Bad experience at the Hong Kong International Airport!

[vietboy]

[quote="absolutecarla"]

I really think it's because I'm a ts. There were other filipinos who were in line before me and the guy let them through except for me. I was dressed really decently and I speak very good English. I was being assertive to the guy and I still kept my composure but when he had me sent to the immigration office I wanted to f-ing curse him.

How was he certain you were a TS? Your name or your sex on your ID? Not by looks obviously

It's the sex on my passport, it still says M and my name there is still my "male" name. There is no way for me to change that here in the Philippines. The laws here are strict and well because I live in a very closed minded catholic country.

There are many TS women in the US who got the hell out of the Philippines by becoming a nurse and getting recruited to work in the United States. Filipina nurses are in demand, you will potentially make a decent salary and get legal status. Importantly, in the US, you can change your documents to reflect reality. And you might even meet an American doctor who'll sweep you off your feet.

[Paladin]

I live in a very closed minded catholic country.

Yep, me too, Its called the USA. And its entire government and laws are based 100% on the ideals and morals of a sick ideology called christainity. So I hear ya

The US is NOT a catholic country. It is christian though. I like it here. You would perhaps prefer to live in saudia arabia?? Or perhaps north korea, where this no religious practice allowed. I hear they are lookig for a new CEO of the country. The job come with perks such ad $600 bottles of cognac which you can drink while watching your citizens starve. Bottom line, if you don't like it here, you don't have to stay.....

[SarahG]

It is christian though.

It is?! I didn't get the memo on that one.

Was that before or after we altered the pledge to have "under god" in it?

[Paladin]

It is christian though.

It is?! I didn't get the memo on that one.

Was that before or after we altered the pledge to have "under god" in it?

OK, one of the ammendments reads "congress shall pass no law favoring or establishing one religion over another" or something like that. Go look it up if you like, but it does NOT state that there is to be a separation of church and state.

And, our country was still founded on Judeo-Christian values and Freedom Of religion is NOT the same as Freedom FROM religion. For that you can still live in cuba china or north korea. Cuba is still taking applications for a CEO too, but they have an inside man you'd have to get past first... :P

wow, my post count is currently at 472, that was the displacement in CI of my 68 DVC (before I had it overhauled)

[SarahG]

It is christian though.

It is?! I didn't get the memo on that one.

Was that before or after we altered the pledge to have "under god" in it?

OK, one of the ammendments reads "congress shall pass no law favoring or establishing one religion over another" or something like that. Go look it up if you like, but it does NOT state that there is to be a separation of church and state.

And, our country was still founded on Judeo-Christian values and Freedom Of religion is NOT the same as Freedom FROM religion. For that you can still live in cuba china or north korea. Cuba is still taking applications for a CEO too, but they have an inside man you'd have to get past first... :P

I think you answered that one for me

What makes our country great is that it isn't a christian based country, no religion is superior over the rest.

Not even the one whose followers founded the system itself.

Although I will agree that, historically, theory and reality are two different things-- I take that to mean one of those "do as I say, not as I do" scenarios.

We almost did not get the LOC because our politicians thought no one would want the books of an atheist (Jefferson- who afaik never actually said he didn't believe in God).

[bolo_111]

Holy shit Carla,if you showed up at my door step i'd welcome you with open arms...remember the world is full of assholes and on average people meet at least 2 every day

Damn, you're right. I only met two people yesterday and they were both assholes

Anyway, Op, thanks for posting your travel horror story.
there are some real bastards in airport uniform these days.
I have never been to HK but Beijing was fvcked.

[NYBURBS]

OK, one of the ammendments reads "congress shall pass no law favoring or establishing one religion over another" or something like that. Go look it up if you like, but it does NOT state that there is to be a separation of church and state.

And, our country was still founded on Judeo-Christian values and Freedom Of religion is NOT the same as Freedom FROM religion. For that you can still live in cuba china or north korea. Cuba is still taking applications for a CEO too, but they have an inside man you'd have to get past first... :P

What??? It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". However, let me reiterate that part "respecting an establishment of religion" which is very much a prohibition on having any state sponsored religion (hence the separation). I think where you're getting mixed up is the argument that it should not apply to the states even through the 14th amendment. However, you would not get very far with that argument either.

Oh and it most certainly is also a freedom FROM religion. Sorry to break this news to you but a lot of the people who theorized many of the legal principals we base our constitution on thought the idea of a guy in the sky to be a joke (aka they were atheist or at the very least agnostic). The idea is that you are free to believe what you wish and so am I, but we should not use the government to enforce or distribute any religious belief system. In my opinion organized religion is a bad joke with a history of ignorance and fear mongering in an effort to control people.

[Paladin]

OK, one of the ammendments reads "congress shall pass no law favoring or establishing one religion over another" or something like that. Go look it up if you like, but it does NOT state that there is to be a separation of church and state.

And, our country was still founded on Judeo-Christian values and Freedom Of religion is NOT the same as Freedom FROM religion. For that you can still live in cuba china or north korea. Cuba is still taking applications for a CEO too, but they have an inside man you'd have to get past first... :P

What??? It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". However, let me reiterate that part "respecting an establishment of religion" which is very much a prohibition on having any state sponsored religion (hence the separation). I think where you're getting mixed up is the argument that it should not apply to the states even through the 14th amendment. However, you would not get very far with that argument either.

Oh and it most certainly is also a freedom FROM religion. Sorry to break this news to you but a lot of the people who theorized many of the legal principals we base our constitution on thought the idea of a guy in the sky to be a joke (aka they were atheist or at the very least agnostic). The idea is that you are free to believe what you wish and so am I, but we should not use the government to enforce or distribute any religious belief system. In my opinion organized religion is a bad joke with a history of ignorance and fear mongering in an effort to control people.

You suffer from what I have found out affects a vast number of people, especially younger ones, that being a lack of knowledge of the intracacies of the English language.

One of the nuances that seems to sail far over your head is that when multiple clauses are present in an imperative sentence, the latter clauses take precedence over the earlier ones. In this particular case the clause prohibiting the free exercise thereof, is MORE important than the earlier clause. Same thing with the 10th ammendmentwhere the people are mentioned AFTER the states.

What have they been teaching in schools the past 20 years???

[NYBURBS]

You suffer from what I have found out affects a vast number of people, especially younger ones, that being a lack of knowledge of the intracacies of the English language.

One of the nuances that seems to sail far over your head is that when multiple clauses are present in an imperative sentence, the latter clauses take precedence over the earlier ones. In this particular case the clause prohibiting the free exercise thereof, is MORE important than the earlier clause. Same thing with the 10th ammendmentwhere the people are mentioned AFTER the states.

What have they been teaching in schools the past 20 years???

Actually I study this full time for my degree, and after reading your post I can tell you get your sad little misinformed position from listening to religious zealot neo-cons. First of all you didn't even know what the Amendment stated, with your "congress shall pass no law favoring one religion over the other" lol. Secondly if one piece of the Amendment was more important than the other then it would make pointless the anti-establishment inclusion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." was and is the guard against state sponsored religion (the thing you said does not exist in the constitution). "...or prohibit the free exercise thereof..." speaks to your right to worship whatever imaginary friend you wish, or none at all. One does not trump the other in that format. There is also the legal principal that all parts of a statute or law must be given effect or purpose. Class for today is concluded, I hope you now feel a little less ignorant.

PS- Intricacies is how you spell it, not "intracacies" k thx. I know you old folk resist technology, but a simple spell checker would work wonders for you.

[Paladin]

You suffer from what I have found out affects a vast number of people, especially younger ones, that being a lack of knowledge of the intracacies of the English language.

One of the nuances that seems to sail far over your head is that when multiple clauses are present in an imperative sentence, the latter clauses take precedence over the earlier ones. In this particular case the clause prohibiting the free exercise thereof, is MORE important than the earlier clause. Same thing with the 10th ammendmentwhere the people are mentioned AFTER the states.

What have they been teaching in schools the past 20 years???

Actually I study this full time for my degree, and after reading your post I can tell you get your sad little misinformed position from listening to religious zealot neo-cons. First of all you didn't even know what the Amendment stated, with your "congress shall pass no law favoring one religion over the other" lol. Secondly if one piece of the Amendment was more important than the other then it would make pointless the anti-establishment inclusion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." was and is the guard against state sponsored religion (the thing you said does not exist in the constitution). "...or prohibit the free exercise thereof..." speaks to your right to worship whatever imaginary friend you wish, or none at all. One does not trump the other in that format. There is also the legal principal that all parts of a statute or law must be given effect or purpose. Class for today is concluded, I hope you now feel a little less ignorant.

PS- Intricacies is how you spell it, not "intracacies" k thx. I know you old folk resist technology, but a simple spell checker would work wonders for you.

Well it's obvious that you are not studying it enough. That, and you jump to conclusions faster than a rat in an oven.

I may not be able to type, and don't have the constitution memorized, but you are suffering from such a severe case of cranial-rectal inversion that you can probably see what you ate for dinner.