the thing is it alright that the teacher evangelize in or out of classroom? there is no law governing it and i feel it is unethical considering secondary school student and below is easily influenced

A sign in front of your door like”please,no soliciting” will work well for you.If they,either religious zealous or someone trying to sell you a product or political campaigners persist in locking on your door,you have the right to tell them off or slam the door on them if you are a rude person.But do not instigate a ban on door to door evangelism
if you truly wanted to see more democracy and freedom in Singapore.

Would you say the same to a salesperson who knocks on your door selling ice-cream? The Muslim could cry foul too if the ice-cream is not certified halal.

So please lah. BM (miss?) is making a mountain out of a molehill – like she always does.

There are also Hindu and Muslim religious extremists too. They kill and rape people including nuns and burn down churches and houses. They also put them in prison and beat them up. They also bomb buildings and places where they can do the most damage.

Of course there are also extremists in “Christian” sector. Like people who distribute offensive tracts, knock on doors, use the term Allah, or try to discourage homosexual behavior or practices.

Knocking on door = extremists?

Dots.

Oh well I had my fair share of those, I tell them I’m more interested in ice creams than church books, and I tell the ice cream guys I’m playing a game on my computer and they’re interrupting me.

Alvin has pointed out correctly that an evangelist’s job is to spread the gospel. It goes without saying that his job is to share the gospel with non-believers, which includes atheists and people of other religious faith.

That may explain why the evangelist knocked on the door even though Miss Braema Mathi had pasted a picture of a Hindu deity on her front door.

I can’t help but feel that Miss Braema Mathi had over-reacted a little bit.

Miss Braema Mathi’s use of the words, “did you not see the picture?” does not sound like a polite way to talk to a person.

Miss Braema Mathi’s only complain seems to be that the evangelist should not have knocked on her door, so I think it is safe to assume that the evangelist did not try to preach further upon hearing hearing her reaction? Is the simple act of knocking on someone’s door (albeit one from a different religious belief) to preach the gospel an intrusion of personal space?

Can anyone think of an analogy for the above? i.e an issue that has neither right nor wrong, and yet there will be someone who comes up to tell you ‘you are wrong, I am right’ … that kind of thing.

7) Chee Keong on January 13th, 2010 9.09 am
I can’t help but feel that Miss Braema Mathi had over-reacted a little bit.

That would assumed that this is the first time that she was preached at. The ‘knock on the door preaching’ could simply be the proverbial last straw.

@Lobo76,

I agree with you.

Many years ago I’ve had evangelists knocking on my door quite often and I felt irritated too. Everything has to be done in moderation.

In this case, Miss Braema Mathi only mentioned that the evangelist shouldn’t have knocked on her door since she had pasted the picture of the Hindei deity there (judging from the article, that seems to be her only complaint).

They’re kind of over-aggression with the actions to spread the word of God and that might irate those who are of a different religion or an atheist.

I got a friend whose door was knocked and visited by an evangelist twice a week a few years back despite him telling her that he doesn’t believe in her religion. I’ve also some “friends” who belong to an evangelist church in Singapore and they can be often seen bashing other people’s religion, bringing god into whatever they do and trying to get people to go to their church.

[...] Religion – Irreligious: Politics in Malaysia’s ‘Allah’ debacle – TOC: Are evangelists religious extremists? [...]

It always amazes me how wholeheartedly terrorists believe in their religions too.

It’s one thing to genuinely want to engage in a dialogue. It is another to force your discourse down other people’s throat. Unfortunately, most of the evangelists I encounter are only willing to offer their views but deride others’.

Religion is, and should remain, a private and personal matter. No one should force one’s set of beliefs on another, no matter how well-intentioned that person may be.
Evangelical types always believe that they are doing God’s work. That is the basis of their faith and they often come across as trying to ram their beliefs down unwelcome throats.
Braema used the example of that unwanted knock on the door (an intrusion into her private space, as she put it) to illustrate the aggressiveness of the fundie group that sought to take over the leadership of AWARE — why that tactic was out place in Singapore’s plural society and why it was resisted and eventually defeated.
Perhaps, her illustration missed the point, perhaps her audience missed the point.
Evangelists — when they are sometimes cast in the same plot as fundies — come across in a bad light.
It is best, I feel, that we all practise our beliefs — quietly and unobtrusively.

i think if someone knock on my door and i do not like it i just do not open the door.

There are time and place for everything.

No matter what the evangelicals think that its their god given rights to go out and prosetilyze, they should respect other people’s space.

What is not said here, is even within christianity they are also trying to convert other denominations too.

I dont think BM is trying to cast these fanactics in bad light, merely exposing the truth for all to see.

Aiyah…

If she wants to protect her private space, then just put up a sign outside her door that says “don’t knock at my door for whatever reason. Don’t call me, I’ll call you”. And to avoid any misunderstanding, have it in the 4 official languages.

Siao ja borh !!

It is also unfortunate that evangelists tend to target what they perceive to be the vulnerable segments (i.e. students, youth, people with ‘no religion’, old and needy) rather than Muslims, which are always a sensitive group and can count on the Sedition Act more readily as a defence. The unspoken truth is that, somehow it is easier to wound Muslim feelings than that of other non-Christians.

Joe.

You obviously dont realize how persistant the evanglicals are and how zealously they go about doing their mission.

4 official languages? Like that would do any good.

Perhaps electricfied barbed wire with sharpen glass embedded on the ground like in prison might do it.

(Then you are condemning yourself to like in fear, or more like prison)

Think about it, give everyone space and respect it is the key.

The point is that religious harassment tends to be underreported, and it is no surprise who are the main offenders and how easily they can get away with it.

this is a trivial issue.

I have been approached by people who wants to sell me all kinds of things from fake watches, health drinks, magazines, religion, weight loss programs, financial products, insurance policies, etc.. and if i do not want them, i just tell them politely “Thanks, but i don’t want them”.

Relax and chill If every unwarranted intrusion is perceived as an intrusion of private space, may i suggest she moved to the neareast cave in the remotest mountain… But wait, hmmm.. the insects there or even the wind may enter her private space and upset her. Where should she go ?

Condoning evangelicals is usually the start for takeover of secular society by conservative groups, hardly trivial.

hey kenz

just to clarify, the suggestion of notice in 4 languages was meant to be a light hearted sacasm.

i am all for chillaxing over small things….

life is alot easier to live for everyone if is less testy, testa..

Joe

Let me share with you my personal experience.
(how my chillaxing day turns into a charbroilling)

They came to the door, and it always starts in similar fashion.

‘We want to share with you good news’

‘Have you the savior, Jesus christ’

etc etc etc

When you say you are not interested and told them to go, it almost always ends the same.

‘Why condemn your soul and those of your family to eternity in hell?’
If you dont want to be saved, why deny that of your family? Can i speak with them? etc etc etc.

Now you tell me how to chillaxing.

(personally i dont care for living in caves)

GABRIEL, since you trry to bring in the AWARE incident again, and said that “Religion is, and should remain, a private and personal matter. “, I would counter to also say that “Homosexuality is, and should remain, a private and personal matter” as well.

Braema Mathi was one of those responsible for trying to “legalise” and “normalize” homosexuality through AWARE’s constitution and their sneaky CSE program. Is this not an extremist’s act as well. Did she and AWARE show respect for the mainstream who cannot and will not accept homosexualtiy as a way of life? Did Braema and AWARE infringed on others’ rights as well through their sneaky and deceitful act as well? Who’s more dangerous, those that try to go behind your back with their sneaky agenda, or those who are upfront with their agenda and you have every opportunity to reject them?

To be credible, Alvin should perhaps also write about the harmfulness of homosexuality and the way LGBT extremists is trying to impose their lifestyle on Singapore’s mainstream as well, but I seriously doubt he will ever do it!!

23) Joe on January 13th, 2010 1.20 pm

The sign on the door is a good idea… but maybe not the message. How about: “if you knock on my door, I will start praying to the Devil”?

:P

///Beware of homosexual extremists as well///

again homosexual agenda, and how it seek to silence religious voice.

arent you off tangent?

Arent you have enough linking aware with homosexual agenda?
Which is clear to see not the case at all, unless you are rewriting history.

But to your comment on legalize and normalize homosexual?
Just take a look at spain and portugal where more staunch christian (catholic) countries than SG will ever be.
and guess what? both legalize gay marriage already.

So can you please keep to the topic?

Strange, I have never encountered any of such evangelists trying to preach to me before, and I am staying in a HDB unit that has a common corridor which makes my unit accessible to anyone and everyone.

Those who complained about having encountering such evangelists frequently (including Alvin) must be very very unlucky!

Or is Alvin trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, with a hidden agenda unknown to many (taking into considerations that TOC had been adopting an anti-Christian stance since the AWARE incident)?

On comments above, i see the following camps:-

(1) Ban on evangelism – the extreme end of one spectrum. Freedom of religion is different from freedom to spread religion. And the latter is contingent on how it is being done.

(2) Can evangelize – but NOT to those known to have different religion. Respect for other religions? This seems to be Braema’s beef. since she has Hindu artifacts in public view

(3) Can evangelize – but only to ‘virgin territory’ – those with no religion. I think this space is generally acceptable & open. Unless, atheist & ‘no religion’ is a strongly-held creed as well

(4) Can evangelize no restriction – full freedom of speech & religion

For me, the very root problem is evangelism.

‘The path to hell is laid with good intentions’ – carry the logic of ’spreading the good word’ to its logical extreme – the Word is from the Lord, our God so we are doing good, doing His work, saving souls, we are in the right etc.

So with this righteousness ins tow, it cuts no ice to respect cat (1),(2),(3). How can I respect your religion when I know mine is the ONLY right, yours wrong, so I MUST save you. So even I already know you belong to another religion, I also hope to save you. So goes their logic.

There si no end to it – because they believe they are doing good …. for your sake too.

However, well-intentioned, surely this is the height of arrogance.

Why should I place a sign when I have a right to peace of mind.

So here’s where common sense & importance of secularity comes in.

Common courtesy, decency should override the self-righteous do -gooders.

But in itself, to me at least, evangelism is wrong.

People will seek out the good news in the right time & circumstance.

Remember ‘God works in mysterious ways ?’

But they will also say it’s in the Bible to go ’spread the good word’.

So, it takes strong wise political leadership to draw the line & lay the law.

Why should those with ‘no religion’ necessarily be more amenable to evangelism, or be considered easy pickings compared to say Muslims? Insinuating their beliefs to be less strongly held or relevant is clearly religious discrimination

29) Deepak on January 13th, 2010 2.17 pm,,
Those who complained about having encountering such evangelists frequently (including Alvin) must be very very unlucky!

Where in the article does Alvin say that he encounter ’such’ evangelists (people who visit his house/HDB flat?

It seemed to me that Alvin only said he ‘had his share of evangelists’, without ever mentioning that they came to his doorstep.

Deepak

You are very lucky indeed not to experience that.

I have a roman catholic friend who encountered these evangelical that called her ‘idol worshiper’ and need to go to their true church. (i presume some pentecostal/charismatic ones)

Honestly TOC is already very impartial in reporting all these. I think all the trangression from these evanglicals are not reported enough.

When it does happened, and you guys just say dont overeact lar, just brush it aside lar, dont open the door lar only to embolden these people further.
(that’s probably happened to the couple above when there’s no limits in their eyes).

For the evanglicals, you dont have to hardsell like some cheap snakeoil peddlers.

If your religion has its merits and goodness, it will be apparent for all to see.
And people will respond to the goodness of your actions, not how loud or how persistant you can be in your preaching.

I do not welcome the evangelist types at my door, if I feel spiritually down, I know the way to mosque, church, temple whatever.

The problem with these folks is that they start their sweet talk pleasantly and soon endup spewing garbage about our (obviously non-xtian) religions about which they have zero knowledge

I had two such folks last year at my door step. I told them I am a Hindu (actually, I am atheist, but born hindu) and not interested in their talk , very politely. They refused to leave and started claiming that I will end up in hell, come judgement day and only Christ can save us etc etc and Hinduism cannot “save me” etc.

Considering the fact that the two were somewhat old, I let them go otherwise I’d have broken their teeth and kicked and dragged them down the stairs of my HDB block.

Disgusting evangelists.

I do not see this as an issue, unless TOC and Alvin have a hidden message and agenda in featuring this article.

If they come, just tell them “NO!”. It always work for me and they respect my decision. So, far, no such evangelists had harassed me before…and I had probably encountered such evangelist only twice in my life so far (out of 46 years of my life on this planet earth)! It is so negligible to make it an issue and an article here!

Religious evangelism must not be condoned and allowed to fester in any country. Despite the god-given rights they think they have, a society is a mix of many religions, each believing in their true gods, so what makes one god truer than the rest. That’s why regulation against such practices must be in place because it violates peoples’ comfort and privacy. Religion is not a good excuse to harass and do worse harm to others.

Many posters are definitely exaggerating their experiences here about their encounter with evangelists! WHY? Intending to go on an anti-Christianity drive again now that the AWARE incident had died down?

Personally, I met once with such evangelist, and did not experienced any harassment at all when I rejected her intentions to preach to me about her religion.

I had also just ask my department of 6 colleagues and only one of them claimed that she had ever encountered a Christian evangelist trying to preach to her, but when she expressed she has no interest, it was just a simple “thank-you” without any harassment from the evangelist.

So, why the sudden target on Christianity and religion again? Is it because TOC have no other topics to keep netizens engaged, so it had to create controversies again?

Exaggeration????

I think you are the one who is exaggerating the non-issue of the evangelicals.

The couple facing sedition charges above, so easy to forget already ah?

There were report of evanglicals harrassing students outside school gates?, forget also?

@28) Kenz – aren’t you seriously off tangent as well? You justification in your rebuttal is really very weak, but I guess that will not stop you or many pro-homosexuality extremists from trying to create an impression that legalizing gay marriages is a norm and reality, which is far from the truth!!

You mentioned Spain and Portugal, what have these 2 countries got to do with Singapore? What is Spain and Portugal compared to the many countries that did not legalize gay marriage? Why not quote Singapore in-line with the majority of these countries that did not legalize gay marriages?

Even in the United States, only 6 states out of the 50 states formally legalized gay marriages, what does that tells you?

Having said the above, I do agree that we should get back to the topic and stop all these debate about homosexuality in Singapore, since the government had already clearly and officially stated their stand in not legalizing homosexuality in Singapore.

Kenz, it is people like you that always want to dig into just one or two incidents, exaggerate and then blow it out of proportion, for obvious reasons and agenda known only to you!

While it is true that there are extremist and evangelists. our society is also full of instigators with ill-intentions like yourself!

When evengalists do door to door or wait outside school gates and apporach children, we have to ask why are they doing this to people of other faiths or no faiths at all. Besides their well intentioned belief that their religion is right, there is a BIG ellement of being JUDGEMENTAL that leads to that kind of reasoning – My religion is better than your, My religion will save your soul not yours, My religion is right not yours.

This righteous belief is all well and fine if kept to your own congregation and group of worshippers; but when they seek to IMPOSE their faith based judgemental views on a multi-religious society, no matter how politiely it is done, the act itself irritates, aggravates and causest ension.

Evengalising is judegemental and NO ONE likes to be judged or be told (subtly or not) that their beliefs is WRONG and will lead them to hell.

Who are you to tell me that?

Everyone is human and humans and replete with flaws and foibles – you wantsothers to respect your religion, be a good witness for it and respect others’ beliefs first.

*Botak King

In the past year, the pace of change is amazing. What was imagined as totally impossible is now reality. Can you imagine what this year or the next five years will bring? Ignornace and insularity breeds contempt, fear and discrimination – hardly values for dealing with the globalised world now.

evangelists are religious extremists… in every religion its very clearly stipulated by the scriptures that there is no compulsion… but these evangelists especially christian evangelists just wanna convert the world through compulsion…

you will never see a single christian evangelist who will politely ask “do you mind if i talk to you about christianity”. if they receive a “no” they will never stop and leave and instead start asking more questions.

once when i walked away, that christian evangelist even held onto my hand at orchard mrt…

christian evangelists are undeniably religious extremists….

on the other hand i have worked on numerous race relations projects with some christian priests, missionaries, just passionate christians all of whom arent evangelists and they certainly do not fall into the category of religious extremists.these people are not evanglelists because they know their religion well. just ask an evangelist… what is the essence of your religion… see how many knows the answer..

in singapore there is a disproportionately large number of christian evangelists…

As a Buddhist I do not take offence when evangelists come knocking on my door or when I find their leaflets in my letter box.
This does into intrude on my personal space because I have the option to say ‘Not interested’ or to remove the leaflets.
However, if I tell them I am not interested and they persist in trying to evangelize me, use stratagems to keep me talking, take advantage of mildness to go on and on and no…, then I do find this offensive, intrusive and bad mannered.
And my experience is that, unfortunately, evangelists do this all the time.

The evangelist seeks actively to convert people from other religions or those with no religion into believers of their religion. That is, almost by definition, religious intolerance.

You usually don’t see the same kind of behavior amongst Buddhists, Hindus or Muslims. They don’t evangelize.

Once again, it looks like the Fundie Internet Brigade has started banging on about gays (with no mention whatsoever of gays in the article), AWARE, and some imagined anti-christian agenda.

“What I believe is absolutely perfect and right. If you make any criticism of it at all, you”re hating an entire religious group” – This is the message I get from them.

Going by their standards, I guess the entire media during the AWARE incident is anti-christian. PM Lee, in his assessment of the AWARE incident as a religious takeover, is anti-christian. The judge, by finding the christian couple guilty of sedition, is anti-christian.

Of course, fundies are always right, always perfect, and must be the ones who draw the lines for our nation (Derek Hong, in particular, is excellent at line-drawing).

All hail the fundies, Supreme holders of Truth and Embodiment of Righteousness.

43) singapore divided on January 13th, 2010 4.16 pm
once when i walked away, that christian evangelist even held onto my hand at orchard mrt…

You should have fallen to the ground screaming in pain… I think you can add a few rolls if the ground isn’t too dirty. :P

Ppl ppl. Grace grace more grace and relax. Don’t work youself up because the work has all been done and completed and you just receive receive and be blessed.

No guilt no condemnation and no contention and ignore those who don’t agree with you or jealous of your grace and lastly, remember to tithe so ministers of the gospel can be on par with our multimillion dollar political ministers in health and wealth.

Grace grace grace be with you all

BM (Big Mouth) is trying to paint the ‘Evangelists’ in a bad light. Typical. They misused their intelligence so that they can feel superior. Of course the evangelist is not doing the ‘right’ thing but it is a small issue. Just politely tell them so and I am sure being God fearing people they will oblige.

BM is clever at finding weak spots in other people.

You usually don’t see the same kind of behavior amongst Buddhists, Hindus or Muslims. They don’t evangelize.

Can’t speak on behalf of Hinduism or Islam. In Buddhism, one of the fundamental core belief is yuan fen or roughly translated, destiny. All things have a natural cycle of birth and death, even one’s relationship with a religion. The Buddha does not and has never done anything to coerce people to believe in His teachings, as He believes that if the person is destined to learn from Him, the person will indeed learn from Him. Hence, if someone who is Buddhist now, but ends up converting to Christianity later, then its because this person has no yuan fen with Buddha’s teaching, and so be it. In fact, the Buddha believed that if someone has benefitted spiritually from teachings other than His, that someone is to be congratulated as he has found his home. No hell or brimstone or mention of the Apocalyspe.

Buddhism gives people the power of choice. I can’t say the same for Christianity. Which is why I will never believe a word of these Christian evangelists.

Botak king,

to argue with you on that would be off tangent therefore lets wait for TOC to open a tread on homosexuality then we can debate further.
Then we can address all the nitty gritty arguement against homosexual.

Exaggeration,

One or two incident and blow it up of proportion you say.
Lets just let it brood and explode as religion fanatics power struggle like in say Msia recently?

I personally do not think there is anything wrong with evangelism. The problem is their approach and the reaction to your rejection. They are too emotional. Religious extremists? maybe. But it is more of a select few misrepresenting the whole lot of evangelists.

owayz

the problem with evanglism is that it promote intolerance in some way.

one can argue that evangelism a form of encroachment into the secular space from the christian extremist. When we tolerate it, what stopping from other religion extremist from doing the same (ie encroach into the secular space too) but in their own ways.

They can easily argue, ‘they can do it, why cant I ?’

Where will all this end? History has shown it almost always ends badly.
Look at the church bombing incident lately in Msia. Just a tip of the iceberg and will continue to fracture the fragile religion tolerance further.

Is this what we want for SG too?

salvation is exclusive in the christian faith or doctrine(means you will burn in hell if you don’t bow to their doctrine or have their kind of faith).

if that’s not extremist and offensive, i don’t know what is.

///47) lobo76 on January 13th, 2010 4.54 pm

You should have fallen to the ground screaming in pain… I think you can add a few rolls if the ground isn’t too dirty.///

hahaha are you serious?

Then they will claim its a part of exorcism (a whole new ballgame altogether)

There are plenty of poorly-reasoned and vindictive remarks made here by those who claim to be liberal/secular/tolerant.

Evangelism isn’t wrong per se. Sure, it involves people trying to persuade you that your beliefs about god, the afterlife etc. are false, and that their beliefs are true — but every one of us does that, including those who preach doctrines like ‘the right to privacy’ or ‘mutual tolerance’. If you’re offended by the mere fact that people disagree with you and/or are judging your actions, then you’re a little too thin-skinned to be living in a culturally plural society.

Other commenters contend that evangelism equates to ‘coercion’ or (that unimaginative, recycled phrase) ’shoving one’s beliefs down another’s throat’. Well, I say that if you feel pressured into converting just by the mere mention of fire and brimstone and the Apocalypse, then your own beliefs aren’t that secure in the first place!

To those who argue that evangelism “encroaches on the secular space”, you obviously aren’t firing on more than just a handful of neurons. What about burning incense at HDB void decks, Chinese funeral processions, Thaipusam celebrations, open-air celebrations/ceremonies often held by Buddhist organizations (especially around Vesak Day), etc.. Such phrases as “encroaching on the secular space” sound nice, but are apt to obscure.

Obviously, there are clear limits. Where evangelism involves repeated, persistent harassment from the same person(s) (even after the hearer has clearly refused), or where it targets the very young (say, those below age 14) — then it crosses the line. But evangelism is acceptable if those who practise it desist after you firmly reject their advance (three “Nos” is a reasonable number, I suggest).

Say, you were travelling on one side of a road, and on the other side you spot a gapping hole. It is your firm belief that any car travelling on the opposite side would see the hole too late and drive right into it, causing certain death. Would you ignore the default and let any traveller drive straight into the hole? Or do whatever is in your means to stop/block that stretch of road, to warn others of the impending danger? Now, the question posed in this trend is not about doctrine and theology, but of the motives of the people doing the polythsizing. Through this illustration, i hope to shed some light on the motives of the evangelists.

I must admit that most go about doing it the wrong way, therefore turning people off, however, just stop and think. Wouldn’t most of the evanglist know that they are being ridiculed and despised by the general public? If so, why still subject themselves to such insult. It is because of their firm belief in the joys that knowing Christ has brought them.

Having said this, Christians respect other religions, do not let a few black sheep who go around badmouthing other religions give you the impression that this is what we learn in Church, it is simply not true. i can say the it is not the wish to eliminate other religions that the proper Christian evangilize, but the genuine love we have for others.

To label the evangelists extremist would be an extreme in itself. Would anyone here really compare an evangelist who do a little hand-grabbing to a Muslim extremist/fundamentalist who goes on jihad and commit acts of terrorism?

la nausee

nicely argued on the part that other religions has their ‘encroachments’ therefore it justify the right to evangelism.

the thing is, all the example you have mentioned dont need your participation if you dont want to. You are not targeted specifically by their action.

Dont like joss stick, dont go near one.
Dont like thaipusan or chingay dont attend or simply dont watch.
(dont recall they forces one to do so does it?)

but its a lot more difficult when these ‘outreaching’ evanglical actually come up to your doorstep.

That’s where a lot of people has an issue with.

fancy that you bring up limits, until there’s a controlling body to regulate this then its an open debate whether evangelism should be allow, fair no?

ps : people are not sway/coerce into converting like lemmings over an open clift, just by mentioned of brimstones and apocalypse. they simply dont want to waste time by having to repeat that ‘NO’ 3 times. for most cases, 3 times are not enough.

JH

I truly applaud you for shedding the lights on the noble motives of the evangelicals.

But dont you think you are on the borderline judgemental?

Your hole on the road analogy is just a ‘hole’.

If you ask followers of other religions , they probably feel the same way as you.
You need to be saved only by following their religion, and who can say who is more right or more wrong?
(but do you see them going out with mantra of fire and brimstones?)

The question remains is where is the limits?
If there are, who is regulating this?

To label evangelical would be extreme it self, you say?

Really now, how about the american evangelical that influenced the uganda to pass a law to execute people for being gay?

It all boils down to actions my friends, it speaks louder than words could ever do.

Like i said before, the best form of evanglism is to show by example, by showing love and compassion that so abundant in bible would be more effective method, no?? (more difficult but definitely more effective)

Hello la nausee? The topic is whether Religious evangelists are extremist or not and not about tolerace as a society
People who hold extremist view can be offensive. whether we tolerate them or not is beside the point.

Kenz

I totally agree ith you that the best form of evanglism is through example and action.

The question of limit – I’m not saying that all evanglism is non extremist, but to equate the form of evanglism as mentioned in the article to extremism is simply an extreme in itself =)

Need a sign to tell them from avoiding those dwellers who are not interested?
These unwelcome visitors irregardless of their intention are a nuisance especially to people like me who only manage to sleep 3 hours a day.
Even kneecap oso can think that this is an act that causes annoyance .There is no justification for such an act and these activities should be stop if we want to live in harmony.
Ms Braema may have over react.But what causes her to be so?Becos these promoters do not have respect for others.I have these experiences too though I haven’t react like how she reacted.

My most recent encounter with evangelists was just two weeks back where I was ‘harrassed’ (he was literally walking backwards -11 oçlock position – at arm’s length from me) while I was walking to the bus stop for about 200m, a walk that took over 20 minutes. The only way for me to get out of the way was to just board the first bus that reached the bus stop and alighted at the next bus stop as that wasn’t the bus that I was to take.

To cite exclusively Braema’s incident seems to potray that ‘peaceful, non seditious’ evangelism is a fundamental right while ignoring the offensive nature of their act of touting. I’m still planning what to do the next time I’m harrassed the same way or worse, maybe I should blow a whistle to alert all around me that I am being robbed of my peace.

Knowing the anti-Christian stance of TOC since the AWARE incident, and the angle and perspective which the writer, Alvin Poon, choose to write this artcile, it is already highly fixated and clear in its intention to label Christian evangelist as extremist.

So, what’s there to be argued? According to the writer, CHRISTIAN EVANGELISTS ARE EXTREMISTS…period!! TOC is not asking for your opinion, IT IS TELLING YOU THAT IT IS!

That being the case, isn’t TOC spilling extremists’ views as well, which means it is a platform for extremist of a different kind – the anti-Christian extremists?

sigh … that ‘hole analogy’ again demonstrates the smug righteousness of those who want to convert others who may actually feel as righteous as them regarding their own faiths.

‘The path to hell is laid with the best of intentions’ – always true.

There’s a lot of hypocrisy – religious tolerance, na… I wait for a better time to convert you.

So some of the fundie’s eventually want to drop the pretence.

Notice Inter-religion Council, none of the mega churches take part – they totally dun want to compromise.

Only the traditional Christians – Catholics Anglicans Methodists are there. In fact being schooled in the Roman Catholic tradition, I say the pressure to convert & evangelise is least comopared to the American-influence mega church influences. Attend any of their service – always at a certain part of the year, the MLM model kicks in, cell-groups, go & talk to & bring someone to our church. Targets set, peer pressure take over.

In the meatime, organize mass ‘Love Singapore’ campaigns to score PR points with public.

But make no mistake, aim is to one day make this one Christian nation under God.
This is not paranoi, it’s their most ardent desire – witness the Freudian slips of COOS pastor in the past.

Hey, how is this for an idea ??

To avoid relgious pests knocking on your doors, you put up crucifixes, figuries of Hindus diety,guan ying, buddha, said baba, virgin mary, etc all on our doors.

That way, whoever wants to come knocking to preach will be blur as sotong !!

Besides promoting the mutli-religious society of SG, it also helps in promoting the creative arts of SG.

YOu can’t be haul up for vandalism (Singpost saga) cos its your own door!

How’s that for suggestion.

“Bow bow to tremendous applause” thank you thank you thank you….

Perhaps Ms Braema can organise an anti-evangelism campaign. No evangelising in all public spaces, schools, hdb and giving out flyers that are offensive to non-believers.

Andrew, she could even go around knocking on people’s doors and ask them to to sign up for an anti-evangelism campign, ha ha !!

Alamak, that means that besides the pictures of deities and crucifixes, now i hae to add another one that says “Anti anti-evangelism. Don’t knock on my door”..

i think i need to apply to HDB for a bigger door……

Yo Joe, u dun know u can’t use ‘Alamak’ now meh ?
Using ‘Allah’ name in vain not enough, still asking after His Mother ?

Tsk Tsk, this must be added to the list of 20 over prohibited words in M’sia reported in ST today :-)

“For the first time, the LoveSingapore leadership publicly conveyed the vision and defined the core values of the pan-denominational movement and outlined the strategies and drew up the steps leading to a decisive point of Singapore’s transformation by the year 2015″

http://alpha.wrpf.sg/?p=429

LoveSingapore – its intention, which was so brashly advertised on their site – was to transform sg into a christian nation. I wrote to Reach about this but received no response at all – perhaps the people at Reach too are in support of this movement.

If u look at their methods, they plan to infiltrate every level of society and use their influence in these spheres to effeect their conversion. It reads almost like a military manual for infiltrating the enemie’s stronghold and wiping them out eventually. Is this is the good intentions and deeds of christians who repect other religions?

The event held at expo last year, attracted thousands from all the evengelical and mega churches and was the initial venue the new leaders of AWARE wanted to hold their extrordinary meeting.

The event will be held again this year and you will see giant ads on billboards, buses everywhere – i just wonder if they are going to publicise it as a movement ot convert the whole of sg again.

I mean who could argue with these 2 patriotic words : LOVE SINGAPORE ?

You want to cho-cho, from Feminist Mentor to Prof Thio to Handsome Prince & Polo-mad Khong to Kong Hee Fatt Choy & their 5-figure high-powered followers will come & whack you for ‘disrupting religious harmony’, anti-christian blah blah …

1st class subversion …

56) JH on January 14th, 2010 1.57 am ,
Say, you were travelling on one side of a road, and on the other side you spot a gapping hole. It is your firm belief that any car travelling on the opposite side would see the hole too late and drive right into it, causing certain death. Would you ignore the default and let any traveller drive straight into the hole? Or do whatever is in your means to stop/block that stretch of road, to warn others of the impending danger? Now, the question posed in this trend is not about doctrine and theology, but of the motives of the people doing the polythsizing. Through this illustration, i hope to shed some light on the motives of the evangelists.

I would have to point out that your analogy is flawed. First of all, religion is something that cannot be proven. i.e there isn’t a right or wrong. Your ‘gapping hole’ is not a neither-right-nor-wrong proposition, rather, It is a ’sure’ proposition. As in, if one doesn’t see the hole in time, they WILL fall.

I have a hard time coming up with a analogy but I think I may have one. Maybe you can consider something inconsequential like walking?

you have to start with either your left foot or right foot when you start walking, right? Some people just like to start off with their left, and evangelists may be people who say that you have to start with the right foot. They believe that you will get crippled sooner or later if you start walking with your left…

69) Sloo on January 14th, 2010 11.18 am
“The event will be held again this year and you will see giant ads on billboards, buses everywhere – i just wonder if they are going to publicise it as a movement ot convert the whole of sg again. ”

I recommend vandalising their advertisement. Or protest at hong lim park or use civil disobedience.

69) Sloo on January 14th, 2010 11.18 am

Organise a FreeSingapore campaign to counter?

angkujupi

thank for pointing my mistake. i do aplogise for saying “alamak”. oh shit, i just said it again !!

Ala…. Aiyoh, sorry. I think i better shut the hell up before i get stoned.

Peace and chill man to all me brothers and sisters.

hahahaha welll with whats happening across the causeway i hope these mega rich pastors will think twice about their actions.

this is like saleswoman selling goods in the shopping centre. It all depends on the person… some have good skills (i.e. polite, not pushy) while others need improvement… so it won’t be good just to generalised and throw out the baby along with the bath water…

Saleswoman has probably the most sensible analogy i have read in this forum.

Trust a woman to come up with an analogy that is sales related…. so shopping therapy does have its usefulness !!

77) Joe on January 14th, 2010 1.24 pm

well, I don’t really agree with you on saleswoman’s analogy. There is no clarification on the ‘good’ that is being sold. Can you imagine if the ‘good’ was pork? Pork in itself is just another meat, just like Christianity is just another religion. Does it matter then if the skill of the salesperson is good if s/he tries to sell it to a vegetarian (assuming the salesperson knows for a fact the target IS a vegetarian)? Worse…maybe s/he tried to sell it to a vegetarian muslim.

If the salesperson is any good, the very first step has to be to find the correct audience to make his sales pitch. Something the evangelists seem to ignore.

72) andrew leung on January 14th, 2010 11.39 am
69) Sloo on January 14th, 2010 11.18 am
“The event will be held again this year and you will see giant ads on billboards, buses everywhere – i just wonder if they are going to publicise it as a movement ot convert the whole of sg again. ”
I recommend vandalising their advertisement…

——————————————-

Surely, as logical, reasonable and free-thinking people, we don’t need to sink down to their level and resort to censorship of opposing views. Let them have their little campaign to conquer the nation.

If Singaporeans are really that gullible and easily manipulated, I can only say that they deserve the oppressive thioliban society they will get. Those who value freedom can then leave and let their “holy” society sink back into a medieval cesspool.

IMO, evangelist should start with their own Christian brothers, coz only 1 in 3 of them believe it anyway. please see this story from Christian Post
http://sg.christianpost.com/dbase/americas/183/section/1.htm

The trouble with these mega-churches & their leaders – overzealous need to build the largest building, the largest membership all for the glory of God’s kingdom, rather than to uplift spiritual life of followers !

boasting over 10,000 members, building tallest church (City Harvest Indonesian church partner) etc

For the Lord’s glory or for personal vanity & materialism ?!

I prefer attending churches using the traditions.

When it come to evagelism, if the person is interested to hear, I will continue to talk.
If the person does not talk, I just say thank you.

A responsibility for me being a Christian is more of sharing the message, letting others to know about rather forcing the person to convert.
After that, it depends on the holy spirit to do the next action.

to know about, rather than forcing the person to convert*

*edit

56) JH on January 14th, 2010 1.57 am, you mentioned:

“…Say, you were travelling on one side of a road, and on the other side you spot a gapping hole. It is your firm belief that any car travelling on the opposite side would see the hole too late and drive right into it, causing certain death. Would you ignore the default and let any traveller drive straight into the hole? Or do whatever is in your means to stop/block that stretch of road, to warn others of the impending danger? Now, the question posed in this trend is not about doctrine and theology, but of the motives of the people doing the polythsizing. Through this illustration, i hope to shed some light on the motives of the evangelists…”

(1) Religions are very subjective matters. You “can” spot a gapping hole because you are influenced by your religion. I am sure you know who dig the hole for those who refuse to follow what evangelists try to preach.

(2) And the most important thing is, you know who dig the hole, play as savior, and believe to avoid the hole one has to accept the savior. To you and the evangelists, this is good news, this is Gospel. If not, one will fall into the (hell) hole and be burnt forever.

(3) However, to others, to dig a hole for non-believers to fall in, if they refuse the savior, is not good news at all. It is as simple as that.

(4) Ref: To better understand what I try to say, please also refer to 25) Kenz on January 13th, 2010 1.32 pm

@Kenz (#57), I do think my examples remain valid. In fact, they may be even more encroaching/intrusive than Christian evangelism, if the latter is practised moderately.

If some people start burning joss stick / incense below your flat, you can’t really avoid the smoke or tell them to go some place else. You just shut your windows for about 10-15 minutes. The same applies to a Thaipusam procession or a Chinese funeral being carried out in the neighbourhood — often, we just have to bear with the noise for a while.

You say that it’s the ‘targeting’ of non-Christians which makes evangelism offensive. But why should it? They believe they are spreading an important message or offering a good/service, which is beneficial for you and me. We may disagree, but how very different would evangelism be from, say, selling insurance policies or spreading awareness about STDs or labour rights or the basics of Singapore law or any other issue that you might expect the average person to be interested in? (We’re all interested in why we live and die, and what happens to us thereafter.)

And for all these forms of outreach, one would surely not waste time preaching to the converted. If I wanted to raise general awareness about the law, would I be speaking to lawyers and judges? No — I’d ‘target’ those who aren’t too familiar with the law to begin with, or don’t think that it concerns them. And that’s exactly what Christian evangelists are doing, aren’t they?

So ‘targeting’ isn’t bad at all — in fact, one should feel quite flattered. And as long as evangelists respect your wishes after you’ve firmly refused, evangelism should be tolerated and accepted.

Quote:-

So ‘targeting’ isn’t bad at all — in fact, one should feel quite flattered. And as long as evangelists respect your wishes after you’ve firmly refused, evangelism should be tolerated and accepted.

In theory, this is a fair statement.

Logic also clear : evangelize of course is to non-believers by definition.

But I know of FCBC, carrying this ’soft evangelism’ to a higher level.

Sr Pastor Khong has ever announced special campaigns whereby for say a 100-day period, whole congregations thru cell-groups asked to go PRAY for total strangers – approach them saying ‘May I pray for your well-being… ‘, presumably the idea is to touch others with concern then share gd news, invite to church etc etc.

So the onus is on on-believers to withstand/ / tolerate these ‘kindness assualts’ & maintain civility.

When is too much too much ?

Evangelistic methods are gettng more subtle & pervasive

85) la nausée on January 14th, 2010 7.42 pm

la nausee,

targeting non-christians is a good thing, as to spread a message?
Non-christians, i assumed you refer to those with different religions other than christianity and altheist?
geez, what ever happened to other peoples opinions and choices?

Are you so arrogant to believe that they do not think about how to live and die and thereafter, just because they dont share the same religion as you?

You said just because the evangelicals believe they are spreading good news which is beneficial to you and me therefore its acceptable?

Seriously you are not kidding me right?
Awareness of STD, yes, Insurance policies, yes, labour rights, yes too.
Message from their bible with their actions that dont match up, hell NO.
Difference is all the other example is proven, bible thumping message not so much lately.

///And for all these forms of outreach, one would surely not waste time preaching to the converted. If I wanted to raise general awareness about the law, would I be speaking to lawyers and judges? No — I’d ‘target’ those who aren’t too familiar with the law to begin with, or don’t think that it concerns them. And that’s exactly what Christian evangelists are doing, aren’t they?///

How arrogantly put.
Why cant you see other people with different religions as converted too?

////So ‘targeting’ isn’t bad at all — in fact, one should feel quite flattered.///

Yeah really flattering to an aging person to be targeted by liposuction/comestic surgery clinic regardless what he/she think about the procedure.
real flattering, i’ll say.

You say that it’s the ‘targeting’ of non-Christians which makes evangelism offensive. But why should it? They believe they are spreading an important message or offering a good/service, which is beneficial for you and me. We may disagree, but how very different would evangelism be from, say, selling insurance policies or spreading awareness about STDs or labour rights or the basics of Singapore law or any other issue that you might expect the average person to be interested in?

————————————————————————————-

la nausée, the difference between evangelism from the examples you have cited (with the exception of insurance policies), is that the “goodness” of evangelism is a subjective one, while knowledge of the law or STDs is objectively useful.

Evangelism is more similar to insurance policies in the sense that others might well choose to manage their financial affairs their own, equally valid, way. An insurance salesman who insists that his products are better, that their current plans are crap, would well come off as a complete nuisance.

To view evangelism as an objective good, on the same level as knowledge of the law or STDs, one has to make the assumption that christianity is the one true religion, so that not converting into that religion is objectively bad for the non-believer. That being said, the subjective belief that christianity is absolutely true does not make it a factual truth.

Religion is the opium of man.

Napaleon was right when he said if you want people to shut up, give them religion.

borderless.

I think napoleon didnt know about the evangelical christian. lol
(it has the opposite effect, no?)

@Kenz and The Game, thanks for your replies.

To The Game, your distinction between “subjective” and “objective” value is not as clear-cut as it seems. Suppose one approaches a random passerby on the street, and asks, “Could I take a minute of your time to highlight some key facts about STDs?” One might imagine the average Singaporean’s response: “What, do I look like an STD-carrier or a sex maniac to you?!”, or “*bochup look*” or “Who do you think you are, telling me what or what not to do in my private life?”

So even these forms of information may or may not be perceived as valuable by the prospective audience — i.e. their value is equally ’subjective’. The salesman or campaigner or evangelist simply wouldn’t know what the response would be, unless he or she approached the person and asked.

To Kenz, the first point is that very few people make a once-and-for-all decision to stick to a certain religion or religious view. We’re constantly reflecting on, rethinking what we believe. Why then shouldn’t we be open to what others think or believe? What you’re asking for is a right to be insulated from views you disagree with — and that’s not a right which can exist in any minimally democratic society.

And the reason why I said we should feel flattered if a Christian evangelist approaches us is that he or she typically does so out of a genuine concern for our well-being, and not to earn some commission or fulfill a job quota. Sure, their beliefs may be mistaken, and it may be slightly annoying to have one’s passage interrupted, but the ‘thought’ should count for something, shouldn’t it?

Just when we are talking about evanglism, and here comes Pat robertson.

For those who dont know who Pat Robertson is, famous famous american top Tele-evangelist.

Here he comes blaming the Haiti earthquake to their revolt agaisnt slavery from the French (by making a deal with the Devil)

His exact words see the links ;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/13/pat-robertson-haiti-curse_n_422099.html

Just simply BoomZ my mind away.

////91) la nausée on January 15th, 2010 12.37 am

To Kenz, the first point is that very few people make a once-and-for-all decision to stick to a certain religion or religious view. We’re constantly reflecting on, rethinking what we believe. Why then shouldn’t we be open to what others think or believe? What you’re asking for is a right to be insulated from views you disagree with — and that’s not a right which can exist in any minimally democratic society.////

Commendable reasoning but …. flawed.
Lets turn the table around, if other religions followers starting to target Christians to be converted to their religion? What would your reactions be then?
(let me just point out the simple fact, only Christianity (evangelical) actively go out and trying to convert the mass not the other way round; but then we will never know wont we?)

///And the reason why I said we should feel flattered if a Christian evangelist approaches us is that he or she typically does so out of a genuine concern for our well-being, and not to earn some commission or fulfill a job quota. Sure, their beliefs may be mistaken, and it may be slightly annoying to have one’s passage interrupted, but the ‘thought’ should count for something, shouldn’t it? ////

Very noble thoughts indeed. But i still cant shake of the sentiments that evangelism has a more economical agenda for the churches.
More converts, means more tithes.
More market for the christian DVD/Books and etc. (ka Ching!ka ching!)

I do not hate christians.
They have the right to save themselves from whatever perils of daily life they see fit. They have the right to save themselves with whatever means they see fit.

But I do hate the abnoxious christians who do not hesitate to denigrate the religious beliefs of others to empower themselves. I hate the ogasmic extravanganzas and freakshows that are put up in the name of their god.

There is always a bit hypocracy in all religions. But some are really pushing it.
They have no one to blame but themselves when there is a public backlash.

I live in Sembawang. I have been visited by christians, and given two of those silly comics. One of which I thought was clearly targetted at catholics.

Braema Mathi’s experience is not far fetched.

I am no longer annoyed by those who try to convert me becos it is quite common for certain religion to have this funny habit.My only junior family member was brainwashed lately and she only know how to spent her free saturday and sunday in her Seow group and not willing to help the father who work 20 hours a day and is struggling looking for helper to help him.

I have my way to deal with them without offending them.The last 2 swee char bor who try to “help”me in the name of J did pray for me.They ask my wish and I tell them I wish to strike 4D and Toto.They say they can only help me to pray for Happiness.So they ask me to close my eye,pray for me…But I open my eye quietly when they are praying and look at their ………admiring their beauty…let my imagination turn wild….while they are praying for me.After that they told me that I will be a happier person …Of course ,in my mind i say,come more often …with a lower cut…I will be more happy..hee heehee..

91) la nausée on January 15th, 2010 12.37 am
but the ‘thought’ should count for something, shouldn’t it?

Interesting.. your examples seems to highlight the LACK of thought, rather than the process of thinking.

your example of approaching a random person and talking about STD. your imagined response is about right I think. Did the person trying to spread the danger of STD THINK, before approaching the person? Even if response to a topic is subjective, surely there is a better way to target a person than to do it randomly?

In the example given by the article, the evangelist shows again, the lack of THINKING. People already have a belief (Hinduism). Is it so hard to know what kind of response they would get?

Although I am Christian but I don’t encourage Evangelism. You can’t force a cow to drink water when the cow is not interested. I returned to my Christian was when my divorced father was down with stroke, out of job, no shelter. I seek help from every place I know only to face rejection. Until a Pastor of a halfway house stretched out his helping hand.

My sister was converted to Christian when she saw how my son transformed from a mildly autistic boy to a friendly boy who makes friends. My church life also restored my relationship with my mother although she is not a believer. All of these shows that people will come to church if they do really see the blessings happen. There’s no need for aggressive evangelism. People queue up at my church to hear my Pastor preach.

I got an brilliant idea on how to deal with the fundies.

The next time they approach me you know what I will ask them? My first question to them is if they think the opening of the IRs is morally wrong, to encourage gambling. Isn’t that imposing morally wrong values on society? And where were they and what have they done to engage the govt on this issue? Since they are so righteous, they should also clearly state their position.

Then they will be forced torespond.

Chances are, this will expose the hypocracy in this movement and I encourage others to do the same.

I think many people including religious groups have voiced their concerns over the IR in Singapore, but the PM decided to go ahead even after consulting with these different faith groups, and decided to open 2 IR instead.

andrew leung on January 15th, 2010 5.16 pm

That’s true. Perhaps they should focus their efforts on campaigning against the IR rather than targeting ordinary citizen folks to evangelise? Why must they stoop so low like the PAP? No guts I guess?

They will surely gain more support for many of their causes rather then alienating and dividing themselves

100) Brendan on January 15th, 2010 6.16 pm

Evangelism is one of the commands that they have to follow. There are also people who are not offended and have benefited.

Those who feel offended can direct their anger back at the offending person or other avenue. The evangelist have to give you the opportunity to reject them, as many times as they can handle your rejection, so don’t be shy to be offended or reject them.

I am absolutely disgusted with JH’s post of 56.

His/her first paragraph, the example of the person falling into a gaping hole on the road, has already been sufficiently rebutted upon by at least two other readers here. I concur with their criticism of JH’s naive thoughts.

His/her last paragarph is a great threat and insult to Muslims. JH said “Would anyone here really compare an evangelist who do a little hand-grabbing to a Muslim extremist/fundamentalist who goes on jihad and commit acts of terrorism”

PLEASE DO NOT EQUATE MUSLIM WITH TERRORIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are not being fair in your example. Do you remember the case of evengelist Jim Jones, and a couple more other christian fanatics. They forced people to do things to purify themselves and go closer to “god” and tragedy followed many died. Or the Moonists in Korea. All religions have idiots who misinterprete the faith in their zealousness and does great harm to humans.

An evangelist who do a little hand grabbing is faking an emotion, it is false illusion of “love” to everybody. There are numerous inconsistencies in the bible and there are many anecdotes in 1 Kings, Joshua, Chronicles to show the the mother of all Terrorism is the line of the Jews who massacred and terrorised the Arab tribes in Palestine and justified everything in “god’s” name. It’s all about land and politics. Do not be so short sighted as to think that Muslims are terrorists. The original terrorists are from the people of David the ancestor of the Christ . Read you Old Testament, JH!!

zero

To Tesla, post #31
In case you are still around -
you asked “Why should those with ‘no religion’ necessarily be more amenable to evangelism, or be considered easy pickings compared to say Muslims? ”

Probably your knowledge of world religion is close to zero.

Muslims and Christians come from the same source. In fact Muslims call christians people of the book. The split after Cain slew Abel and the tribes of Ishmael and Isaac are the source of all differences in Christians and Muslims, The bible records countless events in which unfairness and yes, terrorism, was inflicted by those from the lineage of David against and the other descendants of Ishmael which is, the arab world. Therefore, not forgetting also the Crusades, there is blood between this two religions, and it will never be easy for christian to preach to Muslim. Blood has long memories, my friend. It is nothing to do with discrimination. You need to educate yourself more. go read the bible, especially, Genesis, 1 Kings, 2 Kings.

zero

@lobo76, perhaps it’s something to do with how we Singaporeans don’t like random face-to-face encounters with strangers, like how most of us like to browse shop shelves without being approached by salespeople.

But there’s a difference. Insurance salespeople are there simply to market a product, and it’s smart for them to cater to consumer preferences. So if consumers don’t like being approached, perhaps they could set up booths to attract people to them.

With evangelists and other campaigners, the point is not simply to cater to your preferences, but to try to change them. If JBJ stands at the exit to City Hall MRT selling his book, “The Hatchet Man of Singapore”, he’s trying to change people’s beliefs/views about the ruling PAP government. If I want people on the street to sign a petition for, say, action w.r.t. climate change, I’ve got to convince them it’s worth their time and trouble. And ex hypothesi, in order to change people’s minds, you need to approach the initially unwilling or skeptical ones — you’re not just going to preach to the converted, i.e. stand and wait for people to come up to you.

Evangelism’s the same too. All these attempts to persuade others to your viewpoint is part of a vibrant democracy. We can’t shut out evangelists without also shutting out other ‘disagreeable’ views — and if we do, then we’ll all be living in our own pockets of opinion. Society would be balkanized, there’d be no debate or exchange of views. And we’d be left much the poorer for it.

@zero, it’s disappointing that you criticize JH for equating Muslims to terrorists (incidentally, he did no such thing in his post; to say “Muslim fundamentalists” is not to say “all Muslims = fundamentalists”, just as to say “Singaporean men” is not to say “all Singaporeans = men”), and then turn around and effectively call Jews and Christians terrorists.

to la nausee

I appreciate your point that JH did not say all Muslim are terrorists, but said that muslim fundamentalists are terrorist. In that case it is even worse. Because he/she is making a comparison between someone who shakes your hand and someone who is crazy. He/she is trying to say, a good person is better than an bad person. what is the hidden message behind? The impression i get is he/she is making a nasty insinuation between a Christian and a Muslim, the line is very thin. He should not compare this way. It is sacrilegious and insulting to all Allah-abiding Muslims, peace be with you.

Next, please do note that in no way did i say Christians are terrorist. There is no such thing as Christians are terrorist. It is as absurd as saying Muslim are terrorist. What i said are that the Jews in the times of the ancient world, those from the lineage of Christ (not meaning “christians” but rather, the ancestors of Christ, as in King David, Joshua etc.) were the original terrorists, because they considered themselves People of God and they used this as an excuse to decimate huge populations even babies, cattle and animals were not spared, whilst they put themselves as very god-fearing and righteous poeple. It is my view that this whole thing about old testament is to do with Land, the acquisition of land by force and then justifying it with “god”.

So it is not without reason that i did consider the Jews of the old testa,emt as terrorist.

Have you read 1 Kings, 2 Kings and 1 Chronicles 2 Chronicles. You need to do some reading first before we can discuss sensibly.

zero

One day Ah Beng met Ah Seng and said “Bradder!! I see you very unhappy lately. Don’t feel troubled ok. I will help you one.” Then Ah Beng continued “I have very good stuff that can bring you to the heaven and you will have no worries anymore after that. Ai mai try try?” Ah Seng was uninterested and replied “Mai lah, my ah ma say these things make people stupidz one. You best also stay far far away from them lah.”

On hearing this, Ah Beng shaked his head and carried on persuading “Aiya, your ah ma never try these stuff before so she dunoo how good they are meh. Don’t listen to her lah…you old ennuff to decide for yourself… you try first…when you find them good… you can let your ah ma try…and your whole family can try also.” Waving both his hands, Ah Seng said unbelievably “You siao olredi lah, you said so good then you keep them to yourself lah.. I don’t need these things because I have my own ways to deal with my life ok.”

Still unrelenting, Ah Beng said empathically “Last time I also don’t believe these stuff got so good one… But my ho hyadi insisted I try first because they really knows how good these stuff are for me…so, I tried and now I cannot live without them anymore. Can’t you see I’m a much happier person? Now, I have a group to hang out with and we share the good stuff together frequently.” Pausing for a moment for the idea to sink in, Ah Beng added “I tried them before, so I surely know it’s good for you, otherwise I wun recommend them to you one. My tua tao said we should not be selfish and should share the good stuff with other people, especially people like you who dun believe or still do no know about these good stuff yet.”

Ah Seng was very piss at these words and raised his voice at Ah Beng “You dun understand what I said izit? I really am not interested in these things ok… You Fxxx off and don’t talk about these things to me anymore!!” After the rejection, Ah Beng felt he got no face and retorted back “Why you so angry with me? I oni want to help you out…and spreading the good ‘stuff’ got wrong meh?” Ah Seng was lost for words and was heard mumbling ‘#%$@!*” as he walked away from Ah Beng who was still a bit puzzled why his offer of help was not taken kindly and flatly refused by this bradder.

[...] [Thansk Ganga] – Irreligious: Politics in Malaysia’s ‘Allah’ debacle – TOC: Are evangelists religious extremists? – TOC: The edge of tolerance – TOC: Youth wing leaders from S’pore & Malaysia condemn attacks [...]

la nausee ….

i dont agree with the insurance salesperson comparison.
They are providing a service that’s proven useful (if you look at it in long term).

You should consider comparing the evanglical christians to … say, time share resort salesperson. (or those that ask ppl to buy holiday package).

Just a thought …

Goodness,

Just saw the other thread that’s ongoing that the city harvest is going to spend 310 million for new building?

Now i understand why the need for all the aggressive evanglism.

Scary!

[...] Read the full article here. [...]

104) la nausée on January 15th, 2010 9.26 pm
With evangelists and other campaigners, the point is not simply to cater to your preferences, but to try to change them. If JBJ stands at the exit to City Hall MRT selling his book, “The Hatchet Man of Singapore”, he’s trying to change people’s beliefs/views about the ruling PAP government. If I want people on the street to sign a petition for, say, action w.r.t. climate change, I’ve got to convince them it’s worth their time and trouble. And ex hypothesi, in order to change people’s minds, you need to approach the initially unwilling or skeptical ones — you’re not just going to preach to the converted, i.e. stand and wait for people to come up to you.

First of all, not sure why you had to change from a generic salesman (#91) to an insurance one (#104). In any case, I disagree that they are not out to change people’s perception. If people previously didn’t want to buy, and now decide to buy after the salesman made his pitch, I would call that a change no matter how I look at it.

In you JBJ example, I think he gave it some thought as well. Certainly, he would not set up his stall where people are benefiting from the PAP regime.

Eskimo: “If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?” Priest: “No, not if you did not know.” Eskimo: “Then why did you tell me?”
Annie Dillard

I regard evangelism as the same ills as tobacco, fast food, popular western cultures which are highly erosive, invasive, corrosive. When an evangelist fail to sell u. It is highly they walk away with impression that u r a swine and shall cast no pearls unto you. All these talk about love and hell don’t really impress me becos I am proeast and anyone should read abit more about eastern history under the reign of the west. But one thing I am definitely sure is that the sun will always rise in the east.
Some people say no god no peace. Know god know peace. I can’t help wondering if too much god would be equivalent to a perfect peaceful world. We have seen that it is not for terrorism has too much god in them.
So what if the entire world eventually becomes one religion which is what evangelism try to achieve. Assuming we allowed that to happen and people still continue to sin. Would all go to heaven becos we have accepted god or would we go simply we have been good? Does god value goodness more or free will?
Why does religion go wrong? That even u put the most holiest thing in man’s hand yet it still turn out unholiest. A man who knows peace will have peace within himself. If a man needs to know god in order to know peace. By all means do it. If a man knows god yet he does not know peace. What good does knowing god do. Should man know thyself first which is what is missing or should man know god. For all the ills of this world. Is man following the work of god or the work of man by knowing the anger, hatred, pride, hypocrisy of man yet these are the values that one deal another as they exchanged blows.
When one look into oneself today or maybe one dare not becos one may see the same darkness within oneself which one dare not face. There are no greater enemy other than ourselves.
While terrorism is absolutely despicable. Did not one observed that terrorism only became active after the Iraq war. One war and terrorism wages war on the world. What happened to the nation whose belief is predominantly about love? Who is the real terrorist?

“If creation is real. I have been dead for a million years until I came. Before I came. I need no god or heaven. Fear no sins, hell or devil. That is truly heaven to me!”

I evangelize without any problems. I find that people like me. If they want to talk about faith in Christ, we talk. If not, we change the subject. I respect their right to hold other faiths views and to practice and even evangelize for non-Christian faiths. This is just common courtesy and respect for human rights.

Only a backward dictatorship would restrict free speech including evangelism.

I think nausee wrote it best:
Evangelism’s the same too. All these attempts to persuade others to your viewpoint is part of a vibrant democracy. We can’t shut out evangelists without also shutting out other ‘disagreeable’ views — and if we do, then we’ll all be living in our own pockets of opinion. Society would be balkanized, there’d be no debate or exchange of views. And we’d be left much the poorer for it.

Andy tried to villify Chrsitians with this
Of course there are also extremists in “Christian” sector. Like people who distribute offensive tracts, knock on doors, use the term Allah, or try to discourage homosexual behavior or practices.

It is a basic human right to condemn the homosexuial lifestyle and agenda as unhealthy and harmful to individuals, marriage, and society. It is also a basic human right to tell homosexuals they can be cured of their emotional problem and made normal. That is good news. Not hate. Not a threat. Non-violent.

As for using the word Allah, so what? That is also free speech too. Mohammedans have to learn to accept free speech of they will remain backward and self-defeating forever.

Dan

The issue of evanglism is not whether it should be banned.

Just that it should be regulated. (there should have to be a proper code of conduct ie your example above)

But what ire most of the people in this threads, is the more zealous ones tends to go overboard in their approach. (disregarding common courtesy, common sense and even common law!)

The idea of banning it altogether is probably due to the fact that the religious body cannot control / or curtail these overzealousness. (in some probably actively promoting the behaviour)

So the question is, in whose court is the ball now?

Dan

It is a basic human right to condemn the homosexuial lifestyle and agenda as unhealthy and harmful to individuals, marriage, and society. It is also a basic human right to tell homosexuals they can be cured of their emotional problem and made normal. That is good news. Not hate. Not a threat. Non-violent.

How is it basic human rights to condemn a minority group?
How is it basic human right to do any of things you mentioned above?
By your reasoning, it is also basic human rights to debunk a religion and its practices, no?

But the tread is about whether evangelism itself is a form of religious extremism.

I tend to believe that it is. (its along the same line as forced conversion in deathbed and etc)

@Kernz

Homosexuality is morally wrong, not just for Christians but many others as well. It is very well unnatural and harmful to society as wth gambling. Period.

There will always be a conflict against those that see religion as hereditary and those who see it as a matter of choice. Western ‘human rights’ are directly opposed to ethnic-based religions.

Dan
“I evangelize without any problems. I find that people like me. If they want to talk about faith in Christ, we talk. If not, we change the subject. ”

Honestly ,many people of different faith will feel offended when they are approached .Its just that they are trying not to show that they dislike you ,if you try to evangelize and convert them.So dun think there is no problem.
I have friends and sibling that share your faith.They help me when I am in need.But they never talk about their religion to me or try to convert me.To me ,They are the type that I really respect.

I only see certain people of certain faith who like to talk about religion.This cannot be taken lightly.

You read about that singer who is reported to reveal her NaeNaepok in a public concert (whether intentionally or non intentionally)in the States by the chinese paper yesterday?My junior family member like to watch her shows and had been brainwash.
Maybe using such tactic would be more acceptable

Sorry,error,I mean organising concert to promote religion is more acceptable than knocking on someone’s door