No insulting among forumers
-
gotten from eternal hope forum:
In the months of November and December of 2006, there was a spate of posts in sgForums that were religious inflammatory. A few sgForums members made snide and degrading remarks about religions.
During these events, a complain was lodged with the police. This complain was against an individual who had posted remarks such as "using the bible as toilet paper", "Christians are worse than MLM agents", "Muslims are terrorists". I do not have a full list of the remarks he made, but these include remarks made in all the religion-based forums in sgForums.
I have been asked by the police to assist in this investigation.
This post is to remind everyone to be thoughtful in their remarks made in an open forum such as sgForums. Remarks regarding religions is always a sensitive issue. We do not want to allow any individual to prey on our faith to cause any unrest.
At atheism forum, we want to have a environment which the discussion and arguemnts are carried out with insultive content. -
insultive comments ?
-
like this police become very busy. just make ppl dislike christians even more
-
My forum was involved meh?Originally posted by january:I do not have a full list of the remarks he made, but these include remarks made in all the religion-based forums in sgForums.
-
Maybe it happened in your forum as well but because buddhist tend not to take stuff personally, you didn't take it as insulting.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:My forum was involved meh? 
Anyway I think it's a silly law which basically has a chilling effect on any form of discussion at all. Not that I'm saying ignore it - as people who live in Singapore, we know better than to screw around with the govt.
I'm actually getting my lawyers to review the MAINTENANCE OF RELIGIOUSHARMONY ACT (CHAPTER 167A). I tried reading it myself but I don't quite understand it.
From my current understanding, it can be a bit vague. Since it's not clear, it effectively stops any public debate. We are discussing it now but we do so at our own risk because we have no way to determine what is offensive. And of course, I don't want to be the test case.
I can understand why a statement like "All Muslims are terrorist" might be conisdered defamatory, or "Islam is a religion of violence". (I do find it ironic though when Muslim extremists threaten to kill people for saying that Islam is a violent religion.) These are absolute statements that are not true. It's no more true than a statement like "Islam is a religion of peace."
But for a statement like "the Bible is like toilet paper," isn't this just a statement of opinion with no factual basis? If a person said, "the Bible only teaches violence", I can see how that is simply not true. But if a person says "parts of the Bible teaches violence". Isn't that a true statement? But what if someone takes offense at that statement?
I wonder if it's possible to take down all religious websites with this law. The rationale is that religious websites are public statements. As an atheist, I take offense at the suggestion of a higher being. Since there is no evidence for that, I take is as a statement defamatory to science and reason.
Of course, this suggestion doesn't make sense at all and I wouldn't want all religious websites to be taken down. It's only an example to show how difficult it is to apply a law like this in a fair manner. -
Yeah, it is difficult to draw the line...Originally posted by Phaze:Maybe it happened in your forum as well but because buddhist tend not to take stuff personally, you didn't take it as insulting.
Anyway I think it's a silly law which basically has a chilling effect on any form of discussion at all. Not that I'm saying ignore it - as people who live in Singapore, we know better than to screw around with the govt.
I'm actually getting my lawyers to review the MAINTENANCE OF RELIGIOUSHARMONY ACT (CHAPTER 167A). I tried reading it myself but I don't quite understand it.
From my current understanding, it can be a bit vague. Since it's not clear, it effectively stops any public debate. We are discussing it now but we do so at our own risk because we have no way to determine what is offensive. And of course, I don't want to be the test case.
I can understand why a statement like "All Muslims are terrorist" might be conisdered defamatory, or "Islam is a religion of violence". (I do find it ironic though when Muslim extremists threaten to kill people for saying that Islam is a violent religion.) These are absolute statements that are not true. It's no more true than a statement like "Islam is a religion of peace."
But for a statement like "the Bible is like toilet paper," isn't this just a statement of opinion with no factual basis? If a person said, "the Bible only teaches violence", I can see how that is simply not true. But if a person says "parts of the Bible teaches violence". Isn't that a true person? But what if someone takes offense at that statement?
I wonder if it's possible to take down all religious websites with this law. The rationale is that religious websites are public statements. As an atheist, I take offense at the suggestion of a higher being. Since there is no evidence for that, I take is as a statement defamatory to science and reason.
Of course, this suggestion doesn't make sense at all and I wouldn't want all religious websites to be taken down. It's only an example to show how difficult it is to apply a law like this in a fair manner. -
U sure or not? You were asked to assist in the investigation? What happened? Tell leh... give us the blow by blow... we want all the details...Originally posted by january:I have been asked by the police to assist in this investigation. -
January was not asked.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:U sure or not? You were asked to assist in the investigation? What happened? Tell leh... give us the blow by blow... we want all the details...
As he mentioned, he lifted the post from the Eternal Hope forum.
http://christianity.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=231068
sillyme was the one who was asked. -
oh, thanks.Originally posted by Phaze:January was not asked.
As he mentioned, he lifted the post from the Eternal Hope forum.
http://christianity.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=231068
sillyme was the one who was asked. -
i tot sports / football forums more hiong
-
When you lift, please quote.
The Quote button is not put there for show. -
So sayeth Mayi jie jie!Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:When you lift, please quote.
The Quote button is not put there for show.
-
Personal insults are acceptable but not religious.