Author Topic: Are You Atheist? (Read 18484 times)

ayessa · « **Reply #80 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:04:06 AM »

read the title of the thread lorenzo.

it is not abortion. abortion as a topic is only incidental here.

hahaha..

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #81 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:05:02 AM »

Let us stick to the main proposition Lorenzo. You have mentioned that this comment " Religion flies you into buildings" would land you in american jails.

How in any case, you would connect this comment to the case cited by glacier.

hahaha.. The right to self expression.

This is entirely differently. Did he abuse private rights when he made this comment? I think not.

Did he abuse private rights with this comment? It is obvious that he was acting in contempt in the court room.

Here is the scenario, Roy Roger (lol):

1. The pastor and the pro-life supporters were expressing their freedom of free speech and freedom of expression in protesting the abortion clinic
2. However, the violated California Law that prohibits stepping within the 8 feet zone of an abortion clinic.

Clearly, Roy, this is a case where freedom of expression is overruled by state regulation.

With black coffee in my hand (and no sugar),
Lorenzo

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #82 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:06:06 AM »

Finish your medicine Lorenzo, and we will debate after that.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #83 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:07:10 AM »

Can you wait 6 years?

MD/PhD takes 6 years.

lol

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #84 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:07:35 AM »

Anyways,

back to the topic.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #85 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:07:35 AM »

Contempt in court? Do you even understand the meaning of that?

Contempt in court, is when you do not follow rules of conduct in court. You do not respect the court.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #86 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:08:09 AM »

Contempt in court? Do you even understand the meaning of that?

Contempt in court, is when you do not follow rules of conduct in court. You do not respect the court.

LOL

Roy, I thought you said we can debate after I finish.

hahaha. o goodness the irony.

You make me laugh, sir.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #87 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:08:20 AM »

(not at you tho) just laugh.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #88 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:09:19 AM »

Contempt in court? Do you even understand the meaning of that?

Contempt in court, is when you do not follow rules of conduct in court. You do not respect the court.

Yes, when he said 'No' to the judge. That can be considered contempt of court.

lol

why are you asking me, im not a law student.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #89 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:09:52 AM »

Correction, M.D. is not Ph.d.

Hahahal. The professors in Europe would mock you on this.

In order for an M.D. to be of equivalence to Ph.d,

you should have written researches, and not by being a M.D graduate alone.

Dont worry Lorenzo . Im 27 years old, soon to get my Ph.d in a few months, not in 6 years.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #90 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:11:45 AM »

Did the pastor said no to the judge? hahaha

He was jailed because he did not follow the law, not that he did not follow the order of the court.

Atty. Del Lagunay, please explain to Lorenzo, what is contempt of court.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #91 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:11:52 AM »

Roy, I am in a 7 year M.D/PhD dual program.

Sige, good luck on your Ph.D dissertation.

I never denied you were a smart individual.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #92 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:12:55 AM »

Im not asking you Lorenzo. But you should not mention things when you are not sure. You appear to be funny. Little knowledge is dangerous, as they say.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #93 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:14:13 AM »

OK. Let us not be emotional here and go back to the original proposition. ok?

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #94 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:14:24 AM »

I never declared that I know everything, Roy.

I am just a simple student, remember. For me, learning is part of life, and asking and assuming is a way of being corrected.

We are not all born correct and never wrong like you, Roy.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #95 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:14:56 AM »

OK. Let us not be emotional here and go back to the original proposition. ok?

By your lead.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #96 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:15:45 AM »

Tell me now. How can you connect the pastors case, to the previously debated case about this comment " Religion flies you into buildings" ( which, as you proposed, would end one in american jail)

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #97 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:21:41 AM »

Let me argue your last question. First of all I never argued that the statement 'religion flies you into buildings' can lead one into jail.

I did say, however, many pages ago, that it could warrant a civil litigation. As in being sued.

That statement is an example of freedom expression, is it not?
As was the pastor's case. And it is an example of how freedom of expression can be overridden if it violates personal/private rights.

If a poster with such a comment was to be paraded in the United States and attracted the attention of muslims, christians, and the ACLU; I guarantee you, one will have a legal suite.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #98 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:23:38 AM »

Remember what happened to the WBC. $11 Million for punitive damage.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #99 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:25:24 AM »

Roy, how about I invite you to come to the 'states, rent a car and parade that poster on the outer surface of our automobile in downtown NYC.

And see what will happen.

Think of it as a lab experiment. Then you can write a written analysis on the data, the results and your conclusion.

Lorenzo

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #100 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:29:11 AM »

Let me take the merits of both case point by point.

1. The pastor's protest was an intrusion of private rights, the comment on" religion flies you into buildings" does not intrude private rights.

2. "Religion flies you into buildings" is an expression of strong disgust on how religion has become the root cause of war , trouble, misery.. The commenter was safe of religious discrimination, because he did not point out any religious sect. If the comment was, "Religion placed children at danger.", would the catholic church dare to react on this? I guess not.

3. The pastor, was in fact using a religious sect, to lobby his protest invoking the Judeo -Christian dogma of "pro-life". ( which is actually legal)

4. The pastor was few feet, meter away from the abortion clinic. His protests were purely intended to harass private persons.

This is how liberal your laws in the US are Lorenzo. Abortion is even legal. This contradicts your view that US is a conservative society.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #101 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:39:29 AM »

Let me take the merits of both case point by point.

1. The pastor's protest was an intrusion of private rights, the comment on" religion flies you into buildings" does not intrude private rights.

2. "Religion flies you into buildings" is an expression of strong disgust on how religion has become the root cause of war , trouble, misery.. The commenter was safe of religious discrimination, because he did not point out any religious sect. If the comment was, "Religion placed children at danger.", would the catholic church dare to react on this? I guess not.

3. The pastor, was in fact using a religious sect, to lobby his protest invoking the Judeo -Christian dogma of "pro-life". ( which is actually legal)

4. The pastor was few feet, meter away from the abortion clinic. His protests were purely intended to harass private persons.

This is how liberal your laws in the US are Lorenzo. Abortion is even legal. This contradicts your view that US is a conservative society.

1. The comment is an intrusion of private right. Does it not affect sensitive muslims? or civil rights proponents?
2. This statement is an abuse of civil rights and is filled with malice and disrespect towards religious individuals, indirectly targeting muslims. In no way am I a muslim, but I respect their right to worship. That said statement is, thus, grossly an indirect example of religious discrimination. Secondly, in no way can we decide on the actions of the catholic church.

3. That is your own view. The fact is, his argument was that he was utilizing his 1st Amendment Right, the freedom of expression and free speech.

4. This is an example of how freedom of speech, itself, as intrisic as it is, has its own limitations. Constitutional rights themselves, must also answer to the laws of the individual states.

Please digest that. Roy.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #102 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:43:24 AM »

Funny that you mentioned about abortion; abortion is not universal in the 'states.

In the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court ruled that women, in consultation with their physician, have a constitutionally protected right to have an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy—that is, before viability—free from government interference.
(but note that it is only in the 1st trimester; after that, it is illegal to do so)

Note that only 32 states out of the 50 states utilize Parental Consent laws.

Abortion is limited in the United States. And as I said earlier, the USA is far more conservative than Europe.

Some European countries recognize same sex marriages.
The majority of US states do not recognize such unions. Aside from two known states: California and Massachusetts (both of whom are liberal blue states) ; and this is only in a limited context; certain cities only of said states.

Back to the topic

source:http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904509.html

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #103 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:44:52 AM »

Lorenzo,

Was there any class attack because of the comment " Religion flies you into buildings"? Christianity is even no exception to this. Neither did the commenter gave praises to Christianity. It was a general observation Lorenzo. Let me reiterate and I emphasize.... The purported intention of the commenter was to mock religion in general, which caused people to harm. it just so happen that the muslim extremist bombed the twin towers. if it were Christian conservatives , nothing will be changed about the comment.

If I say, ideological, racial fanatiscm and the hunger for power cause people to kill millions of ethnic minorities, would it be racially discriminating for the germans? I think not.

If I say, religion perpetuated child molestation, would this be an insult to Catholiscm? I guess not.

Both cases cannot be compared with each other, just only because they both invoke the freedom of self expression.

The pastors protest was an intrusion of private rights, the comment on " Religion flies you into buildings", is a general opinion on how religion could be an instrument for violence.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #104 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:48:26 AM »

I did not say, that it is legal in all states Lorenzo. You mentioned abortion, that it is legal in Oakland, as cited in the example.

Im am anti abortion Lorenzo. My view on abortion, is purley irrelevant to what we are discussing about religious freedom and the right to self expression

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #105 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:49:27 AM »

I wanted to correct your statement.

As propagating false and incomplete information would do more harm than good.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #106 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:51:41 AM »

I did not say, that it is legal in all states Lorenzo. You mentioned abortion, that it is legal in Oakland, as cited in the example.

Im am anti abortion Lorenzo. My view on abortion, is purley irrelevant to what we are discussing about religious freedom and the right to self expression

I don't care about your personal opinion on the matter, Roy.
I care about the legal aspect; the constitutionality and the totality of the Law.

I want the correct information; so that the Boholanos in here will know of the true stance of the United States and not on one's interpretation.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #107 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:54:44 AM »

There was nothing that is incorrect because I did not claim anything. I was just pointing out that you were contradicting yourself in saying that america is a conservatice country when in fact, abortion as you have mentioned, (not me) is legal in Oakland. I dont even know this. hehehe

If the pastor, was only protesting in the right avenue- in fron of the city council, in main city streets, then he could not have faced lawsuit then he could invoke freedom of self expression.

But to do it, few meters, feet away from the abortion clinic. This was a pure manifestion of an intrusion of private rights.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #108 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:55:35 AM »

That said,

Let it be known that here in the United States, any racist comments, sexual and bigoted comments on one's race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious identification, size, physical appearance, can fall within the grounds for legal suite.

As such can fall into grounds for discrimination. The United States courts are not friendly to those who commit such crimes, as already mandated by the promulgation of The Civil Rights Acts, and the advances established by the NAACP, the ACLU and other watch groups.

Best,
Lorenzo

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #109 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:56:27 AM »

Dont put words on my mouth Lorenzo. Your example provided me information that abortion is legal in oakland.. and please, every one knows that america has federal states, and that each state have different laws.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #110 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:57:16 AM »

This is why such a poster that Ben shared with us, definitely, fall in grounds for legal suite.

Guarantee you that.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #111 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:57:56 AM »

Dont put words on my mouth Lorenzo. Your example provided me information that abortion is legal in oakland.. and please, every one knows that america has federal states, and that each state have different laws.

I can't put words in your mouth, its impossible to physically put words in one's mouth.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #112 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:58:11 AM »

Yes Boholanos and everyone else should know that the contempt of court, is when you dishonor the order of the court. lol

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #113 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:59:17 AM »

like what you always say colloquially even if there is nothing colloquial about ( quoted from and quoted by)

hahahah.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #114 on:** March 06, 2009, 10:00:38 AM »

Ask for a legal opinion or even cite court decisions as jurisprudence.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #115 on:** March 06, 2009, 10:02:24 AM »

congratulations to me. Im a Bohol trusted hero now. thanks to lorenzo for the chat.hahaha

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #116 on:** March 06, 2009, 10:03:35 AM »

still reading wikipedia? huh? what about the copy and paste technology.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #117 on:** March 06, 2009, 10:05:12 AM »

lets party.. im a bohol trusted hero.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #118 on:** March 06, 2009, 10:06:10 AM »

lol, Roy, Roy, is this a tactic of yours on anything? When you loose anything intellectual to add, you digress and add in personal remarks?

Just from observation.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #119 on:** March 06, 2009, 10:06:34 AM »

Matulog na ko ondoy enzo ha? alas tres na diri. dont take things seriously . mabawasan lang imung pagka cute..

Da lagi ka!

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0