catholicinsd Posted October 24, 2006 Author Posted October 24, 2006 [quote name='Lil Red' post='1100075' date='Oct 24 2006, 02:41 PM'] could you give us more information about this Van Nguyen? [/quote] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Nguyen"]He[/url] was most famous victim of Singapore's OCD.
Socrates Posted October 25, 2006 Posted October 25, 2006 He was a trafficker of heroin. Let's not treat him like a holy martyr.
Niccolò Posted October 25, 2006 Posted October 25, 2006 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1099729' date='Oct 24 2006, 02:11 AM'] There is no longer proof that their canining method works, that edivdince or the lack there of is now hidden. But even it did lower crime, so would shooting anyone that broke the law. All people have the right to Liberty, and the people of Singapore are being denined that right. [/quote] I could easily turn around your statement about the efficacy of caning to apply to our system of incarceration, it really shows nothing. Define liberty. Corporal punishment is legitimate and no more a denial of liberty than capital punishment or incarceration. Just because the American understanding of liberty might include the "right" to chew gum doesn't mean it has to be foisted on the Singaporese. [quote]Van Nguyen, a faithful Catholic, was taken away from us, becuase the Singaporese government is such a failure.[/quote] And Van Nguyen was convicted of drug trafficking, come now, every person executed is not worthy of veneration. Failure? I'd say they enforce their laws pretty well...
Norseman82 Posted October 25, 2006 Posted October 25, 2006 [quote name='catholicinsd' post='1099704' date='Oct 24 2006, 12:57 AM'] Van Nguyen, a faithful Catholic, was taken away from us, becuase the Singaporese government is such a failure. [/quote] Is this the guy you are talking about? [url="http://www.abc.net.au/news/indepth/featureitems/s1520853.htm"]http://www.abc.net.au/news/indepth/featureitems/s1520853.htm[/url] If so, how is it the Singaporese government's failure that he was a drug courier?
KnightofChrist Posted October 25, 2006 Posted October 25, 2006 [quote name='Niccolò' post='1100538' date='Oct 24 2006, 09:35 PM'] I could easily turn around your statement about the efficacy of caning to apply to our system of incarceration, it really shows nothing. [/quote] Our system of incarceration has nothing to do with of the efficacy of caning. The statement was made that caning lowers crime or works for "them", something like that. I was only pointing out that can not be proven because that edivindince is hidden to the public. [quote name='Niccolò' post='1100538' date='Oct 24 2006, 09:35 PM'] Define liberty. Corporal punishment is legitimate and no more a denial of liberty than capital punishment or incarceration. Just because the American understanding of liberty might include the "right" to chew gum doesn't mean it has to be foisted on the Singaporese.[/quote] Is truth or liberty realitive? Is one mans right another mans crime? You have no care that a man who is "caught" with a pack of gum, cannot paid the 500 dollar fine, is then caned? Is that ok to you because thats just some poor singaporese, because his understanding of "liberty" is not yours, he does not have the same God given rights as you do? His are different than yours?
Guest T-Bone Posted October 25, 2006 Posted October 25, 2006 Would you drop the gum thing? Being able to chew bum is not a "basic human right."
KnightofChrist Posted October 25, 2006 Posted October 25, 2006 (edited) Being caned, having your skin split and broke open by a piece of wood multiple times for not being able to pay a fine for chewing gum is an injustice. Why do some fail to see that. Also, living if fear of getting prison time for upsetting the racial and religious harmony, because you tell someone that is not catholic the catholic church is the one and only true church is also an injustice. But hey I guess I'm just a crazy American that actally believes Liberty is not relative and God given rights are given to all by God, even if a unjust goverment sees or respects that or not. Edited October 25, 2006 by KnightofChrist
KnightofChrist Posted October 25, 2006 Posted October 25, 2006 [quote name='T-Bone' post='1100662' date='Oct 25 2006, 02:49 AM'] If gum is illegal, why even posses it? [/quote] Gum is not the point, injustice is the point. If preaching the truth of Christ' Church is illegal, why preach it?
Guest T-Bone Posted October 25, 2006 Posted October 25, 2006 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1100663' date='Oct 25 2006, 01:53 AM'] Gum is not the point, injustice is the point. If preaching the truth of Christ' Church is illegal, why preach it? [/quote] Apples and oranges... A ban on possesion of gum is not unjust. It is known in Singapore that possesion of gum is illegal. If one chooses to posses gum, knowing full well the consenquenses of his actions, a fine of $500 is perfectly just. If one knows he is unable to pay the fine, maybe he shouldn't possess gum. A ban on preaching the truth of Christ's Church would be unjust.
Anomaly Posted October 25, 2006 Posted October 25, 2006 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1100663' date='Oct 25 2006, 02:53 AM'] Gum is not the point, injustice is the point. If preaching the truth of Christ' Church is illegal, why preach it? [/quote]DOH. Because the moral implications between owning gum and preaching Christianity don't even compare. Because for you Catholics, the Catechism explains the moral order. You are morally obliged to obey Civil Athorities unless a GREATER moral principle requires you to do otherwise. What moral principle is violated by obeying the law to not own or chew gum? What moral principle is violated by obeying the law to not teach or witness about coming to know God?
KnightofChrist Posted October 25, 2006 Posted October 25, 2006 [quote name='Anomaly' post='1100684' date='Oct 25 2006, 06:48 AM'] DOH. Because the moral implications between owning gum and preaching Christianity don't even compare. Because for you Catholics, the Catechism explains the moral order. You are morally obliged to obey Civil Athorities unless a GREATER moral principle requires you to do otherwise. What moral principle is violated by obeying the law to not own or chew gum? What moral principle is violated by obeying the law to not teach or witness about coming to know God? [/quote] Again it is not about the gum but the injustice in Singapore and lack of liberty. And I was not comparing the two as if they were equals. Being caned for not paying a fine is an injustice. Being put in prison for preaching Christ is a greater injustice. The moral principle that is violated is the will of God, which Christ gave us... "Go therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."
homeschoolmom Posted October 25, 2006 Posted October 25, 2006 Is it the caning or the punishing that's bugging you? If someone were put in jail for 30 days for not paying their "gum fine" would that be okay with you?
KnightofChrist Posted October 25, 2006 Posted October 25, 2006 it would be better... Caning someone sounds so "old testament", why not just cut off a theifs hand if your going to be caning people.
Anomaly Posted October 25, 2006 Posted October 25, 2006 wah, wah, wah. They cane people and it's no secret. It's also meant as a deterrent. There is no correlation between caning for gum and caning for preaching. Get off it. Of course there are limits on liberty, otherwise there is anarchy. And people have to qualify the exercise of their personal liberties with the rights of the general public as well. We live in a society, not as a bunch of individuals with only ourselves to think about. Your example for caning for breaking a civil law and not being able to pay a $500 fine is pointless. Caning must not be that bad that you wouldn't or couldn't pay $500 to avoid it. Bad things happen to stupid and irresponsible people. It's the way of the world.
Domine ut Videam Posted October 25, 2006 Posted October 25, 2006 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1100774' date='Oct 25 2006, 10:24 AM'] it would be better... Caning someone sounds so "old testament", why not just cut off a theifs hand if your going to be caning people. [/quote] If it really was that bad and that oppressive people wouldn't live there. The singaporese (sorry i don't know what to call them ) people would revolt. I am not saying that caning people is right i am just asking that this be looked at logically. The people of a land can only withstand injustice for so long and then they revolt. There has been no unrest, no revolts, no coups. People actually [u]move there[/u]. Companies [u]move there[/u]. If it was struggling and there was signs of unrest, i don't believe they would do this. We were just talking about this in my Supreme Court class because we were talking about how America has very little morals and ethics anymore and one of the reasons why this is is becuase there are very few consequences or shame brought upon people when they do bad things in the US. Obviously this is not the case in Singapore. That is why it was brought up. Now.....is Singapore doing things right.....I don't know.....but we are not either. So who's to say who's right or wrong?
Winchester Posted October 25, 2006 Posted October 25, 2006 [quote]Well you do not have to believe, but you also do not have to be rude, leave the jokes for the lame room.[/quote] The ironic post award goes to...
catholicinsd Posted October 26, 2006 Author Posted October 26, 2006 The OC government of Singapore has unjustly killed so many people, I seriously think the UN should look into it.
Winchester Posted October 26, 2006 Posted October 26, 2006 I'm still trying to work up some tears for a heroin trafficker...wait, hang on...nope.
Guest T-Bone Posted October 26, 2006 Posted October 26, 2006 [quote]The OC government of Singapore has unjustly killed so many people, I seriously think the UN should look into it.[/quote] [quote name='Winchester' post='1101337' date='Oct 25 2006, 11:08 PM'] I'm still trying to work up some tears for a heroin trafficker...wait, hang on...nope. [/quote] So far we have a heroin trafficker being hung, and an anonymous person caned for being unable to pay a fine for possesion of gum in a country where it is well known that gum is illegal. Where's the problem?
Recommended Posts