quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence
I like that attitude more than the twisted one in the West but frankly we had to deal with the nazis that are one of the few forms of government that had direct and open ideological motivations to genocide.

Yea, it's complicated for you guys and in the US, the sensitivities towards black people, because of slavery. I think this is the problem. White people in the past, tried to eliminate a whole group of people base on race, or enslaved them base on race. So now, it's hard for them to do the race proud thing.

Like I'm just thinking with Asians, we kinda think we are superior to each other but we never think of eliminating each other, wiping out an entire another ethnicity, because, we need them around to feel superior to lol.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

Because these girls were sold as children, and from children, they were not educated, deprived of education, socializing, friends outside of the family and their only mission in life is to serve the family in any way the family ask for them. They are completely dependent on the family, isolated and know nothing else.
So yes, she wouldn't have seek to escape, run away or anything else, as how would she even know that? She can't even speak mandarin or english. she only speaks her dialect. Her lifestyle is the only life she knows.

I met her like when I first got married to my x-husband and he brought me to visit his grandfather. That was like way back in 2003 and she was 98 yrs old then. In many ways, she is lucky, she seems to be happy and love the family she has served. But of course in such situations, bad things could happen to young girls with no choices in life.

I cannot take offense at the behaviour at all, because it was normal in chinese culture to have such girls as slave during those days. Even if I ask my parents, they will say it's normal. We have historical local TV shows depicting this as normal in Singapore in the old days. It was not illegal when it happened. It's what happens to girls from very poor families who can't afford to feed their own kids, or families who do not want their girls. Most of these girls job as a slave is mainly house work and nanny to babies. They were voluntarily sold by their parents.
It's not normal now, but it was normal then. And pretty silly to get mad at what was their culture. It's like me trying to tell an Arab Muslim not to beat his wife, when it's his culture and religion to do so.

I also personally think the British didn't run Singapore properly, because so many couldn't speak English or even mandarin. So many old grandmas and granddad today still could not speak English and are illiterate both in mandarin and english. I don't think they made enough efforts to make sure no child gets left behind in education.

These days, every single registered birth who does not turn up in school when their age for studies comes, gets a personal knock on their door, and they will do everything possible to help the family get that child to school, if it was financial issues. This only happened when we took our own independence and start doing things properly.

quote:


At the same time, the Taiping rebellion broke out in 1850 and attacked the status quo Confucianist Manchu Dynasty -- which had ruled since 1644. The rebellion was based in social revolutionary ideas of equality and was popular among the masses. It abolished private property, established sexual equality, and banned drugs (from alcohol to opium). By 1853, it dominated much of SE China. It would not be until 1864 that the Taiping capital of Nanking was captured by the imperial Manchu government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml




So ML, (or anyone else who wishes to go toe to toe) that said:

Did congress make a law banning and overuling a religious practice of the bonafide recognized Mormon Church Yes____ No____

Did the US Supreme Court uphold anti bigamy regulations created by congress Yes____ No____


We shall start with those 2 questions which require a simple yes or no since we are dealing with established facts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

White people themselves created the culture of it being unacceptable to feel proud about themselves racially. It's like something that is a west thingy.

Asians were always happily soaking in our race pride ha openly even among other Asians. We all think we are better than each other. Indians think they are better than chinese. Chinese think we are better than Indians. Like we all think our race is superior than each others, true or false, we don't care because that's okay. I mean, even between chinese/koreans/japanese, we all think we are better than each other all the time. Even between Hong kong chinese, Taiwanese chinese, Mainland chinese and Singapore Chinese. We are like 4 different race of the same colour and you probably can't tell us apart. But we all think we are better than each other all the time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Oh... no.... wait? This doesn't look much like an "Atheist" law.... it looks rather like a Christian law... Oh blimey. I feel a little sorry now... the only example of an "Atheist" law that tramples unnecessarily on the freedom of people to have differing religious views is actually not "Atheist" at all. It's "Christian".

The laws against bigamy are deeply seated in Christian doctrine, although they do predate Christianity, and may well have a utility argument in their favour.

I agree with you that I cannot see a direct "injury" to others by allowing polygamy, and can't help wondering if this legislation and the SC's subsequent judgement stems directly from a desire to attack the Mormon faith. Historically, it does rather seem that way - but I don't know what the actual arguments against bigamy were. If the arguments were exclusively "bigamy is wrong cuz the bible says so" then, fuck yeah - this is a way wrong law.

So... I'm not sure where that leaves your argument. Certainly the one concrete example you've provided bears no resemblance whatsoever to an "Atheist" law.

Perhaps you should try again, and we can demolish your next fallacy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml




So ML, (or anyone else who wishes to go toe to toe) that said:

Did congress make a law banning and overuling a religious practice of the bonafide recognized Mormon Church Yes____ No____

Did the US Supreme Court uphold anti bigamy regulations created by congress Yes____ No____


We shall start with those 2 questions which require a simple yes or no since we are dealing with established facts.

I see you totally dodged the question. truth bothers you I guess.

quote:


You've produced an actual example!

Wonderful.

Oh... no.... wait? This doesn't look much like an "Atheist" law.... it looks rather like a Christian law... Oh blimey. I feel a little sorry now... the only example of an "Atheist" law that tramples unnecessarily on the freedom of people to have differing religious views is actually not "Atheist" at all. It's "Christian".

The laws against bigamy are deeply seated in Christian doctrine, although they do predate Christianity, and may well have a utility argument in their favour.

I agree with you that I cannot see a direct "injury" to others by allowing polygamy, and can't help wondering if this legislation and the SC's subsequent judgement stems directly from a desire to attack the Mormon faith. Historically, it does rather seem that way - but I don't know what the actual arguments against bigamy were. If the arguments were exclusively "bigamy is wrong cuz the bible says so" then, fuck yeah - this is a way wrong law.

quote:



The correct answers are YES and YES

quote:


So you look and prove yourself to be pretty foolish when you are too obtuse to acknowledge long established facts.

quote:



So are you conceding that the gubblemint has created its own religion to create its own dogma (religious laws) to trump the constitution and stomp on peoples rights, then turn right round like you did and claim the dogmatic law they created (cant or shant) be broken for the simple reason godernment almighty created it? running around in circles again I see? Seems you run some pretty twisted trails there cml

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Oh... no.... wait? This doesn't look much like an "Atheist" law.... it looks rather like a Christian law... Oh blimey. I feel a little sorry now... the only example of an "Atheist" law that tramples unnecessarily on the freedom of people to have differing religious views is actually not "Atheist" at all. It's "Christian".

The laws against bigamy are deeply seated in Christian doctrine, although they do predate Christianity, and may well have a utility argument in their favour.

I agree with you that I cannot see a direct "injury" to others by allowing polygamy, and can't help wondering if this legislation and the SC's subsequent judgement stems directly from a desire to attack the Mormon faith. Historically, it does rather seem that way - but I don't know what the actual arguments against bigamy were. If the arguments were exclusively "bigamy is wrong cuz the bible says so" then, fuck yeah - this is a way wrong law.

So... I'm not sure where that leaves your argument. Certainly the one concrete example you've provided bears no resemblance whatsoever to an "Atheist" law.

Perhaps you should try again, and we can demolish your next fallacy?

king ding a ling ordained bigamy as a felony in the early 1600's like 1604, that sounds pretty LEEGO to me.

quote:



So whats the excuse of the congress and supreme court?

So then you are trying to say that congress and scotus is a stealth theocratic establishment operating under the radar forcing their religious laws on us with a secular (atheist) label, is that it?

quote:


oh and ps: you wont find the word 'bigamy' anywhere in the bible

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml




So ML, (or anyone else who wishes to go toe to toe) that said:

Did congress make a law banning and overuling a religious practice of the bonafide recognized Mormon Church Yes____ No____

Did the US Supreme Court uphold anti bigamy regulations created by congress Yes____ No____


We shall start with those 2 questions which require a simple yes or no since we are dealing with established facts.

I see you totally dodged the question. truth bothers you I guess.

No, I didn't dodge the question. I answered it here...

quote:


You've produced an actual example!

Wonderful.

Oh... no.... wait? This doesn't look much like an "Atheist" law.... it looks rather like a Christian law... Oh blimey. I feel a little sorry now... the only example of an "Atheist" law that tramples unnecessarily on the freedom of people to have differing religious views is actually not "Atheist" at all. It's "Christian".

The laws against bigamy are deeply seated in Christian doctrine, although they do predate Christianity, and may well have a utility argument in their favour.

I agree with you that I cannot see a direct "injury" to others by allowing polygamy, and can't help wondering if this legislation and the SC's subsequent judgement stems directly from a desire to attack the Mormon faith. Historically, it does rather seem that way - but I don't know what the actual arguments against bigamy were. If the arguments were exclusively "bigamy is wrong cuz the bible says so" then, fuck yeah - this is a way wrong law.

quote:



The correct answers are YES and YES

I know what I'll do, since your reading comprehension leave you unable to infer my response.

I agree, the answers are yes and yes.

Now... The question then becomes, why was the law passed. If it was passed because of opposition to the mormon religion then I agree that it's wrong. If it was passed because of a genuine opposition to polygamy then it's not wrong.

I gently pointed out to you that the anti bigamy laws are religious laws.

So you're using a religious law when I think the example you're fumbling for needs to be an "atheist" law in order for your argument to have any standing.

quote:


So you look and prove yourself to be pretty foolish when you are too obtuse to acknowledge long established facts.

You look, and prove yourself to be pretty foolish, when you are too fucking stupid to parse a sentence. I answered your question, I've clarified it now. Can you please provide an example of an "atheist law"?

quote:



So are you conceding that the gubblemint has created its own religion to create its own dogma (religious laws) to trump the constitution and stomp on peoples rights, then turn right round like you did and claim the dogmatic law they created (cant or shant) be broken for the simple reason godernment almighty created it? running around in circles again I see? Seems you run some pretty twisted trails there cml

I have no idea how a rational person could come to this conclusion. I am, in fact, arguing that wannabe theocrats like you want to subvert the constitution to enforce the establishment of religion even where it injures others.

"The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. ~Thomas Jefferson

All you need to do is pony up a law that you think is "atheist" and I'll explain it to you.

So far though, you have no argument. The only, the single, the sole, concrete example you've given has been shown to be baseless. You need to come up with a better example.

Good luck!

[ED for the typo I found... there may be others]

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissZee

By most of the recognized religions in the world, god knows all and see's all. So if this is supposedly true, I say that god is one hell of a sick bastard if he's sitting up there with a bag of popcorn while watching women and children being raped and abused. I'm quite sure that children call out to god to 'make it stop' when some disgusting, sick and creepy pedophile is doing disgusting things to them. ( i hate those sick wads with a deep passion btw)

And don't tell me that "god has a plan" for all of that, because it only makes him even more disgusting and sick.

Nope, I do not believe that an imaginary man in the sky is sitting up there doing anything. Period.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne



1) No you did not answer either question, instead you argued bigamy is a religious law.

quote:




2) You claim the US godernment almighty passed a religious law in which case you have no choice but to agree that the US godernment almighty established a religion and therefore it goes without saying that any reasonable person is forced to acknowledge and accept in the godernment is in fact a religion unto itself.

quote:



3) YOu must also agree that the US Supreme Court violated the constitution by upholding the US godernments religious dogma.

quote:



4) Only a true dippy dweedle would try and convince us the Mormons are anything but Christian and followers of Jesus Christ since they are the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and are well known for following the teachings of Jesus Christ, not atheists stalin or mao!

quote:



5) FACT: The corporate congress DID BAN bigamy, a legitimate religious principle of the Mormon church, by making a law infringing on their rights and overuling the religious practice of the said bonafide recognized Mormon RELIGION.

quote:



6) FACT: The corporate US Supreme godernment upheld the US godernments BAN and you are again forced to acknowledge that both congress and the courts violated the constitution, unlesws you can show were we the no voice slaves had the opportunity to vote on it. Oops thats right we didnt did we.

quote:



7) WHY> you ask, because a REPUGNANT law is completely and totally irellevant and cannot be 'legitimately' enforced because it is 100% in violation of the constitution and stomps on the religious rights of the Mormons who at that point have no alternative than to go to war against the us godernment to obtain remedy (another right of the citizens that has and continues to be stomped on).

quote:



8) FACT: bigamy is a religious matter

quote:


8a) FACT: Anti bigamy law WAS PASSED

quote:


8b) FACT: IT IS REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION,

quote:


8c) FACT: IT STANDS IN FORCE TODAY!

quote:


You have PROVEN (thank you very much) that:
9) FACT: The US godernment has created and is operating as an embedded religion precisely like jolly ole king ding a ling's have in the past prior to the glorious revolution (that accomplished NOTHING) more than a corporate restructuring that continues to operate in VIOLATION of several constitutional rights, which is ultimately the ROOT or core issue of the thread. That much I assumed you were capable of comprehending.

quote:



Therefore I decided to first establish beyond even the most ridiculous unreasonable doubt used by unreasonable people how your claims ran full circle only to unwittingly prove mine at the end of the day.

quote:



That the us gubblemint is in fact a godernment operating as a religion and ESTABLISHING and exercising ITS RELIGION as an overlay ABOVE and against the variety of religions attempted to be practiced by the people whos religion it was sworn to protect!

quote:


Suffice to say we have established that we agree that bigamy is a religious matter, that it is not within the jurisdiction of gubblemint UNLESS the gubblemint is in fact defacto operating as a godernment ruler outside its legitimate or intended jurisdiction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
1) No you did not answer either question, instead you argued bigamy is a religious law.

Actually I have answered the question, once in a way that only a drooling halfwit could fail to infer, and a second time much more explicitly.

yes and yes.

In addition, not instead, I made the point that bigamy has been a religious law for centuries - The law against bigamy is at the very least in part prompted by ecclesiastical law. Now, there may be utility reasons for the law, and if those were compelling it could be argued as a secular law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

I made no such claim. I expressed a concern that the bigamy law may have been a deliberate attack on the mormons. If the law was passed because mainstream christians wanted to attack the mormon religion, then yes, I think that the US Government broke the establishment clause.

But, even if the government did break the establishment clause, there's no indication (and it absolutely doesn't "go without saying") that the government is in fact a religion unto itself. That's a hopeless leap - The sort of specious nonsense that we've all come to expect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

I'm not sure that the SC can "violate the constitution" - the SC is the ultimate interpreter of the constitution.

That said, if the bigamy law could be shown to be specifically aimed at restricting the mormons, then yes, it would seem to me that it is in violation. But there may be other arguments for the bigamy law which might not be "religious" in nature, and if these arguments are compelling then there is no breach of the establishment clause.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Again, we turn to Jefferson. If the banning was intended to limit the mormans, then yes, it's a breach of the establishment clause.

If the banning was intended to prevent harm to others, it is not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml


Do you understand how your democratic system works? You vote for people to represent you, they vote on the basis of that mandate.



The fact is that the US Govt passed a law against bigamy, and it was upheld by the SC. It is by no means a fact that I should be forced to acknowledge that congress or the courts violated the constitution. Unless you can show clearly that the bigamy law targetted the mormons with the intention of curbing their religious freedom rather than simply seeking to prevent injury to others then you cannot make the claim.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

You don't get to decide what is in violation of the constitution - the ultimate arbiter of that is the SC.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Not a fact. Bigamy is not necessarily an exclusively religious matter - there may be many reasons why you may pass a law against bigamy on the grounds of harm to others.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:


8b) FACT: IT IS REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION,

No, this is actually, "OPINION"

quote:


8c) FACT: IT STANDS IN FORCE TODAY!

Sure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Not fact at all. This is your opinion, and that opinion is not really supported by any of your arguments. You began this thread talking about atheists - and this whole discussion is about a law that I strongly suspect was motiviated by religious feelings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Bless your heart. You're just making shit up now! You started a thread on atheists and got stuck on this religious question. Please show me an atheist law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

No, the government does not operate as a religion in any sane sense of the word.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Suffice it to say, we have established nothing of the sort. I strongly suspect that the bigamy law had a religious motivation, but as I have explained - it may have a secular basis as well.

But this is nothing about atheist laws now is it... perhaps you could answer my question about Jefferson and his view that

"The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. ~Thomas Jefferson

Do you disagree or not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

Cinnamongirl67 Muffiniunment is surely better Its a real thing that, you know, even now I am hatching my evil genius of a diabolical plan, whence in deranged drunken stupors, too take of over planet urth and install my vision of utopia

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissZee

By most of the recognized religions in the world, god knows all and see's all. So if this is supposedly true, I say that god is one hell of a sick bastard if he's sitting up there with a bag of popcorn while watching women and children being raped and abused.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissZee

By most of the recognized religions in the world, god knows all and see's all. So if this is supposedly true, I say that god is one hell of a sick bastard if he's sitting up there with a bag of popcorn while watching women and children being raped and abused.

And what have you done *today* to stop the raping of women and children. Or is it only a convenient belief you trot out to destroy the beliefs of others.

Does your moral outrage (hah) actually extend to doing anything?

I thought not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissZee

By most of the recognized religions in the world, god knows all and see's all. So if this is supposedly true, I say that god is one hell of a sick bastard if he's sitting up there with a bag of popcorn while watching women and children being raped and abused.

And what have you done *today* to stop the raping of women and children. Or is it only a convenient belief you trot out to destroy the beliefs of others.

Does your moral outrage (hah) actually extend to doing anything?

I thought not.

Conversely, what have you done today to stop the raping of women and children?