This is more serious than beating red light, hitting and killing a pillion by the Sin Min editor! They should get the same lawyer who represented her……….

so easy, use the law to scare ordinary citizens lor. everyone scared scared, so shuddup and sit down and listen to government.

the way they terrorise citizens i think they shld be charged for sedition lol

Sometimes it is easy to pass comments when one does not know or feel what a `victim’ feels.

I have counselled a friend who was on the verge of hitting a teenaged boy who had just shoved some religious literature under his door. I was at his house then and had witnessed what happened.

He had a very clear sign on his door showing what religion he professed. Yet, the religious literature insulting his beliefs was shoved under his door. The boy who did it did not even ring the bell.

My friend opened the door and shouted at the boy to collect the literature from the floor of his living room. He physically grabbed the boy. Fortunately, I stopped him and advised him that if he felt strongly against it, to lodge a police report. He said that was not the first time.

The boy, fortunately apologised, but refused to give me the name of the religious organisation he was from. Nevertheless I made him promise to inform his superior NEVER to do such a thing.

Putting such literature even into letter boxes, without knowing the religious beliefs of the owners, is already bad enough.

I read the offensive literature. It was indeed insulting to the believers of the religion being attacked.

Let’s not play with fire. Many here may not have experienced racial or religious riots. No one wins. ……………… and the scars remain for a very long time, perhaps forever.

the way to go is not punitive actions. That’s reserved for kids in strict households who consequently grow up not knowing better. That’s generally what Singaporeans are like.

A more mature way is open discussion and counselling about what’s right and wrong.

The constitution of Singapore gives the Singaporean the right not only to profess and practice his religion but also to propogate it. With that, how could doing something with the intent of convincing someone (Muslim or otherwise) to convert to Christianity be an offence? This overly harsh sentence, seriously looks like an attempt to earn favor with the Muslim ground, while it presumes that it will have little negative backlash from the Christian ground. A fine, a big fine would have sufficed in this case, and it would have sent the message equally well. I wonder what the AG and the courts are trying to prove.

They could have been charged under ISA, and refused their day in court.

I plead that all the so-called JI terrorist in ISD now be given their day in court.

How many lives are currently incarcerated?

How many families?

Thank you.

Even if they are motivated by their religion, rather than malice should not be an excuse to belittle other religion. Learn to treat other religion with respect and recognise their equal existence is the only way to co-exist in our multi-racial society. Religion insensitiveness and belittlement cannot be allowed. Singapore can never be a religious country, having one religion, one value and one lifestyle.
I have only to say they FULLY deserved it.

#4….dear sobri..

I agree with you….

Singapore has travelled a great distance…..however we are still, tied like a knot when religious issues arise….

When it comes to discussions, I notice the leaders of religions getting togather….and having a discussion….I find this healthy….but it will be healthier, if ordinary people got togather too…..

To be cosmopolitan….to have a matured tolerant society….I think it is time to touch on such thorny issues and come out of it stronger….

The jugdement passed on the couple….seems harsh…a fine and a stern warning not to do it again would have been enough, in my opinion.
(but, of course, I do not have all the evidence to what they did).

The judge presiding, had an ideal opportunity….to raise the conscience level of Singapore’s religious society…to put forth a new way for people to approach such issues….a way comfortable for people like Sobri and his friends and others to be tolerant and understand some misgivings of others….

What a waste…..

I would like the the posters to see 1st hand what are the materials the couple had distributed and judge for yourself whether the sentence is harsh or not. Sorry for my Muslim friends as this is REALLY overtly offensive.

http://anonymousxwrites.blogspot.com/2009/05/little-bride-who-is-allah-distributors.html

I’m sorry but if you accuse insult someone’s God in the name of spreading your faith, then you deserve such a sentence. I have no objections if you spread your faith claiming that it is better but please do not insult other faiths. All faith teaches you to be good and should be respected. Claiming other faiths are devil worshippers is like the doctrine of the KKK in the USA and should have no place in our society.

they are educated peeps with willful intentions. they certainly have it coming. some may say they are martyrs but i still think they should’ve observed their boundaries in their evangelical fervour.

I wonder if Mr Sobri is speaking for himself or for his friend. Surely the friend’s reaction cannot be taken as reason to support the punishment in this case, unless Sobri is telling us that his friend’s reaction is reflective of the Muslim community at large. So much for racial harmony if it is. .

Singapore’s multi-racial and multi-religious society has been working because of one major ingredient – tolerance. This is not to say there should be no limit to tolerance. If a Christian evangelist were to walk up and come face to face with a Muslim or a Hindu and try to convert him, then I would say this is wrong.

However, getting all worked up over religious notes and pamphlets being slipped under the door is nothing but an uncalled for reaction. Why not get angry over the numerous junk mails one receives each day? I can claim to be a devout Muslim or Christian and take offence at pamphlets promoting spas and undergarments showing scantily-clad models, or beer and alcoholic beverages being promoted during festive seasons etc.

To cut a long story short, the precedent being set here, and the tolerance level is, as some have pointed out, way too low. Paying a fine will be more than enough to drive the message across. What will we not tolerate next?

Correction to last sentence in first para. It should read: “so much for religious harmony if it is“.

The link is here :
http://nickdove.wordpress.com/2008/03/17/the-work-of-jack-chick-a-critical-overview-the-little-bride/

If you wish to continue promoting discontent against muslims and start religious riots here with the potential of pulling in the Indonesians and Malaysians into the fray, please go ahead. Don’t play with fire, if you never felt the heat before. 8 weeks jail is really light sentencing considering they were not sent to ISA for torture and beatings.

Thanks Muhamad Nur, for the link. I stand corrected. If that was the pamphlet that was being distributed then it is definitely seditious against Islam and against the government’s stand on religious harmony.

Its not surprising that the couple did what they did. If you have attended church before, you will know the true opinions of fervent Christians regarding other religions. But then we can say the same about how fervent Muslims really view other religions. It is because both religions teach that only their teachings are true. It is unfortunate, but that is the situation. Or else the world world would have been spared most of the religious wars. Thankfully, many fervently religious people here understand that they should at least be diplomatic regarding their true opinions about other religions.

“The sentences passed on Mr Ong and Ms Chan, who had expressed contrition for their actions, might appear harsh to elements in the Christian community already chaffing at the fallout from the AWARE takeover, perhaps even reinforcing their perceptions that their religion is being unjustly singled out.”

Regarding the article above, one could instead interpret that the 2 recent incidents are signs of increased Christian militancy challenging the status quo…

Apparently there is a prima facie case against them. So they have to face up to the music. I simply do not understand why they must go round ’saving’ other people. Either they are arrogant and insensitive or they are simply non-thinking.

Go and try on those without religion, there are many in Geylang. Please don’t try it on other religion. Don’t take it lightly. Firstly it is impolite and secondly it is against the law.

I think as a true christain 8 week sentence isn’t harsh compared to Jesus’s ordeal.
They should have known the consequence and the price to pay. If they weren’t prepared for this they shouldn’t have done this in the first place. Take it real joy the trial.

I want to laugh at some of the comments here. The tract is obviously insulting and the punishment is justified. Do read it first before commenting.

if the christians want to promote their religion they can do it in an appropriate manner. firstly the person who they want to reach out must be interested to allow them to discuss all this. by simply chucking such materials into people is rather radically evangelistic. its totally disrespectful of one’s space. how many times have i encountered christian evangelists in singapore who will stop me in public space, insist i go to their church even after telling them like three times i am not interested. i havent had such encounters in any part of the world i lived in or travelled to. elsewhere the christians will approach and first ask if i am interested to hear and will only start thereafter. after that if i say yes, they wont insist on me going to their church. it will just be a dialogue. sometimes they ended up coming to my mosque.

what if a muslim creates comics as such and makes similar ludicrous statements in them and chuck in christians’ mail boxes. will christians in singapore appreciate it?

the whole concept of respect is violated by the couple

secondly there is definitely malice in the actions of the couple.its malicious to use comics that put together incorrect cliches that demonise that which is considered sacred in Islam with the objective of shifting the opinions and conviction a muslim may have in his/her faith. if the couple believed in those material, they ought to engage an Islamic scholar in a discussion and maybe include muslims that they want to reach out. obviously those posting earlier comments have no clue about what is and what is not an appropriate method to use to reach to someone outside their faith to attract to their faith. for a person A to go and demonise the faith of B in order to attract B to the faith of A is pure malice. i have heard so much of incorrect, inconsistent statements passed by Jews about Jesus and Mary that demonises the faith of christianity. imagine someone picks up some comic or other literature that disemminates such messages and start to distribute to mailboxes of christians. will that not be offensive and malicious?

frankly is that how you want to invite people to your faith? if that becomes a standard, then one can imagine the kind of terrible outcomes it will invite.

A mature society would not react that way. It looks more like how the current ruling party would react after an election.

IMO the sentence was not overly harsh, it was actually pretty light in view of the damage it could have caused in terms of inter-religious feelings. The tracts that couple distributed are not run-of-the-mill religious tracts, Jack Chick’s tracts are well known for being extremely fundamentalist and inflammatory. His site is actually banned in Singapore. Only 100 “symbolic” sites are banned and this is one of them. That should give you a clue.

For those quoting the right to propagate religion under Art 15, it’s important to note Art 15(4): (4) This Article does not authorise any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality.

Not exactly hard to see how demonising other religions, in the face of their followers no less, can contribute to a “public order” situation.

The line to be observed in propagation is quite clear. You can say how good your religion is, but you cannot say other religions are bad. Since evangelists are essentially promoters, take a hint from commercial advertisers. You always see how delicious McD burgers are in McD commercials, but you’d never see anything about how KFC or BK are crappy.

To some of the above posters (e.g., Sobri (#3), anakin (#9), singapoor (#17): The issue is not whether the materials were deeply offensive and hurtful to Muslims, because they clearly were (not to mention full of incredibly stupid statements).

More pertinent is (1) whether we ought to deploy criminal punishment against proponents of religious hatred; (2) whether a custodial sentence of 8 weeks’ jail is proportionate to harm caused; (3) whether we should invoke the Sedition Act (which doesn’t require proof of intention) in this and similar cases.

To take a counter-example: the case of Gan Huai Shi, a 17-year old who was charged under the Sedition Act in 2005. Instead of jail time, he was made to perform 180 hours of community service at Malay-Muslim welfare organizations, as a form of “immersion into the Malay community” to correct his misguided racism.

Why not, as an alternative, (1) sentence the Christian couple to, say, 300 hours of similar community service (the higher sentence taking into account the fact that, as middle-aged adults, they should’ve known better); and (2) have them publish a full-page written apology in the major newspapers in Singapore, which should also include statements from those who received the pamphlets describing how hurt and offended they feel.

In this way, we’re vindicating the deep emotional/psychic wounds inflicted on the victims of such hate propaganda, and we’re also more fully educating the public on the ills of hate speech. Instead of merely sending out a deterrent signal, we’d be addressing the root of the problem.

Using the Sedition Act also assumes that the targets of hate speech will inevitably respond irrationally and/or with violence, so that public disorder results. Thus, proof of a “seditious tendency” is enough, because once hate speech is uttered, we’re on a one-way path towards societal collapse. It’s assumed that people will always respond with their basest instincts.

By not acknowledging that the victims of hate speech can respond in a mature, responsible way, we are denying their capacity for autonomous choice… and hence, it’s a further insult super-added by the State. Compare the testimony of one of the prosecution witnesses in this case: ““We Muslims in Singapore are able to think rationally and we do not let our feelings make us do undesirable acts.”

Furthermore, the Sedition Act actually submerges the victims’ rights in favour of overall national interests. The basis for punishment is not because individuals of another race/religion have been profoundly hurt, but because the State’s very existence is threatened. In effect, by applying the Sedition Act, we’re ignoring the very real personal injuries inflicted by hate speech, and focusing only on the diffuse societal harms it causes. This fails to vindicate the victims’ interests.

Compare section 298 of the Penal Code, which criminalizes the wounding of another person’s racial or religious feelings. Unlike the Sedition Act, it recognizes that the true evil of hate speech is that it attacks and undermines an aspect of someone’s identity that is integral to his or her sense of self-worth.

18) Frank –

If you mean by ‘mature’ society that persons of various religious persuasions can receive diatribes against their religion in a nonchalant and detached manner, then Singapore cannot be considered a ‘mature’ society. Here, people still hold strongly to their religious believes, and if the government does not nip such divisive activities in the bud, there will be hysteria, not only locally, but in neighbouring countries.

23) la nausée
Using the Sedition Act also assumes that the targets of hate speech will inevitably respond irrationally and/or with violence, so that public disorder results. Thus, proof of a “seditious tendency” is enough, because once hate speech is uttered, we’re on a one-way path towards societal collapse. It’s assumed that people will always respond with their basest instincts.

The assumption is legitimate. I do not have to point out any examples. The world news is full of them. Singaporeans aren’t all educated enough to avoid such a response. At any rate, it is possible that given the rising tide of Christian militancy in Singapore (evident in the AWARE episode), the Gov’t feels that community service no longer suffice as a deterrent.

“perhaps even reinforcing their perceptions that their religion is being unjustly singled ”

As a Christian, I certainly do not have the perception that the govt has unjustly singled my religion. But I cannot say the same for TOC.

I am just wondering if the world would be more peaceful if there is no religion. Too many wars have been fought in the names of religion. If we all submit to the believe that there is no eternal live, perhaps we will treat each other better within our short life span.

#23

The couple are a highly educated pair with good jobs. If they can believe such crap from Jack Chick, then they are “brain washed”. It’s so ludicrous, as in Indonesia, where I work, all churches which I attend have the name Allah displayed prominently on it. IMHO, there won’t be much good to sentence them to community service as they believe in such rubbish anyway living and mixing around our multi culttural environment. It would be up to the Christian community itself to reform them as the Muslim community have done with the former JI activists.

4) dear sobri

” A more mature way is open discussion and counselling about what’s right and wrong.”

PLEASE!!! HAHA!!
They already have very CLEAR definitions of what is right and wrong, and don’t need your ungodly, worldly advice.

17) Thinktok – I simply do not understand why they must go round ’saving’ other people. Either they are arrogant and insensitive or they are simply non-thinking.

In case you don’t know, ’saving’ other people is a commission required of all Christians, as stated in the Bible. The approach used by these people, their religious insensitivity, and their target audience, is the problem. Muslims, on the other hand, are not allowed to convert to other religions. Thus it becomes a perennial point of contention between the 2.

Wonder what will “solo bear” comment be ??
Militant christians felt angry when their right to teach their children is being violated. But do they respect the other’s right to teach their children about their own religion.
The muslim couple has the right to teach their own children wholesome Islamic values.

To la nausée:

You make a good point, but I think that the punishment has to be tailored to the offender as well, not just the offence. I’m making a bit of an assumption here, but Gan Huai Shi was probably viewed as an ignorant teenager shooting his mouth off, not very conscious of the consequences of his actions. Also, he was young, so his views were more amendable to change.

This couple, on the other hand, are middle aged and presumably well educated. They knew what they were doing, what materials they were distributing, and that it would cause trouble not only between religions, but also for themselves. Nonetheless they went ahead. I do not think a mere cultural exchange would do a lot to change their deeply indoctrinated views. They would probably pretend to be reformed, then go right back to doing the same, only being more careful not to get caught.

Then again, if the religious rerabilitation programme for the JI guys was really successful, maybe this couple should go through the same.

Give them counselling? Have them take part in community sevices? Some of the comments made here are laughable.
The actions of these 2 grown up are dangerous. People like them should be mature and rational enough know our racial harmony is very sensitive and equally fragile. It walks on a very thin line. Wars are fought for centuries. Riots can just happen tomorrow.
There are people who are too “over enthusiastic” thinking that their religion are superior and true. These people must know even in spreading the faith, there must be sensitiveness to others who do not share theirs.
If the court adopts a soft stand, then this is really going to set a dangerous precedent.

A ‘community’-oriented sentence in itself may be an insufficient deterrent, I agree. I was simply putting it out there as an alternative, because people assume that the only response to hate speech is criminalization. Why not a jail term complemented by a long-term “immersion” programme and/or counselling? With hate crimes, rehabilitation is especially important… granted, people like these may be set in their ways, but the State should nevertheless try to bring them around.

Secondly, with respect to statements like these:
Pessimist: “Muslims, on the other hand, are not allowed to convert to other religions.”
Law: “There are people who are too “over enthusiastic” thinking that their religion are superior and true. ”

Every religion thinks that it’s superior and true, to the exclusion of all others! Even the supposedly more accommodating ones, like Buddhism (“You must tolerate, or else.”) Every religion (not just Islam), because it holds itself out to be true, by definition forbids its adherents to convert to other religions (which are deemed false).

The truth is that there are often fine lines between expressing your religious beliefs, criticizing other religions, and criticizing them in a hurtful way. By saying that one aspect of a religion is ‘untrue’, aren’t we also calling it a ‘lie’? By criticizing certain historical practices mentioned in the religious text (like slavery and child marriage), are we denigrating the religion itself?

I am not defending the tracts or the couple’s actions. I’m merely observing that the State’s treatment of hate speech is becoming increasingly draconian. In 2005, Benjamin Koh et al. were convicted because they posted deliberately and explicitly offensive remarks against Malay-Muslims. The present case involves essentially a case of aggressive proselytization using materials that were already available in Singapore. What next?

Third,
36) Law on June 12th, 2009 7.08 pm,

I recognize that once the Government decided to prosecute under the Sedition Act, the court’s hands were pretty much tied. But this begs the question why the prosecution did not rely on a more appropriate law.

Would it be so difficult to prove that the couple acted with “deliberate intention”, and that they “wounded” the religious feelings of certain identified individuals, pursuant to section 298 of the Penal Code? By doing so, you’re recognizing that ‘racial and religious harmony’ is not just about pure national survival, but that respect and tolerance matter to individuals too.

Or alternatively, even if public order and ethno-religious harmony really are overriding concerns, why not invoke the massively underused Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act? The Minister for Home Affairs could have first issued a restraining order against the couple; only if they breached it should they have been charged.

31) anakin on June 12th, 2009 5.59 pm ,
during Suharto ’s rule bibles were or christianity was permitted provided the word ‘allah’ was used in place of god.. It was forced upon the christians.Ask the indonesian christians.

The sedition act was chosen because it sounds fierce. The government wants to show that it is more than a penal code criminal matter, it is serious national matter.

where is thio sm when they need her?!

We are a multi-racial and multi-religious country. No ifs and buts about it.

The government, rightly or wrongly, has taken steps to increase the common space for the people to interact, to be feel secure, to be Singaporean (whatever that means).

The actions of this couple undermines that.

Why can’t it be a live and let live for them?

Why must they insist on doing something that they know will injure the feelings of others?

Chick Publications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick_Publications is well known for printing materials that are offensive to everyone except Fundamentalist Protestants.

I am not so sure this couple didn’t know. Its like fundamentalist church members and fellow mentees not knowing each other before mounting a (badly executed) takeover of a secular group. ‘I didn’t know’ is such a bad excuse.

I am glad that a strong message is being sent that our people-ties are important and will be protected.

Benedict

They deserved it for intent to encroach upon the religious belief of others – its not about the severity of the meted out punishment – they ought / certainly understand that a monotheistic religion : Islam strictly does not tolerate any form or degree of proselytizing upon their adherents and its undeniable degree of intended apostasy that cannot be avoided and yet this mature couple was still intransigent.

All religion teach us to be good and no one religion shall try to wield supremacy over another – instead breed reconciliation amongst ..

This intransigent couple had charted their road to perdition and they deserved it for not respecting the rights of thers.

Sedition: an illegal action inciting resistance to lawful authority and tending to cause the disruption or overthrow of the government.

Does the couple’s error fall qualify as this?

The chick publications are not really banned in Singapore, you can still buy them at Bras Basah, even when complained to MDA, they also bochap. But when you send to people, you get charged for sedition.

See an investigation done by this website:
http://www.trevvy.com/scoops/article.php?a_id=348&c_id=3

Imo, the heavy sentencing was politically justifiable as it concerns the Muslim community. They are a powerful group and the authorities need to make sure that nobody antagonize them.

Just two thoughts.

1. Daily, I receive so many handbills in my letter box and sometimes on my door railing ranging the spectrum from housing agents offer to buy my home to new condominium projects to massage services to shopping mall vouchers to religious materials.

What should I do with all these handbills?- Sue all of them at the point of source as I find some of them “absolutely offensive” – or just get on with life! . . . after all more offensive materials are floating everywhere – some real, some virtual, some in print, some digital, some even verbal!

2. It’s amazing but some of the handbills/ billboards/signs have so much truth in them! Jesus said in John 8:32 “Then you will know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free.”

BTW – I find that some of the sales offer are really true! Worth checking them out!

Seems like only the governent is helping to do the teaching. When a son screwed up the neigbourhood, we expect their father to publicly made known the stand and even with courage to apologise on this son’s behalf. But so far did the father react yet ? The sentencing is right, the message must be out to those wannabe high risk people. There are many positve ways to communicate effectively and sincerely. But please don’t go around making people angry to satisfy your needs to share “good things”. Nobody likes that. Don’t do things that you don’t want others to do to you <<Many people fail this basic teaching but unconsciously feel qualify to teach others.

The Govt’s approach is correct. Since all religions are based on faith and not on facts and reason, it is impossible to resolve religious differences by discussion or debate.

It is best to advocate tolerance and mutual respect among religions.

Vommit blood. Singh, leadership is very important. I hope you are just a follower.

Of course it is sedition. At the heart of the debate of whether the acts of this obviously religious couple were seditious is the essentially political question of what sort of society Singapore is. From the extremist protestant point of view ( which is what Chick publications is all about ), there is a need to “save” the rest of the world from heathen religions- not just Islam, but Catholicism as well(!). The extremist islamist point of view pretty much says the same thing. They’re just irreconciliable viewpoints. The question is, as a nation, do we believe that people can handle their different religious beliefs in a rational manner, or would we rather be a little more pessmistic about it?

There are actually good reasons to argue in favour for the latter point of view. There are very few countries which have successfully managed to escape the horror of religious wars. Even America suffered numerous anti-catholic riots in the early part of the 19th century (and went on and on into the mid 19th, as seen in Gangs of New York). Arguments that wars of religion are entirely to do with money and power are pretty misguided.

38) la nausée on June 12th, 2009 8.25 pm

On pointing out my comment that “There are people who are too “over enthusiastic” thinking that their religion are superior and true”, i also follow up with “These people must know even in spreading the faith, there must be sensitiveness to others who do not share theirs.” It doesn’t mean that just because you and i think that our religion is superior and true, we go around distributing something that is going to incite religious sentiments here.
With the earlier case of the pair of bloggers being jailed in 2005 already show that the thresehold on racial harmony is extremely uncompromising. Our government is seriously not taking racial intolerance to chance. If everyone just go through restraing order and counselling, our laws will be extremely lax. Who bothers? I can drink driving all day long.

I’m not a muslim and even I myself felt very offended when I read the material. I can imagine how my muslim friends will feel when they saw it in their letterbox.

Eight weeks is considered very light sentence for them.

Religion aside.One must not be too defensive just because one belong to certain faith.Please dun be offended.
I felt that they deserve to be punish .The judgement of eight week is not fair.It should be MORE.This society dun belong to any religion.I don’t understand why certain people must be so carried away,promoting their religion and do not care about the feeling of others.
Very often,again and again , I have got stranger coming to my door,knock on my door ,depriving me of my sleep(I only got a chance to sleep 3 hours a day),just to invite me for a sunday prayer session,despite knowing the fact that my family member do not belong to that faith.Some just throw their religious flyer into my house as if my house is a rubbish bin.Some are worst,they issue pamplet that insult other religion.I had kept a copy but did not make a hooha as I belief in religious tolerence,but my illiterate family member had disposed it.For those of you who have done it,please do not be offended.Just put yourself into the other person’s shoe.You can belief in what you belief but please don’t play with fire.

We must understand that such an act can result in many unforseen circumstances.We want a peaceful society where everyone can practice their belief freely.Irregardless of race or religion,we as Singaporean had so far been living like a family.Do not let the few black sheep get us into trouble.Whether Sedition Act,Internal Security Act or Bopian Act,the Garmen must act.

I am from a family of different faith so pls do not think I am bias.
My apology if I had offended anyone.

Hi Father of Three #29,

How can TOC be singling out Christianity when there are Christians among TOC staff. For example, TOC’s Deputy Editor is a Christian. Sigh.. Anti-Christianity campaign just reeks of over-hyped paranoia..

Why the Christian Couple wasn’t charged under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA)?

The MRHA endows the President and the Minister of Home Affairs the power to issue Restraining Order against individuals who attempt to disrupt religious harmony in Singapore.

The MRHA also establishes a consultative process between the Government and Religious Groups to address religious harmony in Singapore and the issue of the Restraining Orders.

The MRHA does not define any specific crime except in the case of a person contravening the Restraining Order which leads to a fine up to $20,000, or a prison sentence up to 3 years or both.

If not MRHA, what other laws are applicable?

Sections 298/298A of the Penal Code and the Sedition Act.

What’s the difference between Sections 298/298A of the Penal Code & the Sedition Act?

Sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code requires the Public Prosecutor to prove deliberate intent of the defendants and that the defendants knowingly commited their crimes that their action would lead to religious/racial disharmony.

If the Christian Couple truly believes that converting Muslims is a good thing, then prosecuting them under Sections 298/298A not only makes their religious beliefs criminal, but also propagate the message that Christians are out to disrupt the religious harmony of Singapore knowingly.

On the other hand, the Sedition Act requires the Public Prosecutor to prove seditious tendency which is described as:

(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government;

(b) to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;

(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore;

(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore;

(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.

Unlike the penal code, the Sedition Act does not lead to the conclusion that some Christians are knowingly out to disrupt the religious harmony of Singapore. It also circumvents the need to examine the religious conviction of the defendants.

While some people (e.g. the author of this article) conclude that prosecuting the Christian Couple has lowered the bar of using the Sedition Act, would it not be beneficial for society at large if the Judiciary does not re-affirm that majority of the Christian population in Singapore is out to disrupt religious harmony knowingly.

Why TOC wouldn’t be prosecuted under the Sedition Act?

Under the Sedition Act, TOC cannot be deemed seditious as long as the nature of its articles is:

(a) to show that the Government has been misled or mistaken in any of its measures;

(b) to point out errors or defects in the Government or the Constitution as by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of such errors or defects;

(c) to persuade the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Singapore; or

(d) to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of Singapore,

Ever tot govmin trying to protect non-Muslims against Muslim extremists prone to violence.

Look at Pakistan, India, 9/11, 7/7, Madrid. There are some extremist Muslims out there.

Govmin does not to provoke them.

Sometimes I wonder who are the “terrorists” in this world actually?

After in depth reflections, I came to a conclusion that most of the governments and rulers in the world are the actual “terrorists”.

Why?

Because they have the power, the authority, the machinery, the military, the police, the laws, the judiciary, and the so-called “mandate” of the people to do all things possible in order to safeguard their own rice bowls, power, security, status, name, fame, and idiosyncrasies, in the name of “for the country”. Almost like a god, they have the total power to control the lives and deaths of their powerless, resource-less, financially burdened and less intelligent/educated citizens.

Just walk down the streets and ask anyone whether he/she is afraid of the government.

Just ask a small kid whether he/she is afraid of the policemen.

Just touch our own heart and ask yourself whether you dare to offend the government and those in power.

FEAR! Yes, there is Fear. I don’t know about you but I surely know there is a certain amount of fear inside me.

How come this fear?

Over the past donkey years, terror has been silently and stealthily creeping into my heart. I was not aware of it. But it was real. Now, suddenly, I realise that I am so afraid of being “punished”, being sent to jail, being called up by ISD people in the middle of the night, being sent to IMH because someone was to detail me there at his pleasure, being deprive of my HDB flat upgrading, being deprive of my license for earning my livelihood, and so on and so forth, etc. etc. etc…….

Yes, I am so afraid. I am very afraid of a whole string of things that the government and our rulers can do to me and my family.

Therefore, I have been restraining myself from doing the “right things” and instead focusing my whole life to do “things right”, even if there are the wrong things to do. I even teach my children to be afraid of the policemen and not to offend the government people – be nice to them and be polite – for no rhyme or reason. You see, how hopeless am I?

But, to borrow our PM Lee’s words, “It has happened …. WHAT TO DO!”

I just wonder how many of you are in the same boat as me?
Or, you are all very brave people in this BRAVE NEW WORLD?

59) A Tan – You’ve got a point there that is lost amongst those Singaporeans who thought that religious mobs can be tamed by reason. Staunch belief in religious dogma stifles the ability of a person to reason, and not just amongst the less educated.

60) You have mixed up totalitarian with terrorist.

#39, 666

You claim indonesian christians are forced to use Allah in churches. Strange that Malaysian Churches and christian publications are fighting in court to use Allah as the name of God there. Maybe christians in Malaysia are different.

#59 A Tan

I can give similar examples of extremists of other religions, just recently a white Christian fired guns in the Holocast museum dedicated to Jews, Gujerat massacre in 2002. So it is unfair to single out Muslims only.

The bigger question I try to share with my Christian friends and buddies concerns insensitive proselytizing. I feel an important Rubicon was crossed when the work of the couple transgressed from passive to active proselytizing (easy boundaries yes, there is probably a more nuanced spectrum). By demonising another faith and failing to exhibit reasonable cogniscance of the importance of respecting the multi-racial and religious public space in SIngapore, an 8 week sentence sounded reasonable, to me at least. I found the defence of the couple, throughout the trial, if reported faithfully, thoroughly unbelievable.

I think Christians who want to spread the good word around ought to do so within the confines of their immediate friendships. And if the individual they seek to bring to Christ’s fold is not interested, the Christian should drop the subject, for he/she invades the other’s person private space by persisting.

To Christian friends, please seriously reconsider the door-to-door approach, stopping people at bus interchanges and encouraging them to join in your service etc. if you dont know them. Worse, to start by telling someone that his religion is a pagan one and his God is a fake, well, I think goes some way to explaining why there appears to be an increase in the vitriol against Christians in Singapore. We just have to solve this together – Christians and non-Christians – to make our public space one where we all feel safe and secure.

As for some arguments about the use of the sedition act, and the reality of mailbox spam, and others that suggest service in Christ’s cause (i.e. posting hate mail on other faiths – I wonder what Christ would say, not his pastors) necessitates hardship and suffering, these I feel constitute red herrings. Nobody hates the couple because they are Christians. It is the wider impact of their actions that worry.

Some other comments have flame the government for reasons I cannot quite understand. Something about citizens being terrorized, these are just plain silly, in the context of this piece.

There were some others along the lines of “A more mature way is open discussion and counselling about what’s right and wrong.” There is value in exploring this approach. As for the case in question, such an approach probably works best before a crime is committed. I think its pretty difficult to conceive of discussion and counseling, after the event, even though the spirit of this approach is incredibly magnanimous. Respectfully, I just dont think its practicably realistic.

But I would say that the counselling approach may work best to prevent more of such incidents from occurring in future. Maybe the more level-headed pastors/ church and cell-group leaders can discuss these issues with bodies like the Inter-Religious Organisation, Community Engagement Programme etc. and reach out to develop some understanding and general consensus on the do-es and donts of doing God’s work in a country where we may believe in different “Gods”.

I hope this can send a strong signal to those fundamentalists that Singapore does not belong to them alone. Get it clear and move on without affecting & intruding into other people peaceful lives. Can’t stand them anymore!!!

>himself or for his friend. Surely the friend’s reaction cannot be taken as reason >to support the punishment in this case, unless Sobri is telling us that his >friend’s reaction is reflective of the Muslim community at large. So much for >racial harmony if it is. .

>However, getting all worked up over religious notes and pamphlets being >slipped under the door is nothing but an uncalled for reaction. Why not get >angry over the numerous junk mails one receives each day? I can claim to be a >devout Muslim or Christian and take offence at pamphlets promoting spas and >undergarments showing scantily-clad models, or beer and alcoholic beverages >being promoted during festive seasons etc.

—————————————————————-
Gemini should read my post carefully.

This friend, like many Hindus, Taoists, Christians and Muslims, made an effort to tell others their religions with a CLEAR sign on their doors.

If someone on purpose pushed under the door , without even ringing the bell or knock to talk to the occupants, literatures insulting the occupants’ religion, isn’t that in intolerant behaviour? What `tolerance’ is Gemini talking about?

I am a very understanding person, having many close friends of various religions and races. I know quite a lot about other religions too, besides my own. I do understand the call for some religions to spread the faiths. Still, I was perturbed at what was done by the youth.

A Hindu friend said this to me: To insult the religion of others is similar to insulting their mothers. Gemini should know by now how many fights and even killing have happened because of that.

A Muslim friend told me that in the Koran: Muslims are prohibited from reviling anything that other people hold sacred, even if it contravens the islamic teachings.

I’m sure, this is also found in other religions.

Thus, TARGETTED insults to the religions of others, cannot be seen as one’s freedom of speech or action…………..or permitted in the name of tolerance.
I’m very sure, no one will take lightly to have his or her mother insulted.

————————————————————–

>4) dear sobri on June 12th, 2009 11.03 am the way to go is not punitive actions. >That’s reserved for kids in strict households who consequently grow up not >knowing better. That’s generally what Singaporeans are like.

>A more mature way is open discussion and counselling about what’s right and >wrong.

I would be most happy when `an open discussion over what is right and wrong ‘ can be universally agreed. As it is, every realigion claims to be the correct one, and the only true one. Believers of Judism for example claim to be the chosen people. Christians believe only Jesus can save one from hell. Muslims believe only Muslims will go to heaven.

So, what is right and what is wrong?

Ok, let’s limit it to the action of Mr Ong Kian Cheong and Dorothy Chan . Are their actions right or wrong? Even here we have different views!
So what do we do? Shall we continue to allow targetted insults at the religious beliefs of others?

To those who assume my race and religion, please find out what sobriquet means. That’s where I got my nick.

#63 Anakin

Which other religion has an Osama bin Laden and friends that preach and practice violence, globally, against non-Muslims, and even Muslims that they consider infidels?

Yes other religions have violent fanatics but their actions are limited to specific locales.

Mr A.Tan – 67,

“Yes, other religions have violent fanatics but their actions are limited to specific locales.”

This argument does not hold water against the weight of history.

For e.g., In terms of sheer numbers, the violence committed by Spanish colonisers against natives under the name of the Catholic faith, pales in comparison to Osama and his vicious ideology. What specific locales are you referring to?

As I write it, I am reminded of a brave man of God who shared with the world the atrocities committed in the name of the Catholic faith. Pick this book (its a primary source) up if you are interested –

Las Casas, Bartolomé de (1999), Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies, London: Penguin, ISBN 978-0140445626. Trans. Nigel Griffin.

My own Sikh faith, has had its share of fundamentalists too. To suggest Islam is “worse” that other faiths because of the acts of some Muslims, is a highly inaccurate, misleading and quite frankly, hollow argument.

The Pastor Pritam Singh Sandhu of No. 48 is NOT the Pritam Singh of No. 64 or 68 who have used my name in their comments.

Truth Matters!

A strong stand is needed. We do not want the American form of the religious right starting to behave without sensitivity and respect for others.

However, I believe they should have been prosecuted under the MRHA instead of the Sedition Act.

Hi Pastor Pitram Singh #48,

The Penal Code and the Sedition Act explicitly criminalises the act of distributing racially and religiously offensive material, unlike the case of handbills and junk mails in your letter box. Law is law – it is not about how compassionate we should be towards other people.

I am surprised that Chick Publication does not make it to the Register of Objectionable Publication while their website is placed under the Singapore’s symbolic ban.

The Undesirable Publication Act specifically defines publication is objectionable if any one of its parts or items describes, depicts, expresses or otherwise deals with

matters of race or religion in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different racial or religious groups.

Looks like we citizens should do our national duty towards the State by petitioning the Minister of Home Affairs and his Chief Controller to outlaw Chick’s publication in Singapore.

“.The major religions on the Earth contradict each other left and right. You can’t all be correct. And what if all of you are wrong? It’s a possibility, you know. You must care about the truth, right? Well, the way to winnow through all the differing contentions is to be skeptical. I’m not any more skeptical about your religious beliefs than I am about every new scientific idea I hear about. But in my line of work, they’re called hypotheses, not inspiration and not revelation. [Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985), p. 162. ] ”

“Religion is the opium of man.” Karl Marx

The score as it stands:

Thioliban: 0
Singapore: 2

:)

#67) A Tan on June 13th, 2009 11.28 am #63 Anakin
“Which other religion has an Osama bin Laden and friends that preach and practice violence, globally, against non-Muslims, and even Muslims that they consider infidels?”

In response, i quote respected American Christian Theologian :
“For many Americans the idea that we are living in country where our own leaders planned and carried the attacks of 9-11 is simply too horrible to entertain. UNFORTUNATELY, HOWEVER, THERE IS CONVINCING EVIDENCE FOR THIS VIEW..”

If you haven’t watch one of his lecture, WATCH THIS: (MUST WATCH!!!!)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3538037502590699697

“The truth is that there is no islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaeda. An informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity … the country behind this propaganda is the US..”
Robin Cook
Former British Foreign Secretary

Four weeks later, Robin Cook died of a heart attack.

“The process of transformation even if it brings revolutionary change is likely to be a long one absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbour.”
Sept 2000
Project for the New American Century

Sorry the respected American Theologian which I missed out was :
Professor David Ray Griffin

I’m really heartened to read the many comments that preached understanding, not just tolerance.

Many too were quick to debunk beliefs based on unfounded ideas against other religions.

This is indeed a good sign. Perhaps one day we may really call ourselves Singaporeans, regardless of race language or religion.

Let’s work for a better future.

Thank you TOC for providing the forum.

Hi Sobri,

Guilty as charged. My apologies.

the way the world seems to be.

that all powerful entity feels more like a 6 year old with his first ant farm.

if one side was to be the one true way. the big guy would have came down and slapped those who are wrong around long ago.

being all powerful has its benefits, the part about testing your faith part and wanting you to act for “him” is just some convenient excuse.

if you mess up the house as a kid, your parents will kick your ass. period.

ps: its impolite to claim to be someone’s friend, just because you know he exists, which brings us to the point, we may never know.

faith is a personal thing, no one cares if you whack off at home all day, but do it in public, you’re bound to offend someone.

its not just about your space but also about other people’s own space.

Your right to swing your fist stops right at my face.

Why can’t we all just get along?

8 weeks is definitely too short.

their actions are unarguably flint and tinder in the drybrush. worse – the reaction of many in the Christian community is to give unconditional support regardless the merits of the case. This portends further clashes between an increasingly vocal and activist Christian community and the rest of Singapore.

And just to add: the definition of Christian I am using discounts Catholics, because in this case, the seditious couple, their Church and Jack Chick do not consider Catholics Christian. I was both apoplectic and amused when the secitious couple said that they hoped their publications would help Catholics “believe in Jesus” (!)

#13, 54

Please Don’t speak too soon………

Abang, Adik, Kakak, Pat Cik, Mak Cik are involved in buying 4D, TOTO.
Drinking alcohol and eating during Fasting Month.

———————————————————————————————————

8 weeks jail for couple Mr Ong & His wife will set a precedent rule for other religious to watch their back.

In s’pore, the govt method of handling issues either relates to religious or not is simple.

Firstly, the majority race (Chinese) will get fine, jail or both, death sentence for any wrongdoings in the eyes of the law. The minority should Not complain if the same laws apply to them.

Next, since this Christian couple now face jail term……the same formula will apply to abang & adik if they create (this) problems. Period.

————————————————————————————————————-

Some people are in s’pore are anti-christian…….but strangely:

1) they (non-christian) give themselves Christian names before their family names.

2) they celebrate Valentine Day (even the muslims).

3) they celebrate Christmas Day.

Aren’t they setting a double standard?

To the ignorants:

1. English and western names such as Tom, Dick and Harry are not Christian names, though many Christians have also used them as their first names. Who says Christians has the monopoly of all Western and English names?

2. Valentine Day does not belong to the Christians alone. Though popular modern sources link the unspecified Greco-Roman February holidays alleged to be devoted to fertility and love to Valentine’s Day, Professor Jack Oruch of the University of Kansas argued that prior to Chaucer, no links between the Saints named Valentinus and romantic love existed. In the ancient Athenian calendar the period between mid-January and mid-February was the month of Gamelion, dedicated to the sacred marriage of Zeus and Hera.

In Ancient Rome, Lupercalia, observed February 13 through 15, was an archaic rite connected to fertility. Lupercalia was a festival local to the city of Rome. The more general Festival of Juno Februa, meaning “Juno the purifier “or “the chaste Juno,” was celebrated on February 13-14. Pope Gelasius I (492-496) abolished Lupercalia.

Numerous early Christian martyrs were named Valentine. Until 1969, the Catholic Church formally recognized eleven Valentine’s Days. The Valentines honored on February 14 are Valentine of Rome and Valentine of Terni. Valentine of Rome was a priest in Rome who was made a martyr about AD 269 and was buried on the Via Flaminia. His relics are at the Church of Saint Praxed in Rome and at Whitefriar Street Carmelite Church in Dublin, Ireland.

It is a common opinion that the Christian church may have decided to celebrate Valentine’s feast day in the middle of February in an effort to Christianize celebrations of the pagan Lupercalia. The Roman Catholic Church could not abolish the deeply rooted Lupercalia festival, so the church set aside a day to honor the Virgin Mary.

3. Many people nowadays celebrate X-Mas, not Christmas, because it is very commercialized. Business-minded people, including Christians and X-tians, have been using this period to make money for themselves, their families and their organisations.

The decorations on the streets and shops help to make the occasion gay and happy in order to lure more shoppers to buy things which they usually do no need.

The propagation of “gifts” encourage people to go shopping. The use of Santa Cross to hook-wink kids into expecting “gifts” on this day has forced parents and others to go shopping for presents for the children.

The emulation of having a feast with turkey, ham, bacon and log cakes to celebrate the occasion only makes businessmen richer.

The countless advertisements to “sell” the X-Mas occasion is all purely business and nothing else. Only the devout Christians and X-tians are holding it to their hearts.

In fact, 25 December is NOT Jesus’ actual birthday! Wake up, it’s Xmas and no more Christmas. Get it?

73) Borderless – You are obviously biased and one-sided in assigning the US as the culprit behind 9/11.

Regarding what A Tan has said. You just need to refer to the last one and a half millenium of history in India, Persia, Central asia and Egypt. Ever heard of Timur the Lame? Mahmud of Ghazni, Muhammad Tuqluqh? Aurangzeb? Just to name a few. So the Taliban are also Americans?

I’m neither pro-US or Anti-Muslim. But what A Tan said has basis. Or else why do people nowadays fearlessly criticize the fundamentalist Christians (like I do), but keep relatively silent about fundamentalist Muslims?

Of course Christians often resort to Old Testament (Judaism actually) to justify violence in many cases. But Jesus explicitly and strictly prohibits violence, just as Buddha did. Thus a person resorting to violence in these cases would be without question, violating the teachings of their religions. However, a provoked Muslim can always invoke jihad based on their justifications. (Even though interpretation of jihad has many schools of thought.)

Of course Christians had their fair share of religious wars, between the Protestants and Catholics. But these are unbiblical. Yet it was their unbiblical willingness in defending Christiandom against the Arabs & Turks which kept their religion alive, while the ancient Buddhist countries of Central Asia and Afghanistan just perished from the Arab invasions.

Yet today Christianity is almost a spent force (yes, in spite of significant growth of fundamentalism like this case), because of the competing Graeco-Roman schools of thought which won the day in the Age of Reason, and the Age of Enlightenment in Europe. The Industrial Revolution and the continuous discoveries in Science has eroded the religion’s position in the West. All these came about because Christians were allowed to question their own religion, and to think independently. But even to this day, one can hardly imagine the Islamic world permitting their believers to criticize their own religion as the Christians did and still do? Can you imagine the reaction?

All these is really out of topic. But your ridiculous statement needs to be addressed.

Hi Joshua #77,

You should take a look what Jack Chick says about the Catholics. It is hilarious.

http://www.catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p1.asp

Hi gemini

Nothing to apologise about. :-)

Frankly I’m glad such a forum has taken place. It is only when people keep quiet for fear of speaking, that the real problem manifests!

Have a nice day.

#80 Pessimist

It never fails to amaze me that people claim not to be anti-Muslim or racists and then spout one sided statements or half truths. FYKI, the greatest genocide in the 20th century was carried out in WWII by Germans, who were God fearing Christians, on Jews. One may argue that it was the Nazi idealogy at work but then Osama has the same warped ideology and most Muslims do not regard that as an Islamic ideology, so what makes you think it is? You quote one bunch of Muslim tyrants and despots and some posters can spout double the number of other faith depots/tyrants and we are going nowhere on this issue. In short, judge the person/s for his/their actions and not judge his race/language/religion.

83) anakin

You too, amaze me by classifying Nazi’s as Christians! God-fearing ones too!

Yes I can quote you names of Christian despots! Can you name me a Buddhist despot? But that is not my point. My point is that Those despots I named, and also the Taliban, were able to justify their actions through their holy scriptures. A Christian despot would not find the justification in Jesus’ teachings and have to resort to the Jewish Old Testament. A Buddhist despot would not find a single justification in his scriptures.

And am I not right that I can fearlessly criticize other religions but not Islam? For example, if someone in Holland were to draw cartoons ridiculing Jesus or Buddha. Would there be riots? Death threats?

So I am anti-Muslim just because I stated these facts?

If someone organized a scriptural debate between the Muslim moderates vs the Taliban. Would the moderates win outright? Can you prove that the Taliban are absolutely wrong? Or it just proves that there exists texts which provide justification for their governing policies?

83) anakin

Religion is the foundation and basis of how one lives one’s life.
It is natural then that everyone will steadfastly cling on to their beilef system.
But human beings are not without faults, so as such the “quarrels as we oft seen in TOC over religion is never going to go away.

That is why there is the MAINTENANCE OF RELIGIOUSHARMONY ACT

83) anakin

You too, amaze me by classifying Nazi’s as Christians! God-fearing ones too! They quite openly aknowledge themselves as atheists, and suppressed Christianity.

Yes I can quote you names of Christian despots! Can you name me a Buddhist despot? But that is not my point. My point is that going by the book, those despots I named, and also the Taliban, were able to justify their actions through their scriptures. A Christian despot would not find the justification in Jesus’ teachings and have to resort to the Jewish Old Testament. A Buddhist despot would not find a single justification in his scriptures.

And am I not right that I can fearlessly criticize other religions but not Islam? For example, if someone in Holland were to draw cartoons ridiculing Jesus or Buddha. Would there be violent protests, riots? Death threats?

So I am anti-Muslim just because I stated these facts?

If someone organized a scriptural debate between the Muslim moderates vs the Taliban. Would the moderates win outright? Can you prove that the Taliban are absolutely wrong? Or it just proves that there exists texts which provide justification for their governing policies?

With more than half of humanity followers of the Abrahamic faiths plus proliferation of nuclear weapons, its not hard to see what the world is heading for; nuclear war with most of mankind wiped–off !!!

Pessimist,

I said Germans killed Jews in WW2, who were God fearing christians, who happened to follow the Nazi ideology. Are you now saying that the Germans were not Christians? The Bible and Jesus’ teaching are equally misused to one’s ends and needs. For centuries, it was used to justifiy slavery, segregaration, killing of Catholics, protestants, scientists and even abortionists and homosexuals and you can amazing say that it can’t be misued? Why should one criticiize a religion or draw insulting cartoons anyway? These are people’s personal belief. Again you are using one sided arguments. I am not here to criticise religions as you are clearly doing. I am saying all religions teach good and you should judge the person/s by their action. If not, IMO, we are going down the same path as Hitler, who blamed other religions and cutlures and called them a threat to the world.

I was a colleague of Dorothy Chan during her time at Refco Singapore before she joined UBS. She belonged to an utlra zealous and discrimnatory clique in the company formed around the same religious belief. What you see in the press is only a tiny fraction of her unjust actions done to people of other beliefs over many decades. She is not ignorant and I appluad the court’s decision to jail her.

Pesssimist

As for death threats, riots, violent protest that you have mentioned, Islam is no more responsible for that just as Christianity is not responsible for the actions of Jim Jones and Branch Davidians. These are works of individuals. Do not confuse the two.

“29) Father of three on June 12th, 2009 5.38 pm

“perhaps even reinforcing their perceptions that their religion is being unjustly singled ”

As a Christian, I certainly do not have the perception that the govt has unjustly singled my religion. But I cannot say the same for TOC.”

I strongly agree. I find the author has disturbingly sympathetic tones towards this unjustifiable and egregious disrespect for other religions. Evangelisers should spread love and not hate.

TOC should audit itself for religious sensitivity.

@Pessimist,

I agree with anakin that you’re adopting very selective and biased arguments. All religions can be misinterpreted and corrupted. You say “A Buddhist despot would not find a single justification in his scriptures”. What about Zen Buddhism, which was historically associated with the militancy of Imperial Japan in the 1930s and 1940s? (It had previously been linked with the samurai class.) What about Cambodia and Vietnam, overwhelmingly Buddhist-majority countries, one of which experienced genocide and the other which mounted 2 successive wars? The Aum Shinrikyo cult, which carried out sarin gas attacks in a Tokyo subway station, claims to be influenced by Buddhism (among others). As do the Falungong in China.

Of course, counter-arguments and distinctions may be made; some were distortions of Buddhism, some were ‘not’ Buddhism at all. But couldn’t you argue the same about, e.g., the Taliban? Or any other act of violence carried out in the name of any religion? All this shows that your strict dichotomy between supposedly ‘violent’ and ‘non-violent’ religions falls apart.

Gratifying to read so many well written POVs, maybe Singapore has some hope left. Nevertheless, I really doubt this level of discourse is to be found among the majority of the population, regardless of language used. IMHO, this is the reason why 66% of the population has voted PAP and would continue to vote for the PAP.

With regards to Buddhist despots, China’s Tang Dynasty Empress Wu Ze Tian comes to mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_Zetian

94) la nausée on June 14th, 2009 7.27 pm

//All religions can be misinterpreted and corrupted. You say “A Buddhist despot would not find a single justification in his scriptures”. What about Zen Buddhism, which was historically associated with the militancy of Imperial Japan in the 1930s and 1940s?//

Is Buddhism really a religion? Since when?

And of “Christian” violence apart from the Inquistion and the Crusades, there were the Scandinavian kings imposing “convert or die”.

Btw, some Christians are offended when their faith is described as a religion and not the (Absolute) Truth aka God’s Message.

la nausee#94;;;Don’t drag Buddhism into the ‘filth’ that the others represent;;Buddhism is not God dependant; the scriptures are pure–no violence, no intolerance, no hatred, purely towards achieving of man’s maximum potential through his own effort and diligence–freedom from suffering–escape from samsaara.The best intellectuals the world had H.G.Wells, T.H.Huxley and Einstein will among many many others who will supporters of Buddhism. Lets face it, from thousands of years, everybody knows which religions, without a break until the present day, have caused all the problems mankind is facing, and Buddhism is not among them.

@budamax1952, all you’re proving is that no religion is immune from chauvinism, provincialism and the need for self-aggrandizement. Or more accurately, no religion lacks believers who are of that sort.

The fact is, all the major religions have had a profound effect on world history, both for good and for evil. On the positive side, Islamic civilization during the Middle Ages bequeathed us an important and lasting intellectual, scientific and philosophical legacy; Christianity was intertwined with the history of Western Europe, which has shaped every aspect of our modern world; and of course, many prominent thinkers and leaders in contemporary times were Jewish. The negative side of religion, we all know too well.

And I’m not sure why you’ve named a number of pantheists (or even agnostics/atheists) as “supporters of Buddhism”. Not every monotheist is a “supporter of Islam”, y’know.

I do not have access to the contents of the materials that these couples distributed so therefore I cannot comment. Can someone tell me if distributing leaflets to letterboxes is also illegal? If that is the case, please banned all sorts of leaflets distributing activities.

Hi loop #101,

The law explicitly outlaws distribution of racially offensive or religiously offensive material, so distributing ordinary commercial spam is still a legal activity. TOC provided a snippet of the materials distributed by the Christian Couple. It is actually quite shocking that the materials included misinformation about other religions.

I am quite astonisehd by some of the comments in this thread. This is because none of you have ever faced protests in the streets. Never seen racial riots. You sit in your cushy arm chair with everything provided and give opinions that its okay for an individual to do what he feels its right.

Youi go to work with no fear that there will be a strike by certain segment of the industry. Traffic will come to a standstill. You have no fear of walking at night as you know you will neerr get beaten by certain racial groups or fundementalists. Your sons and daughters can go out even at night and you feel safe.

Just go and ask foreigners who have decided to make this their homes, enrolled their children in our schools, work and invest businesses. The first reason they will cite is that this country is safe. This country is stable. There is no fear of being mugged at night. There is law and order here.

Religion has been the main reason of many wars and we all have studied this in our books and we read about it in the papers everyday.

Let us practice our own beliefs and religion without the need to even suggesting that the other religion or belief is wrong It will be sad if we have to witness the day when people take to the streets becasue of religion and all that we have built will be destroyed. In an instant. .

Hi lougarou

I think it’s a basic human trait to always be one up against his peers – that’s why we have crappy game shows like “my dad is better than your dad”…you get the idea…hahah

Coming back to the article, IMHO, I felt that the sentencing couldn’t come at a better time, as opposed to what the author wrote, especially in the wake of the AWARE incident…

La nausee:

You seem to have much incomplete data regarding religions, as well as putting strange correlations between events and religions.

First: My Indonesian Christian friends do NOT use the word “Allah” for “God”. They use the word “Tuhan”. This word even appear in the country’s pledge instead of “Allah”.

Two: Saying that Zen Buddhism is the same Buddhism is like saying that Catholics is the same as Protestants. They are not. Plus, the main religion in Japan during that period is Shinto, not Buddhism (most Japanese are not really into organized religion, even till now).

Three: There were genocides in Cambodia. True. Who are doing the killings? The army. Why are you trying to imply that this is because of Buddhism? You have proof that the Cambodian army are staffed by pious Buddhists? They can’t be once they take a human life that’s for sure. One of the basic tenets is very simple: No killing. No if’s and no but’s. There’s no escape clause.

Three: Vietnam. Err… it was the USA who started the Vietnam war. What’s it got to do with Buddhism as a religion?

Four: Cults, such as Aum Shinrikyo, who claim to have “derived” parts of their teachings from other religions, does not equate to those other religions endorsing them.

Five: Falungong? All I have heard so far is that they are being repressed by the Red Army. What tenets of Buddhism are they abusing here?

Stop throwing Red Herrings around will ya?

#106 Amused

La Nausee did not state that Indonesian Christians use Allah for God, I did and please see the link below of the website of the church I attend.
http://www.gerejakatolik.com.

The 1st line of the website states ..Gereja dari Allah yang hidup, tiang penopang dan dasar kebenaran
(1 Timotius 3:15)

So sorry bro, this ain’t no red herring. Try fishing again.

@Amused,

As I said, “counter-arguments and distinctions may be made; some were distortions of Buddhism, some were ‘not’ Buddhism at all.” (Btw, I was also referring to the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia.)

But what I was addressing was Pessimist’s earlier, and highly insidious, suggestion that some religions are necessarily linked to violence and bloodshed (it was suggested that there was close connection between the nature of Islam, and the Taliban), and some are not.

I’m simply pointing out that the same arguments that you’ve used to rebut me, may be used to rebut Pessimist’s contention. One may contend that the Taliban aren’t pious Muslims (even though they themselves may profess to be), that they’re relying on a perverse interpretation of Islam which no reasonable Muslim will accept, and that terrorism and tyranny in Afghanistan was not caused by religion but by tribalism and socio-political instability left over from what happened during the Cold War era, and a confluence of other variables.

Man has a universal impulse towards violence and selfishness, and even religious devotees are not exempt from that. Ultimately, no religion lacks its share of self-professed adherents who’re nasty, evil etc.. You may split hairs and say how Buddhists who’re violent “aren’t really Buddhists”, but can’t the same be said about violent Christians, Muslims, Hindus, that they’re not really true believers? Pessimist’s argument therefore relied on a double standard.

@100) la nausée

Christiane Amanpour, in a CNN religious documentary, said that “there are those who claim to be men of God and there are men who kill in God’s name.”

But as budamax1952 said correctly “Buddhism is not God dependant; the scriptures are pure–no violence, no intolerance, no hatred, purely towards achieving of man’s maximum potential through his own effort and diligence” and 106)Amused also said rightly “One of the basic tenets is very simple: No killing”.

So la nausée please kindly explain the paradox : how could Buddhists kill in God’s name?

And also the common thread that connects all major religions is their shared beliefs in the existence of a God.

Buddhism does not acknowledge the existence of a God. So is Buddhism a religion or is it a way of life- “The Middle Way”? Go Figure.

Anakin:

Sorry, got the point about Christians in Indonesia mixed up with la nausee’s. I am not sure which part of Indonesia you’re working in, but your experience is not uniform throughout Indonesia. A simple Google check could have told you that there are names such as “Gereja Sidang Tuhan” or “Gereja Kristus Di Indonesia”. I don’t see any “Allah” in these names. (But I can’t tell if they are Catholics or Protestants, or whether it makes any difference.)

It is indeed strange though, about the insistence of Christians in Malaysia to want to use the word “Allah” instead.

La nausee:

Here’s the dig – there are entries in the holy book of those faith that allows their followers to kill other humans when justified. There are “escape clauses”. They can justify their actions by saying they are serving their god, and hey, they would be right! (From their religious point of view, regardless of their sincerity).

I personally feel that organized religion is too big a crutch. It absolves people from the need to actually think before they act. (God -> religious leader said that it is ok, so it must be ok! way of thinking)

I won’t say that “some religions are necessarily linked to violence and bloodshed” as you put it, but it is pretty obvious (from the historical data of religious wars) that some tend to take up the crutch and use it as a club more easily than the others.

Curious:

Well put. We can even add: “and then there are those who claim to kill in God’s name”.

@Curious, Buddhism is regarded as religion for political, legal and sociological purposes. That’s all that’s relevant for present purposes, in a discussion about hate speech and the proper boundaries between religion and political discourse.

As for how Buddhists can become associated with violence, it’s firstly through corrupted interpretations of the text. But the same explanation may apply to supposed incidents of ‘Christian’ or ‘Muslim’ violence; one may say that justifications for violence in those cases relied on corrupted interpretations. After all, isn’t it also true of Christianity and Islam that “One of the basic tents is very simple: No killing”?

Other explanations for the link to violence include (1) when religion becomes institutionalized, and religious figures wield political and social influence; (2) when religion is mixed with ethnic divides; and (3) when religious followers become chauvinistic, each group claiming that their doctrine is ‘pure’ and superior. The first two factors may be observed, for instance, in the recently-ended Sri Lankan conflict between the Sinhalese and the Tamils. The last factor is on full display in this thread.

“Here’s the dig – there are entries in the holy book of those faith that allows their followers to kill other humans when justified. There are “escape clauses”.”

Well, as gemani recommends, read the latest article in TIME magazine for one writer’s view for the historical context to why you can find both instances of extreme intolerance and tolerance in the the same religious texts.

Zefly:

I don’t see the recommendation. Where is it? Is it at another article?

#110 Amused

Apology accepted but do not change the goal posts here. Fact of the matter is that Allah is used by Indonesian Christians for God, accept that instead of saying that it is not uniform throughout Indonesia. Just because you did not see the name in some websites does not mean it is not used in Indonesia. Strange first you say your friends do not use it and now you are refering me to websites when I go to church in Jakarta every Sunday for the past 5 years. There is nothing strange about Malaysian Christians wanting to use it either as it means God in the native language and clearly not what Jack Chick is refering to.

Curious

You watch CNN’ s Christiane Amanpour? In the same documentary, she says” and men who want to rule the world” and showing the Iranian President face. Now he may be a holocaust denier but he has NEVER said even once that he wants to rule the world. Demonise someone without evidence. The western press at its “objective” best.

@111) la nausée

// Buddhism is regarded as religion for political, legal and sociological purposes.//

Oh, who says so? Can one regard “Tai Chi” as “a religion for political, legal and sociological purposes” too? Hello, to qualify to be a religion, there has to be a God in the central plank otherwise it is just a philosophical way of life. Buddhists do not believe in any god, thank you.

//As for how Buddhists can become associated with violence, it’s firstly through corrupted interpretations of the text//

Which precise text? Is it wikipedia that so many netters have been using as a reference to forge their argument?

//After all, isn’t it also true of Christianity and Islam that “One of the basic tents is very simple: No killing”?//

Yet we see that the recalcitrant will BURN in the fire of Hell for all eternity. Is that not more gruesome and spiteful? Can God be so unkind?

@ 114) anakin

//You watch CNN’ s Christiane Amanpour? In the same documentary, she says” and men who want to rule the world” and showing the Iranian President face. Now he may be a holocaust denier but he has NEVER said even once that he wants to rule the world. Demonise someone without evidence. The western press at its “objective” best.//

She is wrong and you are right on that score. Ahmadinajad did not ever say that he wants to rule the world, as he is a realist and knows that he cannot, even if he wants to.

CNN is not a recommended channel to watch to get a fair view of the world.

I quoted Amanpour because that specific quote shows the idiocy of men (of any religion) who kill in the name of God.

Curious:

Err… actually that would depend on the definition. Buddhists may not believe in one God (with capital G) but they do have plenty of other gods/boddhisatvas/etc.

Anakin:

What goal post am I shifting?

Portion of your post @31: “as in Indonesia, where I work, ALL churches which I attend have the name Allah displayed prominently on it.”

You implied that ALL Churches in Indonesia has “Allah” in their name. I was just trying to say that that is incorrect. There are Churches without “Allah” in their names. That’s why I picked those with “Tuhan” and “Kristus” (= Christ, I believe) in their names. If I misread your intended meaning, then it can’t be helped.

Also, read my first post @106 carefully: I said that none of my Christian Indonesian friends refer to the Christian God as Allah (not the other way round). Anecdotal evidence. Take it as you will. There is no inconsistency in me picking out the examples I did.

#117 Amused

in post @31, I said all the churches that I ATTEND. I did not say that all churches in Indonesia at all. You have misread/misinterpreted my post and I have the right to correct that. So, you do admit that Allah is used as God in certain areas in Indonesia. That’s my point. We can agree to disagree on that score.

117) Amused on June 15th, 2009 6.01 pm

//Err… actually that would depend on the definition. Buddhists may not believe in one God (with capital G) but they do have plenty of other gods/boddhisatvas/etc.//

If it depends on definitions then you will end up with an infinite number on earth.

Can the value of the universal constant pi (22/7) depend on definitions? No.

A boddhisatva is a being who, out of compassion, forgoes nirvana in order to save others. But that does not make him/her a god.

Most religious “teachers” either claim to be the Messenger of God or the Son of God or the Incarnation of God or Inspired by God.

The Buddha never claimed to be a God nor did he ask his followers to consider Him as a God. He said “Man is his own master and there is no higher being or power that sits in judgment over his destiny.”

He said that man’s emancipation depends on his own realization of the Truth and not on the benevolent grace of a God or any external power as a reward for his obedience and good behavior.

Amused,

Umm you have to buy a copy of the magazine yourself. It’s the one with Tweeter on the cover.

120) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on June 15th, 2009 7.54 pm

//Amused, Umm you have to buy a copy of the magazine yourself. It’s the one with Tweeter on the cover.//

Hey, guys I thank the heavens for little mercies. Here is the link for “Decoding God’s Changing Moods’ at Time magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1902851,00.html

@Zefly, Amused,

Actually, I think you can find the article here: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1902851,00.html

Basically, it talks about how religious tolerance or intolerance is driven by whether or not there is a “zero-sum dynamic” as against other religions.

The article refers to Abrahamic religions only, but the point still stands with all the major religions which have become somewhat formalized in worship / praxis, developing certain hierarchies and institutions. If a religion sees itself in competition with other religions for devotees, then it becomes more intolerant. The problem, of course, is that all the major religions have that tendency to see the social landscape in a zero-sum way; that’s how they stayed a “major” religion after all. But it’s something which needs to be curbed to some degree, if we want to live in a cooperative, harmonious society.

@Curious, I can’t speak for all schools of Buddhism (I don’t know enough). But I do know that the predominant type of Buddhism practised here has been termed by sociologists as ‘shenism‘; see e.g. Kuah-Pearce Khun Eng, State, Society and Religious Engineering: Towards a Reformist Buddhism in Singapore (Singapore: Eastern Universities Press, 2003). Of course, some of these ’shen’ are not ‘really’ part of Buddhist teachings, but the fact is that plenty of self-identified Buddhists do worship them.

So that’s one example of how Buddhism may be regarded as a religion even according to your definition (belief in a god or gods), admittedly with some degree of cross-fertilization from other cultures.

But it’s evident that elsewhere in law and politics, Buddhism is also regarded as a religion. For example, Buddhism is represented in the Inter-Religious Organisation, it was involved in the drafting of the 2003 Declaration on Religious Harmony, and it is represented on the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony which has a consultative role in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. More generally, Buddhists most definitely have the right to religious freedom under Article 15 of the Constitution, and Buddhism is also counted as a religion under the law of trusts. And of course, the Government in its census statistics regards Buddhism as the majority religion here.

thanks Curious, Nausee

If anyone is keen to know even more you can also try

“Discovering God: The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief” by Robert Stark

which he proposes a Theory of Religious Economy to explain why certain religions survived, while others die off.

Anti-atheists can also rejoice because he is also highly critical of what he calls the millitant atheist movement.

He does tend favorably towards monoetheist, specially christianity, but he makes it known when he is expressing it as an opinion and does not allow his beliefs to cloud his factual findings.

I highly recommend this book.

@123) la nausée

//So that’s one example of how Buddhism may be regarded as a religion even according to your definition (belief in a god or gods..//

Take any definition of “religion” in any dictionary and the answer is always that it is a belief in and worship of God or gods or deities.

Since the central tenet of Buddhism is that “Man is his own master and there is no higher being or power that sits in judgment over his destiny”, that is to say there is no belief in or worshiping of a God, gods or deities or even a Buddha, it hardly qualifies to be called a religion.

//But it’s evident that elsewhere in law and politics, Buddhism is also regarded as a religion.//

That is true but IMHO it is a legal fiction to keep the peace with 43% of the population who claim to be Buddhists but will not hesitate to worship Buddha or His statues and images., which He strictly forbids.

It is also true that Article 15 of the Constitution guarantees religious freedom but no name of any religion is mentioned.

I suppose if enough Singaporeans worship a deity or a huge Ficus Benjamina tree with its awe-inspiring, hanging roots their beliefs too could also qualify to be termed a “religion”.

But to call Buddhism a religion is a legal fiction which suits all and sundry.

Maybe the logical reason is that no one is brave enough to quarrel with that nomenclature for fear of disturbing the peace or violating Article 15 of the Constitution.

One exception though is that the Jehovah’s Witness is still banned as religion in Singapore, if I am not mistaken. I wonder why?

The distinction is more blur when it comes to Scientology. Are those folks, including Tom Cruise and John Travolta no less, who believe in ETs and UFOs qualify to be called religious minorities and should have religious freedom too under Article 15? Go figure.

@Curious, the position of the law on Jehovah’s Witnesses is that they are protected as a religion under the Constitution, but that their religious practices are forbidden by laws justified on the basis of national security and public order (like the Societies Act and the Enlistment Act). The distinction is between the religion itself, which is not forbidden (indeed, it’s protected), and the specific practices, which may be forbidden (and very extensively, like in the case of the JWs).

It’s likely that religions like Scientology will also be protected under Article 15, if the criterion used is just that the believers themselves claim to be a religion. Conversely, there was a case involving the Falungong where they claimed not to be a religion; hence, they were not protected under Article 15.

I think “belief in a god or gods” is too formalistic and narrow a definition; it sort of begs the question, what is a god? Must a god be anthropomorphic (or can it be a flying teapot), must a god be immortal, must a god be a distinct ‘entity’, and so on? And then we’re down the path of absurdity. It’s probably more justifiable and more expedient to adopt a wider definition, e.g., whether the believers self-identify as being a religion. Admittedly, this may not be theologically correct, but we avoid being stuck at the definitional stage over intra-religious controversies.

@126) la nausée

//the position of the law on Jehovah’s Witnesses is that they are protected as a religion under the Constitution, but that their religious practices are forbidden by laws justified on the basis of national security and public order (like the Societies Act and the Enlistment Act).//

So do you know what precisely the JWs practise that is so objectionable that they are forbidden when Article 15 (1) states clearly that “Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it.”

Is there a contradiction somewhere?

//It’s likely that religions like Scientology will also be protected under Article 15, if the criterion used is just that the believers themselves claim to be a religion.//

For believing in ETs and UFOs? That’s a laugh. What if someone starts a “religion” believing in Nessie the Loch Ness monster? Will that too be protected?

//Must a god be anthropomorphic (or can it be a flying teapot), must a god be immortal, must a god be a distinct ‘entity’, and so on?//

I think everyone knows the definition of God and it ain’t a flying teapot. God is referred to as the Almighty Creator of the Universe and is worshiped by His followers. We are not talking about some naked Greek gods or multi-dexterity Hindu gods or some deities that some folks pray to for personal gain.

God of the major religions always refers to the Almighty Creator. But, sorry Buddhists don’t believe in one.

//Admittedly, this may not be theologically correct, but we avoid being stuck at the definitional stage over intra-religious controversies.//

I think the converse is true. By legally classifying and defining Buddhism as a religion we could be force-feeding it with a wrong image and corrupting its raison d’ etre as a philosophical way of life, with an alien doctrine of a “God” thrown in for good measure. Is it any wonder that may followers are utterly confused and bewildered?

I am not amused by Amused’s comments about throwing red herrings but when presented with concrete facts and made amused red faced. Amused tries to throw smoke by trying to argue his/her way out of a prima facie case that all religions can be abused and Allah is the name of God in that particular language. You can’t handle the truth……..

Hi Amused #113,

This is the Times article which Gemami recommended:

Decoding God’s Changing Mood

Thanks Zefly, and to Curious & Smallvice585 for providing the links to the Times article :)

Various commenter:

Thanks for the links.

Colonel Jessup:

I have no idea how did you get the impression that I am “to argue his/her way out of a prima facie case that all religions can be abused and Allah is the name of God in that particular language”.

If you read the later part of my comment @110, I am actually AGREEING that religions can be abused. Crutch (aid) -> Club (weapon). Get it?

And, upon reading the later article (How the lack of common sense…) I realized that maybe Anakin #37 is referring to the dialog in the booklet that said: “… Allah is not God.” and is trying to refute it by including the data about how all Indonesian churches that he/she’s attending are using the name ‘Allah’.

While I get the thought process, the conflating of 2 languages – English in the booklet and Bahasa Indonesia in the naming of churches/bible content is making it more difficult to make sense to me.
In English (Singapore, etc.) – you don’t see Christians wanting to call ‘God’ as ‘Allah’ do you? Are there people who want this?

I do not know whether the general Indonesian population find the use of the name ‘Allah’ for the Christian God to be favorable or not, but I do know that some of them (all of my friends) do not use that name. That’s all there is.

Various commenter:

Thanks for the links.

Colonel Jessup:

I have no idea how did you get the impression that I am “to argue his/her way out of a prima facie case that all religions can be abused and Allah is the name of God in that particular language”.

If you read the later part of my comment @110, I am actually AGREEING that religions can be abused. Crutch (aid) -> Club (weapon). Get it?

And, upon reading the later article (How the lack of common sense…) I realized that maybe Anakin @37 is referring to the dialog in the booklet that said: “… Allah is not God.” and is trying to refute it by including the data about how all Indonesian churches that he/she’s attending are using the name ‘Allah’.

While I get the thought process, the conflation of 2 languages – English in the booklet and Bahasa Indonesia in the naming of churches/bible content makes it difficult for me to make sense of the point. In English (Singapore, etc.) – I don’t think there are any Christians who insist in using the name ‘Allah’ in place of ‘God’. (Or is there?)

I do not know whether the general Indonesian population find the use of the name ‘Allah’ for the Christian God to be favorable or not, but I do know that some of them do not use that name. That’s all there is.

Hmm.. comments not getting through…

Zefly, and to Curious & Smallvice585

Thanks for the links.

Colonel Jessup:

I have no idea how did you get the impression that I am “to argue his/her way out of a prima facie case that all religions can be abused and Allah is the name of God in that particular language”.

If you read the later part of my comment @110, I am actually AGREEING that religions can be abused. Crutch (aid) -> Club (weapon). Get it?

And, upon reading the later article (How the lack of common sense…) I realized that maybe Anakin @37 is referring to the dialog in the booklet that said: “… Allah is not God.” and is trying to refute it by including the data about how all Indonesian churches that he/she’s attending are using the name ‘Allah’.

While I get the thought process, the conflation of 2 languages – English in the booklet and Bahasa Indonesia in the naming of churches/bible content makes it difficult for me to make sense of the point. In English (Singapore, etc.) – I don’t think there are any Christians who insist in using the name ‘Allah’ in place of ‘God’. (Or is there?)

I do not know whether the general Indonesian population find the use of the name ‘Allah’ for the Christian God to be favorable or not, but I do know that some of them do not use that name. That’s all there is.

Well, my longer post did not get in, so I’ll just try to add data for Curious.

Regarding JW, I think one of the main reason is their religion mandates refusal to serve in the military and civil service. (My source was from wiki)

132) Amused on June 16th, 2009 11.29 am

//Well, my longer post did not get in, so I’ll just try to add data for Curious.Regarding JW, I think one of the main reason is their religion mandates refusal to serve in the military and civil service. (My source was from wiki)//

Thank you. There were a lot of American conscientious objectors during the Vietnam war and some in the Iraq war and they also refused to serve. The world heavyweight boxing champion, Mohamed Ali, was,perhaps, the most famous but his religion was no banned in the USA.

“God of the major religions always refers to the Almighty Creator.”

The notion of an all powerful, all seeing God is a philosophical one as well. Christian theists and theologists have been arguing about the role, nature and definition of God using logic and Greek philosophy (other than blind faith), while they all believe in His (or Her’s – you get me?) existence.

Would you then call Christianity just a philosophy as well? Buddhists are entitled to their belief system of attributing supernatural powers to Buddha like Jesus in the Bible, while acknowledging the philosophy that he espouses.

While some mathemathcians (who are theists) can somehow prove God’s existence with some arcane equations, I personally think that if an all powerful, etc. God exists, IT is beyond homo sapiens’ comprehension and all attempts at worship / interaction (aka churches) are pointless and IT won’t be transmitting a morality code via a human conduit (not to say morality itself is unnecessary).

Strangely enough, only Mohammed has no personal claim to any super powers whatsoever, apart from “divine” inspiration. Correct me if I am wrong.

Regardless of my personal misgivings about Islam itself, I love it when Christians taunt Muslims – its like calling another person a violent wifebeater or some other slanderous lie and not expect a violent reaction. No one can be expected to react the same way; in a civilized society violence is not tolerated, but I personally can sympathize with the insulted party to a certain extent. Like Zidane for example.

I guess calling a person a hypocrite and a liar doesnt have the same impact as calling someone a XXXXXXX (fill in your choice of invective).

Watch out! Lionel De Souza wants to censor all of us talking on this thread. He must be one of those over-sensitive blokes who eja**lates pre-maturely. LOL!

well bring’em on….Lionel de souza and his army can’t do squat…..

@Curious, there’s not really a contradiction. (or maybe there is.) It’s simply that the JWs are ‘covered’ by the right of religious freedom, but that this right may be ‘qualified’ or ‘restricted’ by other public interests. The main reason why they’re not allowed to register as a society (hence, not allowed to assemble) is that this is deemed against national security, precisely because of their conscientious objection.

It’s the same thing with Buddhism and Taoism (or ’shenism’). Worshippers have their constitutional right to worship, but aren’t allowed to burn giant joss sticks beyond a certain size, because that’s against “public health” (causes excessive air pollution).

If your definition of ‘religion’ excludes polytheistic faiths like Hinduism (let alone other faiths like Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism and Taoism) and only counts “belief in an almighty Creator”, then surely it’s far too narrow! It may not even cover a majority of Singaporeans — and about 80-85% of us identify as being religious!

I think our discussion basically shows that the definition of Buddhism, like any other religion, is contested. At least in all the major religions, there are ongoing debates between self-professed adherents about who counts as a true believer, or which branch/school is the correct one. The overwhelming majority of Buddhists and Taoists in Singapore, I think, have a more generous (or ‘looser’, if you like) interpretation about what it means to be a believer… so we tend to go along with that definition. Whether they’re correct in their interpretation, it’s difficult to say (especially if you’re on the outside looking in, e.g., a secular state attempting to regulate religious practices).

@130) la nausée

//@Curious, there’s not really a contradiction. (or maybe there is.)//

haha. that is itself a contradiction. A good lawyer like you can really charm a canary off a tree with the sleigh of hands.

//It’s simply that the JWs are ‘covered’ by the right of religious freedom, but that this right may be ‘qualified’ or ‘restricted’ by other public interests//

That is so vintage Singapore. “Due process is guaranteed, except when ISA is invoked” and “Freedom of assembly is guaranteed too under the Constitution but after the 5th persons, you need to get a permit.”

//f your definition of ‘religion’ excludes polytheistic faiths like Hinduism (let alone other faiths like Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism and Taoism) and only counts “belief in an almighty Creator”, then surely it’s far too narrow!//

It is not a matter of it being my definition. Just as the circumference of a circle is 2piR, it cannot be anything else, no matter who says so.

//then surely it’s far too narrow! It may not even cover a majority of Singaporeans — and about 80-85% of us identify as being religious!//

That shouldn’t be an eye opener when by the measure of its per capita GDP and per capita reserves, Singapore is an affluent country and yet we don’t extend a hand to the disabled elderly in our society ! See link and why we must change our ways :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQmz6Rbpnu0&feature=related

//I think our discussion basically shows that the definition of Buddhism, like any other religion, is contested.//

IMHO, the definition of the other major religions are already set in concrete but not Buddhism.

/The overwhelming majority of Buddhists and Taoists in Singapore, I think, have a more generous (or ‘looser’, if you like) interpretation about what it means to be a believer… so we tend to go along with that definition.//

I think you hit it between the eyes and I “go along with that” too. :)

130) la nausée on June 16th, 2009 5.20 pm

//@Curious, there’s not really a contradiction. (or maybe there is.)//

haha, That itself is a contradiction. A good lawyer can charm a canary off a tree by sleigh of hands.

//It’s simply that the JWs are ‘covered’ by the right of religious freedom, but that this right may be ‘qualified’ or ‘restricted’ by other public interests.//

That is so vintage Singapore. “Due process is guaranteed except when the ISA is invoked” and “Freedom of assembly is guaranteed to under the Constitution but after the 5th person, you need to get a permit.”

//If your definition of ‘religion’ excludes polytheistic faiths like Hinduism (let alone other faiths like Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism and Taoism) and only counts “belief in an almighty Creator”, then surely it’s far too narrow!//

It is not a matter of whether it is my definition or otherwise. Just like the circumference of a circle is 2piR, it cannot be anything else no matter who says so.

//It may not even cover a majority of Singaporeans — and about 80-85% of us identify as being religious!//

It shouldn’t come as a surprise as going by the definition of the per capita GDP and per capita reserves, Singapore is an affluent country and yet we don’t seem to help the disabled elderly. See video link and why we must change our ways.

http://100777.com/node/1827

//I think our discussion basically shows that the definition of Buddhism, like any other religion, is contested.//

IMHO, the definitions of the major religions are already set in concrete but Buddhism is not.

//The overwhelming majority of Buddhists and Taoists in Singapore, I think, have a more generous (or ‘looser’, if you like) interpretation about what it means to be a believer… so we tend to go along with that definition..//

I think you hit it between the eyes and I shall “go along with that” too.

[...] friends were sent off to jail for distributing Chick tracts and TOC ran a commentary on it (see here,) de Souza saw fit to write to TODAY to accuse TOC of failing to exercise moderation.  His first [...]

/// 40) Gerald Giam on June 12th, 2009 10.44 pm
Sedition: an illegal action inciting resistance to lawful authority and tending to cause the disruption or overthrow of the government.
Does the couple’s error fall qualify as this? ///

Gerald Giam – I am astounded and shocked that as a senior writer for TOC, you are either so careless, so lazy or so ignorant to ask this question. Is that the standard of a senior writer at TOC? The answer to your question is only a google or a wiki away. Look at 3 (1) (e) of the Sedition Act (Singapore) below.

3. —(1) A seditious tendency is a tendency —

(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government;
(b) to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore;
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore;
(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_(Singapore)

BTW, are you a Christian?

#133 T

does it matter if Gerald is Christian or not? To quote director Mira Nair when ask if people mistook her for a Muslim as she wears similar attire, “The last time I checked, Muslims are humans”. Pretty much sums up the debate here.

Hi T #133,

You must differentiate between the legal and the English definition of Sedition. They are not necessary the same. The same can be said for factual innocence and legal innocence too.

@133)T

Yes, you are right that Section 3 (1) (e) of the Seditious Act says “A seditious tendency is a tendency — to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.

Do note it’s more appropriate to refer to the Singapore Statutes online link below under the alphabet “S” rather than refer to wikipedia :

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/html/homepage.html

BUT what if the offensive materials were distributed to another Chinese who is a Muslim?

Will the act still violate Section 3 (1) (e) of the Sedition Act, Chapter 290 , when both the distributor and the recipient are of the same race?

Is it not more appropriate for the persons to be charged under “Sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code which address acts that deliberately injure racial or religious feelings.” which the writer of this thread strives to point out?

Must thank Lionel for making TOC …even more popular.

/// 134) anakin on June 17th, 2009 10.38 am
#133 T
does it matter if Gerald is Christian or not? ///

Of course it does. Why do you think he was so sloppy? Sometimes religions do muddle one’s head.

T,

Maybe your are right, it sometimes does…..

@T, I think Gerald was referring to the dictionary-meaning of ’sedition’, and not how the term is employed in the Sedition Act. The real question is, why is section 3(1)(e) grouped together with the other four sub-headings? In the first four, the activity which is prohibited is generally the kind which has a tendency to undermine the State by inciting disaffection against it. The idea is that the government has been democratically elected, so you can’t change it by unlawful means.

In the last sub-heading, the activity causes discord among various groups. Why is racial and religious hate speech put on the same footing as these other ’seditious’ activities? The question becomes even stronger when you consider (1) that s. 298A of the Penal Code is an almost exact duplicate of s. 3(1)(e) of the Sedition Act; and (2) that one main concern with hate speech is that it injures a specific victim, but that this is entirely ignored by s. 3(1)(e) (compare s. 298 of the Penal Code).

/// 140) la nausée on June 17th, 2009 5.07 pm
@T, I think Gerald was referring to the dictionary-meaning of ’sedition’, and not how the term is employed in the Sedition Act. ///

Obviously Gerald was using the layman term for sedition. But what is this article all about? What is the subject here? We are talking of 2 persons being charged under the Sedition Act. And he uses the dictionary definition? More than that, somehow, he is insinuating that the couple did no wrong.

Why lump together – the better able to “catch” people like the couple above. In case you haven’t notice, most Acts have a catch-all section just to tie up the loose ends. Even in the army, Section 24 (?) – any act which is prejudicial to the SAF or words to that effect – which means they can get you if they want to.

@ 141) T

//In case you haven’t notice, most Acts have a catch-all section just to tie up the loose ends//

So what is your answer to “Will the act still violate Section 3 (1) (e) of the Sedition Act, Chapter 290 , when both the distributor and the recipient are of the same race?”

Hi Curious #136.

Religious groups would fall under the description “classes of the population of Singapore”, so the Sedition Act is still applicable as long as the case involves different religious groups even if all of them fall under the same race.

/// 142) Curious on June 18th, 2009 12.36 am
So what is your answer to “Will the act still violate Section 3 (1) (e) of the Sedition Act, Chapter 290 , when both the distributor and the recipient are of the same race?” ///

Curious, as smallvice has stated, the population of Singapore can be classified by race, sex, religion, language, and what have you. Heck, you can even have economic classes, but that is harder to demarcate. You can pit stayers against quitters, heartlanders againsts metropolitans, etc. etc. (No, don’t try to sue on these grounds… ;) So, Section 3(1)(e) still applies.

Let me clarify first – I am not a lawyer, but based on just what is written, it would appear to me that 3(1)(b) is also pau-swa-pau-hai (cover the mountain, cover the sea) – a catch-all phrase as well.

(b) to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;

It covers all Singapore citizens and residents. Procure the altercation – that means anything or any act that can cause argument or disagreements. Clearly, the recipients of those tracts disagreed. Of any matter – now, that is what I call all-inclusive.

Luckily the COOS (Josie Lau & gang)’s sneak takeover of AWARE was done by lawful means, otherwise they can also be hauled up by this section.

143) smallvice585
@144) T

Thanks for your contributions.

Ok, for argument sake, what if the distributor and the recipient are of the same race and economic class, would Section 3 (1) (e) be still relevant? Would not 298A of the Penal Code be more appropriate?

298A says “Whoever (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, knowingly promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion or race, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious or racial groups; or (b) commits any act which he knows is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious or racial groups and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.”

Curious @145) – yes, 298 and 298A of the Penal Code will be more relevant. Many ways to skin a cat…

@146) T

//Curious @145) – yes, 298 and 298A of the Penal Code will be more relevant.// /

Thank you. Since the purpose of a law is to stop a “mischief”, in this particular case, “religious disharmony” rather than “racial disharmony” should be the reculcitrants’ mischief, therefore you are right, 298 & 298A are more relevant.

//Many ways to skin a cat..//

It had better be, since a cat is supposed to have nine lives! :)

[...] Discourse – Inquivision: Rules-based naïveté [Recommended] – TOC: Perdition and sedition – irreligious: How the lack of common sense can destroy a faith – Nomed Letters: Good and Bad PR [...]

137) T on June 17th, 2009 10.01 am,

I’m going to ignore your ad hominem attacks on me and my affiliations, and address just your substantive objection to my opinion:

You quoted the definition of ’sedition’ from the Sedition Act:

3. —(1) A seditious tendency is a tendency —
(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government;
(b) to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore;
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore;
(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.

This only strengthens my view that what this couple did should not be classified as sedition. (a) is definitely not the case, because they were not doing anything against the Govt. (b) is not either, because they were acting alone and never got anyone else involved. (c) not either.

For (e), it could be argued that their actions promoted hostility between religions, but not races or classes, since there was nothing in the pamphlets that insulted any race or class.

That leaves (d) as the only one that the govt could nail them with. But even this one is quite flimsy. “amongst the citizens of Singapore” implies that a large number of Singaporeans were “disaffected” by this act. In fact, I believe it has been proven that only the two people who reported the couple to the police were upset by them, and even then not to the point of being ‘disaffected’.

My main point is that ’sedition’ should not be levelled against someone for unintentionally offending someone else. The spirit and purpose of the law is to punish people who go on the radio and broadcast things like “Tutsi people are cockroaches that must be killed”, which could really promote ill-will and hostility. This is a case of two people who attempted to spread their faith in a dumb and insensitive manner. It has not been proven that this couple deliberately wanted to offend other races (or religions, for that matter), because it would not have achieved their purpose of converting them.

I concur with 5) Stranger on June 12th, 2009 11.25 am – I really question what the AG was trying to prove by prosecuting this case.

Hi Gerald Giam,

I would argue that 3(1)(e) of the Sedition Act applies because:

On grounds of race,
(1) Ong Kian Cheong and Dorothy Chan are Chinese while the people who lodged the police report against them are Malay.
(2) Islam is tied to the Malay Identity

On grounds of religion,
(1) religious segregation would count as a “class of the population”. Class means “a collection of things sharing a common attribute”.

Does it mean then that 3(1)(e) of the Sedition Act could apply to any dispute between two parties, one of which happens to be Chinese, and another Malay? This is stretching it too far and could have dangerous implications on simple disputes in future.

As for Islam being tied to the Malay identity, according to the 2000 Census, 0.4% of Malays in Singapore subscribe to religions other than Islam. I guess you’re 99.6% correct.

I believe “class” refers to socio-economic class. Your definition of class is way too broad as it could be used very liberally to describe any group of people in Singapore.

Hi Gerald Giam,

In PP v Koh Song Huat Benjamin and Anor (2005), Senior District Judge Richard Magnus ruled : The accused Lim Yew Nicholas, aged 25, stands convicted for a similar offence. The charge avers that he did an act which had a seditious tendency to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of the population of Singapore by posting anti-Muslim remarks on the General Discussion Forum of http://www.doggiesite.com. In another words, religious persuasion qualifies as a “class of the population”.

#127

Better late than never…..

You have refuted Anakin’s point about usage of the word Allah by going around quoting:
You implied that ALL Churches in Indonesia has “Allah” in their name. I was just trying to say that that is incorrect. There are Churches without “Allah” in their names. That’s why I picked those with “Tuhan” and “Kristus” (= Christ, I believe) in their names. If I misread your intended meaning, then it can’t be helped.

Also, read my first post @106 carefully: I said that none of my Christian Indonesian friends refer to the Christian God as Allah (not the other way round). Anecdotal evidence. Take it as you will. There is no inconsistency in me picking out the examples I did.

Before that you have mentioned that
Sorry, got the point about Christians in Indonesia mixed up with la nausee’s. I am not sure which part of Indonesia you’re working in, but your experience is not uniform throughout Indonesia. A simple Google check could have told you that there are names such as “Gereja Sidang Tuhan” or “Gereja Kristus Di Indonesia”. I don’t see any “Allah” in these names. (But I can’t tell if they are Catholics or Protestants, or whether it makes any difference.)

It is indeed strange though, about the insistence of Christians in Malaysia to want to use the word “Allah” instead.

but in post #127 you now say this has got to do with Language. This is clearly changing goal post as what Anakin has correctly mentioned. Make up your mind my dear. First, you refute Anakin remark that Allah is using for God (claiming it is Tuhan), then you claim that it is not wide spread ( giving examples of your friends???), now you say this is English and not Bahasa. Well, news flash for you pal, Allah is Arabic. I wonder what twists will you come out with now to skirt this.