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 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.
