Loopy evangelical tracts land Singapore couple in jail

Loopy evangelical tracts land Singapore couple in jail June 15, 2009

A SINGAPORE court has sentenced a Christian couple to eight weeks in jail each for distributing “seditious or objectionable” publications to Muslims.

An extract from Chick's Who Was Allah?
An extract from Chick's Who Was Allah?
According to this report, Ong Kian Cheong, 50, and his wife, Dorothy Chan Hien Leng, 46, had distributed two booklets by the ludicrous American Christian fundamentalist Jack Chick, which, according to the judge, could spark ill-will or hostility between Christians and Muslims in Singapore.
Chick’s comic book tracts are batty even by Christian standards but they are nevertheless regularly distributed in the UK by extremist British evangelists.
The pair claimed ignorance in their defence, saying they did not know the contents of the booklets and had no reason to believe they had a seditious tendency.
In 2007, the Protestant couple mailed Jack Chick’s controversial booklets titled The Little Bride and Who is Allah? to three Muslims who complained to the police. Both publications are critical of Islam.
When the couple were arrested in January last year, police seized more than 400 copies of 11 of the offensive comics from their home.
As a multi-racial city state, Singapore clamps down on anyone who is seen to incite tensions in the community.
Singapore’s population is mostly ethnic Chinese but also has significant numbers of Indians, Malay Muslims and other groups.

"Walk, crawl, swim or fly he will love the attention of the outraged crowds who ..."

Jesus? Forget that so-and-so. Easter’s about ..."
"The Chlorine Galaxy called. They insisted they don't want this asshole back."

Cult, founded by a geezer from ..."
"Francis' flip-flopping on support for LGBTQ has shown his progressive attitude toward western society was ..."

Pope ‘blindsides’ gay UK comedian with ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • evangelical ignorance is the same no matter what part of the world you go to it seems, they dont read the material they distribute and they dont even read their bible lol

  • I had no idea that these ridiculous Chick tracts and comics were still going! They were very popular amongst some evangelicals in the UK (who probably considered themselves to be quite "hip") at one time, but I`m afraid I always considered them, as you so rightly say, ludicrous. Unfortunately, there seems no way to access the website at the moment, but Wikipedia will give readers some idea of the sort of nonsense that we are talking about!! BTW Are we back to "lying for God " here, because I, for one, just cannot believe that these two bozos were not aware of the content of the literature that they were mailing – it`s beyond credibility!!!

  • aaa

    I think they're saying that so they get in less trouble…

  • This is great stuff. I had never seen it before. I really must get out more. if we just sit on the sidelines they are going to rip themselves to bits. As an old evangelist nutter acquaintance of mine said in the distant past, "I regard Roman Catholics as worse than you. They know the word of the lord, they should bathe in the blood of the lamb, and they do read the good book. Still they don't believe. You, as an atheist, do not know any better."

  • valdemar

    Broga, I'd agree about letting them wipe each other out if I wasn't a little concerned about who might get caught in the crossfire. Fighting for power and territory is what religions do. Indeed, it's what they are. They exist because they wiped out earlier faiths, and that taints all their talk about tolerance and love.

  • Jack Chick is nuts. There are some great parody Chick Tracts available though.

  • Harry

    Can we get Chick banned from the UK now?

  • Call me oldfashioned, aaa, but I always thought that Christians were supposed to tell the truth!
    (PS Wonder if they swore on the Bible?)

  • What!? And deprive us of a bloody good laugh? No mate, bring 'em on, I say. They do atheism a great a great favour.

  • Harry

    Not his comics, put him on that list of people not allowed into the UK. Can you imagine what his response would be? That shock-jock who threatened to sue would be nothing in comparison. Clearly, the devil made Labour ban him, that's why their logo is hellfire-red! And the list was originally put together by a whore with a pornography-reading husband!
    Damn, I would pay money to see what he came out with.

  • William Harwood

    What do youy call two missionaries jailed for eight weeks?
    A promising start.

  • Buffy, you link doesn't work. Anyway, surely his tracts are a parody?!

  • Rozi

    I've seen these nutty comics distributed on the train, they're one of the things that turned me atheist!
    Alan Moore'd kick his arse down the road.

  • Robert Stovold

    "Wonder if they swore on the Bible?"
    Probably. But not the bit of the Bible that says “Do not swear at all…. Simply let your “yes” be “yes” and your “no” be “no”; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.” (Matt. 5:33-37)

  • I wonder if this couple had mailed out copies of The Freethinker to Muslims, rather than Chick tracts, would they have landed in a Singapore jail as well? Probably so.
    The actual sacrifice of freedom of expression, at the hands of "religious sensibilities", is far more frightening than Jack Chick's imagined Islamic takeover scenario.
    A Chick tract parody, featuring Jack Chick!

  • You`re right. of course, Robert: when I was a christian fundamentalist I always refused to take an oath, as do most of them. In England it is possible to "affirm" instead, but I wonder whether the Singapore authorities are quite so obliging? (I still reckon that they were "lying for the Lord" here – He doesn`t mind that, evidently!!)

  • Too darned right Barry – how can you POSSIBLY "parody" those tracts – they are absolutely unbelievable!!

  • Don`t get too excited WH – God will probably be sending an angel to let them out while the guards are asleep: that`s his usual modus operandi in these cases!

  • I do agree with you about freedom of expression, Steelman, but this couple were obviously proselytizing here, and it seems that it was the recipients of the tracts who complained! The report is a bit sketchy, but, if it is accurate, then this was not merely an exchange of information. What is not clear to me is whether the couple are actually Singaporean. If not, then their actions are doubly wrong.

  • jay

    As much as the Chick tracts are an offense against intelligence, the danger of suppression is far greater. In this case I guess I have to take the side of the Chick pushers.

  • anti.relon

    Chick is fab. Do not pressure for it to be nabbed anywhere.

  • valdemar

    The classic example of free speech curtailed is that you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre. Should people be allowed to spread religious hatred, knowing damn well that it can lead to death and destruction in a less obvious and immediate way than stampeding a crowd in a confined space? Tricky one. But Jack Chick is so absurd that most Christians in the UK would be embarrassed by him. Do we want to spare Christians embarrassment?

  • Pingback: Dear Allah… « “Gone Fishin’: Postcards From God”()

  • Mike

    Ahh Singapore, they've got the right idea. They have gay pride marches that encourage patriotism too, the last gay pride event i went to was constantly playing songs about destroying your TV and had a "spraypaint art workshop", and we all know what that means – it's art, it's vandalism!

  • MichaelL

    I think at one time, Chick tracts were banned from Canada because they are considered hate literature. Although, I must say that there is a thriving underground of Chick Tract collectors. No, I’m not talking about hell fire and brimstone evangelicals either. Even us godless atheist heathens can admit that there is a certain amount of awesomeness in the absurdity of these tracts!

  • SunnyF

    The pair claimed ignorance in their defence, saying they did not know the contents of the booklets and had no reason to believe they had a seditious tendency.
    I agreed with aaa on June 15th 2009: “I think they’re saying that so they get in less trouble…” (would appreciate if you get a proper name, no one is going to turn you to jail even if you put your name there, you’re not a bad fella like these two clowns). Their statement made them a liar, which is against their belief (and i believe they took oath on the court, ironic isn’t it?).
    Secondly, even though they’re not lying, it reflects that these are the clowns that creating half of the trouble in the universe, by spreading things without really knowing what’s inside. They should be sentenced an 8 years sentence instead.