Is there a law to ban evangelizing in public?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Rooney,
That's where you are wrong. God has told us MANY things in the Bible. To say God NEVER explain anything is blatantly false. Point is, if God explain would you believe? If not, are you again patronising the faith?
BIC
Sometimes you tell me "bible doesnt say everything! thats why it's unclear at some places"
Then sometimes you tell Rooney "MANY things in the bible"
I am confused.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
Sometimes you tell me "bible doesnt say everything! thats why it's unclear at some places"
Then sometimes you tell Rooney "MANY things in the bible"
I am confused.
Tcmc,
Yes you are utterly confused on many things, that much is clear!
But since when did I say what you said I said? I said that where the Bible is silent, we can exercise Christian liberty and charity.
The Bible doesn't say everything. Many things the Bible say. Is there a contradiction here? Nope. Maybe you have a problem understanding simple English?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
Yes you are utterly confused on many things, that much is clear!
But since when did I say what you said I said? I said that where the Bible is silent, we can exercise Christian liberty and charity.
The Bible doesn't say everything. Many things the Bible say. Is there a contradiction here? Nope. Maybe you have a problem understanding simple English?
OR MAYBE, you're using circular logic! Maybe? So that your argument "works" everywhere.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
OR MAYBE, you're using circular logic! Maybe? So that your argument "works" everywhere.
Please show where the circular logic is, if you can.
-
Originally posted by Rooney_07:
so what was god thinking when he created Lucifer? before he created Lucifer, surely he knows he will betray him isnt it, but yet he created him anyhow. unfathomable indeed
Rooney,
Honestly, I don't know what God was thinking at the point of creation. Yes, if you ask me I also think it is unfathomable why God would even want to create anything at all, not just the angels. I can only guess at it since the Bible is silent on the specific reason. But I don't see how being unfathomable something is would somehow mean that this something is false and must be rejected. Rejecting something we do not understand is not a reasonable thing to do, in my view.
-
Your circular reasoning is -
"bible doesnt say everything! thats why it's unclear at some places because humans wrote it! ---> god inspired the humans to write the bible and its perfect ---> bible doesnt say everything! thats why it's unclear at some places because humans wrote it! ---> god inspired the humans to write the bible and its perfect ---> and so on and so forth.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Your circular reasoning is -
"bible doesnt say everything! thats why it's unclear at some places because humans wrote it! ---> god inspired the humans to write the bible and its perfect ---> bible doesnt say everything! thats why it's unclear at some places because humans wrote it! ---> god inspired the humans to write the bible and its perfect ---> and so on and so forth.
Tcmc,
Do you know what is a strawman argument? Please produce the posts where I made the supposed circular argument. Or you think it is ethical of you to concoct an argument and just ascribe it to me?
-
BroInChrist, you are christian?
-
Originally posted by Dalforce 1941:
BroInChrist, you are christian?
Yes I am a Christian. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
By my lights, Tcmc gave an LOL because he/she enjoyed the dig you gave. He simply chose to scoff and revel in it. You think it is funny, but it surely had other undertones.
And why don't I deny anything? Because believe it or not, it's me.
For the record, "it's me" is just as meaningless and ambiguous as your non-denials. We'll find out, I guess, when the discussions ramp up. But so far, I don't think you're as good a debater as I remembered BIC to be.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
For the record, "it's me" is just as meaningless and ambiguous as your non-denials. We'll find out, I guess, when the discussions ramp up. But so far, I don't think you're as good a debater as I remembered BIC to be.
I guess you probably missed my point-by-point rebuttal which has been much maligned as breaking up people's posts. Anyway, I am flattered still by your compliments concerning the debates at HWZ. Not too sure why you still labour under the impression that this ID being used is shared by multiple users. I would think it is most cumbersome to do this as it lacks individuality. -
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
Let's recap. You said you want to ban religious evangelizing because it's a nuisance.
I suggested that door-to-door evangelizing is a nuisance, but so are door-to-door salesmen or door-to-door MPs. So are you saying that we should ban all of them?
I also suggested that street evangelizing is a nuisance, but so are street surveyors and flag sellers. So are you saying that we should ban all of them?Its still the same argument which was not concluded.
Is evangelism = MP = sales? Is evangelism = gay rights advocacy = environmentalism?
They are all different. If we keep lions in zoo, why didnt we do that to cats? They belong to same family. Are we biased? You see, this is why blanket grouping them together, doesnt work or make sense.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Talk about personal attack!
How so? Mixing religions with pride again? So, when are you advocating for gay rights? -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I guess you probably missed my point-by-point rebuttal which has been much maligned as breaking up people's posts. Anyway, I am flattered still by your compliments concerning the debates at HWZ. Not too sure why you still labour under the impression that this ID being used is shared by multiple users. I would think it is most cumbersome to do this as it lacks individuality.
Dude, your point by point rebuttal was simply rubbish. If Singapore law books are sourced from Oxford English Dictionary, i would think about packing my bag and leave -
anyway, back to the topic, which was ok before someone spew rubbish abt the constitution
I am all for banning religious evangelism...good proof? You see EH you know already
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
Its still the same argument which was not concluded.
Is evangelism = MP = sales? Is evangelism = gay rights advocacy = environmentalism?
They are all different. If we keep lions in zoo, why didnt we do that to cats? They belong to same family. Are we biased? You see, this is why blanket grouping them together, doesnt work or make sense.
Let me spell out the analogies as precisely as I can.
A toy poodle and a domestic cat are not the same, but they are similar in terms of how small they are. Therefore, if you are deciding which pets to allow in HDB flats based solely on body sizes, these two animals would be classified in the same bucket.
Smelly toufu and durians are different foods, but they are similar in terms of their strong, repulsive smells (to some people). Therefore, if you are deciding to ban products on the MRT based on the repulsiveness of their smells, you might put these two foods in the same bucket.
A door-to-door salesman and a door-to-door evangelist are not the same, but they are similar in how much of a nuisance they are to home owners. Therefore, if you are deciding to ban people based on them being public nuisances, you would put the two of them in the same category.
Frankly, this is quite basic logic, and I'm trying walk you through it as deliberately as I can. But you really need to make the effort and try to grasp some of these ideas.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
Let me spell out the analogies as precisely as I can.
A toy poodle and a domestic cat are not the same, but they are similar in terms of how small they are. Therefore, if you are deciding which pets to allow in HDB flats based solely on body sizes, these two animals would be classified in the same bucket.
Smelly toufu and durians are different foods, but they are similar in terms of their strong, repulsive smells (to some people). Therefore, if you are deciding to ban products on the MRT based on the repulsiveness of their smells, you might put these two foods in the same bucket.
A door-to-door salesman and a door-to-door evangelist are not the same, but they are similar in how much of a nuisance they are to home owners. Therefore, if you are deciding to ban people based on them being public nuisances, you would put the two of them in the same category.
Frankly, this is quite basic logic, and I'm trying walk you through it as deliberately as I can. But you really need to make the effort and try to grasp some of these ideas.
So how much similarity in terms of public nuisance they create enough to be put under same category?
Who decides?
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
So how much similarity in terms of public nuisance they create enough to be put under same category?
Who decides?
Now we're getting somewhere. That's a good question.
The answer could be based on logical inference:- An evangelist is knocking on doors of strangers. LIkewise the salesman.
- An evangelist is selling something that the prospect doesn't necessarily want. Likewise the salesman.
Therefore, you might infer that the door-to-door salesman and evangelist are similar in terms of annoyance.
Alternatively, the answer could be based on empirical data. How many complaints do we receive each year for religious evangelists versus salespeople?Either way, if you want to issue a blanket ban on evangelists because of them being public nuisances, you have to be prepared to ban door-to-door salesmen, flagsellers, tissue aunties, street surveyors, etc. if they are seen to be similarly or more of a nuisance.
You also have to be prepared to accept if, say, the evidence shows that evangelists are less of a nuisance than these other people. I personally have not encountered an evangelist in the past 10 years, whereas street surveyors are at least a weekly affair. - An evangelist is knocking on doors of strangers. LIkewise the salesman.
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
How so? Mixing religions with pride again? So, when are you advocating for gay rights?
Advocating for gay rights, me? I smell another red herring! -
Originally posted by laurence82:
Dude, your point by point rebuttal was simply rubbish. If Singapore law books are sourced from Oxford English Dictionary, i would think about packing my bag and leave
laurence, I understand that you are now most bitter having been totally owned. Now you are just being plain irrational and in bitter ad hominem mode. I shall overlook such childish behaviour. You need to chill boy. -
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
I think you have to think through this a bit more. Both in logic and law, you cannot willy-nilly pick one thing you don't like and make a rule for it.
Instead, you have to think about why you don't like that thing. Is it because it's a public nuisance?If so, what about other things that are also a public nuisance? Would you apply the same rules to those?
In short, a rule cannot be adhoc. It has to be consistent. You cannot make up a rule to ban religious evangelism because it's a public nuisance, and yet allow other similar forms of soliciting that are just as annoying.
It's rare to see 'BroInChrist' and 'ReasonableAtheist' agree on anything. But this agreement is rightly so. Why ? Because it just shows that they both exhibit what their nick actually means. And under this context thier judgements correct. At least they can agree on commonality(at least the ethics of a debate) while agreeing in disagreeing on certain issues.
Just want to point it out about Parliament and the Courts. First of all, for the parliament to intend to even allow BANNING in Propogation of Religion, and since its under the SG constitution for freedom of religion, any such ban have to be EXPRESSLY STATED. Such issues of constitutional importance has to be expressed. The courts will be the one intepreting how it applies.
Hell, Parliement can enact a law to have all blue-eyed babies killed if they want to.
However, while the Sg courts are mostly gagged on its constitutional interpretation. Parliament still have to expressly intend such a ban for it to be illegal. You are not guilty of any crime not prescribed by Parliament.
So ladies and gentlemen, those that want to advocate the ban, be prepared to set out why u want it ban(And a damn good reason),how, and not look like you are a racist, anti-religion, anti-christian homo.
Hope this clear things up.
Like any proper constructive debate, sometimes you have to set up the prescribed meaning of the terms you are going to use. Failure to do so is just going to expose yourself from further misunderstanding or just plain ignorance, or like the saying goes.. kettle calling the pot black.
Lets get this whole propogation thingy to rest.
Below from WIKI
'Propagate
Singapore courts have not yet interpreted the word propagate in Article 15(1) of the Constitution.
Article 25(1) of the Indian Constitution, which is in the same terms as in Article 15(1) of the Singapore Constitution, guarantees to individuals the right to freely "profess, practise and propagate" their religions. The term propagate was considered by the Supreme Court of India in Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977).[22] The Court adopted a dictionary definition of propagate, which was "to transmit or spread from person from person or from place to place". Accordingly, it held that the word as used in Article 25(1) confers on an individual the right to transmit or spread one's religion by an exposition of its tenets. In other words, an individual has the right to spread his or her religion by explaining to others the principles and beliefs underlying that particular religion. However, in the Court's opinion Article 25(1) does not confer the right to convert another person who holds a pre-existing religious belief to one's own religion as this would impinge on the "freedom of conscience" provided for in the Article, which accords each individual with the freedom to hold or consider a thought, fact or viewpoint independent from those of others. In short, the constitutional right to propagate one's own religion is protected insofar as an individual who exercises this right respects the freedom of persons following other religions. The Indian jurist Hormasji Maneckji Seervai has criticized Stanislaus and has said it should be overruled. He argued that when a person propagates his religion to another, that act does not violate the other person's free conscience but allows that person an opportunity to freely choose a religion:[23] '
While you may argue that Singapore is not inclined to follow it's commonwealth counterparts, the fact is.. such interpretation can be drawn from it.
So unless you can show that Christianity or the spreading of their beliefs and tenets is a public order, public health or morality issue, Under Article 15(4) of the Constitution, a person's freedom of religion and the spreading of it is protected albeit under limited circumstances as set out under the article. And such ban is outright illegal, unlawful and unenforceable.
Hence to finally put this topic to rest.. NO. YOU CAN NOT BAN EVANGELIZING.. at least NOT YET, Until Laurence82 is made a Member of Parliament and pushes such a bill through parliament with a majority support. That will happen if and only if it does not look like you are a racist, anti-religion, anti-christian homo. Unless your entire constituent are racists, ignorant and intolerant.But then again, doesnt such action warrant some form of sedition action too ?
No point digging a bigger hole for yourself. You win some.. you lose some.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_15_of_the_Constitution_of_Singapore
Personally, the debate and exchange is all good until people start generalising. The ignorant generalise. And when the refusal to accept the meaning of another's without proper reasoned excuse is just gonna evidence of your character in real life.
Its almost Christmas, how about we all focus on the spirit of Christmas instead of bickering on whether it is real or not. Those that believe in the message will believe. Those that dont, wont.
And lastly.. this is Christian Forum. You guys can talk as much crap as you want. But its akin to going into a vegan restaurant demanding why there is no meat! And start telling them how awesome meat is.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
laurence, I understand that you are now most bitter having been totally owned. Now you are just being plain irrational and in bitter ad hominem mode. I shall overlook such childish behaviour. You need to chill boy.i think you are basically describing yourself after not being able to prove anything from the Constitution
as a christian, do you have a conscience? seriously?
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
It's rare to see 'BroInChrist' and 'ReasonableAtheist' agree on anything. But this agreement is rightly so. Why ? Because it just shows that they both exhibit what their nick actually means. And under this context thier judgements correct. At least they can agree on commonality(at least the ethics of a debate) while agreeing in disagreeing on certain issues.
Just want to point it out about Parliament and the Courts. First of all, for the parliament to intend to even allow BANNING in Propogation of Religion, and since its under the SG constitution for freedom of religion, any such ban have to be EXPRESSLY STATED. Such issues of constitutional importance has to be expressed. The courts will be the one intepreting how it applies.
Hell, Parliement can enact a law to have all blue-eyed babies killed if they want to.
However, while the Sg courts are mostly gagged on its constitutional interpretation. Parliament still have to expressly intend such a ban for it to be illegal. You are not guilty of any crime not prescribed by Parliament.
So ladies and gentlemen, those that want to advocate the ban, be prepared to set out why u want it ban(And a damn good reason),how, and not look like you are a racist, anti-religion, anti-christian homo.
Hope this clear things up.
Like any proper constructive debate, sometimes you have to set up the prescribed meaning of the terms you are going to use. Failure to do so is just going to expose yourself from further misunderstanding or just plain ignorance, or like the saying goes.. kettle calling the pot black.
Lets get this whole propogation thingy to rest.
Below from WIKI
'Propagate
Singapore courts have not yet interpreted the word propagate in Article 15(1) of the Constitution.
Article 25(1) of the Indian Constitution, which is in the same terms as in Article 15(1) of the Singapore Constitution, guarantees to individuals the right to freely "profess, practise and propagate" their religions. The term propagate was considered by the Supreme Court of India in Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977).[22] The Court adopted a dictionary definition of propagate, which was "to transmit or spread from person from person or from place to place". Accordingly, it held that the word as used in Article 25(1) confers on an individual the right to transmit or spread one's religion by an exposition of its tenets. In other words, an individual has the right to spread his or her religion by explaining to others the principles and beliefs underlying that particular religion. However, in the Court's opinion Article 25(1) does not confer the right to convert another person who holds a pre-existing religious belief to one's own religion as this would impinge on the "freedom of conscience" provided for in the Article, which accords each individual with the freedom to hold or consider a thought, fact or viewpoint independent from those of others. In short, the constitutional right to propagate one's own religion is protected insofar as an individual who exercises this right respects the freedom of persons following other religions. The Indian jurist Hormasji Maneckji Seervai has criticized Stanislaus and has said it should be overruled. He argued that when a person propagates his religion to another, that act does not violate the other person's free conscience but allows that person an opportunity to freely choose a religion:[23] '
While you may argue that Singapore is not inclined to follow it's commonwealth counterparts, the fact is.. such interpretation can be drawn from it.
So unless you can show that Christianity or the spreading of their beliefs and tenets is a public order, public health or morality issue, Under Article 15(4) of the Constitution, a person's freedom of religion and the spreading of it is protected albeit under limited circumstances as set out under the article. And such ban is outright illegal, unlawful and unenforceable.
Hence to finally put this topic to rest.. NO. YOU CAN NOT BAN EVANGELIZING.. at least NOT YET, Until Laurence82 is made a Member of Parliament and pushes such a bill through parliament with a majority support. That will happen if and only if it does not look like you are a racist, anti-religion, anti-christian homo. Unless your entire constituent are racists, ignorant and intolerant.But then again, doesnt such action warrant some form of sedition action too ?
No point digging a bigger hole for yourself. You win some.. you lose some.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_15_of_the_Constitution_of_Singapore
Personally, the debate and exchange is all good until people start generalising. The ignorant generalise. And when the refusal to accept the meaning of another's without proper reasoned excuse is just gonna evidence of your character in real life.
Its almost Christmas, how about we all focus on the spirit of Christmas instead of bickering on whether it is real or not. Those that believe in the message will believe. Those that dont, wont.
And lastly.. this is Christian Forum. You guys can talk as much crap as you want. But its akin to going into a vegan restaurant demanding why there is no meat! And start telling them how awesome meat is.
You have agreed that propagation is not defined, hence banning evangelism is not unconstituitionalAnd yes you are right, this is something i have been putting across to BIC but he fails to get it
The next affirmative action is to request parliament or courts to ban it, whatever the process is, whether it get results or not
Its not from BIC by simply referring to Oxford English Dictionary, and simply saying banning it is unlawful
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
You have agreed that propagation is not defined, hence banning evangelism is not unconstituitionalAnd yes you are right, this is something i have been putting across to BIC but he fails to get it
The next affirmative action is to request parliament or courts to ban it, whatever the process is, whether it get results or not
Its not from BIC by simply referring to Oxford English Dictionary, and simply saying banning it is unlawful
It is still unconstitutional to do so Laurence...
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
i think you are basically describing yourself after not being able to prove anything from the Constitution
as a christian, do you have a conscience? seriously?
laurence,
You should ask the question of conscience for yourself, seriously.
I have already PROVEN what I set out to do when I first replied to you. Let me reiterate that to you. The freedom of religion and to propagate it is enshrined in our Constitution, the supreme law of the land. You wanna ban evangelism it is unconstitutional and will FAIL and it is illegal, unless you first amend the constitution by removing Article 15. I wish you all the best in trying to do so. As it stands right now you have NO case.