Recently there was posted in NUS by Campus Crusade for Christ (CCC) the following picture which insinuated that Thai buddhists have little joy.

I reaction to this, the NUS Buddhist Society (NBS) has lodged a complain to the Office of Student Affairs. I wish to register and state here my offense at the NUS Buddhist Society for demeaning Singaporean Buddhist by such a reactionary move.

I am offended that the NBS would insult Buddhists in NUS and Singapore by insinuating that they are so insecure about their faith and joy in Buddha that they would have to resort to censorship to answer this slanderous attack by the CCC.

I am offended that the NBS would make Buddhists out in Singapore to be the equivalent of paranoid Medieval Christians who had to resort to inquisitions and burning of books and opinions to stamp out false charges against them.

I am offended that the NBS would degrade the intellectual capacity of Buddhists to answer false arguments and charges with reasonable and civilised debate and discourse and made Buddhists out to be poor infantile morons who needs paternal coercive censorship to save their fragile sensibilities from what is a false charge anyway.

I am offended that NBS have represented Buddhists as people who are unable to demonstrate their joy in Buddha by their deeds and compassion, by their patience and long sufferings to slanderous charges, and have instead represented them as people who could not demonstrate the joy of Buddha by their own deeds but by censoring those who attack it instead.

I am offended that NBS have made Buddhism out to be lesser religion than Christianity, as if turning the other cheek to an enemy is purely a Christian virtue, as if tolerating insults and false charges from enemies is something which Buddhists are incapable of, but the capacity only of Christians who tolerates insults from militant atheists and secularists like Dawkins and Da Vinci Code without the need to resort to censorship.

I am offended at some Buddhists who have said that such an offensive claims by the CCC is seditious. For this implies that somehow Buddhists are such violent and petty people that they will resort to arms to defend their faith which would disrupt national and civil order, making such offensive claims to be “seditious”. This is an utter misrepresentation of the instrinsc non-violence of Buddhism and long suffering in the face of enmity and I am offended by these Buddhists who would insinuate otherwise.

Therefore,
I register once more my offense at the NBS and other Buddhists named above who have dragged the name of Buddhism into disrepute and shame, would like to state categorically that the Buddhist I know of are in no way the infantile and pathetic petty morons implied by this frankly junvenile and reactionary move by the NBS.

Thank you.

Feel free to repost this

Update:

I received the following comment below,

Hi, my name is Kwek Yan and I am a former President of NUS Buddhist Society (NUSBS). I am writing to clarify because you may not have had the full picture before writing this blog post and your facebook note.

I was among the first to see the photograph on facebook and immediately shared it with some current committee members. It was about 8pm then, and the facebook photo states that it was uploaded 3 hours ago, which would make it 5pm.

I went down immediately to LT15 to verify that there was indeed such a poster, but could not find it at all. This was about 8.15pm.

The current President acknowledged knowledge of the matter at 11.30pm. By 12MN, the original facebook photo and website has already been disabled.

Therefore, from this timeline,

(1) The photo and website was not taken down because of a complaint from NUSBS.

(2) From my knowledge of the meeting between OSA, CCC and various student groups, CCC stated that they took steps to remove the photo and website because the photo went viral.

(3) The photo was already going viral before NUSBS knew of it.

I am sure you are a person that values truth and fairness, so kindly update your post (above and on facebook) regarding your accusations against NUSBS.

And this is my reply,

Kwek Yan,

Thank you for your clarification. NBS has my unreserved apology for my groundless accusation. I will update this and my facebook according. I hope that NBS will not mind letting me continue to put this up as an rhetorical device and object lesson in mutual religious discourse, and I am very pleased and glad to be able to have it with you and that I have been vindicated in my confidence in the reasonableness of the Buddhist society and community in Singapore.

Yours,
Rubati

70 thought on “As a Christian, I am Offended for Singaporean Buddhists”
  1. It is my policy not to reply to anonymous, but as you are still speaking civilly, I shall indulge you.Why should remarks made against other countries be taken down? Are you saying that we should censor all criticism of other countries? And if they are false criticisms, well, answer it with debates and arguments, why the need for censorship?

  2. Well I don't think it's censorship. It's for CCC's sake that they remove what most people will find offensive (as you can see from the reaction). I understand that the page is meant for CCC members but since this issue is now blown up and the website is receiving more attention than ever.Actually i think the OSA is doing good for Christianity by asking CCC take appropriate actions.

  3. I think CCC itself should decide what's good for it's own faith and practice, thanks. I'm not a member of CCC, but does a secular institution has the right to decide what is "good" for a religious society? Who gave them authority to decide what is good for a faith? Are they theologians? Ecclesiastics? I think not.The essential point is whether NBS should have complained to OSA, and whether OSA should have censored CCC, and there is no reason for OSA to interfere, even for CCC's own good (and I'm sure they're touched with such selfless concern)

  4. CCC is under a secular institution, as are all churches subject to the government of Singapore. But it is one thing to say that CCC and churches are subject to secular authority in secular matters, i.e. law and order, etc. It is another thing to say that churches and CCC are subject to the state in *theological* matters and matters pertaining to their faith and practice. The state has no right or business to write our creeds or decide on how the sacraments are to be celebrated. We are subject to them in bodily matters, but our beliefs and our creeds are no part of their concern.

  5. Hmm okay. Although in my opinion I still don't agree with the use of the word censorship. The OSA didn't interfere with any Christian faith nor practices. The poster doesn't reflect well on spreading the Christian love and it is potentially damaging to the institution.

  6. To interfere with what a Christian may believe about his faith, i.e. that in Christ alone is true joy to be found, is to interfere with our faith.And again, it is up to churches and Christian societies to determine the shape and meaning of "Christian love", not a secular entity, and it is up to the Christian institution itself to decide what is "damaging" to itself. The "health" of a Church or Christian society is a theological question, not a secular one, obviously we would mean very different things as to what is "good" for us and what is "damaging" to us.

  7. Well by institution I mean NUS. I am speaking as NUS student who supports the decision of OSA. Any individual with adequate common sense will know that the content they put up is insensitive. You are welcome to share with me your definition of common sense though. And look your pageview spikes! congrats!

  8. Thus the insensitivity of comments therefore require censorship? Why?You are of course free to support as you please, but that's not an argument for their decision.

  9. Are you from NUS? So you are saying that the institution has no rights whatsoever over a student's club that bears its name, especially in such a sensitive issue like religion and nationalism?Anyway the Singapore CCC just issued a public apology.http://www.sccc.sg/

  10. Hi Rubati, just a gentle reminder that as a Student Group/Organisation, every official statement and project by the CCC is supposedly endorsed by OSA and (perhaps) even the NUS community. Therefore, NOT censoring the publicity efforts would be to agree with CCC on the belief that Christianity is the only route to "true happiness". Hope you can see the gravity condoning such a statement.Furthermore, not being a member of NBS, I do not understand the true nature of their complaint. However, I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt anybody would want to protect themselves from untruth made against them. Simply because they're buddhists does not label them as pushovers.

  11. I was from NUS. I never said that an institution has "no rights whatsoever" over a student's club that bears its name, only that I fail to perceive what right it has over "this matter". Don't exaggerate.

  12. I don't understand what you mean by supposedly "endorsed by OSA". I am sure the OSA does not subscribe to the Nicene Creed for that would turn it into a religious instead of a secular organisation. The OSA merely permits the functioning of a student group/organsisation within the university but does not "endorse" or not "endorse" its statement.And it is a part of Christian tenet that that Christ is *the* Way, *the* Truth and *the* Life. If Catholic Student groups wants to affirm that "outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation", and if Christian groups want to affirm the Athanasius Creed that "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly", then that is part of our faith which no secular power may alter or change.You may disagree with CCC and the Christian faith's claim to be "the only route to 'true happiness'", but neither you nor the state has a right to censor our creeds or our fundamental beliefs.Also, sure, anyone "would want to protect themselves from untruth made against them", but surely by arguments and debates, not suppressing of opinions and censorship. I am sorry you perceive that refraining from using censorship over protecting one's faith through reasoned debate is considered to be "pushover". I guess Christians is being weak and a pushover for putting up with constant untruths from Dawkins, Sam Harris books and Da Vinci code huh?By the way, you can find this "doctrinal basis" statement in the NUS VCF website,"Redemption from the guild, penalty and power of sin only through the shedding of the Blood in the sacrificial death (as our Substitute) of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God. (Ep 1:7)"Are you going to go after them too? Or has OSA slipped up in allowing this statement to be "endorsed"?

  13. oh no.. another idiot sounding bigot who thinks he in an undergrad and talks too much for his own good. sigh..why does my alma mater produce people like this. seriously.

  14. Pitty NUS CCC. I heard that they got to remove all posting related to this and apologised. We should get them jail. Last yr remember, two member of Christians are jailed. After all, there no room for them. Come on kids, wake up and look for true happiness. Insulting other religions are not so civilized, aren't u? Or may be u get happiness from insulting others? What a true religion? Its all ur religion meant to u?If i were god, I would say "Sorry kids, no rooms for you all. Do something good and come back after u been to hell."

  15. 'If i were god, I would say "Sorry kids, no rooms for you all. Do something good and come back after u been to hell."'Thank God you're not then. 🙂

  16. Hi, my name is Kwek Yan and I am a former President of NUS Buddhist Society (NUSBS). I am writing to clarify because you may not have had the full picture before writing this blog post and your facebook note.I was among the first to see the photograph on facebook and immediately shared it with some current committee members. It was about 8pm then, and the facebook photo states that it was uploaded 3 hours ago, which would make it 5pm.I went down immediately to LT15 to verify that there was indeed such a poster, but could not find it at all. This was about 8.15pm.The current President acknowledged knowledge of the matter at 11.30pm. By 12MN, the original facebook photo and website has already been disabled.Therefore, from this timeline,(1) The photo and website was not taken down because of a complaint from NUSBS.(2) From my knowledge of the meeting between OSA, CCC and various student groups, CCC stated that they took steps to remove the photo and website because the photo went viral.(3) The photo was already going viral before NUSBS knew of it.I am sure you are a person that values truth and fairness, so kindly update your post (above and on facebook) regarding your accusations against NUSBS.

  17. Kwek Yan,Thank you for your clarification. NBS has my unreserved apology for my groundless accusation. I will update this and my facebook according. I hope that NBS will not mind letting me continue to put this up as an rhetorical device and object lesson in mutual religious discourse, and I am very pleased and glad to be able to have it with you and that I have been vindicated in my confidence in the reasonableness of the Buddhist society and community in Singapore.Yours,Rubati

  18. It would be nice to have a disclaimer in the post to clarify that you have understood the situation and accepted that you have groundlessly accused NBS of what they have not done.Just saying.

  19. Rui, please read my my post carefully, I did not say I am offended that they are offended, i said I am offended that they had to resort to censorship to protect their faith.

  20. This – "It is another thing to say that churches and CCC are subject to the state in *theological* matters and matters pertaining to their faith and practice. The state has no right or business to write our creeds or decide on how the sacraments are to be celebrated."Religion is not above common law. Example: Faith healing parents would be charged for manslaughter if their child died of a result of not receiving medical attention for a condition that could have been easily treated. Likewise, the government would not permit the practice of sky burials even if it was decreed by the religion of the deceased. The government has the authority to intefere in faith matters if the well-being of society is threatened. In such instances, you can only gripe about whether the inteference is justified but you can't say that they have no right to intefere as the constitution gave them the rights.Even if the NUS BS had indeed lodged a complaint, there is no basis your comment "infantile and pathetic petty morons implied by this frankly junvenile and reactionary move by the NBS". I am unable to infer the various "implications" that you have proposed. They seem to have popped out of thin air? At the most, such a complaint would mean that the current committee of NUS BS are people who are easily offended, why did you have to drag other Singaporean Buddhists into the debate? You had wanted them to turn the other cheek, but you've also demonstrated an incapability in doing so. It is good that you have apologised. Your critical thinking and logical skills need work.

  21. "The government has the authority to intefere in faith matters if the well-being of society is threatened. In such instances, you can only gripe about whether the inteference is justified but you can't say that they have no right to intefere as the constitution gave them the rights."*shrug* constitution do not give government rights, God does. But hey, I'm sure you don't want to get into an indepth discussion on political philosophy."I am unable to infer the various "implications" that you have proposed. They seem to have popped out of thin air?"Well, then that's just you then. 🙂 The inferences exists objectively independent of your cognitive abilities."You had wanted them to turn the other cheek, but you've also demonstrated an incapability in doing so."Really how? I didn't call the ISA or call for a censorship of NBS have I?And thank you for your assessment of my critical thinking and logical skills. I will take it under advisement and ponder over it. Actually, no, I don't really care for it. But hey, infer whatever you want about me as you please.

  22. I guess if you really wish to harp on the definition of an "endorsement", I misspoke. Nevertheless, from the larger society's POV, NUS/OSA definitely cannot escape the responsibility of words, especially on printed matter, by its student population.Too, of course I've no right to censor or even question you. Quite the contrary for the state, actually. If you wish to involve the constitution, they actually DO have a right, not just to censor, but even restrict the practice and propagation of religious activities. One can take a look to the jurisdiction's stands on Jehovah Witnesses, or even the simple practice of Muslim girls wearing tudungs in public school for examples.In a secular institution, especially one of accommodative secularism (instead of banning all we're allowing all), I believe nobody can deny that the need for religious harmony and social unity MUST come before ANY kind of religious doctrine. Hence there's still place for censorship in our society. Are you certain that there were no attempts to censor the works of Dawkins and Harris? There would be many reasons to the failure of said censorship, but producing work only after producing research proof certainly doesn't hurt. How credible were CCC's statements? Outside of NUS, it would easily be defamatory, slanderous, even. Putting it in another context, it's one thing to say I love my Android, it's another to say that an iPhone sucks. It's easy to say "let's put this up for debate" to informed tech-savvy kids, but imagine someone who just got released from prison after 25 years, intending to get a new phone, the simple statement that an iPhone sucks from someone who presumably knows so much more about smartphones could suddenly weigh in so much due to a primacy effect!

  23. "If you wish to involve the constitution, they actually DO have a right, not just to censor, but even restrict the practice and propagation of religious activities."Well, I did not invoke constitutional right, the right of Christians to confess the faith is dervied not from the state but from God. To say that the Church derives the right of confessing the Gospel from the state would be on impar to Erastianism and making the state the source of the Gospel's authority."I believe nobody can deny that the need for religious harmony and social unity MUST come before ANY kind of religious doctrine."You are entitled to your beliefs of course, but as a Christian, obviously I would have a slightly different view. :)"How credible were CCC's statements? Outside of NUS, it would easily be defamatory, slanderous, even. Putting it in another context, it's one thing to say I love my Android, it's another to say that an iPhone sucks. It's easy to say "let's put this up for debate" to informed tech-savvy kids, but imagine someone who just got released from prison after 25 years, intending to get a new phone, the simple statement that an iPhone sucks from someone who presumably knows so much more about smartphones could suddenly weigh in so much due to a primacy effect!"*Shrug*, unless you believe that the state should adjudicate between conflicting religious claims, I'm not quite sure the relevance of this.

  24. Their beliefs are unaffected by insensitive comments, they are offended at the arrogance of other religions making the claim that they who believe differently do not know what is happiness.It will be equally offensive if there were any other religion claiming "Christians do not know what true happiness is".Promoting your own religion is fine, but you cannot expect others to not feel offended and not react in this manner in what seem like a targeted attack to Buddhism and Thailand.In my opinion, I feel that it is very arrogant and it almost seems that you view yourself on a high horse when you say that you are offended FOR the Buddhists."I am offended that NBS have made Buddhism out to be lesser religion than Christianity"Considering the nature of Abrahamic Religions, it is almost contradictory and ironic for a person with your kind of view believe to that both religions are equally great, because if you really do believe that, you would not have reacted this way, I did read you post very carefully and I find it intellectually dishonest and almost pretentious.

  25. You are free to be offended at our faith claims that true happiness is found in Christ alone. But to take offense, and to invoke censorship, is two very different things.All religions make claims which are offensive to another, in so far as their claims contradict each another. Christianity claims the divinity of Christ to the offense of the Muslim who denies it and argues that worshipping Christ is idolatry, whilst the Christian points out that failure to worship Christ as God is blasphemy.So, you are free to feel that it is arrogant or offensive whatever, just as I am feel free to take offense at others, etc. But your feelings does not a censorship justify, just as my feelings would not justify my invocation of censorship of other people or religions. Which is the main issue of my post.

  26. Singapore is one of the very few places in the world where people of different races and religions live together in harmony, if there is no censorship and everyone is allowed to comment irresponsibly without taking into account of the beliefs and views of other people, things will go out of hand.How on earth can you expect people to work together and contribute to the well-being of the society when everyone is calling each other a blaspheming heretic?"just as I am feel free to take offense at others" Will it be offensive if I were to say that "I am offended that you take offense at others and that you are insecure in your faith?" None of us have the right to be offended FOR others, or pity 'the Buddhists who do not know happiness'.Believe it or not, in this subject, censorship actually benefits Christianity, leaving the poster there will no doubt cause more anger instead of spreading the message of your God's love, how does that help your cause?Have you ever seen a Buddhism poster being censored?

  27. "Singapore is one of the very few places in the world where people of different races and religions live together in harmony, if there is no censorship and everyone is allowed to comment irresponsibly without taking into account of the beliefs and views of other people, things will go out of hand."Well, you are entitled to have such a low opinion of religionists and other people's ability to engage conflicting and different opinions, thinking that "things will go out of hand" definitively. You should not demean our propensity for peaceful disagreement and discussion.I on the otherhand have greater confidence and trust in the maturity of religionists and especially Buddhists to be able to engage in disagreement and argumnents without the need for "things to go out of hand.""How on earth can you expect people to work together and contribute to the well-being of the society when everyone is calling each other a blaspheming heretic?"By the sacred-secular divide of course. We may disagree on sacred matters, but we can still cooperate in secular tasks."None of us have the right to be offended FOR others, or pity 'the Buddhists who do not know happiness'."'Will it be offensive if I were to say that "I am offended that you take offense at others and that you are insecure in your faith?"'I don't know, the iteration of "offensive" is becoming so confusing, I can't take offense your offense that I take offense at others. (How many times is that? Hahahaha…)"None of us have the right to be offended FOR others, or pity 'the Buddhists who do not know happiness'."Okay, that's your opinion then. :)"Believe it or not, in this subject, censorship actually benefits Christianity"Thanks for your assessment, but I think we can decide what "benefits" us thanks. And we understand the nature and purpose of our cause better than those outside the faith. 🙂

  28. Hi Rubati,find your statement "All religions make claims which are offensive to another, in so far as their claims contradict each another." is a little limited.Sometimes I find it strange for people to take offense at others for not having the same beliefs as their own. There can always be many ways to view a certain issue and theoretically those views can co-exist peacefully till someone decides to contest that a particular view is more correct than others.

  29. Hi Frederick,I share your puzzlement too. I don't understand why people should take offense at us Christians not sharing their belief that true happiness and joy could be found outside of Christ.And I would go one step further than you and say that conflicting and strongly opposed views can, and should be able to co-exist peacefully till the end of time.

  30. I dont see any offensive claims from Muslim, Catholic, Buddhist.. where did "all religion" come from? look at the news archives. Who has been making the news headlines?

  31. It is not a simple criticism, but an unfounded and biased statement that offended many people. NBS has the rights to complain to OSA because such sweeping statements about other religions should not be used. We buddhist do not need you crocodile tears and hypocrisy by pretending to be offended on our behalf. It is very clear what your agenda is and you should stop fanning the flames of this incident.

  32. I didn't say it wasn't an unfounded and biased statement that offended many people.But the essential question is, does that therefore call for censorship? That is the question which is not addressed, unless of course, you think the government should be in the business of censoring what religions may say about their own beliefs, even if it is beliefs about others."It is very clear what your agenda is and you should stop fanning the flames of this incident."Well, how very clever of you. I've been found out. So what is this agenda exactly? And I will take your suggestion under advisement.

  33. You are right Rubati. Buddhists need not be offended by comments from ignorant or irrational people. Why are those people ignorant or irrational? Well, if there is a God, he must be self-sufficient. If God is not self-sufficient, how can he be God? If God is self-sufficient, there is no need for him to create anything. Therefore any act of creation by God is either purposeless or irrational. Since the world exists, therefore any belief in the existence of a God who created the world is either due to ignorance or irrationality. Ergo those people in question must either be ignorant or irrational.

  34. Your philosophical argument is interesting and there might be something in what you say, but this is not the context to have a full blown discourse in topics of philosophy of religion. :)And rest assured, though some people may find what you say offensive, but I won't call the government to censor you.

  35. Does that mean Apple has a right to sue for defamation each time someone says that their Android phone is way better than the iPhone? Because that would be scary and hilarious at the same time…-Dom C.

  36. Ha Anon, you have quite a lot of faith in your argumentative skills! I think you should know though, that 'those people in question' have encountered this objection for centuries already and have perfectly satisfactory answers. :)-Dom C.

  37. Your sense of proportion is very interesting, in addition to your leaps of inference. The call to refrain from invoking censorship is tantamount to war? And of course, religionists must be such horribly violent people to need censorship of offensive materials otherwise we might take up arms and start wars.Hitler, by the way, is known for being a totalitarian statist, and somehow, advocating that we use less of the state's power is to be "another hitler in the making". You interpretation of history is interesting, but it is not one which I share.

  38. Very funny, making a rant against actions NUSBS did not take (censorship), and framing it as being offended for the sake of the people (Buddhists) who could care less about your opinion on the matter and what *you think* it meant for Buddhism's reputation.When really you are just annoyed that a poster that spoke your mind was indeed deemed offensive and taken down. Sure, enjoy your momentary fame by leaving this now-irrelevant post up. You're simply contributing to perpetuating the already prevalent image of certain Christians.

  39. I suppose then, on the say so of a person who hides behind the veil of anonymity, I shall have to accept that you are an authority on what *all* Buddhist people care about. :)I am fairly certain that the vast majority of Buddhist couldn't care less about *my* opinion on the matter as the number of Buddhist friends I have are negligible in comparison to the total Buddhist population. But I am fairly certain that they would care about the issue, whether it it raised by me or not, or whether it is my thoughts on the issue or other people's thoughts on the issue. You are right of course that it is not *my* opinion or what *I think* that matters, it is the opinion *itself*, the *points* itself raised which is important. The fact that it is *me* raising it is a matter of inconsequence.And it is very generous of you to share your hypothesis about what my mental state is and what I am "really" thinking about. Of course my valuation of the credibility of your hypothesis would be considerably raised if I knew who you were and how familiar you are with my person. But hey, you may speak about others as you please, especially when protected by anonymity. :)And I do fully plan on enjoying this momentary fame, as you put it, thanks for your advice, and as for it's relevance, well, that is for each person to judge and you've made *your* opinion quite clear, an opinion which you of course have a right too.And it would be interesting to ask what exactly is this "image of certain Christians" which I am perpetuating, but hey, in my opinion, image is superficial and irrelevance, but you are entitled to hold otherwise if you choose. 🙂

  40. Please support with evidence, link (for those with limited sight) of any other religion in Singapore that have offended other religions by such claims.Because looking at the news archives it is always the same religion that crossed the line.

  41. Gladly, the following is taken from "good question good answer" by Ven S. Dhammika. Books available at the Buddha Dhamma Mandala Society Balesteir Rd. On the God question, it says that "like many modern sociologists and psyhologists, the Buddha saw the god-idea has having the origin in anxiety and fear" and that "Buddha’s teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration."http://www.goodquestiongoodanswer.net/content.php?CID=3I've got no problem with them saying this. But i think they should note that by their standards, these remarks are potentially seditious and I find it offensive that he thinks that our "God idea" is based on fear and anxiety. But hey, he has the right to say it, and I'm not going to call ISA to censor him or have these books removed.

  42. The fact is that if Christians wished to make a fuss about being "offended", we could easily find the materials, raise hell, and it would end up in the news archives. But as George Yeo himself once said when asked why were books against other religions except Christianity censored, he replied,"Christians are less likely to riot"I take it as a compliment that people feel safe criticising and offending Christians because we are not prone to violence. I am confident that I can, or should be able to, affirm the same for every other religion.

  43. The bible, in which content is also heretical when compared to other monotheistic religions, because it states that ANY other gods are false Gods. Are also available in Christian bookshops.There is a reason that the sale of these books takes place in their respective religious bookshops."I believe in the teachings of Buddha's teachings…."is about as offensive as"I believe in the teachings of Christ…."Both religion will obviously disagree with each other.You can try to call ISA but they will not and cannot censor him or have the books removed. The book discusses about the teachings of Buddhism , just like books of many other religions discuss about their teachings of their own religion. The idea of these books is to provide enlightenment for the people of their respective religions.You should not even bother spend time reading books of other religions if you decide to be offended the moment their views are not similar to yours, how can they be? You do not share the same religion as them.Do you believe that ALL of them, (except for the Christian versions)have to be censored and removed?I have no idea how can one equate those statements that to the kind of blatant disrespect seen in the poster that specifically mentions both a country and a religion, or to people who were overzealous and knowingly distribute their promotional materials to members of ANOTHER monotheistic religion, that is the kind of insensitivity, border-lining on stupidity that can get you into jail.Please provide an example that any other religions in Singapore have been this insensitive in their effort to promote their religion to the public, in my knowledge they have been very considerate not to involve/mention/make comparisons with any other religions no matter how zealous or pious they may be.

  44. The bible, in which content is also heretical when compared to other monotheistic religions, because it states that ANY other gods are false Gods. Are also available in Christian bookshops."Yes. No one said otherwise."There is a reason that the sale of these books takes place in their respective religious bookshops."True, but a truism really. Obviously religion books are sold in religious bookshops.'"I believe in the teachings of Buddha's teachings…."is about as offensive as"I believe in the teachings of Christ…."Both religion will obviously disagree with each other.'That's what I said from earlier on with you when I said that all religions necessary contradict and offend each other to the extend that they're teaching contradicts each other. No disagreement here."You can try to call ISA but they will not and cannot censor him or have the books removed."Of course not. I've already given you the reason. The government thinks that we Christians are less likely to riot, therefore it is alright to have materials offensive to Christians to be sold."You should not even bother spend time reading books of other religions if you decide to be offended the moment their views are not similar to yours, how can they be? You do not share the same religion as them."How i decide to spend my time and what books i decide to read is really my business and not yours. But thanks for trying to tell me what i should or should not do with my time, i will take it under advisement, although it is highly unlikely that i would take your advice to avoid reading books which offends me, as i sometimes would like to find out the point of view of people who offend me."Do you believe that ALL of them, (except for the Christian versions)have to be censored and removed?"Nope, I did not say I did. In fact, I have been abundantly clear that I believe that offensive materials should not be censored. Therefore as offensive as these Buddhists text maybe, I would defend their right to say it, although I would strongly disagree with it."I have no idea how can one equate those statements that to the kind of blatant disrespect seen in the poster that specifically mentions both a country and a religion, or to people who were overzealous and knowingly distribute their promotional materials to members of ANOTHER monotheistic religion, that is the kind of insensitivity, border-lining on stupidity that can get you into jail."The fact that you have no idea merely says that, well, you have no idea, and does not say anything about the equality of the two situations, the fact that you have no idea how something can be true does not entail that therefore it is not. But the solution to ignorance, is learning and understanding that you might get an idea. :)"Please provide an example that any other religions in Singapore have been this insensitive in their effort to promote their religion to the public, in my knowledge they have been very considerate not to involve/mention/make comparisons with any other religions no matter how zealous or pious they may be."'In your knowledge' implies that what you say is true, which I would flatly contradict. Therefore it is merely in your opinion, which I disagree.

  45. Please either take down the post, or mention that it is no longer valid due to subsequent correspondence *in the beginning* of the post. This is the second result on Google when looking for NUS Buddhist Society, and many people don’t bother reading all the way to the end, yet still get a negative impression of the Society, which is completely undeserved.

Leave a Reply to mrTBS Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *