Singapore Expats Forum

Religious Criticism

Discuss about the latest news & interesting topics, real life experience or other out of topic discussions with locals & expatriates in Singapore.

User avatar
ecureilx
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 9808
Joined: Fri, 20 Aug 2010

Postby ecureilx » Mon, 23 Sep 2013 4:03 pm

beppi wrote:Tolerance, not complaining, is the key for living in peace and harmony with other beliefs!


so innocently asking .. is it ok for a person of A religion to debate/criticize/find fault/make fun of B religion ?

I think that's what the whole idea of managing religious harmony in SG (as well as in a few enlightened countries) is all about .....

User avatar
Mi Amigo
Manager
Manager
Posts: 1789
Joined: Sat, 19 Jun 2004
Location: Kinto Pino

Postby Mi Amigo » Mon, 23 Sep 2013 4:31 pm

So when will the Church of the FSM be protected from the cruel ridicule and abuse they have had to endure online?
Be careful what you wish for

Hannieroo
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 996
Joined: Tue, 22 Jan 2013

Postby Hannieroo » Mon, 23 Sep 2013 4:36 pm

Heh.

User avatar
nakatago
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 8333
Joined: Tue, 01 Sep 2009
Location: Sister Margaret’s School for Wayward Children
Contact:

Postby nakatago » Mon, 23 Sep 2013 4:43 pm

ecureilx wrote:
beppi wrote:Tolerance, not complaining, is the key for living in peace and harmony with other beliefs!


so innocently asking .. is it ok for a person of A religion to debate/criticize/find fault/make fun of B religion ?

I think that's what the whole idea of managing religious harmony in SG (as well as in a few enlightened countries) is all about .....


Idea is different from execution.

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9294
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Mon, 23 Sep 2013 4:56 pm

Mi Amigo wrote:So when will the Church of the FSM be protected from the cruel ridicule and abuse they have had to endure online?

Hey, they are fun. In Poland they tried to get registered as an official church/religion organization and they were refused. Now they are preparing to sue the decision in the Administrative Tribunal and if this is not successful to the Human Rights Tribunal.

User avatar
Mi Amigo
Manager
Manager
Posts: 1789
Joined: Sat, 19 Jun 2004
Location: Kinto Pino

Postby Mi Amigo » Mon, 23 Sep 2013 6:26 pm

Well you say they are fun, but in fact there is a serious purpose behind their existence. The persecution of Pastafarians (an example of which you have highlighted) shows that true tolerance of beliefs (or non-beliefs) and the right to free thought are far from universal.
Be careful what you wish for

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9294
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Mon, 23 Sep 2013 6:38 pm

I guess they have not made so far a convincing case of their true intentions and beliefs to be on par with what is perceived as actual and true belief (Church, religion).

scarbowl
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 382
Joined: Mon, 19 Oct 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby scarbowl » Mon, 23 Sep 2013 8:28 pm

x9200 wrote:
Strong Eagle wrote:
x9200 wrote:IMO it's about the intentions. if this is just his opinion he has the right to express it. If this is to insult a group of people based on their religion it's probably a criminal offense.


And why should that be a criminal offense? Any more than insulting a group of people over the team they support or the clothes they wear? Why does my freedom of speech not extend to this?

Because people believe in some values. These values are often subjective (the ethics). In many if not majority of the countries you may be penalized for insulting the head of the country, the flag etc. I don't see any technical difference. It is a matter of respect to someones believes in certain values. Your freedom ends at the point it violates someone else freedom within a specific ethical system.
It doesn't violate anyone's freedom to insult their religion or their beliefs. It does not affect their liberty, their ability to practice their faith, their ability to eat, vote, or walk around in safety. Burning down churches, assaulting them, prohibiting them from marrying someone of their own choosing...those impinge on someone's freedom. My own beliefs, no matter how offensive to someone, do not.

User avatar
Strong Eagle
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10721
Joined: Sat, 10 Jul 2004
Location: Off The Red Dot
Contact:

Postby Strong Eagle » Mon, 23 Sep 2013 10:43 pm

PNGMK wrote:
Strong Eagle wrote:
x9200 wrote:IMO it's about the intentions. if this is just his opinion he has the right to express it. If this is to insult a group of people based on their religion it's probably a criminal offense.


And why should that be a criminal offense? Any more than insulting a group of people over the team they support or the clothes they wear? Why does my freedom of speech not extend to this?


Because Singapore had decided this is the way they want to handle large groups of people from different religions living in very close proximity. I personally have no problem with it. I know you (SE) aren't here anymore and perhaps have forgotten how easy it would be for a large racial or religious riot to break out again. ALL the police cars in Singapore (and ambulances) still have riot-shield fixings on their windows.... still - that tells me all I need to know about the intel they have.


I hear what you're saying, and it just goes to show how intolerant religions really are. Let's say that I come to you and say, "You're an ignorant dumbass to believe in the fairytale tripe that you do." Then, I add something like, "and all your priests make love to their mothers, right after they make love to their brothers".

As a result of me saying this, you become INCENSED... you gather up a 100 or so of your like minded followers and you come over to my neighborhood and burn it all down, beating up a few people while you are at it. Your justification is that I "insulted" your religion.

And, this is where the slippery slope begins. Is posting a cartoon picture of the prophet in a compromising position sufficient to invoke "anti hate speech" laws? The problem you see, is that the alleged offense is all in the eye of the person who thinks he is being offended.

You want to stop religious riots? Stop the religious bigotry that permits such a mindset to occur. Outlaw those that insist on rioting. Imprison and deport the leaders.

Religion should have no special status.

User avatar
PNGMK
Governor
Governor
Posts: 5199
Joined: Thu, 21 Mar 2013
Location: Sinkapore

Postby PNGMK » Tue, 24 Sep 2013 12:51 am

Strong Eagle wrote:
PNGMK wrote:
Strong Eagle wrote:
x9200 wrote:IMO it's about the intentions. if this is just his opinion he has the right to express it. If this is to insult a group of people based on their religion it's probably a criminal offense.


And why should that be a criminal offense? Any more than insulting a group of people over the team they support or the clothes they wear? Why does my freedom of speech not extend to this?


Because Singapore had decided this is the way they want to handle large groups of people from different religions living in very close proximity. I personally have no problem with it. I know you (SE) aren't here anymore and perhaps have forgotten how easy it would be for a large racial or religious riot to break out again. ALL the police cars in Singapore (and ambulances) still have riot-shield fixings on their windows.... still - that tells me all I need to know about the intel they have.


I hear what you're saying, and it just goes to show how intolerant religions really are. Let's say that I come to you and say, "You're an ignorant dumbass to believe in the fairytale tripe that you do." Then, I add something like, "and all your priests make love to their mothers, right after they make love to their brothers".

As a result of me saying this, you become INCENSED... you gather up a 100 or so of your like minded followers and you come over to my neighborhood and burn it all down, beating up a few people while you are at it. Your justification is that I "insulted" your religion.

And, this is where the slippery slope begins. Is posting a cartoon picture of the prophet in a compromising position sufficient to invoke "anti hate speech" laws? The problem you see, is that the alleged offense is all in the eye of the person who thinks he is being offended.

You want to stop religious riots? Stop the religious bigotry that permits such a mindset to occur. Outlaw those that insist on rioting. Imprison and deport the leaders.

Religion should have no special status.


But I wouldn't. That's the point. I am not authorized by my Lord to slaughter you. My God is powerful enough to deal with all insults in His own right. The problem is with the religions who don't have faith in their own dieties and need to take matters into their own (human) hands....

User avatar
Strong Eagle
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10721
Joined: Sat, 10 Jul 2004
Location: Off The Red Dot
Contact:

Postby Strong Eagle » Tue, 24 Sep 2013 1:30 am

PNGMK wrote:The problem is with the religions who don't have faith in their own dieties and need to take matters into their own (human) hands....


Lessee... that would be Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews... not very many atheists, though.

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9294
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Tue, 24 Sep 2013 6:53 am

scarbowl wrote:
x9200 wrote: Your freedom ends at the point it violates someone else freedom within a specific ethical system.
It doesn't violate anyone's freedom to insult their religion or their beliefs. It does not affect their liberty, their ability to practice their faith, their ability to eat, vote, or walk around in safety. Burning down churches, assaulting them, prohibiting them from marrying someone of their own choosing...those impinge on someone's freedom. My own beliefs, no matter how offensive to someone, do not.

How about freedom of peaceful coexistence? If I come to you doorsteps every morning and insult you and your family while you leaving your house. I would not touch you, I would not physically obstruct your way. Would you feel fully free with all your beliefes? If there is 10k of me doing it to the other believers, would they really maintain the same ability to practice their faith?

(spelling corrected)
Last edited by x9200 on Tue, 24 Sep 2013 8:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9294
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Tue, 24 Sep 2013 7:03 am

Seems like many people confuse expressing opinions with intentionally insulting someone. The first should be protected, the later s just another type of violence.

User avatar
zzm9980
Governor
Governor
Posts: 6837
Joined: Wed, 06 Jul 2011
Location: Once more unto the breach

Postby zzm9980 » Tue, 24 Sep 2013 2:17 pm

Hannieroo wrote:Nobody ever started a war in the name of atheism.


Give it time.

User avatar
PNGMK
Governor
Governor
Posts: 5199
Joined: Thu, 21 Mar 2013
Location: Sinkapore

Postby PNGMK » Tue, 24 Sep 2013 5:03 pm

Strong Eagle wrote:
PNGMK wrote:The problem is with the religions who don't have faith in their own dieties and need to take matters into their own (human) hands....


Lessee... that would be Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews... not very many atheists, though.


Less than 7% of wars have had a religious basis. Most have had a power basis and atheists are just as guilty of that as any other. I can find the citation if you need it.


  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests