticize as freely.

Then again, we need to do so in a manner not as blatant as the Danish cartoons maybe. (frankly, I have never seen them)
Criticize, yes. Make fun of, I would say No.

I agree with you…simply because “secularism” is not a “religion” in that sense, unlike other religions which are “protected”.

Not that I want secularism to be a religion (of course not!) but this is the discriminating factor.

I do not debate your views on the right to proselytyse, because that isn’t really an aspect of religions’ presence in the public sphere I am concerned with -people should be allowed to proselytyse, but people should also be allowed to criticise.

The field is indeed lop-sided, because currently one can “bash” secularism with little fear of legal consequences, but

“Whoever, with deliberate intention of wounding the religious or racial feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any gesture in the sight of that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, or causes any matter however represented to be seen or heard by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.”

Think about that for a minute.

It doesn’t matter if what you say is justified, or whether it is true. All it takes for you to be jailed for up to 3 years is for you to say something that “wounds the religious feelings” of someone who has chosen to believe in something which he does not have to provide reason or evidence for.

Racial identity is something that one cannot change and so we can justify having a law to protect that (or maybe not, but let’s leave that aside, shall we?).

But “religious feeling”?

Now anyone who wishes to question any basic tenent of religion will of course risk “wounding the religious feelings” of followers of that religion, which renders any meaningful debate dangerous to the “secularist”.

On the other hand, one can ‘bash’ secularism or any other form of ideology or system of belief that is not religiously or racially based without such fear.

What we have here is a law that forbids the questioning of or rational discussion over a system of beliefs. Now if it was a simple case of beliefs in elves and unicorns no “secularist” will be bothered. But religious faith, while deeply personal, is often expressed in a public fashion that affects those who do not share that faith.