Originally posted by laurence82:
You have agreed that propagation is not defined, hence banning evangelism is not unconstituitionalAnd yes you are right, this is something i have been putting across to BIC but he fails to get it
The next affirmative action is to request parliament or courts to ban it, whatever the process is, whether it get results or not
Its not from BIC by simply referring to Oxford English Dictionary, and simply saying banning it is unlawful
laurence,
1. So because the word "propagate" was not defined by the courts or deliberated by the courts we must void that word and say we don't know what it means? Oxford Dictionary can be of no use at all? Even common sense ordinary meaning of that word also cannot be used? Can you tell me what the layman understanding of "propagate" means? Don't have to use the Oxford since apparently you don't like it.
2. Yes, I fail to understand how you can ban evangelism without violating the Constitution as it now reads. You think changing Constitution is like using correction fluid to blanko off Article 15 so simple? Let me just pour cold water on your suggested affirmative action, it won't see the light of day at all so long as we remain a secular state. Mind you, a secular state does not mean being free from religion, but freedom of religion, and that no religion gets to enforce or unduly influence the government.
propagation is not illegal, but insulting and condescending of other religion, are morally wrong and contemptible.
Originally posted by Rooney_07:propagation is not illegal, but insulting and condescending of other religion, are morally wrong and contemptible.
I have no quarrel with that. There are other laws of Singapore that govern religious harmony and protect public order. I think these laws suffice. But what some atheists want is that religion (or maybe their target is just Christianity?) be completely banished from the public arena and be consigned to the private sphere. In short, the only religion they want to see enforced in public is atheism. Of course, the term they prefer to use is secularism as it sounds more politically correct.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:I have no quarrel with that. There are other laws of Singapore that govern religious harmony and protect public order. I think these laws suffice. But what some atheists want is that religion (or maybe their target is just Christianity?) be completely banished from the public arena and be consigned to the private sphere. In short, the only religion they want to see enforced in public is atheism. Of course, the term they prefer to use is secularism as it sounds more politically correct.
it takes 2 ways. you have to understand why this happen? nothing happened for a reason, something must have provoked a reaction isnt it. ask yourself, hands in heart, why this occur? why doesnt they attack other religions instead?
Originally posted by Rooney_07:it takes 2 ways. you have to understand why this happen? nothing happened for a reason, something must have provoked a reaction isnt it. ask yourself, hands in heart, why this occur? why doesnt they attack other religions instead?
Actually if you read the works of the new atheists, they did attack all other religions, but they aimed their cross-hairs at the Christian faith in particular. Here's my reasoning why I think atheists like to gun for Christianity as their preferred target. It is because Christianity offers the greatest intellectual, philosophical and evidential challenge to atheism. You can choose to disagree, but since you ask for my view, there you go.
Of course you will then say it is because Christianity go round evangelism and that's why it should be gunned down and attack. You will be saying that Christians are asking for it. To you, the nicest Christians are probably the dumb ones who keep their mouths shut and don't preach it just because Jesus commanded them to do it. In fact you would probably be happy if no Christian here challenge anything you say! But that's like saying that insurance agents should also be targeted because they keep calling you asking you to buy their products. But why do we not do so? Because that's what it means to exercise tolerance. We know that's their livelihood and so we exercise tolerance and forbearance over the things we dislike and are against. We just bear with them and politely refuse them, that's being gracious too. Tolerance means to say "I don't like you and what you stand for, but I will not deny you the right to do it so long as it is not against the law".
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Actually if you read the works of the new atheists, they did attack all other religions, but they aimed their cross-hairs at the Christian faith in particular. Here's my reasoning why I think atheists like to gun for Christianity as their preferred target. It is because Christianity offers the greatest intellectual, philosophical and evidential challenge to atheism. You can choose to disagree, but since you ask for my view, there you go.
Of course you will then say it is because Christianity go round evangelism and that's why it should be gunned down and attack. You will be saying that Christians are asking for it. To you, the nicest Christians are probably the dumb ones who keep their mouths shut and don't preach it just because Jesus commanded them to do it. In fact you would probably be happy if no Christian here challenge anything you say! But that's like saying that insurance agents should also be targeted because they keep calling you asking you to buy their products. But why do we not do so? Because that's what it means to exercise tolerance. We know that's their livelihood and so we exercise tolerance and forbearance over the things we dislike and are against. We just bear with them and politely refuse them, that's being gracious too. Tolerance means to say "I don't like you and what you stand for, but I will not deny you the right to do it so long as it is not against the law".
wow wow wow, holy cow, stop the claim of being the greatest intellectual etc. again prove it, no use saying, as anyone can say whatever they like. the rest I dun bother reading it cos its besides the point and I dunno what you are seriously trying to convey from your analogy.
again you are selectively replying what you wish to reply to my comments.
Originally posted by Rooney_07:wow wow wow, holy cow, stop the claim of being the greatest intellectual etc. again prove it, no use saying, as anyone can say whatever they like. the rest I dun bother reading it cos its besides the point and I dunno what you are seriously trying to convey from your analogy.
again you are selectively replying what you wish to reply to my comments.
Rooney,
Wow wow, you take offense at my claim that Christianity offers the greatest intellectual challenge to your atheism but yet make no noise about fellow atheists claiming to be Brights?
I see that you have chosen to ignore what I wrote. So be it. Perhaps you are of the view that it is best not to read of things that would rock your stand. Ignorance is bliss they say.
Originally posted by BadzMaro:It is still unconstitutional to do so Laurence...
Doesnt say so...
Originally posted by BroInChrist:laurence,
You should ask the question of conscience for yourself, seriously.
I have already PROVEN what I set out to do when I first replied to you. Let me reiterate that to you. The freedom of religion and to propagate it is enshrined in our Constitution, the supreme law of the land. You wanna ban evangelism it is unconstitutional and will FAIL and it is illegal, unless you first amend the constitution by removing Article 15. I wish you all the best in trying to do so. As it stands right now you have NO case.
You have not proven though
If you think everyone here is so mediocre as to be taken in by Oxford English Dictionary instead of the rightful process in court, you got to think again..
Originally posted by laurence82:
Doesnt say so...
It's called statutory intepretation. The wiki link provides very easy to understand reasonings. The constitution is one of the most important piece of document in Singapore and such limitations is allowed albeit under limitations. Hence an outright ban right now is still unconstitutional even if statute is silent on it. Again Parliament have to expressly make it's intention clear in statute to NOT allow evangelising.
Originally posted by laurence82:You have not proven though
If you think everyone here is so mediocre as to be taken in by Oxford English Dictionary instead of the rightful process in court, you got to think again..
laurence,
You are making an irrelevant accusation, a smear attempt no doubt. I am not suggesting that everyone here is mediocre, so please do not project such mediocrity to others here. However the courts eventually choose to interpret the word "propagate" it will not be contrary to what Oxford, or how any other dictionary defines it. By my lights, I don't think a legal interpretation of a common English word will be such that it negates the ordinary meaning of it in its proper use and context. And what does propagate means? NOT quoting from Oxford (since you apparently think it is mediocre) the definition is
Originally posted by BadzMaro:It's called statutory intepretation. The wiki link provides very easy to understand reasonings. The constitution is one of the most important piece of document in Singapore and such limitations is allowed albeit under limitations. Hence an outright ban right now is still unconstitutional even if statute is silent on it. Again Parliament have to expressly make it's intention clear in statute to NOT allow evangelising.
You are contradicting yourself. If the law is silent, it doesnt mean its unlawful.
And i wholly agree with you, Parliament is the place with the rightful process, not Oxford University Press
Originally posted by BroInChrist:laurence,
You are making an irrelevant accusation, a smear attempt no doubt. I am not suggesting that everyone here is mediocre, so please do not project such mediocrity to others here. However the courts eventually choose to interpret the word "propagate" it will not be contrary to what Oxford, or how any other dictionary defines it. By my lights, I don't think a legal interpretation of a common English word will be such that it negates the ordinary meaning of it in its proper use and context. And what does propagate means? NOT quoting from Oxford (since you apparently think it is mediocre) the definition is
I dont know why you insist on using Oxford English Dictionary and when the law does not say ban on evangelism is unlawful
Even your fellow xtian has pointed out the rightful place of decision is the parliament, and i can add, the courts
Singapore is not ruled by BroInChrist you know..
Originally posted by laurence82:I dont know why you insist on using Oxford English Dictionary and when the law does not say ban on evangelism is unlawful
Even your fellow xtian has pointed out the rightful place of decision is the parliament, and i can add, the courts
Singapore is not ruled by BroInChrist you know..
laurence,
I already even accommodated to your dislike for Oxford and quoted another dictionary, and you still insist on whacking Oxford? My oh my, you are being irrational here.
Anyway, the law does say that the propagation of religion is a freedom protected under the Constitution. I think you really need to read this LITERALLY. Your argument from silence says, well, nothing!
What my fellow Christian is saying is that any call for banning religious evangelism should start with parliament, i.e. the due process. But he has also said that as it now stands, it is not lawful to ban evangelism.
Yes, Singapore is not ruled by me. Fallacy of irrevelant thesis dude!
Originally posted by BroInChrist:laurence,
I already even accommodated to your dislike for Oxford and quoted another dictionary, and you still insist on whacking Oxford? My oh my, you are being irrational here.
Anyway, the law does say that the propagation of religion is a freedom protected under the Constitution. I think you really need to read this LITERALLY. Your argument from silence says, well, nothing!
What my fellow Christian is saying is that any call for banning religious evangelism should start with parliament, i.e. the due process. But he has also said that as it now stands, it is not lawful to ban evangelism.
Yes, Singapore is not ruled by me. Fallacy of irrevelant thesis dude!
Of course
Between Oxford and Supreme Court, who would i choose to help make law decisions?
The law is silent is a common term in law process, again, i suggest if you are so ignorant, dont make such a big fool of yourself
Yes, so if you fellow christian gave due process to courts of law, why are u still here using oxford dictionary and saying by its interpretations banning evangelism is unlawful? You both need to have same stand
Originally posted by laurence82:Of course
Between Oxford and Supreme Court, who would i choose to help make law decisions?
The law is silent is a common term in law process, again, i suggest if you are so ignorant, dont make such a big fool of yourself
Yes, so if you fellow christian gave due process to courts of law, why are u still here using oxford dictionary and saying by its interpretations banning evangelism is unlawful? You both need to have same stand
laurence,
1. Simple question: As it stands now, are we allowed to propagate our religion? Yes or No?
2. That the law is silent on certain words just mean it is that, silent. It does not mean that the meaning of that word is in doubt or that we should not take it in its plain sense meaning provided by OTHER dictionaries, not necessary Oxford.
3. I am not using Oxford to say that banning evangelism is unlawful. I am thumping on the Constitution and telling you that any attempt to ban evangelism is unlawful UNLESS you get the Constitution changed. It's the same like companies. Anything you do that is not provided by the MOA is ultra vires. You wanna do something against the MOA you get it changed first. If you disallow something that is provided by the MOA without getting it changed, you are the one getting into trouble.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:laurence,
1. Simple question: As it stands now, are we allowed to propagate our religion? Yes or No?
2. That the law is silent on certain words just mean it is that, silent. It does not mean that the meaning of that word is in doubt or that we should not take it in its plain sense meaning provided by OTHER dictionaries, not necessary Oxford.
3. I am not using Oxford to say that banning evangelism is unlawful. I am thumping on the Constitution and telling you that any attempt to ban evangelism is unlawful UNLESS you get the Constitution changed. It's the same like companies. Anything you do that is not provided by the MOA is ultra vires. You wanna do something against the MOA you get it changed first. If you disallow something that is provided by the MOA without getting it changed, you are the one getting into trouble.
Is the question relevant? That was not the point
You are the one quoting Oxford, so i should be asking you why are you using this
Yes you did use Oxford as a mean to say banning evangelism is unlawful
If u want to use Articles 15, fine, then because its not defined, i can safely say banning evangelism because the Constitution didnt say its unlawful
Originally posted by laurence82:Is the question relevant? That was not the point
You are the one quoting Oxford, so i should be asking you why are you using this
Yes you did use Oxford as a mean to say banning evangelism is unlawful
If u want to use Articles 15, fine, then because its not defined, i can safely say banning evangelism because the Constitution didnt say its unlawful
laurence,
1. The question IS the point!
2. Why did I quote Oxford? Hey I could have quoted Longman if I wanted. And for the record I even quoted from an internet dictionary. You are just trying to divert the issue here. The word "propagate" has an ordinary meaning, no? You say Singapore courts have yet to interpret that word judicially. OK so? Does that mean we have NO CLUE what that word means? No one can help? We are clueless? So this Article 15(1) as good as not there is it?
3. I didn't say you CANNOT say to ban evangelism. You can say anything you like on anything! I am saying that it is UNLAWFUL to call for a ban on evangelism because of Article 15(1). And if you are consistent with yourself, then you have NO basis to say that you can ban evangelism because the courts are silent on the word "propagate". If I cannot say cannot ban, how come you can say ban, while insisting that the word is not interpreted in court? That's just you engaging in special pleading. Are you even reading me?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:laurence,
1. The question IS the point!
2. Why did I quote Oxford? Hey I could have quoted Longman if I wanted. And for the record I even quoted from an internet dictionary. You are just trying to divert the issue here. The word "propagate" has an ordinary meaning, no? You say Singapore courts have yet to interpret that word judicially. OK so? Does that mean we have NO CLUE what that word means? No one can help? We are clueless? So this Article 15(1) as good as not there is it?
3. I didn't say you CANNOT say to ban evangelism. You can say anything you like on anything! I am saying that it is UNLAWFUL to call for a ban on evangelism because of Article 15(1). And if you are consistent with yourself, then you have NO basis to say that you can ban evangelism because the courts are silent on the word "propagate". If I cannot say cannot ban, how come you can say ban, while insisting that the word is not interpreted in court? That's just you engaging in special pleading. Are you even reading me?
why is the question the point? it doesnt mean so just because u ask, you have to provide rationale why certain questions are asked...even courts do this
But yet you did quote Oxford..so why?
yeah its not unlawful to ban evangelism, i re-read my post, and thats what i said, why are u starting to utter rubbish?
Originally posted by laurence82:why is the question the point? it doesnt mean so just because u ask, you have to provide rationale why certain questions are asked...even courts do this
But yet you did quote Oxford..so why?
yeah its not unlawful to ban evangelism, i re-read my post, and thats what i said, why are u starting to utter rubbish?
laurence,
1. Can you please answer the question? Humour me can?
2. It's just a dictionary I use. I could have jolly well given my own understanding of it, for crying out loud. The dictionary is an authority it its own right. Even the courts when they deliberate on a meaning of a word has to first use the accepted meaning of that word. Any departure of meaning from its ordinary meaning has to be justified.
3. I know what you said. I am saying that any attempt to ban evangelism is unlawful. You can brag about wanting to ban evangelism for all I care. I am telling you that you will not succeed, not while the Constitution as it is now reads. Have you re-read my posts?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:laurence,
1. Can you please answer the question? Humour me can?
2. It's just a dictionary I use. I could have jolly well given my own understanding of it, for crying out loud. The dictionary is an authority it its own right. Even the courts when they deliberate on a meaning of a word has to first use the accepted meaning of that word. Any departure of meaning from its ordinary meaning has to be justified.
3. I know what you said. I am saying that any attempt to ban evangelism is unlawful. You can brag about wanting to ban evangelism for all I care. I am telling you that you will not succeed, not while the Constitution as it is now reads. Have you re-read my posts?
I dot not humour trolls like u
Either dictionary or youself does not help in this case, so why bother?
I re-read all your posts but they are not sufficient to prove that banning evangelism is unlawful
Originally posted by laurence82:I dot not humour trolls like u
Either dictionary or youself does not help in this case, so why bother?
I re-read all your posts but they are not sufficient to prove that banning evangelism is unlawful
Evasive maneuver spotted!
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Evasive maneuver spotted!
Nope
You evaded my question on why should i be answering your question
typical christian, want people to do things their way
Originally posted by laurence82:
NopeYou evaded my question on why should i be answering your question
typical christian, want people to do things their way
Ok then. Thanks for your participation!
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Ok then. Thanks for your participation!
sigh, bloody troll
this forum hasnt seen a good debate from xtians for many years thanks to people like BIC
no wonder this forum gone to the dumps