Is there a law to ban evangelizing in public?
-
Originally posted by despondent:
i was juz tinking...since u ppl are so bent on getting evangelism banned in singapore, why nt write in to our govt asking them to include it in our law? evangelism is banned in china but take note tat china is nt a multi-religious country...singapore on the other hand is...if our govt start a law banning evangelism, will singapore still be multi-religious?
despondent
You misread me. I do not want evangelism to be banned. I am just saying evangelism that OFFENDS other religions should be kept out, because it might cause religious conflict.
Buddhists/Christians/Hindus should be allowed to spread their religion so long as they dont insult or bring down other religions.
-
Tcmc, I don't think narrowing it down changes very much.
Conflict: In our current society, I think it is almost certain that promoting gay rights will create more conflict than promoting Christianity. There isn't very much of the former going on, but you could see what Vivian Balakrishnan was trying to do with his thinly-veiled attacks on Vincent Wijeysingha during the last elections.
Value: Studies have shown that Christians tend to live longer (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10332617). Others have suggested that children of gay parents may suffer from psychological issues (http://www.amazon.com/One-Man-Woman-Catholics-Defending/dp/1933184299).
By both parameters, therefore, I would conclude that Christianity deserves to be promoted, more so than gay rights.
-
I'm ok with anything that's beneficial to the public.
-
I think we shouldn't even talk about religon.
This is a very sensitive topic.
-
Originally posted by Inception:
I think we shouldn't even talk about religon.
This is a very sensitive topic.
Healthy and friendly discussions are ok lah....
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
Healthy and friendly discussions are ok lah....
there seems to be a conflict here....
-
tcmc,
i wasnt referring to just u...there are some here who wan evangelism banned...
-
Originally posted by Inception:
there seems to be a conflict here....I will say they have creative differences and different view points....
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
Tcmc, I don't think narrowing it down changes very much.
Conflict: In our current society, I think it is almost certain that promoting gay rights will create more conflict than promoting Christianity. There isn't very much of the former going on, but you could see what Vivian Balakrishnan was trying to do with his thinly-veiled attacks on Vincent Wijeysingha during the last elections.
Value: Studies have shown that Christians tend to live longer (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10332617). Others have suggested that children of gay parents may suffer from psychological issues (http://www.amazon.com/One-Man-Woman-Catholics-Defending/dp/1933184299).
By both parameters, therefore, I would conclude that Christianity deserves to be promoted, more so than gay rights.
1. I beg to differ. Just last year, there were 3 cases of people "promoting their religions" that resulted in tensions.
2. Vivian was trying to garner votes from conservatives and usually the religious people. Shouldn't read too much into politics campaign. It's just to garner votes.
3. Similarly studies have shown kids of gay parents do just as well, if not better. : http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html
To you promoting religion is much more valuable. But to me promoting basic human rights for gays to have a house is more important.
Actually i am curious. What's so offending to you about asking the govt to give gays who are human beings equal rights?
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
I will say they have creative differences and different view points....
Remember the facebook remark made by a paticular Jason?Not sgforums jason but a certain part jason.
-
Originally posted by despondent:
tcmc,
i wasnt referring to just u...there are some here who wan evangelism banned...
Yes I dont mind buddhists/christians/hindus spreading their religions, so long as it doesnt offend/bring down any other religions!
-
BIC is seeing gays from the eyes of christianity tat teaches gayism and lesbianism is abomination to God...i leave him to explain since its his pt...:)
-
This topic should be locked.
The moderater is sleeping again.
-
Let me just state unequivocally that I think:
(a) Christians should have the right to evangelize.
(b) Gay rights activists should have the right to "evangelize".Caveats apply for both.
My issue is with laurence82, who wants a blanket ban on (a). My point is that if he wants a ban on (a), then depending on his rationale, he probably has to ban (b) as well.
I'm also saying that by your yardsticks (tensions, value), we cannot accept (b) and yet deny (a).If your position is the same as mine, then there really is no "quarrel" between us.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Sure, regardless of context. Try distributing insulting brochures to muslims and catholics like what the christian couple did.
There is a context. And context is important.
Tcmc,
Don't be daft. Since when does freedom to propagate one's religion means we go around insulting people's religions? Please read that weblink I gave to laurence. The right to propagate religion is also further constrained (not banned) by other standing laws, e.g. religious harmony bill.
-
Originally posted by Inception:
I think we shouldn't even talk about religon.
This is a very sensitive topic.
Inception,
You have an open wound and it is very sensitive. Do you ignore it and not talk about it? Or do you treat it carefully so as not to inflame it? The same with religion. Banning talk on religion is not the way to go. Regulating discussion on it may be a better option. Regulating as in making sure that discussion is kept cordial and trouble-makers are identified and chastised.
-
Originally posted by Inception:
there seems to be a conflict here....Inception,
There is nothing wrong with having conflict. No conflict then no dialogue then no better understanding. It's how we handle conflicts that show how mature we are.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Inception,
You have an open wound and it is very sensitive. Do you ignore it and not talk about it? Or do you treat it carefully so as not to inflame it? The same with religion. Banning talk on religion is not the way to go. Regulating discussion on it may be a better option. Regulating as in making sure that discussion is kept cordial and trouble-makers are identified and chastised.
I would go to the hosipital. It's common sense, huh?
-
Originally posted by despondent:
BIC is seeing gays from the eyes of christianity tat teaches gayism and lesbianism is abomination to God...i leave him to explain since its his pt...:)
Sorry, what was this about? I don't recall posting anything mentioning gays or lesbian.
-
Originally posted by Inception:
I would go to the hosipital. It's common sense, huh?
Of course! It just proves my point that you treat it, not ignore it. The same with sensitive things like religion. You don't ban talk about it, you be careful when talking about it.
-
oops sorry...read wrongly...:)
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Of course! It just proves my point that you treat it, not ignore it. The same with sensitive things like religion. You don't ban talk about it, you be careful when talking about it.
Okay...careful -
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
Let me just state unequivocally that I think:
(a) Christians should have the right to evangelize.
(b) Gay rights activists should have the right to "evangelize".Caveats apply for both.
My issue is with laurence82, who wants a blanket ban on (a). My point is that if he wants a ban on (a), then depending on his rationale, he probably has to ban (b) as well.
I'm also saying that by your yardsticks (tensions, value), we cannot accept (b) and yet deny (a).If your position is the same as mine, then there really is no "quarrel" between us.
Actually i am curious. What's so offending to you about asking the govt to give gays who are human beings equal rights?
Or is it not offending?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
laurence,
Why are you still sulking and pouting when it is clear that the Constitution SPECIFICALLY allows for the right to propagate one's religion which would mean that your suggestion to ban evangelism is unconstitutional and thus unlawful?
The courts of laws or parliament have not define this, as of now, until there is update, the facts are clear. Banning evangslism is not unlawful. Nobody wish to hear about the laws from Broinchrist, they would want to hear it from the judges or members of parliament.Please provide this evidence. Thanks
-
Tcmc: It's not offensive to me at all. I would welcome it.