Islamic terrorists/jihadists kill innocent people virtually every day in various countries.
So, the takeaway is that when you let Islamic terrorists/jihadists into your country, you let violent death into your country.
I’m *very sure* bordering on metaphysical certitude our current national leadership is taking this seriously and will address it after they stop Global Warming.
Andrew_KY,
Can’t say that my take-away is quite yours. But I an dubious about whether Obama will take this seriously.
Lucia,
He won’t take it seriuosly; over 7 years, he has demonstrated clearly that he will not address the problem of Muslim extremism at its root, and seems quite willing to accept continued atrocities. Heck, he won’t even acknowledge that the terrorists are uniformly Muslims!
.
He will do nothing. He will focus the remainder of his time in office beating the drum on climate change and destroying the US economy via stupid environmental regulations which accomplish nothing.
.
Nice that Hilliary is already promising to continue Obama’s ‘legacy’.
Obumbles had just announced that ISIS was under control.
OTOH, Donald Trump has rocketed to > 40% approval by likely Republican voters.
Data rules.
I am looking forward to finding out more about the terrorists who committed these acts.
Where they newly arrived to France?
Or were they long time residents?
I am sure there are lessons to be learned which we can apply to our country and which all of Europe may apply to their Syrian refuge situation.
IMO, a quick and severe military strike against ISIS would do wonders for President Obama’s approval, and possibly by extension favor for Hillary Clinton. It needn’t actually accomplish much over the long haul.
It’s not going to happen though, for which I am duly grateful.
RickA,
I am looking forward to finding out more about the terrorists who committed these acts.
Me too. So far I’ve found this claiming that at least one of the terrorists was probably a Syrian refugee.
It may be facile, insensitive, and definitely not politically correct; but in instances like this, one is almost certain to know at least one of the names of one (or more) of the people involved, and BEFORE it happens.
Mohammed.
Mark Bofill (Comment #140704)
November 14th, 2015 at 1:46 pm
“IMO, a quick and severe military strike against ISIS …”
Since the root problem is Islam, specifically fundamentalist Muslims who interpret the Koran literally, the military action will eventually have to be against the Mullahs who foment this sort of violence and that promulgated by ISIS, also to include any substantive supporters of the militants. This is because Islam is a form of government and a social system, as well as a religion.
Once the Mullahs see that it is their head on the chopping block, they might change; but if not – c’est la vie.
Jim2,
Interesting. I worry that even were that to be accomplished, new upstart Muslim warlords would pop up to fill the void. My impression is that that’s what Mohammed was in the first place.
Mark:
Thanks for the link. That is bad news, because it is a worst case scenario for Europe. I wonder how many other terrorists are coming to Europe (and Canada and the USA) from Syria?
Mark. The Japanese changed their way of life after WWII, so I think it is possible for the Muslims also. I’m not suggesting nuclear weapons, but military action against the Islamic de facto government would have to be sharp and decisive.
jim2: That is exactly what ISIS wants; direct military intervention by the western powers. Sadly, it is also probably what is needed.
.
ISIS wants to engage “Rome” (the west) near a town called Debiq, near Aleppo. This is to fulfill a prophecy of the apocalypse.
.
ISIS will continue to attack the west, to try and force them to put boots on the ground. Expect more, much more, of the same as happened in Paris.
. http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
Jim2,
I hope so.
RickA,
Me too.
Thanks for your responses.
Jim2,
I wonder if what is needed is a unifying Muslim leader to outlaw such things. A universal benevolent Caliphate or something, if such a thing is conceivable. It’s not much different from what you were saying, except that (I think) they need some central figure. Like a Muslim Pope.
~shrug~
This particular threat has thousands of documented, verifiable casualties and refugees. The UN has been attached to various forms of this problem for decades. There is no reason to believe that it will not be with us for future generations. Where is weepy Bill McKibben’s lament that his grandchildren will live in a world of carnage that could have been dealt with in his lifetime?
Mark Bofill (Comment #140713)
November 14th, 2015 at 6:17 pm
“I wonder if what is needed is a unifying Muslim leader to outlaw such things”
That would be wonderful were there a way, but I’m not optimistic.
Jim2,
Yep, pretty unlikely, considering how much the various flavors (sunni, shi’a, what have you) like each other.
It is, as first noted in 1996, long before Sept11, a clash of civilizations: 21st century western pluralism versus middle ages Islam. The Saudis still cut off hands and heads and still flog people to death, all in the public square. Stoning an unfaithful wife or sister, or beheading an unfaithful husband remain socially acceptable in many muslim countries, even where those are formally illegal. Murdering French cartoonists over drawings of Mohammed is not a freedom of the press issue, it is the more fundamental issue of what cultural values will control the behavior of individuals. There is no room for compromise here: either we allow Islam to drag us back to the horrors of the middle ages, or we do not. So far, Western leaders have not had the courage to resist, nor even the common sense to see what is actually going on and take steps to reduce the broad cultural threat Islam presents….. like keeping a million Syrians from taking up residence in Europe. All rather frightening.
Obama has actually been following what amounts to the libertarian foreign policy in the Middle East. This is what happens when the principal power in the world withdraws its hand from an area, creating a power vacuum. Perhaps the original intervention in Iraq was a mistake and the aftermath was handled poorly. But that’s water under the bridge. You have to deal with the world as it is.
Once you start meddling, you can’t just stop and leave. Conniving at the assassination of the Diem brothers in Viet Nam was the action that made it morally impossible to just pick up and leave.
Obama has actually been following what amounts to the libertarian foreign policy in the Middle East. This is what happens when the principal power in the world withdraws its hand from an area, creating a power vacuum. Perhaps the original intervention in Iraq was a mistake and the aftermath was handled poorly. But that’s water under the bridge. You have to deal with the world as it is.
.
Spot on.
.
Invading Iraq may have been a mistake.
.
Leaving Iraq was definitely a mistake.
.
One problem if each was a mistake, each move was favored by a large majority of the US population at the time!
.
So Democracy may not be good for foreign policy.
.
Now, we’re faced with what to do going forward.
.
How can we trust the populace to determine which leader to choose to make the most important decisions going forward?
I read in various places (for example here) that originally it was a widespread requirement that one own land in order to vote. Of course, in those days one generally needed to be a white male as well.
Not advocating for this, but it bears mention that in the early days it wasn’t universally held to be a good idea that everybody ought to be able to vote.
~shrug~
Me personally, I’ll stick with the dumb decisions made by the majority. In my view, the alternative is to end up with dumb decisions made by a minority. There’s no fix for stupid.
Andrew_Ky – I once had an Indian (east) working for me. I had just interviewed another Indian when he came into my office and asked “Is he a Muslim?”. I indicated I did not know as we are not allowed to ask that question.
.
He said “You had better find out. We already have a Muslim working here. We cannot have two.”
.
“Why?” I asked
.
He responded, “Anywhere in the world there are two Muslims, there is war. Get a map. I will show you.”
I think we need to make a distinction between an IslamIC and an IslamIST. An IslamIC believes there is only one true god and one true prophet. An IslamIST believes this also but also believes that this belief gives them the right to force this belief on others. It is ISlamISM we are at war with not Islam, and like most ‘ISMs my observation (yes an anecdote not data) that outspkoen followers of an ‘ISM tend to chose an ‘ISM for the way it supports their beliefs rather than for any inherent appeal of the ‘ISM — so as usual it is all about power, and so often expressed as power over women.
Surely Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the other salafist regimes should be banned from attending the COP21 as they implicitly and explicitly fund ISIS and the numerous salafist terrorist organisations through the pretext of “charitable” organsations.
Andrew Kennett,
Yes, and the vast majority of Muslims do not participate in violence. But my personal observation is (based on conversations with a few dozen Muslims in the Middle East and Turkey) that many or even most think 1) Israel must be destroyed and all jews killed or driven away, 2) certain personal behaviors/choices which are socially accepted in Western countries should be legally prohibited everywhere, 3) laws must be ‘consistent with’ the principles given by the Koran. It is a very short step from those views to the horrors regularly perpetrated in the name of Allah. The horrors of Christendom from the middle ages to the Inquisition were just as inexcusable as, or even worse than, the horrors perpetrated today by those professing to act in the name of Allah. We can do nothing to change the past, but we have an obligation to not allow Islam to destroy Western culture and institute religious rule over all. And that is what they very clearly want to do.
SteveF,
I’ve only known Egyptian Muslims, and only three of those reasonably well. I don’t think they’d agree with any of those ideas you listed, or if they did, they certainly gave a different impression. One of them was fairly devout, far as I could tell.
~shrug~
Mark,
Consider it was the Muslim Brotherhood that won office in Egypt when there were free elections. The vast majority of Muslims (>75% in most muslim majority countries) favor enshrining Sharia law as national law (Pew polling interviews with >30,000 Muslims around the world). There is less universal support (but still very widespread support) for cutting off of hands and heads, floggings, stoning, etc. for infractions. The more devout tend to adhere to the letter of Sharia. Too many Muslims implicitly or explicitly support barbarism as a matter of religious faith, and we ignore this reality at out peril.
Russia and France will have to do the dirty work to help put Humpty Dumpty [Assad] back together again.
It would seem that only Shia rule is likely to put the lid back on the Sunni [Isis] problem in the short term.
America having facilitated the breakdown will need to put up with the egg on it’s face and accept real politic.
The loss of life in such a scenario is likely to be horrific and Sunni support from other sectors of the world, Indonesia and Saudi may see Isis as an entity move to these less regulated areas.
Give them all I pads and let them blog is the best solution longterm.
It’s probably worth noting that countries that have more totalitarian regimes tend to have a higher Muslim support for Sharia law. I believe this correlation is a result of distrust in the legal process of the (broken) central government rather than by an increase in devoutness of Muslims in these countries:
Sharia law is enforced by religious courts rather than by secular courts. And while punishments may seem extreme by western standards, I think this is still probably seen as a more fair system than what the people face from the central government in these regimes:
I think we tend to be rather blind to and accepting of the extreme corruption and acts of barbarism inherent in totalitarian governments in these areas. Torture and even mutilation is a normal part of detention in many of these countries. Detention without evidence of crimes is the norm, as is confiscation of property and wealth and “redistribution” to members of the totalitarian regime.
A world where you are begin judged harshly but fairly by Sharia judges must seem like quite a much better and attractive alternative.
My view is the underlying driving force here is totalitarianism. I see this totalitarianism in Middle East countries as mostly being propped up by Western dollars for oil. A reduction in our dependency on Middle Eastern oil is in my opinion would be a major step towards a reduction in radicalization in Arab nations.
I think the focus on the types of governments in the Middle East is misplaced. The problem from the Western point of view is that fundamentalist Muslims want to kill infidels – which is most people in the West. Don’t get distracted by other issues.
Carrick,
My view is the underlying driving force here is totalitarianism.
This is (of course) the view of the liberal political class in the West, and is sadly mistaken. Even where there is democracy, Sharia is very popular.
.
The page you link to has Pew’s left-leaning politics obscuring the actual data. This is what I was referring to: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/ The portion of Muslims who favor corporal punishment (cutting off hands, heads, flogging, stoning to death, etc.) is very high in many countries. And the very worst of offenses against Sharia? A Muslim choosing to change their beliefs…. the sentence for which is death by beheading. IMO, the charming beheading videos on offer from the ‘Muslim faithful’ are the DIRECT result of their religious beliefs. Nice though they think it’s good to toss homosexuals off roof-tops; pure savagery needs some variety, or it might become boring.
About 20 years ago I was contracted to work as a technical consultant in Saudi Arabia, and ended up spending several months there, spread out over a few years. When I applied for my Saudi visa at the Embassy, I had to sign a document explicitly accepting that I would be imprisoned, flogged, or killed for a laundry list of offenses against Sharia once I entered in Saudi Arabia. They were not joking…. I was invited to view corporal punishment displays in central Riyadh; I declined. IMO, it is extremely, even dangerously, unwise to make excuses for any of this, or to suggest it is not ‘as bad as it seems’… it is exactly as bad as it seems.
.
By the way, during the same period I was consulting regularly in Israel, and I had to have two US Passports, so that my visits to Israel would be hidden from the Saudis. After a few years of traveling in the region and getting to know the people, I concluded there would never in my lifetime be any resolution to conflict in the Middle East. The beliefs are immutable, intractable, and exclude the possibility of meaningful compromise. IMO, it is a waste of time and money to do anything but kill those who are a threat to innocents.
SteveF:
This is (of course) the view of the liberal political class in the West, and is sadly mistaken.
No, I think it’s just a less black and white view on a complicated problem than the one-dimensional perspective people like you are trying to shoe-horn this problem into.
Even where there is democracy, Sharia is very popular.
“Very popular” is a subjective assessment of course. As the data shows, support varies widely. Support is greater in countries with a breakdown in civil government. I include Russia in this category by the way. There we have state controlled media, a de facto president for life, and regions of the country where you have to hire bodyguards to travel safely.
The page you link to has Pew’s left-leaning politics obscuring the actual data.
Sorry but this is a ridiculous comment. Nothing you’ve said about the data contradicts the summaries of the results.
About 20 years ago I was contracted to work as a technical consultant in Saudi Arabia, and ended up spending several months there, spread out over a few years.
This of course amounts to appeal to anecdote.
But ironically you’ve picked a totalitarian regime where widespread torture, human rights abuse, and capricious enforcement of secular law are the norm.
My point wasn’t that Sharia law doesn’t contain barbarous punishments (it does). Nor that I agree with Sharia law.
My point is is the convenient ignoring the deplorable treatment (in this case) of the Saudi people by their government. A government that the US helps prop up and a government that international dollars for petroleum goes a long way towards maintaining this status quo.
While it’s a favored but somewhat trite political theory on the right that Islam has always been this radical, the truth is this radicalization of the Middle East occurred around the turn of the 20th century with the Wahhabi movement, which itself appeared as a response to heavy handed European imperialism in the Muslim parts of the world. (The regions where we see radicalization were the Middle East and Southeast Asia… e.g., Indonesia.)
I have always advocated for a realistic perspective to guide policy. I don’t think what amounts to xenophobic American perspectives are any more helpful to understanding the roots of Islamic terrorism than equally distorted perspectives from the American left.
So, Carrick – do you deny the Koran instructs Islamic believers to kill infidels?
Jim2 – It depends on which time period of the Koran the believer wishes to take as literal. There are two separate and distinct themes within the Koran which correspond to where Mohammad was (Medina or Mecca) and his position in society at the time.
The writings from the two periods fundamentally end up in conflict with each other.
Kan – since you are familiar with the Koran, please provide references in the Koran where the conflicting themes, with respect to the killing of infidels, occur.
While it’s a favored but somewhat trite political theory on the right that Islam has always been this radical, the truth is this radicalization of the Middle East occurred around the turn of the 20th century with the Wahhabi movement, which itself appeared as a response to heavy handed European imperialism in the Muslim parts of the world. (The regions where we see radicalization were the Middle East and Southeast Asia… e.g., Indonesia.)
.
Wahhab was born in 1700, so trying to invoke European Imperialism is gross error by a couple of centuries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism#History
.
It is also gross error to ignore the history of Isalm where there is no distinction between religion and politics. Thus, the Koran includes prescriptions for warfare, death to infidels and religious conversion, and yes for the entire globe.
.
Earliest Islam was coincident with conquering Arab armies. Though interestingly, according to historian Tom Holland, when the Arab armies first conquered Palestine, there were no relics even mentioning Muhammed or Islam for decades, indicating that the religion may have been either invented, or appropriated by the Arab armies to cement legitimacy.
Regarding Imperialism, should also recognize that the land of the Umma and the land of the Ulema ( believers and disbelievers ) was once Europe ( Spain – Andulusia and Austria ).
Europe is seen ( amongst the Osama types ) as rightful Moslem provinces. And of course, Israel an an untenable loss.
Carrick,
My point is is the convenient ignoring the deplorable treatment (in this case) of the Saudi people by their government.
Sorry, there are a lot of things you know, but in this case, you don’t know what you are talking about. The huge majority of the Saudis are actually pretty well treated by their government (been there and seen it). It is the millions of Muslim foreigners (Pakistanis and others) in the country as indentured servants/laborers who live wrenched lives (seen that too). There is some mistreatment of Saudi nationals…. the most fanatic of the fanatic (like Osama bin Laden) who object to the political control of the House of Saud. They want to bring down the royal family and replace it with even more repressive political control by a Wahhabi regime, with radical mullahs making all decisions… you know, the ‘death to Israel and the United States’ crowd. There is nobody looking to institute a pluralistic, Western style democracy, and unless you want a very rich and very dangerous state that supports terrorism instead of Saudi Arabia, you should hope the House of Saud survives.
.
I would suggest that you spend some time in the region to gain some perspective…. On second thought, no, too dangerous for Westerners. So long as your naive view of the problem controls Western policy (which I fear will be for a long time) the terror attacks in the west will continue.
There are important distinctions between Chrisitianity and Islam.
Christianity rose underground, out of power ( until Constantine ).
Islam rose as THE power.
Christianity rose from abstract third party accounts ( centuries after the supposed facts ) which made it easier for Christians to take the Bible figuratively.
The Koran is supposed to be the ‘word of god’ which makes it more difficult to stray from literal meaning.
Interesting recent story about Carbon dating of a Koran in an English museum that pre-dated the time of Mohammed.
Of course, there’s no historical evidence that Christ even existed ( writings all centuries after the fact ).
Mad Max rules in the middle east, Illiterates in charge of modern technological weapons.
Overpopulation and greed [ group self preservation] drive the conflicts.
With more widespread exposure to the real world religion will lose it’s grip but secular rather than religious reasons for indulging in conflict will then occur , I guess.
As individuals we are all fairly powerless.
The Saudis face the same problem as the Romans, Steve F.
Powerful autocrats threatened both by growing understanding of the “wrongness” in their population base and by growing recognition of their wrongness in some of their ruling elite.
Any changes will be ruthlessly opposed [lions and Christians/ Witches/ Democrats].
There is no guarantee that good must win, ever.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #140718) :
Problem is that politician/military don’t learn from their mistakes and are making the same mistake over and over again by enforcing regime change, siding with the wrong enemy and simply do not understand the local geo-politics. It’s still a left-over from the neocons who were heavily influencing the foreign politics 20-30 years ago. Most are gone now, good riddance, but their ghosts are still haunting the poltical corridors.
As for Islam, it’s still a religion firmly planted in the dark medieval times. It never went through the Age of Enlightenment as Christianity did. Most muslims in Europe are not radical but do see the Koran as their only authority, which is not an issue for now, but with their increasing numbers (their birthrate is MUCH higher) it will be a big issue in 30-60 years. Not recognizing the problem now will result in a problem that cannot be resolved anymore. I expect from my government that they protect my family and me which includes to see what will happen in the future and the risks that come with it, but unfortunately I do not see any politician (nation or EU) with enough REALpolitik abilities, like Helmuth Schmidt, to cope with the religious problems that ARE going to take place in Das Abendland.
I think Steve is right in describing the Islamic world as, by and large, “medieval,” in the sense of its political philosophy: it never experienced the amazing burst of rational enquiry into the forms of and the rationale for government that flourished in the Western world during the 17th and 18th centuries (Locke, Montesquieu and at least a dozen others), eventually leading to the establishment of democratic societies in Britain, France, and America. It is true that this kind of enlightened discussion only became possible after the twin forces of the Renaissance and the Reformation broke the Medieval compact between political and religious powers, and so to that extent it may be fair to “blame” Islam for the current situation; but the problem, IMO, is really more cultural than merely religious.
If you look at Western history, for instance, you can see that Prussia was never a democracy, and religion did not have anything to do with it; it was just untouched by the democratic revolutions, it remained an authoritarian state throughout the “age of Enlightenment,” and the consequences made themselves felt deep into the 20th century (in the first world war, and the second one that followed from it). Japan was also, basically, a medieval, authoritarian society until the late 19th century, again with tragic consequences for the world of less than a century ago. And let’s not even get started on Russia, etc.
I am not very familiar with Islam as a religion, but, based on my interaction with Muslim people, it seems to me that it does not have to be a violent religion, any more than, say, Christianity. There are elements of violence in there, as there are in the Bible, but it’s perfectly OK to agree (implicitly or explicitly) to regard them as a legacy from another time and culture that can be safely ignored today. But for that to happen on a large scale in the Islamic world, the culture itself has to change, and violence itself needs to become increasingly unacceptable.
This does not happen overnight. Again, our own history shows that human societies (even fairly “advanced” ones) can tolerate or turn a blind eye to extremely high levels of violence as long as they are somewhat limited in scope. The Romans were a highly civilized, rational bunch, but look at the circus. Or look at the U.S. Southern states during slavery, or even in the early 20th century, when lynching was still a more or less routine occurrence…
julio,
……but the problem, IMO, is really more cultural than merely religious.
Sure, it is more than just religion. The problem is that separation of government and religion has never been broadly accepted in the Muslim world; the strong support in most Muslim majority countries for barbaric Sharia law reflects that. Even more troubling is the complete rejection of pluralism and the rejection of personal choice about religion. The entire Muslim world seems to me incapable of getting past intolerant middle age philosophies….. and middle age behaviors.
Unfortunately, we have evolved with a strong propensity to organize as a group. It’s easy to understand the ‘clan’ ( kinship theory ) or race ( though I in no way condone racism ). But we can achieve jihad like zeal based on religion, politics, gender, regionalism, sports team, and yes even global warming ( those advocating violent end or locking up others who fail to share their view ).
Turbulent Eddie: too true!
Steve, I guess I was trying to say (in at least partial agreement with Carrick) that the current conflict can also be viewed as another instance of the conflicts between the democracies and the totalitarian regimes (or ideologies) that have been the recurring theme throughout the twentieth century. And this, too, has a difficult solution because democracy does not “just happen” in a country or culture that has never really even considered it as a notion. Luckily, much of the world is nevertheless stumbling in that direction. Unfortunately, there is a lot of stumbling to go through yet… and many middle-eastern societies haven’t even taken the first step.
SteveF:
“Murdering French cartoonists over drawings of Mohammed is not a freedom of the press issue, it is the more fundamental issue of what cultural values will control the behavior of individuals. There is no room for compromise here: either we allow Islam to drag us back to the horrors of the middle ages, or we do not. So far, Western leaders have not had the courage to resist, nor even the common sense to see what is actually going on and take steps to reduce the broad cultural threat Islam presents….. like keeping a million Syrians from taking up residence in Europe. All rather frightening.”
.
It is not “rather” frightening. It is frightening as hell. I’m starting to think that my children will have to flee Europe in their lifetime. The problem is not so much a lack of common sense and courage to resist. The root problem as I see it is that common sense and courage to resist is routinely regarded as racism, xenophobia, fascism and what not. Opinions like yours could most certainly not be printed in a Swedish newspaper.
.
There is no limit to the number of refugees/migrants we will allow into the country, the Swedish PM has said. At the same time violent crimes have surged with the huge influx of mainly muslim immigrants to the country. Immigrants or children of immigrants are responsible for almost all rape assaults and Sweden is now the rape capital of the West.
.
The terrorists are not isolated criminals. They swim in a sea too. The problem lies with Islam as it is currently practised and understood. Journalists never, ever ask muslims how they regard and understand the appalling islamic texts that the jihadist use to justify their acts. Instead we usually hear from a couple of scarved women that islam is certainly not terrorism, it is a religion of peace and love etc. I think those difficult questions are not asked by journalists because they suspect they won’t like the answer or the non-answer that will reverse the intended message to the public that Islam is not the problem.
.
Journalists ask Christian fundamentalists questions like that all the time, and rightly so. It is vital that Muslims receive equal treatment. Now.
Niels,
There is no limit to the number of refugees/migrants we will allow into the country, the Swedish PM has said. At the same time violent crimes have surged with the huge influx of mainly muslim immigrants to the country. Immigrants or children of immigrants are responsible for almost all rape assaults and Sweden is now the rape capital of the West.
Time for Swedes to elect different representatives, so that you get a PM with different plans. Charges of ‘racism’ are beyond wrong, they are a refusal to accept reality.
.
I am always astounded that my country’s airport TSA harasses a grandmother from Minnesota (probably of Swedish descent!) traveling with her granddaughter, in exactly the same way as they harass a 25 year old Egyptian man traveling with a 26 year old man from Algeria. It’s nuts. It’s stupid. Grandmothers from Minnesota don’t blow up airplanes. Instead of real security (Know who the hell is getting on the plane and why!) we get an expensive but politically correct charade of ‘airport security’ which is incapable of actually finding hidden weapons and bombs ~95% of the time. (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-us-airports-allowed-weapons-through-n367851)
.
“They swim in a sea too.”
More like a swamp… and one that needs to be drained.
Another problem, in my opinion, is gun control. It’s magical thinking that preventing ordinary citizens from bearing arms makes everyone safer. Declaring an area a gun free zone does not make it safe, it makes it a shooting gallery for terrorists.
julio,
…another instance of the conflicts between the democracies and the totalitarian regimes (or ideologies) that have been the recurring theme throughout the twentieth century.
The problem is that Islam is itself a totalitarian ideology that objects, as a matter of faith, to the existence of Western pluralistic civilization, which it considers inherently evil. Islam is a big part of why democracies in Muslim majority countries are fragile at best.
DeWitt,
” Declaring an area a gun free zone does not make it safe, it makes it a shooting gallery for terrorists.”
Of course. The chance of success for a terrorist in Dallas is a bit lower than in New York or Boston.
jim2:
So, Carrick – do you deny the Koran instructs Islamic believers to kill infidels?
How about lets start by talking about the Old Testament and its condoning of violence and cruelty…
The question isn’t whether “medieval” texts encompass barbaric acts we no longer embrace today, but whether we’ve moved beyond those acts.
Sorry, there are a lot of things you know, but in this case, you don’t know what you are talking about. The huge majority of the Saudis are actually pretty well treated by their government (been there and seen it).
Your eyes can only see what they are allowed to see.
If by huge majority, you mean anybody who hasn’t been arbitrarily and indefinitely detained without a trial, then you certainly are right. The most reliable number for that is around 30,000 political prisoners at any point.
You need to open your mind and do a bit of catch up reading about Saudi Arabia. If you read official Saudi Arabian press, of course, everybody is well treated. But what do you expect for a carefully coifed and government controlled image?
I agree of course about the deplorable treatment of foreign nationals. Torture and even maiming is not uncommon as forms of discipline of foreign workers.
There is some mistreatment of Saudi nationals…. the most fanatic of the fanatic (like Osama bin Laden) who object to the political control of the House of Saudi
Actually, at the moment, there are roughly 30,000 political prisoners in Saudi Arabia. (Saudi Arabia of course admits to none.)
And I guess you aren’t aware of the oppressive treatment of the Shia minority.
I would suggest that you spend some time in the region to gain some perspective…
I think a much better way is to do some research, rather than just trusting what my eyes see, especially in countries where what foreigners are allowed to see is carefully controlled by the government.
Ask them if you can visit Ulaysha next time you go. See how that works out for you.
Steve,
The problem is that Islam is itself a totalitarian ideology
Ye-es, I admit that it may function that way for some authoritarian, repressive governments, or for groups that are trying to establish such governments. But it does not have to function that way. It certainly does not function that way for the millions of muslims who live peacefully in America today, and it does not have to function that way for the refugees flooding into Europe either.
It is true that (1) all massive influxes of immigrants create social problems anywhere (but that should be a separate topic), and (2) that these particular immigrant communities may provide a fertile environment for home-grown terrorists, but then, so could German-American, or Japanese-American, communities provide opportunities for spies or saboteurs back in the day.
The smarter approach, IMO, is to welcome these people, and win (at least a majority of) them over, so that they will, themselves, keep an eye on their most troublesome elements for you. There is no question in my mind that, whatever the short-term risks, this is the only viable long-term strategy. The only way to get Islam to evolve into a faith that can engage constructively with modern-day Western culture (such as it is, but again that would be another topic) is to get it out of the toxic environment of the Middle East. Those immigrants are, in that respect, a golden opportunity.
“How about lets start by talking about the Old Testament and its condoning of violence and cruelty…”
Let’s finish with the New Testament, the entire basis of Christianity, founded by one of the worlds most famous hippies who would rather die than commit any kind of violence…
There is simply no comparison here. Christians have no excuse for committing violence regardless of whether or not they claim it from the Old Testament. Christians didn’t need to “move beyond” the teachings of Jesus to reject violence and barbaric acts, they merely had to follow them. This is where Islam runs into problems.
“How about lets start by talking about the Old Testament and its condoning of violence and cruelty…”
This is the old “lets smear Christians when Muslims kill people”.
Pathetic.
Andrew
Is religion the problem?
.
If so, history doesn’t indicate that we will be past the problem any time soon – religion has persisted even into the ‘Age of Reason’.
.
And religion may be just a subset of our deeper genetic predispositions for irrationality.
It’s painfully obvious what a catastrophic mistake it was to leave Iraq.
.
Patreus had ‘flipped’ the Sunni tribesmen and as he put it ‘reconciled the reconcilables, so we knew who the marginal remaining ‘irreconcilables’ were.
.
Patreus did this by bribing them with both cash and the promise of some power in the new government. When we left, the Shia gov immediately reverted to excluding and abusing the Sunni which left fertile ground for ‘flipping back’ and supporting the extremists – Daesh ( the proper Arabic for isis ).
.
Generals, especially Patreus, knew and predicted the result of leaving. But we did it anyway, because in part, that’s what Obama was elected to do.
.
It was the popular thing to do but it was catastrophically wrong.
.
There’s no guarantee that staying would have prevented Daesh but after flipping, the extremists were marginalized without popular support. Leaving left the vacuum and growing popular support for Daesh from the unempowered Sunni.
I bet there are quite a few regular posters to this blog who believe in a sky fairy. Unfortunately, the sky fairy that IS believe in is telling them to kill people. Maybe your sky fairy tells you to have bread and wine on a Sunday. Maybe it tells you to wear a funny hat.
Sky fairies are insane. Hopefully yours only tells you to do innocuous things.
The problem is that Islam is itself a totalitarian ideology
.
Yes, when a book is the ‘word of god’, it’s as total an authority as we can conceive of. And when any one who questions the text is subject to death, there doesn’t seem much room for moderation.
.
The New Testament, on the other hand, is a bunch of letters, Psalms, and abstract stories, written a century or two after Jesus was supposed to have existed, some about things which may or may not include god/jesus.
.
Blessed are the cheese makers.
.
Not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturer of dairy products.
TE,
The Psalms are Old Testament.
Andrew
James Evans,
I bet there are quite a few regular posters to this blog who believe in a sky fairy.
We have a mix of atheists and theists here. I happen to be one of the atheists. I find your use of “sky fairy” distasteful. I can’t prevent your using it elsewhere, but I prefer you not insult people here.
More generally: I think that sort of comment makes us atheist look small minded, petty, rude and stupid. For what it’s worth: I know plenty of theists who are not stupid.
Beyond that: Many of those who believe in Islam don’t believe in killing and maiming the innocent. Sadly, being religious does not inoculate one against wanting to kill and maim. Neither does being an atheist.
If you want to criticize IS, go ahead. But don’t suggest that somehow all those who hold religious beliefs are tainted by IS’s flaws.
Andrew_KY:
This is the old “lets smear Christians when Muslims kill peopleâ€.
Pathetic.
Andrew
No, it’s lets be honest about the true state of affairs, something you’re obviously not very interested in.
Part of the story about recent jihadist activity is whether or not it is ‘about religion’.
.
We forget about how small religions are to start and how different sects arise, even within established religions.
.
For the jihadis, it very much is a matter of religion, whether or not what they practice is true to the larger observations.
.
The key is probably, like Patreus demonstrated in Iraq, reconciling the reconcilables, co-opting the moderates, and in the process, marginalizing the crazies. But is it too late?
The Psalms are Old Testament.
I stand corrected.
Turbulent Eddy:
It’s painfully obvious what a catastrophic mistake it was to leave Iraq.
About all of the time I have for today, but I totally agree here.
“But don’t suggest that somehow all those who hold religious beliefs are tainted by IS’s flaws.”
I would suggest that, to an extent, all those who hold religious beliefs are tainted by IS’s flaws. Sorry about that.
Sorry also that you think I’m petty, rude and stupid. I’ll get over it though.
James,
You appear to be specifically suggesting theists are tainted by insanity. That is insulting and I believe incorrect.
If you are merely suggesting they are “tainted” by belief in a deity– of course it is trivially true that theists believe in a deity. Whether that is a ‘flaw’ that amounts to a “taint” is a matter of opinion. I don’t happen to believe in a deity. But I think it’s a bit much to make it sound like those who don’t share my view are some how nutso.
In fact: it is rather stupid to go around suggesting people who do not sure one’s religious views are either tainted or insane. Making such suggestions can cause outsiders to suspect you are a bit unhinged yourself.
James Evans, you might as well suggest that anybody who holds any kind of belief is tainted by irrationality. Certainly I see many more irrational beliefs on display in any internet forum, on any given day, than I do in church every Sunday, and most of them have nothing to do with religion at all.
But that’s OK, that’s the way we are 🙂 As long as we are aware of it…
*I* would suggest that when a religion lasts centuries, as Islam has, it must have some survival value. Natural selection acts on cultural constructs as it does on everything else.
In fact Islam has worked very well, and continues to work very well, for millions and millions of overwhelmingly peaceful people. It encourages stable families, almsgiving, and a social order in which hospitality is one of the highest values.
The main reason we in the Western world have a problem with it now stems from a series of political blunders that we collectively happened to make in a region of the world that is predominantly muslim. (Going back to the breakup of the Ottoman empire after WWI.) This is not to cast blame gratuitously, because at this point it hardly matters who started what; the point is that it was politics (and the fight for territory, influence, and resources), that created the current mess that is the Middle East. Religion played a minor role (as in, it just happened to be there, although I admit it does provide a convenient rallying flag to the various fighting factions).
You could pretty much see the same (or worse) things happening at the site of any post-colonial disaster (central Africa, anybody?)
Julio: “The smarter approach, IMO, is to welcome these people, and win (at least a majority of) them over, so that they will, themselves, keep an eye on their most troublesome elements for you.”
Well, sounds good and smart, but that’s not what is happening in the real world. Anyone daring to publically question central tenets of Islam, like the infallibility of the warlord Muhammad or the status of the Koran as the literal word of Allah will have to live the rest of their lives under police protection. Think Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Salman Rushdie.
There are moderate Muslims but they are moderate in spite of the Koran and the texts about the life of Muhammad.
.
Yes DaveJR, that was a stupid comment. Muhammad didn’t exactly reject violence or teach his followers to love their enemies. The terrorist will find ample support in the Islamic texts. The sharia law with all its rules about how to live your life, the haram/halal distinctions, also makes it harder for Muslims than for other groups to integrate into the host communities.
Based on the experiences of the last 30 years of Muslim immigration in Europe, I’m not optimistic. A golden opportunity? Win Muslims immigrants over? To what? Christianity?Democracy and the rule of law? No, I don’t see that happening. Europe is wasting its rich cultural legacy at a breathtaking pace.
julio,
I wouldn’t say it started with the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. Read T.E. Lawrence. The Arabs were a mess long before WWI. Which is not to say that Churchill drawing straight lines on a map to define new countries regardless of population distribution didn’t contribute to the problem.
Niels,
As I said earlier, any large influx of immigrants into a country will create problems. The U.S. has seen this with wave after wave. But I think it’s always the case that the troublemakers are always a minority, and usually a very, very small minority, even when they happen to be very visible.
Very few Italian immigrants to the U.S. went into organized crime, but obviously some did. Relatively few Mexican immigrants (or children of immigrants) join gangs, but obviously some do. Accepting immigrants is a challenge for any society, but the key thing to remember is that the vast majority of people who move to another country are just looking for a decent chance to live a peaceful life. If we acknowledge that, and try to help them achieve that, there’s no reason why they should become our enemies, religious or otherwise.
julio
The main reason we in the Western world have a problem with it now stems from a series of political blunders that we collectively happened to make in a region of the world that is predominantly muslim.
I think this is largely true.
At least some sects of all religions “of the book” whether Christian, Moslem or Jewish have at times resorted to war. Some are described in the old testament. I suspect all sufficiently popular religions have done so. Atheists have also resorted to war. While it is true that one can find material in the Koran to justify jihad and I have absolutely no doubt that that material is used by some to justify and inspire jihad, it’s not at all clear that that feature is what is the root cause the current popularity of extremely violent sects. It seems much more likely that violence is caused by other features — in fact features we saw in areas like the Balkans, in Ireland when I was in HS in Europe during the beginning of the reformation. The New Testament doesn’t actually tell anyone to kill infidels, heretics or anyone. Yet we saw plenty of bloodshed with Christians killing heretics and infidels at different times. (Sack of Bezier anyone? Examples abound.)
My view is that it is the case that people will from time to time and for various reasons resort to violence. In those cases many will find and embrace whatever “philosophy” they can to justify their desire to resort to violence. But often the root causes are real or perceived poverty, hardship, injustice or– and this is not to be forgotten — greed and so on. It ends up a self-feeding cycle.
that created the current mess that is the Middle East. Religion played a minor role (as in, it just happened to be there, although I admit it does provide a convenient rallying flag to the various fighting factions).
Yep. The problem started a while ago. It’s not clear who exactly is to blame most– even if one were to try to figure that out. It’s also not especially useful to pinpoint who is to blame.
I have no idea how this can be sorted out. If I truly knew, I would run for US President and sort it out myself. I probably wouldn’t get elected– but the fact is it’s just as well. Because I have no freakin’ idea how to sort this out. Ireland seems to have mostly sorted itself out for some time now. No idea exactly how that even worked– but things were bad when I was in high school– bombings, terror etc. Those weren’t Moslem’s putting bombs in garbage cans back them. (I am, btw, by DNA more Irish than anything else. So this isn’t anti-Irish stuff going on here.)
Lucia,
At least some sects of all religions “of the book†whether Christian, Moslem or Jewish have at times resorted to war.
And, conversely, at some time or another all of them have managed to live in peace with each other. I always find it highly ironic (considering the current sentiment towards Israel in the Muslim world) that, during the Middle Ages in Spain, the Jews typically found themselves more at ease in the Muslim-occupied areas than in the Christian areas. But generally speaking, for long stretches of time, everybody got along. The problems always begin when somebody has something that the other person wants.
(And, yes, very rarely a religious fanatic comes along and starts trouble for “no reason.” But most of the time there is a solid material reason.)
Just in case I am giving the wrong impression–I do believe the ISIS gang are borderline-insane fanatics, that much is obvious. But, in large measure, their fight appears to be political–they started out fighting for a disenfranchised group (the Iraqi Sunnis, under the recent Shia governments). And yes, you may say Sunni vs. Shia, there’s the old religious conflict again–except that it probably has as little to do with religion as the Irish conflict ever did. Once upon a time there was a tribe here, and then another one, with slightly different customs, moved in and subjugated the first, and that’s what got the ball rolling.
And then we stepped in.
Religions are very different. Unlike Christianity, Islamic doctrine holds within an easy justification of theocracy and persecution.
David,
I think you need to be a bit careful when claiming things are truly different. In different times, some Popes certainly wanted to rule with an iron fist; they lacked sufficient power to do so. In the Holy Roman Empire and France, the king was crowned by they Pope, nominally indicating they were somehow beholden to the Pope. Judaeism in the Old Testament could be characterized as “theocracy” what with the whole sanhedrin thing.
The New Testament does happen to contain language that suggests a break between church and state (“Render unto Ceasar”.) But it’s hardly as if that’s generally interpreted to mean the church and state should be separate. It is merely that one does pay to taxes to the secular government that existed.
Currently few Christian sects try to promote theocracy. But I wouldn’t say Christianity itself contains elements that are “anti-theocracy”.
If it actually did contain such elements and they really worked, our Founding Father’s likely wouldn’t have felt the need to include the freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights. As it was, they knew different sects of Christians did want to have government favor or even impose religion. To the extent that a particular Founder or member of the voting citizen at the time either did not agree with a majority religion that might”win” that battle or merely thought that impulse didn’t result in better government, they tended really, really, really want insist on individuals having freedom of religion. That meant: no theocracy allowed.
Carrick,
“Your eyes can only see what they are allowed to see.”
.
Please. Nobody was controlling what I got to look at. I was accompanied, if accompanied at all, by foreign nationals (US, British, Germans, Indians) who I worked with daily, and who had no dog in the race. We went wherever we wanted to go (OK, not inside the Saudi royal family compounds), and no government officials were aware of what we were doing or seeing. These folks regularly ‘escaped’ for a few drinks at the various western embassies whenever a party was being held. There was no love for the Saudi regime among my regular associates, and some loathing among the more religious Christians.
.
“The most reliable number for that is around 30,000 political prisoners at any point.”
I do not doubt that number. Considering that there are about 30 million Saudis (not counting foreign nationals), and considering the constant incitement by radical clerics calling for revolt against the House of Saud, having only 1 in 1000 in jail seems quite remarkable… or perhaps a commentary on the low level of courage most people can muster.
.
“You need to open your mind and do a bit of catch up reading about Saudi Arabia. ”
My mind is both open and has quite a bit of on-site knowledge of Saudi Arabia. I suggest that you rely much less on second (or third, or fourth) hand accounts… by people with a political axe to grind. Maybe you think Hillary’s accounts of Saudi Arabia are more credible.
.
“And I guess you aren’t aware of the oppressive treatment of the Shia minority.”
I am quite aware of the political/religious conflict between the Sunni majority and the Shia minority. Of course, it works both ways… depending mostly on who has political power. Yes, the Muslim faith condones (even demands) brutal treatment of anyone considered an apostate. After all my earlier comments about the brutality, inhumanity, and even madness of the Muslim faith, what on Earth would make you think I was not aware of this barbarism? (This is not a rhetorical question.)
The problem is that separation of government and religion has never been broadly accepted in the Muslim world;
.
It’s something we take for granted.
.
Somehow, my classroom history education never seemed to include the Peace of Westphalia which really seemed to be the origin of the implementation. 500 years ago. Unfortunately it took the Thirty Years war and the Eighty Years war to come to this conclusion.
. All parties would … have the right to determine the religion of his own state…
. Christians living in principalities where their denomination was not the established church were guaranteed the right to practice their faith in public during allotted hours and in private at their will. ( Muslims and Jews were not afforded the same deal, but time expanded the concept ).
. General recognition of the exclusive sovereignty of each party over its lands, ( the nation ).
.
Unfortunately, this did not translate to the Islamic peoples contained within the Ottoman Empire at that time.
Lucia,
“Many of those who believe in Islam don’t believe in killing and maiming the innocent.”
.
Of course. It is the <0.1% most extreme who are the immediate problem. A larger percentage, even if only a small minority, willing to turn a blind eye, or willing to accept/condone the atrocities, are a bigger problem. The culture must change, or there will be endless conflict.
julio,
“Just in case I am giving the wrong impression–I do believe the ISIS gang are borderline-insane fanatics..”
There is no boarder line about it, they are insane fanatics; on at least this we can agree. The bigger question is how to effectively deal with insane fanatics. That is where I think the West is failing to address reality.
Lucia,
“I have no idea how this can be sorted out. If I truly knew, I would run for US President and sort it out myself.”
.
Well… I would vote for you. 😉
.
There are no solutions in the Middle East, because there is no serious interest in resolving the disagreements, on any side. All we can do, as best we can, is keep bad guys from killing people. Some day (who knows when, a century?) Muslims will adopt more modern “secular” views which allow people to draw whatever cartoons they want, and believe whatever they want….. but I am not holding my breath.
.
In the mean time, we need to defend ourselves against the crazies and do our best to save innocents.
So Carrick dodged my question by bringing up Christianity and its misdeeds. Someone on another blog brought up the question if a Westerners life is better than a Muslim one.
I think we have to be clear on something. For whatever reasons, some very good I’m sure, tribalism has gotten a bad name. But under some circumstances, tribalism is a good thing.
I submit this is one of those times. The militant terrorists have forced our hand – arguments about the history of this aside. We in the West now have to band together and stamp out militant Islam. Our way of life, our form of government(s), our traditions, our heritage, and the lives of our friends, family, and countrymen depend on it. We have band together and become a tribe – where it is better to kill them than to let them kill us. Ugly, but true, IMO.
I believe that is where we are.
lucia (Comment #140763)
” Many of those who believe in Islam don’t believe in killing and maiming the innocent. Sadly, being religious does not inoculate one against wanting to kill and maim. Neither does being an atheist. ”
Most of those who believe in Islam do believe in killing and maiming the guilty.
Witness the punishments handed out to people for thieving and adultery.
This defines the difference between the two religions in the modern era [Christians did dunk witches and burn people at the stake].
The answer to killing and maiming appears to be kill and maim them first.
Personally I would think that 20,000 dollars and a free trip to the USA to spend it over 2 weeks for every afghan family would have been far cheaper than the war after 9/11 and by inculcating “bad” American values and aspirations would have done more to make them move to a modern viewpoint than occupying them.
The recent tragedies are the despairing efforts of a beaten group. Think Kamikaze, think IRA, think Palestine. They are dying being attacked by everyone and are spitting in the face of the world as they die.
angech said:”The recent tragedies are the despairing efforts of a beaten group.”
The actions of the Japanese after WWII are the actions of a beaten group. I’m not seeing that in the Middle East yet.
Re: SteveF (Comment #140782)
Well… I only said “borderline insane” because if I called them insane I would be absolving them of moral responsibility, and I’m not going to do that.
I agree that (unfortunately) we have been put in a position where we may just have to go to war… on the ground… again. It seems to be the only think that works, at least temporarily: you hit us, we hit you harder. It’s either that, or abandon the Middle East entirely, just get altogether out of there. Which is always a tempting proposition, except there’s Israel…
BTW, I agree with you also that “politically correct” screening at airports looks ridiculous. (But, just to play devil’s advocate, if they stopped doing it how long would it take the terrorists to figure out that they can kidnap a Swedish grandmother’s family, and force her to smuggle explosives past the checkpoint?)
Re: SteveF (Comment #140749)
I am always astounded that my country’s airport TSA harasses a grandmother from Minnesota (probably of Swedish descent!) traveling with her granddaughter, in exactly the same way as they harass a 25 year old Egyptian man traveling with a 26 year old man from Algeria. It’s nuts. It’s stupid. Grandmothers from Minnesota don’t blow up airplanes.
What if it were a 26 year old man from New York state and a 25 year old man from Illinois? Would you have a problem with them being searched exactly the same way as the men from northern Africa?
The President’s response to his inadvertent (but excellent) Baghdad Bob impression does not bode well for sound policy or rational government.
I hope no one minds if, during this difficult period, I ask a standard statistical question pertaining to my son’s ACT Aspire scores from the eighth grade assessment last spring that I just received.
..
My son scored in the top 5% in science, the top 8% in math, the top 13% in reading, the top 16% in writing, and the top 27% in English. I would like to assume that all students took all 5 tests. That being the case, what % ranking would my son have, compared to other students across all 5 subjects?
….
If someone can answer this it will improve my knowledge of basic statistics and help my son get the correct bonus for his test scores. Thanks for any help that can be given.
JD
Jim2 – I am not a Koran scholar, but here is one example.
Surah Al-Muzzammil (73:1 – 19) is generally acknowledged to have been written during the Mecca period. In this Surah, God tells Muhammad to leave the deniers to God, for they will be punished on judgement day.
Specifically 73:11.
“And leave Me with [the matter of] the deniers, those of ease [in life], and allow them respite a little.”
In the Surah’s the Me is God, as he is speaking to Muhammad.
Jim2 – I am not a Koran scholar by any means. I have just looked into a few things, but here is one example: Surah 73:1-19 are generally accepted to have been written during the Mecca period (where Muhommad was not in power). Surah 73:20 is believed by some to have been written later in Medina.
.
In Surah 73:1 -19 – God tells Muhammad, after waiving the restrictions on night prayers, (1-7) that he is to leave the deniers (non-believers) to God as they will be punished on judgement day.
.
73:8 “And remember the name of your Lord and devote yourself to Him with [complete] devotion.”
.
73:9 “[He is] the Lord of the East and the West; there is no deity except Him, so take Him as Disposer of [your] affairs.”
.
73:10 “And be patient over what they say and avoid them with gracious avoidance.”
.
73:11 “And leave Me with [the matter of] the deniers, those of ease [in life], and allow them respite a little.”
.
73:12 “Indeed, with Us [for them] are shackles and burning fire”
.
73:13 “And food that chokes and a painful punishment -”
73:14 “On the Day the earth and the mountains will convulse and the mountains will become a heap of sand pouring down.”
73:15 – 19 then refer to the biblical story of the Pharaoh as an example.
JD Ohio
That being the case, what % ranking would my son have, compared to other students across all 5 subjects?
I think we don’t have sufficient information. It’s quite likely the scores on tests are positively correlated with each other. That is: Kids who score in the top 5% of math will tend to get relatively high scores on English (etc.) and vice versa. So all we can really say: Higher than 27% but lower than 8%. At best we could create a estimate based on assuming the scores are all uncorrelated.
Lucia,
” At best we could create a estimate based on assuming the scores are all uncorrelated.” By uncorrelated, I am assuming that you mean something like flipping coins. If someone could do that I would appreciate it. On a different Ohio assessment test, I contacted an education employee and the results seemed to be weakly correlated. Something like a top 10%, top 7% and top 5% would result in a general score of something like the top 3%.
I get your point and will try to call the testing service and see if they can help me. Doubt that they will though. Would like a rough estimate of where my son stands in general.
Thanks,
JD
I guess the most accurate way to get the overall ranking would be to add up the raw scores and see where my son stands.
JD
Lucia – there is still some rabble rousing going on in Northern Ireland. When I was there in 2013 a van was captured by police right before a large celebration in downtown Derry began with a machine gun setup to fire out the back doors.
My cousin (2nd) gave me some insight as to what has been going on in Northern Ireland. The Republic of Ireland has basically been subsuming Northern Ireland. The electricity, the hospitals, the education system, etc have all become intermingled. In the mid 90’s the Republic of Ireland built barns on every farm – including the North.
When you drive across the border the only thing you notice is the speed limit is in a new format, and the gas is in a new currency. I do not even think there was a sign on the road.
Kan selective quoting of the Koran is not helpful.
The issue is the screeds of the benevolent and all knowing advising the followers to do whatever it takes to infidels and unbelievers and a certain group.
All infidels are guilty and deserve punishment.
Doing so brings extra rewards in heaven.
Which raises the question of why a benevolent and all merciful person/entity could ever want to punish anyone for what he caused to exist in the first place.
Re: angech (Comment #140797)
Kan selective quoting of the Koran is not helpful.
angech,
jim2 asked if such references could be produced.
JD Ohio,
Yes, that is what they do with the composite: it is the average of all the individual ATC tests scores (maximum value on each is 36), rounded up to the next whole number. If I have found the right numbers, the individual scores are 30 (science), 28, 29, 29, and 24 (english), giving an average of 28, which is about 90th percentile. His profile is typical of an engineer, not a lawyer…. sorry. 🙂 Most colleges and universities publish information about the average and range of ATC and SAT scores for their incoming freshmen, so you and he can compare and get a feel for where he would be accepted. Unless your son is a qualified minority, he probably can’t get into the Ivys, MIT, or CalTech, but there are lots of good schools where they would be pleased to have him. Tell him you get out of school what you put into it. You guys might enjoy this video clip: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=60P1xG32Feo
SteveF,
Bear in mind: JDOhio said his kid is in 8th grade, not high school.
Angech – I do not want to get into a deep study of the Koran. I believe there is a big problem inherent with Islam.
I first tripped across the notion of the “two Korans” and adherents while reading something or other years ago, and there was a quote in it from a Professor of Islam at Cairo University.
As I said – some (many) of the earlier, Mecca period Surahs are contradicted by later Medina period
Surahs. By Islamic law the later Surahs overrule the earlier Surahs. The game however, is to figure out which one came first, as the Koran is not combined in chronological order.
My simple take away? Why would God contradict God just because of time and place?
Oliver,
“What if it were a 26 year old man from New York state and a 25 year old man from Illinois? Would you have a problem with them being searched exactly the same way as the men from northern Africa?”
.
No, and especially not if their names were Abdul and Mohammad, and their parents came from Syria and Morocco. The Israelis don’t have their jets bombed, because they actually do security in a serious way. We don’t. Instead, we preen in front of the PC mirror doing a comical security charade, and pronounce ourselves good people. Sorry, but a 5% success rate at actually catching weapons and bombs is not security.
.
The truth is that a determined terrorist who is willing to kill himself can place a bomb in….err…. a body cavity, and be no more inconvenienced by TSA than my hypothetical grandmother from Minnesota. To stop the crazies, you have to know who they are before they arrive at the airport (or arrive at the local shopping mall), not tell them they have to remove their laptop from their briefcase before it passes the x-ray machine and place all liquids in a single plastic bag.
Lucia,
I didn’t see that. Then by his senior year he may be a superstar.
SteveF,
Are you advocating for more controls on guys named Abdul and Mohammed if their parents (not they) came from middle eastern countries? How about descendants of Irish or Sicilian immigrants? How about good ol’ boys with good, strong American names like Ted and Tim?
What do you think about more extreme examples of limiting rights of American residents or citizens based on “profile risk,” e.g., internment camps?
To forgive the terrorists is up to god, to send them to him is up to me.
Has anyone run a poll, Putin vrs Hillary or Trump? I wonder if he’d show a substantial lead if he were running for U.S. President.
Sad.
James Evans asserts:
“Sorry also that you think I’m petty, rude and stupid. I’ll get over it though.”
Apparently not.
Kan,
You raise one of the main pillars that support skepticism of so-called revealed knowledge: The contradictory nature of what is said, and the deeper contradiction of an omniscient God requiring His words to interpreted (and re-interpreted) time and time again.
Another pillar is the need for a grand apocalypse or revelation that rewards the enlightened/faithful and punishes the non-believers.
JD,
First: If you go by uncorrelated, unless I have a big boo-boo in my script, your kid is going to get his reward. . .
But just so we do this right: Do they report 1-100% or 0-99%? I’m going to do the latter for now.
I’m going to do a few checks to figure out if I have a big boo-boo, but if not, get ready to pay out big time.
Oliver,
The appropriate policy in dealing with terror risks is one were there is actual rational evaluation of risks. It means knowing more about someone boarding a plane than their name, and yes, that will sometimes increase the burden on young men more than grandmothers from Minnesota, and young muslims more that young non-muslims. If muslims in the USA object to that, too bad. The Muslim community should be fingering the nut-cakes and the crazy mullahs.
Nice that you suggest interment camps, you must think that is a good idea.
Lucia,
I think the ATC folks already publish percentiles for the composite average score across all the tests. Of course, the published percentiles are no doubt based on junior and seniors in high school, not 8th graders. There may be an estimate of improvement with age for the ATC; I remember reading something like that for the SAT.
JD,
Ok. Here is what I did:
I took the sum of percentile ranks. We know that if the test was just a coin flip, the changes of getting any particular score between 1-100% as the returned “score” is 1/100.
So, if each test is a coin flip, we want to find the distribution of the mean of 5 coin flips. Your kids mean would be
Which looked like his “average” percentile was 14.8%– which it is in some sense.
But, in fact, you’ve got a pretty smart kid and he did pretty well in math. Perhaps he’s done coin flips and he comes to you to explain that his percentile is better than that. Maybe if he’s a math whiz and had some probability he’ll argue the following:
Suppose we just think of “above 50%” as heads=1 and “below 50%” as tails=0. He got tails 5/5 times. The chances the average of the flips was 0 is (0.5)^5 = 3%. So– if tests are like coinflips, fewer than 3% got better than 50% on all 5 tests. That’s already quite a bit better than 14.5%, and your kid could use math to show that. (Does this get him his bribe yet?)
Doing things more specifically requires integration or Monte Carlo. These days Monte Carlo is faster. So, I used R.
—-
meanscore <-function (N){
mean(sample(c(1:100),N,replace=T))
}
# create a shitwad of scores.
NMonte=10^6
NumTests=5;
#rep(5,NMonte)
Scores=sapply(rep(NumTests,NMonte),meanscore);
hist(Scores);
P=ecdf(Scores)
#P(Scores) # percentiles of scores.
P(c(0:10)*10);
theScore=mean(c(10,8,13,16,27)); theScore
P(theScore);
1-P(theScore)
P(c(1:100));
---
Your kids mean score was "theScore"= 14.8. I assumed the board tells them percentiles as 1% to 100%, not 0% to 99%. I created a distribution of scores assuming scores were uncorrelated (so like coin flips.) That resulted in the cumulative probability of 14.8 is 0.001687, which is 0.17%. So I'm guessing if you use the assumption of uncorrelated, you are giving him money.
FWIW:
Honestly, I *doubt* test are 'uncorrelated' or even "weakly correlated" at either the high or low end. It may be that test makers say they are uncorrelated in the aggregate, but really, does any kid who got top 5% in math get bottom 5% in reading? Sorry: doesn't happen. I don't for a second believe scores are uncorrelated especially not at the extremes. Nope. Just. Don't. Happen. Evah.
So my guess is if you do more research his percentile rank is going to fall somewhere between the 14.8%-- the mean of his percentile ranks-- and the 0.17% computed assuming the test results are uncorrelated from each other.
SteveF,
There seems to be more and more testing going on these days. It seems to me when I was a kid no one did “ACT” or “SAT” prep. Kaplan had just started as a business. The “lore” was that prep didn’t help.
That was a big fat lie. The SAT of my high-school era wasparticularly “prepable” because it relies so much on “brain teasers” and like it or not, playing “brain teasers” does improves one speed and agility with “brain teasars”. The ACT was more “subject matter/reading comprehension/ordinary-not-‘tricky- logic”. Which meant it was “prepable” but less “crammable”. But a few practice ACT tests can also help a kid understand the “swing” of things.
The fact is if by “prepable” one means “optimizing one’s score without actually learning more subject matter or becoming smatter”, all tests are “prep-a-ble” if you can predict format and “style” of the test well. Simply being familiar vs. unfamiliar with the format and whether the test is heavily timed can make a 10%-20% difference on many tests.
Lucia,
I think what you had as a 10 (the science result) should have been a 5 (at least that’s what JD said in Comment #140790).
I agree that the simplest thing (the average of all the percentiles) is probably going to be a pretty good estimator. That would work to (5+8+13+16+27)/5 = 13.8, so he would be in the (approximately) top 13.8 overall.
julio, The “uncorrelated” result is now 0.001082 or 0.11%. But I would doubt the “true” percentile is better than 13.8%/2– that is somewhere half way between what we get if just average percentiles and if we assume uncorrelated.
Still, if JD made a deal to fork over money with to his kid based on some cut-off, it seems he needs to think about how this is going to be computed going forward. He’ll need to find out what he can know before his next bribe deal!
Lucia,
What I have read is there is some improvement (generally) on the ATC over time, due (it is said) to gaining subject matter knowledge. But typical improvements appear modest from the 10th to 12th grades, and improvements tend to be more likely for kids who score lower than those who score higher. I haven’t seen any data for 8th graders, but my guess is they would probably have greater average improvement on retakes than older kids.
.
There was clearly a knowledge-base component in the SAT achievement tests, but in my era (late 1960’s) I don’t recall seeing or hearing of any big improvements in the basic tests on retake. Of course, nobody even told us the PSAT test was important, and told us it was a “practice” for the real thin. AFAIK, there was no prepping for the PSAT or SAT.
Lucia,
I don’t believe that theists are insane. I think they are wrong, but not insane. (And I think they might even be right. Personally I believe that life is a spiritual experience, of some sort.)
The problem I have is with religious people. There’s a huge difference between being a theist and being religious. Being a theist means you believe in a god. Being religious tends to mean that you believe you know what everyone should be doing, because god wrote it in a book that people have told you about.
The stuff in those books tends not to be based on rigorous logic. We’re not talking A J Ayer. We’re talking “you shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.” [sic]
Is that rational? I don’t think so. I think it’s irrational. And as the gospel says, sorry I mean as Wikipedia says, the irrational is “an action or opinion given through inadequate use of reason, emotional distress, or cognitive deficiency.”
I must go now, as I think the milk is boiling.
James
I am particularly puzzled by the ‘cloven hoof’ restriction… I didn’t see a lot of bacon when I was in Turkey some weeks back.
SteveF,
There was clearly a knowledge-base component in the SAT achievement tests, but in my era (late 1960’s) I don’t recall seeing or hearing of any big improvements in the basic tests on retake.
I took both the SAT and ACT.
I distinctly remember there being lots of “logic” type q’s on the SAT. As in “Sally sits next to Joe. Fred sits next to Betsy. Who is sitting next to ___”. That sort of thing was rarely covered in school, is very learnable. So it’s “knowledge” based on some sense, but it wasn’t the sort of thing one got much practice in school. Similarly: Between some time and some other time, how many times does the second hand cross the hour hand” and so on. On verbal they had lots of “analogy” type things.
The ACT in contrast actually had facts like: Knowing when the civil war happened mattered. These were the sorts of things actually covered in school. It’s hard to cram all the appropriate subject matter. Also, the “science” was really “read passages and then ask questions about interpreting those passages”. I’m sure it does help to practice that a few times compared to having never done it.
It’s true no one reported big increases in scores due to test prep before the 80s. For one thing ‘test prep’ was new. But in the 80s Kaplan claimed increases of about 100 points in the 80s, but the FTC found they managed 25 points. (This is still useful for many students hoping to get into competitive schools.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Kaplan
I actually think one can improve scores on old “SAT” test. I don’t know if one can with newer tests. The real question is whether it is worth the effort.
Many parents with means now think it is worth it to get their kids scores up those 25 points (on average.) But in the 70s? No one did it. I’m sure no one did it in the 60s!
In the late ’50s we did have some prepping at a Chicago suburban high school. I vaguely recall that our junior high school district as well as the high school ran Princeton Testing Service tests a couple of times a year and so we all had experience with the design of these things. We were also advised to be alert to cost of errors and that in some cases guessing could work out if you really had no clew.
I can also remember the advice to read the whole thing first and pick off the easy ones, not to get hung on anything challenging lest you miss opportunity to pick up points on the easy ones.
I suppose this is all pretty obvious, but it was clear at the time that testing well was important, especially to people like me whose grades were terrible. And yes, I think grades in HS do presage performance at the U, although i would say that my performance soared about 4 years into it when i quit giving a damn and just wanted to get out of there.
lucia,
I wouldn’t recommend an SAT or ACT prep course, but I remember reading one of the prep course’s books, which seemed to have everything you needed to know.
You need to know a few basic rules, like for a timed test, don’t spend time on hard questions until you’ve answered all the easy ones. They count the same. On multiple choice, if you can eliminate even one answer as obviously wrong, it’s worth guessing. I don’t know if they still do reading comprehension, but on the old SAT tests, you should read the questions before reading the passage.
Since standardized testing is so important now, I don’t see why kids aren’t taught this in school. It wouldn’t take much time.
…to destroy Western culture and institute religious rule over all …
.
…We have band together and become a tribe – where it is better to ….
If the left has climate alarmists, the right has its economic and cultural armageddonists.
jferguson
I can also remember the advice to read the whole thing first and pick off the easy ones, not to get hung on anything challenging lest you miss opportunity to pick up points on the easy ones.
Read the whole thing first? That strikes me as terrible advise on a timed ACT/SAT or anything by the college board. You don’t have time to prioritize which are hard or easy on an ACT or SAT. You need to start answering those you do know.
The advise I would give is: Read a question. If you can answer, answer it. If you can’t answer it pretty quickly, scratch a ‘slash’ through obviously wrong answers in the booklet, perhaps circle your ‘best guess”, then, move on. Then, if you finish, come back to the hard ones.
Also: about every few questions consciously verify you are still “aligned” on the bubble sheet. that is: if you are filling q15, make sure you are filling q15. (You should be watching as you go along, but sometimes if you skip… well… bad test taking ensues.)
That said: perhaps the “right” advise depends on whether your ultimate score is above 700 or below 300. Kids who are going to really bomb might do best to hunt for question they can answer. Kids who can answer most of them are best off just starting to answer them!
James Evans
The problem I have is with religious people. There’s a huge difference between being a theist and being religious. Being a theist means you believe in a god. Being religious tends to mean that you believe you know what everyone should be doing, because god wrote it in a book that people have told you about.
I believe you are very mistaken in the above.
I know very religious people who do not believe they know what everyone should be doing. I know atheists who do think they know what everyone should be doing. It’s just that the opinion of the latter isn’t based on “religion”.
The stuff in those books tends not to be based on rigorous logic.
No. But they don’t claim to be. Lots of useful stuff in life is not remotely based on logic. Deciding whether to visit the theater vs. the dance hall isn’t based on “rigorous logic”. Nor is my preference for opera over ballet. (Or heck, nearly anything to ballet.)
In any case, I don’t know how one who relies on logic would conclude that lack of belief in God causes anyone to become “logical”. It’s perfectly possible to not believe in God and be utterly, totally completely lacking in logic.
A J Ayer.
Glad to know we aren’t talking about someone who hasn’t previously been mentioned!
As for some religious tenets: Sure. Some don’t make any sense to outsiders. Sometimes the reasons are little more than symbolic. I don’t have a big problem with people adhering to habits and norm for symbolic reasons– that is provided they don’t try to impose those habits and norms on me. I don’t see any good reason to not eat bacon. But I’m not upset that Jews and Moslems exclude it from their diet. Big. Whip.
RB,
The left does indeed have climate ‘alarmists’. The right tends to focus more on Mexicans ‘pouring through a sieve-like border’ to pick vegetables. The realists are the ones worried about significant immediate threats. You know, like those who want to decide what cartoons warrant a death sentence, and are quite ready to personally carry out the execution.
SteveF,
but military action ….would have to be sharp and decisive.
The enlightened realists also believe that they can decisively force the medievalists to submit to the truths of Enlightenment.
RB,
Are you quoting someone?
.
I sure don’t rhink you can force enlightenment on anyone, and I doubt anyone on this thread but you said that.
.
You can defend yourself and what you believe in from Islamic crazies. That may (horrors!) require military action.
Re: James Evans (Comment #140816)
You have some funny notions about what “religious” people are like! First of all, very few people have read the Bible from cover to cover, so very few people can really be expected to believe in everything it says (since they do not even know it in the first place). It is true that there are a few groups out there that take the approach that “whatever it says, I believe it to be literally true.” That is an irrational approach, I grant you that; but it describes only, at best, the religion of a very small minority.
The rest of us simply believe, to varying degrees, in the important parts (which are the ones we are familiar with) and assume that the rest may have been useful to somebody once.
Religions are living things, cultural things; you “learn” them from your parents or your friends, you do not learn them from a book. That’s one reason I’m not particularly worried about whether the Koran says this or that. If your parents taught you to be kind to people, you will be kind to people. If they taught you you must fight the evil foreign crusaders, well…
In addition, there’s high minded discussion about root causes, theologies, cultural influences etc, which are all important discussions…
…and then there’s some low minded realities that need to be dealt with sooner like how to keep dangerous people who are already here from killing people in your community and how to prevent them from coming here, if possible, if they mean to come here.
Andrew
RB,
It’s easy to make fun of anyone’s ideas. It contributes nothing positive to the discussion. Try saying something useful or go away.
To demonstrate:
The enlightened realists also believe that they can decisively force the medievalists to submit to the truths of Enlightenment.
The enlightened liberal believes that we can persuade the medievalists to submit to the truths of Enlightenment by simply talking to them. Any other action would be immoral. Besides their views are just as valid as ours and they have a right to act on them.
DeWitt,
“Besides their views are just as valid as ours and they have a right to act on them.”
.
Yup, especially beheadings done as performance art…. they have a perfect right to do that.
Human populations started small and the archaeological evidence we have is of very small groups (clans?) which grew to larger groups ( villages? ) and larger still as agriculture evolved.
.
There are many examples of small groups being led by an alpha male. If, as some posit, religions developed to unify the larger and larger populations of settlements, it wouldn’t be surprising that ‘gods’ took the form of an alpha male as with the smaller groups.
.
If any of this speculation is accurate, it could be that we are evolved to ‘believe’ in god and participate in religion.
.
As populations grew larger still, religion may have evolved into government which organizes society across multiple religions ( Peace of Westphalia ).
.
Now, it used to be that the bumper sticker ‘Question Authority’ was popular, and I took that slogan as the true meaning of the ‘Enlightenment’.
.
But it’s a lot easier to Question Authority and deny god when sudden death is not the alternative.
Internment camps – the unvetted will need to go somewhere while the vetting takes place.
.
Or not.
James Evans – “The stuff in those books tends not to be based on rigorous logic. ”
There are those that are.
Hunter – There is nothing wrong with being skeptical about it, and it is a strong pillar to begin the search from. The key is to find that which is logically consistent and does not contain contradictions.
Lucia “Do they report 1-100%” Seems so. Ends in 100%, but doesn’t identify beginning. If there is a simple way to explain why that matters, let me know. Will have more comments later.
JD
Kan,
Thank you for the words of wisdom.
My journey has led me more and more to deeply question any set of claims based on circular or self-validating evidence.
At the same time, I am completely open and supportive of people with differing views as long as they don’t feel empowered by their views to dehumanize those who disagree. Dehumanization, not anger, is the path to the dark side.
JD Ohio,
It doesn’t matter much. I get small differences depending on whether my function said kids were reported numbers like 1:100 vs 0:99. If I know I’d match. But really, the difference is tiny.
The major issue is correlation between scores on different tests. Even though someone told you “weak” correlation, I don’t actually believe it’s all that weak. I think it’s pretty rare for a kid to get 99% in one subject and 1% in others. They tend to lump together to some extent.
Re: SteveF (Comment #140809)
Oliver,
The appropriate policy in dealing with terror risks is one were there is actual rational evaluation of risks. It means knowing more about someone boarding a plane than their name, and yes, that will sometimes increase the burden on young men more than grandmothers from Minnesota, and young muslims more that young non-muslims. If muslims in the USA object to that, too bad.
“Rational†evaluation of risks also means weighing costs. There is a significant risk to our freedoms, which I hold quite dear as an American. Unfortunately it’s also a lot easier to overlook infringements upon the rights of others. So, I’d like to hear more specific justifications instead of simply “too bad for them.â€
Also, be aware that seniors of a certain age actually do get some leniency in the TSA line relative to young adults.
The Muslim community should be fingering the nut-cakes and the crazy mullahs.
What makes you think they aren’t?
Nice that you suggest interment camps, you must think that is a good idea.
I don’t happen to think that internment camps are a good idea. But it’s nice that you’re turning my question on me to avoid answering whether you think they are a good idea, or whether there is some clear line between “reasonable profiling and infringement of rights†and “internment.â€
We in the West have to realize it is the MILITANT Muslims that are the problem. We have to realize that Islam is also a form of government.
We have to fight that form of government of which the leaders, Mullahs, want to kill infidels and urge their followers to do that.
Once we have identified the Mullahs, we obliterate them and their followers. That’s a start to the solution of the problem.
Lucia ” I think it’s pretty rare for a kid to get 99% in one subject and 1% in others. They tend to lump together to some extent.”
I agree with that. However, I don’t think it is unusual to be very good in math (for instance) and only above average in English (or vice versa). If someone did uniformly well — for instance, in the top 5% in math, English & Science, I would expect that person to be in the top 1% overall.
JD
Re: lucia (Comment #140837)
The major issue is correlation between scores on different tests. Even though someone told you “weak†correlation, I don’t actually believe it’s all that weak. I think it’s pretty rare for a kid to get 99% in one subject and 1% in others. They tend to lump together to some extent.
Lucia,
I strongly agree with your intuition. In JD Ohio’s earlier example:
Something like a top 10%, top 7% and top 5% would result in a general score of something like the top 3%.
Were the scores truly uncorrelated, I would expect the general score percentile to be a vanishingly small difference from top 0%.
From this table , one can use scores of science 25, math 23, reading 25, writing 22 and English 21, more or less around a score of 23 in each subject. The naive average of top 13% when aggregating all scores seems reasonable.
Oliver,
Seems you care a lot more about the ‘costs’ of lost freedom for young Muslims if they are subject to rigorous airport security than the costs of forcing people to stop using fossil fuels. I find that strange.
I travel quite a lot both in the States and elsewhere (30 or 40 flights a year), and I am aware of the revised TSA procedures for elderly people, which I figure was because the TSA grew tired of being called id!ots. Oh well, it is a first step toward the kind of profiling the TSA should always use. I happened to be in an airport this afternoon and picked up a copy of the Economist, which has an article on airport security screening. You might find it informative. Here is an on-line link: http://www.economist.com/news/international/21678236-lot-what-passes-security-airports-more-theatrical-real-no-more
.
I did not suggest anyone go to interment camps, that was all your fevered imagination.
SteveF (Comment #140843)
Oliver,
Seems you care a lot more about the ‘costs’ of lost freedom for young Muslims if they are subject to rigorous airport security than the costs of forcing people to stop using fossil fuels. I find that strange.
I don’t believe I have advocated forcing people to stop using fossil fuels without a weighing of costs. If you have any support of your assertion then I would like to see it.
Ironically, you seem to rail often against government regulation fairly regularly when it affects you or those whom you sympathize with, but when governmental action affects “others†then you seem less reserved.. Are you the one being hypocritical here?
I travel quite a lot both in the States and elsewhere (30 or 40 flights a year), and I am aware of the revised TSA procedures for elderly people, which I figure was because the TSA grew tired of being called id!ots.
Then why did you complain that grandmothers are harassed the same as 26-year-old Middle-Eastern Muslim males when you knew it wasn’t true?
Oh well, it is a first step toward the kind of profiling the TSA should always use.
Harassment goes beyond effective profiling. I am profiled in the opposite (low-risk) group and I still get “harassed” from time to time.
I did not suggest anyone go to interment camps, that was all your fevered imagination.
I didn’t feverishly “imagine” anything. Internment camps are back in the news, so given your previous statements I asked your opinion on them. Why are you so bent on attributing positions to me that have no basis? Is it just some kind of habitual re-casting of other people’s words on your part?
Oliver 140838 what makes you think…
The grand mufti of Australia would not initially condemn the Paris atrocities his community is in lock step with him the silence of western Muslim leaders and communities is deafening.
Not that it matters Isis is in tatters and all that is left is bit of desperation revenge
Oliver,
I object to foolish, ineffective, and wasteful government activities. And yes, many regulations, and most environmental regulations, fall in that category, as does current airport ‘security screening’. I am pleased you think the cost of fossil fuel reduction should be weighed against benefits. You must then be pleased by the recent demise of ‘Cape Wind’ in Massachusetts… a costly boondoggle that would only have increased electricity rates.
.
If you are actually interested in my views on internment (which I doubt): there is no need to send anybody to interment camps, not even climate scientists. There is a need to be very careful about who is allowed to become resident in the USA, and to exclude or at least minimize those groups who have demonstrated resistance to assimilation.
“interment camps” ??
jferguson,
Freudian slip.
Oliver
It is good that you found a link to the guardian and put that up as “proof”
The Guardian is a factual and respected paper which only publishes the truth as regards both muffed up climate science and muffed up mufti comments.
The mufti did not condemn the Paris attacks in his initial response, blaming the west for causing the attacks.
The Guardian article is a Nutty attempt to paper over this fact by selective misquoting and avoidance of the substance of the complaint to his initial response.
But you know this and still wish to pretend?
Good for debating but nil marks for truth and honesty.
The Muslim community should be fingering the nut-cakes and the crazy mullahs.
What makes you think they aren’t?
In Denmark, the Copenhagen city council has stopped cooperating with Islamisk Trossamfund, the local community of the islamic faith, because they keep inviting speakers usually islamic clerics from abroad with views that members of the council regard as nutty or crazy.
The statements of these self-proclaimed representatitives of the muslim community following terrorist attacks are almost always ambiguous, they mourn deaths of innocents but they are careful not to say that all the victims were innocent and they don’t confront the terrorists or their islamic proclamations. We or fellow muslims are never informed how their understanding of islam is wrong and why the islamic texts cannot be read and understood like the terrorist do. Wouldn’t that be a nice contribution to the war against terror? Pinpointing exactly why the terrorists are wrong about Islam? I think it would.
. http://www.anic.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ANIC-MOURNS-LOSS-OF-INNOCENT-LIVES-TO-TERRORIST-ATTACKS.pdf
.
And muslim protests against islamic terror are usually laughably weak compared to the loud and huge crowds that show up when a cartoonist is making a drawing of Muhammad. 30 people out of 5 million muslims in France showed up in Paris the other day:
. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3322064/We-need-wage-jihad-against-jihad-French-Muslims-join-mourners-condemn-Paris-attacks-late.html
.
From the article:
‘There is a very radical mosque just around the corner from here. I know how these people work and operate.
‘They don’t speak to women, they dress them up as lampshades. They are not integrated at all, yet they are allowed to live among us and spread their poison.
‘Thousands and thousands of refugees are pouring in and we know some terrorists are with them. We are paying for our stupidity.
.
We…and our children and grandchildren.
Niels A. Nielsen:
We or fellow muslims are never informed how their understanding of islam is wrong and why the islamic texts cannot be read and understood like the terrorist do.
Maybe the problem is that the clerics understand that ISIS goals and the incidental actions of the terrorists ARE encompassed in the Koran.
Graeme Wood makes a pretty convincing argument that it is difficult for a muslim to disavow the ISIS understanding of the Koran without risking apostasy.
This is going to be really tough, maybe because many of us assume that the bases of Islam are just a different flavor of religions with which we may be more familiar.
This is the sort of view you are left with by Edward Said, Karen Armstrong and others in at least Armstrong’s attempt to ‘help’ us understand the middle east and the various societies that live there. If you accept Wood’s view, it is much less encouraging, much more than simple misunderstanding.
angech (Comment #140851)
Oliver
It is good that you found a link to the guardian and put that up as “proofâ€
The Guardian is a factual and respected paper which only publishes the truth as regards both muffed up climate science and muffed up mufti comments.
…
But you know this and still wish to pretend?
Good for debating but nil marks for truth and honesty.
Do you have any specific facts in the article that you would like to dispute or alternative sources that you could provide? That would be more conducive than general accusations of dishonesty.
Oliver,
I would not consider The Guardian as an unbiased primary source either. Rather than angech providing an alternative source, I would suggest that you provide another source with a less obvious bias that corroborates the interpretation of The Guardian.
Oliver (Comment #140854)
“angech (Comment #140851)
Do you have any specific facts in the article that you would like to dispute or alternative sources that you could provide? That would be more conducive than general accusations of dishonesty.”
Dear Oliver, It was not an accusation of dishonesty, please.
It was a statement that the Guardian article is a farrago of misinformation.
To be clear.
The Grand Mufti deliberately blamed the Paris killings on western xenophobia and islamophobia.
He deliberately did not condemn the Paris Bombings.
He was picked up on this by the Australian media and Government.
After 2 days he issued through the Islamic Council a begrudging and mealy mouthed condemnation of people who kill innocent people.
Since the Mufti knows in Islamic eyes the people killed were guilty in the eyes of Islam by being western infidels in the first place it was not even a real apology.
But if the Guardian and you wish to persist in your sophistry go ahead.
Perhaps you should have read all the other links you found when you Googled “grand mufti of Australia†instead of putting up the debased Granuard [British Spelling] article.
Re: jferguson (Comment #140853)
Interesting perspective on the level of military engagement in contrast with certain bellicose sections of the American political spectrum. While “contained” seems to have as bad a connotation as “accomplished” (remember “subprime is contained” ?) the article seemed to be encouraging in some ways i.e., on the potential for containment.
But then there is this:
“It is impossible to understand Islam and Muslims by listening to their protestations against terror and their proclamations of patriotism for America. Usually, it is wise and fair to give people the benefit of the doubt but when it comes to national safety and the future of America, we had better look twice, even thrice at Muslim patriotism. Why? Because Islam permits lying! It is called “Al-taqiyya.†One Muslim said that Al-taqiyya means dissimulation then he expanded it to diplomacy but he should have gone further to deception. Now some Muslims who do not follow the Koran are as faithful Americans as any of us, but the problem is, we cannot know.”
Oliver (Comment #140854)
“angech (Comment #140851)
Do you have any specific facts in the article that you would like to dispute or alternative sources that you could provide? That would be more conducive than general accusations of dishonesty.â€
Dear Oliver, It was not an accusation of dishonesty, please.
Your exact words were: “Good for debating but nil marks for truth and honesty.†Are you leaving some wiggle room between nil honesty and dishonesty?
The Grand Mufti deliberately blamed the Paris killings on western xenophobia and islamophobia.
These recent incidents highlight the fact that current strategies to deal with the threat of terrorism are not working. It is therefore imperative that all causative factors such as racism, Islamophobia, curtailing freedoms through securitisation, duplicitous foreign policies and military intervention must be comprehensively addressed.
So how does criticizing the current approach to countering terrorism and calling for a focus on “causative factors†become equivalent to blaming the Paris killings on western xenophobia and islamophobia?
Also, let’s be honest here: those causative factors are exactly what security experts have been telling us for years (if not decades).
He deliberately did not condemn the Paris Bombings.
The press release started that he and the council “mourn the loss of innocent lives†and refers to the people “tragically killed.†He also said “We reiterate that the sanctity of human life is guaranteed in Islam.†You really have to work to read into those statements a deliberate not-condemning of the Paris bombings.
But if the Guardian and you wish to persist in your sophistry go ahead.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re: jim2 (Comment #140858)
“Islam permits lying! It is called “Al-taqiyya.†One Muslim said that Al-taqiyya means dissimulation then he expanded it to diplomacy but he should have gone further to deception. Now some Muslims who do not follow the Koran are as faithful Americans as any of us, but the problem is, we cannot know.†http://muslimfact.com/bm/terro…..-bri.shtml
Good heavens! Are you suggesting that Islam has a word for “tact”? How very un-American!
oliver (Comment #140859)
“Your exact words were: “Good for debating but nil marks for truth and honesty.†Are you leaving some wiggle room between nil honesty and dishonesty?”
Just trying to be civil on this site, I guess you worked that out though?
My exact words before you selectively misquoted me hence avoiding the substance of my observation was that the Guardian used
“selective misquoting and avoidance of the substance of the complaint to his initial response.
‘
I also said
“But you know this and still wish to pretend?
Good for debating but nil marks for truth and honesty.”
There were no general accusations of dishonesty. They were your words I believe though I now hesitate to quote them.
There was a statement of
“selective misquoting and avoidance of the substance of the complaint to his initial response.”
It seems that you would also interpret this as being as a dishonest statement from the Guardian so you do understand the concept of ethics and honesty to some degree.
I then said
“But you know this and still wish to pretend?
Good for debating but nil marks for truth and honesty.”
So the Guardian statement in your view could be seen as dishonest?
Your defense of it is sophistry [ nil [marks for truth and] honesty.”]
It seems that you certainly found wriggle room when you tried hard enough to compare two different comments.
“He deliberately did not condemn the Paris Bombings.
You really have to work to read into those statements a deliberate not-condemning of the Paris bombings.”
There is no condemnation of the evil acts of the bombers and the evil bombers.
I am not trying to read into other statements.
I am trying to see a condemnation in actual words.
There is none.
That is why he had to put out, under immense pressure, a new press release days later condemning the bombers. You must have seen this with all your “searching”.
So still Sophistry.
Good for debating but nil marks for truth and honesty.
oliver: jim2 is not talking about diplomacy, you should read that bizarre article to see where he’s going. You can’t argue with people like jim2, I’ll leave it at that.
RB: I note you attack me buy don’t deny the Koran blesses the lying of Muslims to infidels. Here, maybe you can argue with the Koran.
…
he Qur’an:
Qur’an (16:106) – Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.
Qur’an (3:28) – This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves” against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim may appear friendly to non-Muslims, though they should not feel that way..
Qur’an (9:3) – “…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…” The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.
Qur’an (40:28) – A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must “hide his faith” among those who are not believers.
Qur’an (2:225) – “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts” The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.
Qur’an (3:54) – “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.” The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means ‘deceit’. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)
Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be “compelled” to deceive others for a greater purpose.
…
Qur’an (2:225) – “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your heartsâ€
When I read this, in of all places, the Qur’an, I thought it meant that if your oath involved Allah it wouldn’t count against you unless you really intended to involve him in your complaint. Unless I’m more confused than usual, I don’t think the Bible has this very reasonable flexibility.
I think you’ve expanded the context a bit. Maybe you ought to read the whole thing for yourself.
The Qur’an is talking about swearing as in G**Damnit, here, btw.
jferguson. There are several quotes there. I take the lot of them to mean a Muslim can lie to infidels, say, for example, if he or she is a militant Muslim with intent towards mayhem, then he or she can lie as necessary to achieve the goal of killing infidels or just blending in until the terrorist strike. That’s really the point here. AFAIK, the Bible isn’t relevant to believers of Islam.
MASSACRE IN MALI: At least 27 bodies found dead inside hotel as US Special Forces take out two Al-Qaeda terrorists and rescue terrified survivors after storming building
Well gosh, Jim2, there is no “marriage” context in either of the two Qur’ans I have with regard to invoking the name of Allah in vain.. As I said, i think you could grasp this yourself if you read it directly. True, I read English translations, one from 1983 and one from 1890, likely before there were any axes which needed grinding.
Quoting stuff you find on the net exposes you to the possibility that the person who wrote it is just repeating stuff he heard somewhere.
Turbulent Eddie,
It is certainly true that a link to a Richard Dawkin’s video is not going to bridge any divides. Also: Richard Dawkin’s view on religion are shallow and polarizing. Also: he is a wanker.
But if there was some point he made you thought worth our consider, feel free to tell us what that point is. In your owns words. Because I can assure you, video highlighting Richard Dawkins screams “WASTE of time and brain cells to me”. So… give us the cliffs note version if you think there is something worthwhile there. In your own words.
I say this as an atheist. But the fact is: Dawkins is an atheist who almost makes an atheist wish they did believe in god just do they wouldn’t be associated with someone who is a big a Dick-Head as Dawkins.
🙂
Thanks Lucia! After a long and difficult day I needed a smile.
As an agnostic, I’m not interested in the religious angle of militant Islamists. Religion, and some bad blood between East and West, is the apparent reason for the mass murders we in the West continue to experience. I’m not happy about it. I’m more interested in how to make it go away than the whys and wherefores.
Lucia,
Please don’t hold back, tell us what you really think about Dawkins! 😉 Don’t know for sure, but that comment seemed almost fueled by a good Chardonnay.
Way to go, Lucia! 🙂
Personally, of course, I find it very easy to ignore Dawkins, since I am a scientist myself, and my science is better than his, so there 😛
IMO, militant atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens are really, really annoying. They have this insane idea that all (well a lot anyway) of the problems of the world would go away if no one believed in God. It’s human behavior that’s probably genetically wired that is the problem. If religion didn’t exist, we would invent some other excuse for people to kill each other.
SteveF,
I prefer red wine. 🙂
julio,
I generally ignore Dawkin’s also. He periodically creates brouhaha’s on twitter due to his sexist and racist tweets. But my disdain for the man springs from his militant atheism which is rather unhinged.
DeWitt,
Agreed. Those two do seem to convey the notion that somehow, religion is the cause of the problems of the world. I realize that religion doesn’t prevent things like war. But I’m pretty dang sure we’d still have it without religion.
Oddly, the two of those guys seem to want to take a perfectly respectable lack of belief in god and turn that lack of belief into some sort of pseudo-religious belief system and association. You’d get the impression from them that if we don’t believe in god we are supposed to then adhere to a whole bunch of other poorly thought out and poorly reasoned ideas they set forward. Well… no.
Those two do seem to convey the notion that somehow, religion is the cause of the problems of the world.
.
The ‘Peace of Westphalia’ did come about because of religious wars, and that is what led to both nation states and the beginnings of separation of church and state very recently in historical terms.
.
But more to Daesh and the Paris murders, yes, religion and belief in god are the basis. Whether or not they are linked to the larger Islam, Daesh is moved by belief in god.
.
Dawkins is kindofan ahole, but his point in the video – don’t believe in things without evidence – holds. Isn’t that the issue you hold with calimitologist? Don’t have faith in catastrophe because of dogma, but demand evidence?
.
This is the ‘Age of Reason’. While we have evolved traits that predispose us to religion or other groups which supplant them ( such as the IPCC, or the Chicago Cubs ), we have also evolved traits toward reason. Devotion to god, murderous or otherwise, is not rational. Of course, getting out of bed in the morning isn’t strictly rational, either.
.
When Martin Luther wrote that ‘Absolute power corrupts absolutely’, it was about the pope. But, as is evident with Daesh, it’s clear that no power can be more absolute than that of a hypothetical omnipotent god, and the concept of omnipotent god can be appropriated and corrupted by anyone. This corruption would cease if the rank and file rejected god for lack of evidence. That is difficult, particularly in strictly Muslim lands, because those even asking ‘does god exist?’ are blasphemers subject to death.
.
I do have some mixed feelings. I have come to atheism, but was raised in christian observance. I’m not sure how much of my moral code comes from upbringing, religion, or adult assessment of the world. And the golden rule seems a good philosophical guide.
.
I realize that the majority of humans are theists, and that marginalizing the extremists means co-opting the moderates by accommodating their beliefs. And there are other groupings we join which are not strictly religious but are also dogmatic. But none seem quite as inspirational to war as devotion to god.
“I have come to atheism”
TE,
Since you think there is no God, then the idea of God and how He might relate to humans is simply a notion that people have. Hence, there’s nothing “wrong” with it. It’s just human behavior. But my guess is that you still think some human behavior is “better” in some way than other human behavior.
Andrew
Turbulent Eddie,
ISIS does have religious beliefs that are directly connected to their killing people. There is no doubt about that. That has nothing to do with Dawkins. The fact that religious beliefs do sometimes become hateful clear from history. That doesn’t mean that lack of religious belief would result in any less bloody killing. Nor does it mean those who lack religion are saner, more peaceful more rational or anything else relative to those who are religious. Example of nuts on both sides exist.
Dawkins is kindofan ahole, but his point in the video – don’t believe in things without evidence – holds.
“things?” Nearly everyone including atheists believe in some “things” with evidence that ranges from very little to none. The question is which things. The other question is “what counts as ‘evidence’.” Likely Dawkins believes in some things with little to no evidence– even if he doesn’t admit he does so.
TE “But none seem quite as inspirational to war as devotion to god.”
Then what is your explanation for the warlike tendencies of Stalin & Mao. Also, strong evidence indicates that Hitler was anti-religious although he appears to have sometimes used religious appearances to advance his agenda. I personally am an atheist, but I cringe at the idea of whole societies being populated by people who act purely in their own self-interest and who have no loyalty to higher principles than mere self-interest.
JD
I personally am an atheist, but I cringe at the idea of whole societies being populated by people who act purely in their own self-interest and who have no loyalty to higher principles than mere self-interest.
.
Does atheism imply self-interest?
.
Does religion imply human interest? Daesh doesn’t think so – they’re only interested in your contribution to the same god adhering group.
don’t believe in things without evidence
The thing is, does Dawkins think that this idea has never occurred to anybody before him in the history of Christendom? Does he think–for instance–that Roger Bacon, a Franciscan monk and early pioneer of the “scientific method” would disagree with it?
Over the past 20 centuries, many extremely intelligent, critical thinkers have embraced Christianity. This was a fact early on, it continued to be so after the Renaissance, and has continued to be so into the modern age. So how did they do it, and why? How did they understand their faith? What evidence did they think they had for it? You’d think a real scientist might find this intriguing enough to want to look into it.
Instead, Dawkins sets up a caricature of religious faith and declares that everybody who believes that must be an idiot. How is that helpful, or even intelligent?
Andrew_KY (Comment #140881)
November 21st, 2015 at 9:03 am
It’s just human behavior. But my guess is that you still think some human behavior is “better†in some way than other human behavior.
Andrew
*******************
How can you believe some human behavior IS NOT better than some other human behavior? I can think of some examples – Hitler comes to mind. Even in war, there are more humane was to kill people.
But thinking beyond some absolute definition of good or bad, I think we in the West need to evaluate our actions in terms of our tribe. We need to preserve and protect our tribe: the Western way of life, rule of law, personal freedoms, democrat republic government, our culture – even though it is now mixed to some extent. That’s no reason to mix it even further with Muslims!
So, back to Daesh.
.
Bernard Lewis writes about Islam versus Christendom, and when I first read that, it seemed alien to me. Like most, I saw the world in terms of the existing nations both in the west and middle east.
.
But going back just a little reminds us that more of the world was organized by religion for centuries.
.
The rapid rise of Islam was later governed by series of different caliphates, sometimes of from different cultures, but more or less unified by the religion. The last, the Ottoman Empire, lasted four centuries.
.
The most important event in Christianity was said to be the conversion of Constantine, which more or less unified Christian rule under the Roman Empire. When the Roman Empire eventually dissolved, and after the long Dark Ages, Feudalism emerged. There was no unified rule, but the numerous feudal kings invoked religion to legitimize their rule. The different religions engaged in countless horrible bloody wars ( the thirty years war and the eighty years war ) which lead to the Peace of Westphalia which led to nation states.
.
It has been less than a century since the Ottoman Empire, which was the unifying Muslim rule, finally collapsed. It may not have been so much the British map makers but the fact that, unlike the bloodily motivated Westphalia, the concept of nation state is counter to Islam. It would seem easy to say ‘adopt separation of mosque and state and be nice to others’ but not as easily done.
Lucia and TE, I agree that ISIS does have an Islamic religious ideology that motivates or at least justifies their actions, just as the Nazi party had an ideology that justified theirs. There are some interesting connections between European fascism in its heyday and Islamism. One must bear in mind that fascism was very much in fashion in Europe (including in France) before WWII.
But the interesting question here is whether some religions and ideologies lend themselves more to violence and dictatorship. Looking at the modern world, one might draw some rather strong conclusions here. The Islamic world is not too strong on liberal democracy or cultural tolerance.
The problem here I think is that all religions are vague and offer large scope for interpretation. However, one issue that is pretty clear is that separation of religion and state is a concept that Christianity grew up with (since it was an illegal religion until the 4th Century). I don’t think there is any such concept that is really compatible with Islam. And that’a a pretty fundamental problem.
Yes Julio, Dawkins is in the tradition of Bertrand Russell, whose views on religion were pretty sophomoric and really based on lack of understanding. At least Walter Kaufman understands religion from the inside. Kaufman’s critique is at least informed by a deep knowledge and understanding.
Re: David Young (Comment #140889)
I had never heard of Kaufmann (life is short…), but from the Wikipedia page I see he admired Kierkegaard, who would certainly be one of the Christian thinkers I alluded to earlier, and also seems to have liked Martin Buber, a Jewish religious philosopher that I am personally very fond of.
The bottom line, I think, is that it is perfectly possible for intelligent, thoughtful people to hold different religious beliefs, and yet respect and even admire each other.
In the Christian tradition, we are told that faith is a gift. This is a very puzzling idea, but it suggests several things: for one, that nobody has a right to look down on or condemn anybody else for their lack of faith. For another, that God has some use for atheists as well. 🙂
David Young
The problem here I think is that all religions are vague and offer large scope for interpretation. However, one issue that is pretty clear is that separation of religion and state is a concept that Christianity grew up with (since it was an illegal religion until the 4th Century). I don’t think there is any such concept that is really compatible with Islam. And that’a a pretty fundamental problem.
Could be true. It is certainly true that the New Testament doesn’t contain text that explicitly suggests the government can or should enforce or set up a religion and that squares well with the fact that historically, Christianity was outlawed at the start. Ultimately, that makes it easier to square with separation of church and state– which is a good thing. Islam is different on that front. No doubt about it.
But wrt to Dawkins, he doesn’t like Christianity either.
Julio, You will find however, that Kaufmann kind of held the view that each religion was different and had a fundamentally different view about what human nature was and what mankind could become.
Because of modern ignorance, there is a tendency to lump all religions into the same mental bucket and ignore the important differences.
julio,
“God has some use for atheists as well. ”
Well, I have heard some make OK tutors. 😉
.
Just went through the TSA charade (yet again, about the 50th time this year). This time I was pulled aside for ‘random extra screening’, which seems to involve being patted down and having another set of eyes ‘evaluate’ if you might present a danger. Sadly, there were only female ‘pat-downers’ available, and they are not allowed to pat down men. So I had to wait for a male pat-downer…. and wait, and wait, and wait. After about 15 minutes, when I was ready to declare myself a homosexual, and request a woman pat me down, one of the male TSAers stopped inspecting bags long enough to don examination gloves and pat me down, a process that took not more that 4 seconds, and I was finally declared ‘safe’. As I said up thread, it is the most id!otic ‘security screening’ system I can imagine: ineffective, slow, and stupid. A 65 year old man who has traveled multiple millions of miles over the last 23 years is NOT a security risk. The half dozen scary looking young men they waved through while I awaited my pat-down probably would have been worth patting down. A foolish waste of our time and money.
SteveF, I know TSA is the most ridiculous and politically correct answer we could have come up with. You can apply for TSA Pre, pay a fee, and go through a less intrusive check. Why not let people who pass a background check just walk through with no screening? That would only happen in a sane country not controlled by people who don’t want to “discriminate” in any way. It is a sad commentary on the way common sense has taken a back seat to grotesque legalistic formulations.
Politicians in the US are in something of a turmoil. Well, I guess that’s not anything new. Anyway, from the article:
…
The argument that, ‘That’s not who we are,’ that’s just one of the mantras that they put out. And it’s not supported by logic or rationale… Well, ‘who we are,’ we should not be a suicidal nation… if you had 100 grapes and you knew that two of them were fatally poisonous, would you sit there and eat the grapes until one of them kills you?
… http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/21/following-show-vote-house-republicans-warn-ryan-reject-obamas-refugee-funding-request/
Re: David Young (Comment #140892)
…each religion was different and had a fundamentally different view about what human nature was and what mankind could become.
David, I think that depends. In a way, we are all fundamentally different from each other, and in another–just as true–way, we are all fundamentally the same.
In my life, I have approached (studied might be too strong a word) several religious traditions beyond my native Catholicism: Protestantism, Judaism, and Buddhism in particular. In every one of these I have found at least one thinker with whom I was in essential agreement on 95% or more of all the important questions (here are a few names, if you want any: Reinhold Niebuhr, Abraham Joshua Heschel, Thich Nhat Hanh).
Given this experience, I am very reluctant to throw Islam under the bus, just because I have never looked at it in depth. My contacts with Muslims have invariably been pleasant and mutually respectful, including the (relatively) rare occasions when we have exchanged information about our respective faiths. (I particularly remember one time in Pakistan when some college students asked me to explain the Holy Trinity…)
Steve,
Our best TSA story was the time they discovered an enormous knife inside my high-school daughter’s backpack (she had been cutting a cake the previous day…)
On the other hand, my wife (who also doesn’t look like a security risk) had to put up with a couple of thorough searches this year, so she would certainly sympathize with you!
David Young,
I know about pre-check screening. I was actually being routinely directed to the pre check line for a year or so, probably based on my ‘travel profile’ and age, but then people who had taken the time and spent the money for the formal background check started complaining that too many people were slowing down the pre check lines. The pre check lines are again empty. So now I am forced to go through the full monty process once again. I may take the time to go through the TSA background check, if only because episodes like today are bad for my sanity.
julio,
I have lots of worse TSA stories. When my dad was in the early stages of Alzheimers, 78 years old, I traveled with him from Fort Lauderdale to Boston so that he would not become ‘lost’. We had checked his golf bag and suitcase, but he had packed a small carry-on with his really important stuff…. medications and his golf shoes. Unfortunately, he had walked through freshly applied nitrate fertilizer on the golf course, and there was a bomb-sniffing dog at the security checkpoint…. who promptly declared my dad’s carry-on contained explosives. In the ensuing commotion, there was not a sane head involved. No amount of explanation of who we were or why the dog was wrong seemed to help. A 78 year old, decorated WWII vet IS NOT a security risk. The TSA numbskulls wouldn’t know a security risk if he walked up and announced himself. It took half an hour for the bomb experts to finally believe the carry-on just contained a pair of (slightly dirty) golf shoes. My poor dad never really understood what was going on…. but he was plenty frightened.
I haven’t vetted all the the links in this article, so be warned. From the article:
…
All of the major Christian churches in America have come out in favor of importing hundreds of thousands of Muslims into the US from the Middle East, even though such a move will speed up the extinction of both European-Americans and Christianity itself.
… http://newobserveronline.com/us-christian-churches-back-muslim-invasion/
I know Jim2. It’s a little crazy. It illustrates I think how divorced the hierarchies in many churches are from the people who support them. Based on what has happened across the middle east, where Christians have been systematically persecuted and forced out, one must ask why its not a bigger issue for these same churches. Most are silent about it. Or in Lebanon, where the Switzerland of the Middle East has been turned into a continuous state of civil war. Perhaps its the ultimate sign of the irrelevance of Christianity in most of the West. Certainly in Europe, Christianity is largely irrelevant to anything important.
Steve, Wow, that is awful…
David Young (Comment #140901)
November 21st, 2015 at 9:43 pm
I know Jim2. It’s a little crazy. It illustrates I think how divorced the hierarchies in many churches are from the people who support them.
**********************************
David, from my POV, it seems many of our politicians are divorced from the people who support them. I don’t hold much in common with the Dimowits, but many of the Redimowits made promises to get elected, then immediately forgot those promises.
Also, Christians aren’t simply persecuted, frequently they are killed outright. I’m confused over the response of these churches.
The world to me seems upside-down along many dimensions.
jim2:
I haven’t vetted all the the links in this article, so be warned. From the article:
…
All of the major Christian churches in America have come out in favor of importing hundreds of thousands of Muslims into the US from the Middle East, even though such a move will speed up the extinction of both European-Americans and Christianity itself.
Let it be known as a sad day when members of one religion reaching out and helping members of another religion is depicted as a horrible thing.
I find it fascinating many people genuinely seem to believe showing love and kindness to their neighbor will be the downfall of their religion… based on showing love and kindness to their neighbor. I suppose that’s like people who demand we make it illegal to burn the flag because protecting the symbol of freedoms like the freedom of expression is more important to them than actually protecting freedoms like the freedom of expression?
I suppose it’s really no surprise the country decided terrorism is so bad we should, in the height of ironies, kidnap and torture people to prevent it. I’m not sure which part of that logic is more troubling, the idea of using terrorist acts to combat terrorism or that it didn’t actually accomplish anything yet people wanted to keep doing it anyway.
Honestly though, as amusing as the perceived contradictions in all these cases may be, the truth is probably just that the stated motivations have nothing to do with the real reasons for people’s positions.
Brandon,
It is the foolishness and self-destructiveness of the form of help that is being rightfully questioned.
That you rely on red herrings and strawman arguments is simply you being consistent.
hunter,
I don’t think it’s self-destructive for churches to want to permit more Syrian refugees to arrive. I do think some degree of background checks likely need to be required and also know that even fairly good background checks will be imperfect. I also think if we are going to bring in refugees we’d to well to create and enforce a program to associate them with a sponsor — preferably already US citizen whose lived well above the poverty line for at least the past 2 years– and that person who must give them assistance of some sort for a period of time. (I don’t necessarily mean a financial allowance. I mean help finding job– even if that’s janitor. Help find housing and so on. Have over for dinner from time to time to practice English– find ESL classes for people. )
People arriving who can’t find a niche tend to respond badly in the end– and that’s certainly not what we should want in a situation like this. Those people are supposedly trying to find an actual refuge but they also need more than mere shelter, if people are going to be allowed in as refugees, the program should help make the new destination more than mere shelter from violence. It should help people settle in.
As for those objecting to refugees ariving….I also think the first paragraph of the article Jim2 linked is clearly wild eyed and delusional:
All of the major Christian churches in America have come out in favor of importing hundreds of thousands of Muslims into the US from the Middle East, even though such a move will speed up the extinction of both European-Americans and Christianity itself.
Do you really think allowing more Muslims to immigrate into the US form the middle east will result in the extinction of European Americans? Extinction?! I certainly don’t think so.
Moreover, that’s the exact sort of inflammatory and prejudiced argument that was used to justify limiting immigration of Irish, Poles, Italians.. eastern Europeans, Jews and every later wave of immigration to the country.
The fact that jim2’s article link opens with such widely delusional language makes me suspect it’s going to be rather full of similarly delusional view and claims.
Brandon – I find your analysis to be naive. Lucia – This thread got kicked off because of the terrorist attack in Paris. Considering the situation in Europe – the language of the website isn’t looking all that delusional. We have an actual example of that process occurring in France – reality, not a racist fantasy.
I would rather be on the safe side and stop all immigration from the Middle East now, at least until we can know for sure we can Westernize any such immigrants.
And WRT this “mentoring” program you envision, hopefully the citizen in question would volunteer and not be forced to comply.
An article from 2007. I can only imagine these concerns have become more pronounced over the intervening years.
…
“In today’s rapidly changing world, people from nations rich and poor worry about losing their traditional culture. In 46 out of 47 countries, majorities say their traditional way of life is getting lost,†the poll said.
Some are more worried than others.
While 73 percent of American respondents fretted about the trend, the sentiment was more pronounced in Britain, France, Germany and Spain. It was more than 90 percent in South Korea and Bangladesh. Concern for loss of tradition, however, was less strident in many Middle Eastern countries, at 51 percent among Palestinians and 53 percent in Jordan.
Sweden, at 49 percent, was the lone exception to the finding.
Should each country guard their innate culture and lifestyle? The answer was a rousing “yes†— again in 46 out of 47 of the countries. In the U.S., 62 percent said we should protect our way of life. Those sentiments were more pronounced among Republicans (71 percent) than Democrats (60 percent).
… http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/oct/5/immigration-loss-of-culture-worry-nations/?page=all
jim2,
Sorry, but suggesting “extinction” is delusional even after Paris.
We have an actual example of that process occurring in France – reality, not a racist fantasy.
Yes. We have an actual example. And that example does not include extinction. So: the example shows the article is delusional. Parisians have not become extinct, nor will they.
Some are more worried than others.
Evidently some are so worried they have become delusional.
It’s fine to be worried. But succumbing to delusions is not helpful.
I would rather be on the safe side and stop all immigration from the Middle East now, at least until we can know for sure we can Westernize any such immigrants.
It’s one thing to have a preference. You’re entitled to that. Some other people– evidently some in these churches would rather err or the generous and caring side. That’s their preference.
But suggesting that immigration — or letting others preference be granted rather than yours– will result in extinction is either ridiculous hyperbole or delusion. Suggesting that what happened in Paris is evidence these delusions are true is utterly unconvincing because Parisian are no more extinct that Irish in Belfast. Terrorism is bad, it should be stopped. But hyperbole is not the way to stop it and resorting to it to make your preference sound the only reasonable just makes those who hold your prefreence sound wild eyed and unhinged.
It’s not going to make make me think your preference is the more reasonable view. If you want to explain why your view is reasonable provide reasons that are not nutty. Immigration is not going to lead to extinction of European American’s.
And WRT this “mentoring†program you envision, hopefully the citizen in question would volunteer and not be forced to comply.
It wouldn’t work unless the citizen was a volunteer. Conscripted mentors would almost certainly do inadequate jobs. Given your views, I’m pretty sure you would be terrible at it! After all: you don’t want the immigrants here and don’t want to help them.
But I’d be against conscription even if some of them felt duty bound to help– this should be volunteer. I have generally libertarian views and I don’t see any reason why a citizen should be forced to help a refugee.
My vision is a bit like this:
It strikes me that if the Lutherans (for example) would like the US to bring in refugees a parish could set up a program to sponsor. Then those members of the parish who wish to aid could volunteer to sponsor. The number of refugees sponsored would be in proportion to the individuals who are actually willing to assist. Perhaps the program would require 1 US citizen volunteer per family unit of 2 or less and 1 extra for every additional 3 members. (So wife,husband grandma and 2 kids needs 2 adults).
This strikes me as fairly balanced, ensures the amount of work per volunteer is in the “do-able” range – and would also tend to distribute refugees in a way that doesn’t overburden any particular community. If churches were involved, you’d likely get clustering but not flooding in areas. That’s likely best.
“How can you believe some human behavior IS NOT better than some other human behavior?”
TE,
Of course I believe some human behavior IS NOT better than some other behavior. And I have a reason I believe that way. I suspect you don’t.
Andrew
jim2,
“In today’s rapidly changing world, people from nations rich and poor worry about losing their traditional culture. In 46 out of 47 countries, majorities say their traditional way of life is getting lost,†the poll said.
People “worry” about a lot of things.
But even if they “worry” the fact is much of “traditional” culture changes because of technology. Our current culture is hardly the same as in 1776. Among other things: the South lost slavery. Women can own property and vote. Heck…. they can go to university rather easily. There aren’t as many male only or female only colleges as in the 50s. And older people no longer live with their younger family members because — as much as they complain about elderly poverty– many have social security which is sufficient to make them decide they have enough money to not have to live under their kids roofs. All of those other things were “traditional culture”.
Oh. Also: fewer people go to church. And may of us spend time on the internet instead of fetching water from the well.
None of this “death” of the “traditional” culture is due to “extiction” caused by “immigration”.
It was more than 90 percent in South Korea and Bangladesh.
Well. Yes. The threat of electricity and financial prosperity does mean the “traditional” culture of South Korea is likely to vanish. Possibly that of Bangladesh. It may well be that some in those countries like to dream of retaining “tradition”, but likely they also dream of financial prosperity and a decent standard of living. That the later may displace many of the former “traditions” is not unlikely. One can only hope.
The answer was a rousing “yes†— again in 46 out of 47 of the countries
Funny thing about polls. People will contradict themselves. If you asked Bengali’s if they’s like their kids to go to college, get a good education and so on. Bet they’ll say yes too. But that would end up destroying their culture.
jim2,
New Colossus [Emma Lazarus]
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
So this is now a dead letter? Culture is like climate, it’s always changing.
Lucia. Of course, no one said Parisians will cease to exist, but instead their way of life.
I admire the tenacity of your beliefs. But I think you have to realize that sometimes by applying one’s principles to all situations can conceivably destroy those very principles. I’m not here simply for an argument. I believe any further argument from me will simply cause you to dig a deeper fox hole. And any evidence I provide will be viewed as tainted. I will leave some links, but I urge everyone to attempt to be as objective as possible while you research the actual effects of Muslim immigration on European countries. If you do, I believe you will change your POV.
no one said Parisians will cease to exist, but instead their way of life.
Uhmm…
You said it was evidence to support this
All of the major Christian churches in America have come out in favor of importing hundreds of thousands of Muslims into the US from the Middle East, even though such a move will speed up the extinction of both European-Americans and Christianity itself.
No extinction process of Parisians is underway, and so it is not evidence of that any extinction process for “European-Americans” in the US. That paragraph which you quoted is wild eyed hyperbole or delusion. Take your pick which. Your claim it is evidence of said extinction process is ludicrous.
you to dig a deeper fox hole
Odd you think I’m the one in the fox hole.
DeWitt,
Culture is like climate, it’s always changing.
Presumably there are some who think that part of the traditional American way of life should be extinguished. Only other parts (that involve saving “European-Americans” or some such) are worth saving. . .
jim2
You might want to provide us your opinion on those links. The first one:
The UK now allows people to write wills of their own choosing. We already have a right to do exactly that in the US. Evidently they must not have in the UK– which in my view means they are finally becoming civilized.
That this means those who believe in Sharia will write laws leaving money to sons and not daughters– sure. They can do so in the US too. Gosh. Husbands don’t need to leave money to wives who they divorced. Fancy that?! (Note to SteveF: how would you feel about being forced to leave money to an ex wife? The way the article jim2 links it sounds like UK law would have required that in the past, but this has somehow “changed” due to immigration of Moslems. Not sure if the article is true or not. But I suspect many divorced people would be glad for that change.)
Form my POV, that sounds like influx of moslems is making the UK more libertarian which is a good thing.
jim2: so was that the ‘take home point’ you thought your first link made? Real question.
If you could tell us the ‘take home point’ you think the other ones make, perhaps I’ll click and read them.
Brandon is right, of course: the Christian churches are just being Christian–refreshingly so.
Lucia and deWitt are also right: culture is always changing. But if there is a part of American culture that I would not want to change is their welcoming of strangers.
I have had little on which to comment in threads with topics such as this one and mainly I suppose because I shy away from defining individuals by the larger groups to which they may claim membership. Those individuals who acknowledge belonging to widely recognized political and religious groups frequently can have views which differ significantly with the group orthodoxy or tenets. Those differences can viewed as good or bad depending on the viewers point of view on a specific difference.
On the other hand, I do not think a reasonable discussion of these various groupings can avoid assessing general group tendencies and actions, however, the existence of individual differences within group members should always be assumed. Some groupings arising from agreement on a basic tenet can be misapplied when differing behaviors/views of members within that group are ignored and applied generally – and particularly so when a negative view is suggested. That is apparent when Lucia notes that she disagrees with the behavior/views of some other non believers who imply their behavior/views stem from a commonly held tenet. I am firmly in Lucia’s camp on this one.
The Roman Catholic Church, because its tenets are well defined and publicized, comes to mind as an example of differences of individual members with the group tenets. Individual members of political parties can also have a wide range of views on a specific issue and at the same time that the political parties can be regarded as very much the same when more basic tenets are applied to their philosophies.
I often wonder why individuals want to group identify and what benefits derive from that identification. I can think only of a single exception and that is being a Cubs fan – or at least for the time being.
I would have no problem with refugees entering a nation where the sponsorship of those refugees is well documented and that responsibility firmly held. Refugees as a practical matter are going to feel more welcome and adjust better if a caring individual or organization is involved in their settlement. Doing it as a matter of political gain and/or correctness and then shifting the care off onto some non caring bureaucracy of a public agency will create more problems than it solves.
Have we discussed the specifics of how these refugees are handled or to be handled in the US? How about the Muslim immigrants to France? How were and are they handled/treated?
Lucia,
(Note to SteveF: how would you feel about being forced to leave money to an ex wife? The way the article jim2 links it sounds like UK law would have required that in the past, but this has somehow “changed†due to immigration of Moslems. Not sure if the article is true or not. But I suspect many divorced people would be glad for that change.)
.
Most states have divorce laws designed to make asset separation fair and reasonable at the time of the separation, even if “fair and reasonable” is not always what actually happens in practice. On the assumption of fair and reasonable, it is kind of hard to justify (ok, truly nuts) forcing any additional obligations at a later date… including at death. My guess is that any such requirement in the UK was a left-over from the days when a husband was required to support his ex wife for ever, because she did not work, nor get a reasonable share of assets at the time of separation, potentially leaving her destitute when her ex husband died and his assets distributed to heirs.
julio,
But if there is a part of American culture that I would not want to change is their welcoming of strangers.
Which is why I find the anti-immigrant opinions expressed by too many Republican candidates this year disturbing.
Lucia
I am coming in at the end of this comments thread but your latest post seemed to contain a weird inaccuracy:
“You might want to provide us your opinion on those links. The first one:
The UK now allows people to write wills of their own choosing. We already have a right to do exactly that in the US. Evidently they must not have in the UK– which in my view means they are finally becoming civilized.”
First, the whole point of a “will” is that it allows you to divide your estate as you will/wish it to be divided. This is a common law notion that, for example, is not necessarily applicable in Roman law jurisdictions such as France, where some property is divided according to primogeniture. However, such wills (even in Roman law countries) are subject to legal challenge. I am not sure why any link would say that a fundamental change has been made in English law with result to will-writing any time recently.
Second, I am fairly sure that the US laws derive from English law in this respect.
So the link to which you refer must be pretty well screwed-up.
Just for further clarification, in England (and in France) you can write whatever will you like. However, it is subject to legal challenge. And, the executor of a will is able to disregard the provisions of a will, subject to certain legal constraints. I am sure you knew this already but I cannot think why anyone would say that the legal situation in England has changed in the recent past.
WRT to the will issue in the UK, it appears that there has been no change. (Which, franky, isn’t all that much of a surprise to those who’ve watched PBS mysteries including “Agatha Christie”. If the UK previously has laws dictating who one must give ones money to on death, the plots of a huge number of mysterys stories could not involve people discovering someone changed their will to disinherit “suspect A” in favor of “suspect C” and so on.)
Reading through links: The law has not changed at all as a result of arrival on Moslems. Rather, some body wrote a document to explain how one can draft provisions that match those a sub set of clients might request. That subset of clients happens to be “Moslems who adhere to Sharia Law”.
Why anyone would foam at the mouth to discover that the laws the pre-date recent influx of Islamic religionists have not been changed at all and that people contunue to have the right to write will the prefer and that the laws have not been changed to say “you have these rights unless you are Catholic Moslem. But if you are Catholic Moslem your rights will be limited. Because…well… even though our recent traditions previously said everyone has these rights, your arrival is forcing us to change those. Because. Well… we have to change them so that they will remain unchanged, see? Right..”
But some are foaming at the mouth. And I guess we are supposed to read their foaming at the mouth and conclude the immigrants are changing the traditions. And the proof of this is that they inheritance laws have not changed one iota as a result of this immigration.
Diogenes,
I am coming in at the end of this comments thread but your latest post seemed to contain a weird inaccuracy:
I agree. The article jim2 linked was foaming at the mouth at the thought that people were allowed to write the will they preferred and seemed to suggesting this was a change from the past and that change was coming about because of “Sharia law”.
In fact: the article (by no esteemed a news agency than “Huffington Post) is entirely misleading. The estate law does not appear to be “changed”. So that article is not evidence of any “problem” with moslem immigration.
Thanks for the clarification, Lucia….it looks as if the Daily Mail or similar British newspapers have been at work spreading disinformation/propaganda that feeds their readers’s worldviews.
Diogenes,
Our laws are similar. You can write any will you want. For the most part, you can leave money to whomever you want. Much of our estate law is at the state level and different states have different provisions for contesting them and a few limitions on distribution.
For example, one might need to leave provisions for children less than the age of majority or might need to leave provisions for current spouses. But I’m not sure that is required in all– or even any states. But it’s historically sometimes been a limit. (One doesn’t want 3 year olds left wards of the state if there is money to support them.)
Contests are generally over whether some sort of undue pressure was exerted on the decedent or whether they were of sound mind when the will was written. Or, occasionally, the executors interpretation of the will might be whacky. But generally, you leave money to whom you wish.
lucia
yes, those kinds of considerations are why executors have leeway to vary the provisions of a will. But there are considerable legal safeguards to ensure that assets are divided in a way the testator might have wanted.
And, further to another strange inaccuracy, once a court has divorced you and agreed on the division of resources, there is no recourse, unless it emerges at a future time that one of you made a material misdeclaration of your assets at the time the court made its decision. So it is unlikely (but not totally impossible) that an ex-wife could be supported from the estate of her former husband after his death. This must date back to sometime in the 19thc. , when wives stopped being regarded as “chattels” of their husband. Before then, IANAL, but I suspect a man could divorce a wife and retain all of the marital assets, as long as there was no legal barrier such as an entailment, without the wife having any right to protest.
Community property laws in the states that have them probably have an effect on wills. Even in common law states, IIRC, it’s difficult to completely disinherit a family member.
Do relatively generous welfare payments in the wealthier EU nations have influence on the Syrian refugees going so far from home to seek relief from the ongoing war in their country? Are safe zones closer to Syria a more practical attempt to mitigate this problem?
Does the Muslim immigration to France where many in that population require welfare and subsidized housing and have high unemployment rate – and particular amongst the youth have any forebearance on the current refugee immigration?
France provides subsidies and welfare for these immigrants but there government controlled economy generates few jobs and thus you have a dependent population with little hope of improving their lot in life – similar to generational welfare dependents in the US.
Kenneth…too many questions to attempt to answer. However, Syria was in the French Mandate after 1918. But I do not know whether that meant that Syrians learned French. From my highly limited experience, the answer is “no”. (you can cross check with Agatha Christies’s memoirs of her husbands’s digs in the 1920s….Max Mallowan…And if you cannot speak French, the French tend not to be foithcoming, just like any police force
De Witt…I hope you picked up that was my point…..there are legal limits in UK/US law to disinheriting people without a real reason
Howvever, Kenneth,
If you were in Syria and wanted to escape. Where would you go?
Turkey?….perhaps a similar religion and culture but maybe difficult top get a metropolis.
Iraq?
Lebanon?
Israel?
Saudi?
maybe one of them will supply a boat to the EU. We now have have refugees coming in from Northern Norway….probably not for much longer
DeWitt,
In community property states, each spouse owns 1/2 of what’s earned by the other during marriage. One can’t will away the portion that is not their own. For a couple who had nothing when married and one or the other earned a fortune while the other stayed at home, the earner can’t will away the home-makers portion because that money doesn’t belong to the earner even if they think it does. This can be very confusing to people and often makes people reading of “awards” during divorce in California marvel at the ‘size’ of the award. But to some extent, what’s often happening is the couple negotiated some division of assets (because things are hard to split.) Then the non-earner is reported by the news as “being grated” their half. But the way the law works in that state, technically they merely kept money that was already theirs.
(One can also get alimony and so in in California– but often with Hollywood news covering, the “huge” size of the award has to do with the fact that according to community property laws the spouses “owned” the earnings during marriage 50%-50%.
Kenneth,
I suspect the reason Syrians are swarming out of Syria is the fact that it’s war torn and in disarray. Once they’ve left, I’m sure economic opportunities and material conditions in potential destination countries affect their preferences of where to settles. So does the difficulty in getting to a destination country. These factors would affect the preferences of anyone sane.
So yes, I’m sure the social welfare benefits and opportunities for employment affect where refugees prefer to go and how hard they try to get there.
DeWitt,
Even in common law states, IIRC, it’s difficult to completely disinherit a family member.
It’s trivially easy to ‘disinherit’ an adult child in Illinois. You just don’t give then anything. Unless they can have the will overturned for something like “not in correct state of mind” or “undue influence” the will wins. It’s very very difficult to prove “not in correct state of mind” (unless you already claimed so while they were alive). It’s difficult to prove “undue influence”. I’ve heard of the latter happening more often than the former. (Not a lawyer — but when you read of families disputing, they are generally alleging the latter. Not the former.)
Generally, spouse who is ‘disinherited’ in the will can insist of 1/3rd to 1/2 of anything in the estate. They’ll get it. (Or they can sign it away.) I don’t know if a pre-nup can affect this. Perhaps a prenup has them signing it away before you die. Dunno. But that still would be an agreement on the part of the ‘disinhereted’ spouse to agree give up their portion.
In Illinois, if you want to keep your money away from your spouse when you die, you need to first set up a living trust and have that trust disbursed to someone else. In that case the money is not in the estate and so isn’t subject to the laws. I’m not sure what happens in other states.
But– of course– while you are alive you can give away money that is actually yours. So if you are willing to pauperize yourself, you are generally able to avoid leaving anything to anyone. But you have to give away your money before you die. Quite often people don’t want to do that.
Lucia, DeWitt — The basic “common law” rule is that you can’t completely disinherit a spouse, but you can completely disinherit a child. Spouses get an “elective share”…which varies from state to state, 1/3 of the estate being common, I believe. If you leave a spouse less than that, he can come back and insist on at least that much.
I’ve drafted wills for people going through divorces which include language to this effect: “I am leaving my spouse the minimum allowable under [mystate] law; my purpose is to disinherit my spouse to the maximum extent possible under the law.” That way, when the divorce goes through, the spouse’s share sinks to zero with no need to re-draft the will.
After 9/11 Time magazine had a statistic that the majority of Arabs in America were Christians. I don’t know if that’s still the case but it makes sense that the first to flee would be atheists and Christians and that would seem likely for Syria refugees also. NPR had a story on Syrians fleeing to Germany and converting to Christianity and struggling to sing the Latin hymns.
This is kind of off-topic, but it goes to the whole wild-eyed and delusional anti-Muslim rhetoric thing. Plus, it’s just crazy. Apparently Donald Trump, a leading contender for the Republican nomination for president, said he saw thousands of Muslims from New Jersey celebrating the September 11th terrorist attacks as the World Trade Center buildings collapsed.
Yes, he’s that nutso. And he’s not just nutso to say it once. He then repeated the claim during an interview when asked about it, repeatedly insisting he had seen it with his own eyes, even saying it was widely covered at the time. He went so far as to suggest it is just some sort of political correctness or something that makes people not talk about the fact it happened nowadays.
The worst part though? I was spending some time with family today and brought this up. I was a little… not happy about it, and I mentioned that it would probably be a bad idea to elect a person as president if he is basically going to slander ethnic groups based upon crazy ideas that exist purely as figments of his imagination when all available evidence shows they are false. The first reaction I got was:
Well, are you sure he said that?
Which probably should have been a warning sign that I should have just shut up. Instead, I got to spend five minutes seeing family members and a couple of their neighbors try to shrug off the issue as not mattering to whether or not Trump should be elected. One even said, “How do you know they weren’t celebrating?”
I think the fact there is so much anti-immigration hysteria is probably a sign of something, but I wouldn’t care to guess what. All I know is people scare me. As in, I’m starting to realize how many people I see on a daily basis would read the articles jim2 linked to and agree with them. It’s frightening.
Oh. My. God. Are people seriously so desperate to justify anti-immigrant hysteria or Donald Trump worship they’ll stoop to that level? A story said this:
In Jersey City, within hours of two jetliners’ plowing into the World Trade Center, law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river.
Let’s assume this is completely accurate. All it says is some people were questioned and detained for allegedly celebrating the attacks on some rooftops. This was actually mentioned in one of the “fact checks” of Donald Trump’s claims, and as they point out, these were just allegations. There’s no evidence the allegations were true or that anything ever came of them. Despite that, jim2 and from what I’m seeing apparently quite a few other people want to believe that somehow justifies Donald Trump saying:
“Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering.â€
Allegations were made a number of people celebrated on some rooftops. Trump claimed to have watched thousands of people cheering. According to him, these weren’t just allegations:
It was on television. I saw it.
Not only was it on television:
“There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations. They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down. I know it might be not politically correct for you to talk about it, but there were people cheering as that building came down — as those buildings came down. And that tells you something. It was well covered at the time, George. Now, I know they don’t like to talk about it, but it was well covered at the time. There were people over in New Jersey that were watching it, a heavy Arab population, that were cheering as the buildings came down. Not good.â€
Nothing in that story is remotely like what Donald Trump said, and there’s not even any evidence the allegations of the story were even true. Despite that, I’ve seen over a dozen people link to that same story as though it somehow makes what Trump said right.
I’m starting to see how people came to burn witches.
Jfergusion – “As I said, i think you could grasp this yourself if you read it directly. True, I read English translations, one from 1983 and one from 1890, likely before there were any axes which needed grinding.”
I have to ask JFergusion – did you also read the Hadith?
To Jfergusion – A second question about your reading of the Koran – was it in the order by number of the Surahs, or by an order of estimated Surah chronology?
I am only asking because I am curious to how well known these two aspects of the Islamic faith are.
Turbulent Eddy:
I don’t know if that’s still the case but it makes sense that the first to flee would be atheists and Christians and that would seem likely for Syria refugees also.
Also, in spite of what some out there are claiming (not a neutral source, but there are plenty who agree with the sentiment) Muslims do convert to Christianity. If you think about it,it makes sense to see people abandoning the religion of their childhood if they blame religious extremism for depriving them of their homeland.
Muslims are supposed to be flocking to them, not fleeing from them. And as people leave Syria, they carry actionable intelligence that can be used against ISIS. Naturally ISIS is trying to foul the waters, and it’s turned out to be trivial to get people in the US to freak out over this.
Kan, No I haven’t read the Hadith. I read the Surahs in the order they were found in the two editions and in some innocence because I had no idea that sequence might have mattered. I read the first in 2001 suspecting that a lot of what I saw in the newspaper describing what was in the Koran wasn’t accurate. I confess that I was also looking for the passage that went something like “Building is the most foolish thing which eateth up the wealth of a believer”
Alas, it’s not in there.
I read the older translation around 2010 to assure myself again, that a lot of the “quotes” I was seeing on some of the blogs i read at the time still weren’t in there.
I don’t doubt that a lot of those things are in the Hadith. I probably didn’t look hard enough but concluded in 2010 that there were a variety of versions of it and that it was not downloadable as a whole. Maybe it is now.
I objected to jim2’s quote of an interpretation of the Koran’s latitude in punishing unintended oaths involving the Almighty. I could well remember my reaction on first seeing it that it was one of the most reasonable things i’d ever read in a religious tract. And this remarkable outbreak of looseness was not part of any setup to escape an unintended marriage, or at least not in the Koran.
Diogenes,
I worked with Syrian engineer in 1970. He knew French. Also worked with Lebanese engineer who, while attending LSU in Baton Rouge, got lost in the country and while seeking navigational guidance from a local, was compelled to ask if he was speaking English. He thought he was.
My friend could not understand the guy’s English (could you?) but somehow discovered that he also spoke French. Friend was able to hack the local French.
While it is very PC to suggest Islam “has nothing to do with terrorism”, there is in fact considerable acceptance of and support for terror (eg suicide bombing) to ‘defend Islam’: http://pewrsr.ch/1azmY9e
What constitutes a threat to islam is, of course, open to a broad range of interpretations.
.
In any case, the number of Muslims who hold a favorable view of terrorist organizations like al Qaida is far from zero, even in countries like Turkey and Malaysia which people in the West consider allies. The sad reality is that the culture associated with Islam is where terrorists are recruited from, and dealing honestly with that reality is something many in the West (like our current president and his most likely successor) completely refuse to do. Should Islamist terrorists make the strategic mistake of a terror attack in the USA in the next 11 months, or even one or two more in Europe, the next president is unlikely to be Hillary.
jferguson,
I worked as a consultant many years ago at a chemical plant in Israel. One of the production supervisors knew not a word of English, but turned out to have been born in a Spanish speaking group of Jews (Sephardic Jews) and had moved to Israel as a child. So while English and Hebrew were not possible, we got by quite well in “Portanol”. (mix of Spanish and Portuguese)
jferguson,
We discovered this communication channel when he understood some of my cursing in Portuguese……. over my inability to communicate with him in English. 🙂
Hi SteveF,
I was recently alerted to a hazard of cursing in a language you don’t know. I worked at an engineering company in Chicago in the ’60s – with among 350 others, Lucia’s late father-in-law. One of the Filipinos used to curse, under his breath in Tagalog. Some of us picked it up, and to date, I still find it useful under appropriate provocation.
Having done so in the presence of my Filipina sister-in-law, I’ve come to understand that the word is REALLY nasty and should NEVER be used in the presence of ladies. Of course, she could be pulling my leg.
Brandon
Donald Trump’s claims, and as they point out, these were just allegations. There’s no evidence the allegations were true or that anything ever came of them.
Not only are they just allegations, they are allegations made during a period of panic. Is it likely some people watched the towers falling from roof tops. Of course. I’m sure LOTS of people climbed up to roofs to watch the towers. I didn’t because I live in Illinois. So I watched the towers on tv. Obviously, television stations possitioned camera men on in places to not only watch the tower but broadcast it to the zillions of people across the world, many of whom watched.
Is it likely that some of those watching brought up coolers and beverages to watch over time? Of course. Does “eating” or “drinking” mean “celebrating”. No.
Would some of those on rooftops have been Moslem? Of course. Some Moslems live in NJ. Are they somehow uniquely expected to show no interest in an event everyone else was watching? That notion is idiotic.
Might some people in NJ somehow jump to the conclusion that the subset of people of roofs who looked (and may well have been) Moslems must be “celebrating”? Probably. Does that mean they were “celebrating”. No. Does the story even give any evidence to suggest the allegations of “celebrating” were true? Were they firing off firecrackers? Playing celebratory music? Having belly dancers cavort to create an especially celebratory atmosphere. Nope. As far as we can tell, the “evidence” anyone was on the roof “celebrating” was that they were on the roof (and I’m sure many people were) and they looked Moslem to those allegging “celebrations”.
Would police go talk to people if others “alleged” they were “celebrating” the towers falling? Of course. Police investigate allegations all the time. That’s what the Police do.
In the wake of 9/11, they were intensively focusing on allegations about anyone or anything that might result in clues to who carried out the bombing. So of course they would have knocked on the doors of people who were “alleged” to be “celebrating”. That doesn’t mean those making allegations were remotely correct about the state of mind of those one the roof was; it doesn’t even mean the police thought there was anything much in the way of evidence.
Did the article intimating that they were celebrating (by telling us this was “alleged”) link to any video recordings of said “celebration”? Nope. By some near miracle no one took a video recording of people “celebrating”.
I have no idea what point jim2 thought he was making by linking to that blog post. He would need to tell us what point he thought he was making for me to know. But to me, it appears to be evidence that some delusional people have lost all ability to look at evidence and think critically about things they read on the internet.
SteveF
Should Islamist terrorists make the strategic mistake of a terror attack in the USA in the next 11 months, or even one or two more in Europe, the next president is unlikely to be Hillary.
Yes. And since Islamist terrorist do exist, it’s possibly they may make this strategic mistake. My guess if they are already making plans, and those plans are progressing, they will not consider the consequences of the upcoming election.
Sadly, the current Republican front runner is not someone who I think is a good person to hold the reigns of power. But I do know one thing: Hillary is corrupt. I will not vote for her. Ever.
jferguson….
My nephew could tell you if she’s pulling your leg. 🙂
I’m not so sure that a terrorist attack favors Donald Trump or Ben Carson. (I think their popularity stems from the unpopularity of Obama’s domestic agenda among conservatives.)
I have no idea what point jim2 thought he was making by linking to that blog post.
Yeah, random blog links with nothing explaining a connection to their post makes the links kind of worthless. A bit like rhetorical questions that way: Nobody has an idea what point they are really trying to argue.
Carrick
Mario Rubio or Jeb Bush possibly would benefit.
Depends when it happens. Before or after the Republican nomination matters.
Just a reminder to refer to ‘isis’ as Daesh – which is the Arabic acronym, but also a word that roughly translates to ‘bigot’ which is what many of the Arab peoples think of them.
.
We should certainly not give them anymore legitimacy than the Arabs at large do, which is none.
.
NPR kind of flops around by calling them ‘the self proclaimed Islamic State’, but using Daesh would be better.
CNBC had this good piece this morning.
.
Reminder that by far, most victims of jihadists are Muslims, not Christians. And that Most of the Parisian attackers were second generation Frenchmen, not foreigners.
.
Of course, one of the attackers was, in fact, a Syrian refugee, validating some caution.
.
Also, most were poor and unemployed, making them suceptible to the Daesh identity when they lacked an identity as French or employee.
The distraction over refugees, like the idea that America has always had an open door to refugees or should have an open door in the future is nice distraction from the root issue: The feckless incoherent policy that Mr. Obama, and Ms. Clinton while working for Obama, created.
Lucia sums up the future choices well: Trump does not seem to exhibit the temperament to POTUS (which begs the question about the current POTUS), but Ms. Clinton is profoundly and flagrantly corrupt.
Even today there are well documented reports that the Clinton Foundation is operating an unregistered private investment company out of Foundation offices in Bogota Colombia.
The clear evidence of donations and favorable Dept. of State treatment by Ms. Clinton have not at all been resolved. The email abuse and her large gray area (ahem) with dual rolled employees between her private interests and Dept. of State have not fairly resolved. And the list grows from there.
Bernard Lewis writes about the ‘Golden Age’ of Islam ( I think it’s in What Went Wrong? ).
.
That was about the time of the Alhambra. Islamic culture was at the peak of power and wealth and also learning and culture. Knowledge, libraries, hospitals, even arts were at a peak but fundamentalists seemed to take down the Islamic leaders of the time for infidelity ( not being true to the religion ).
.
That is the contradiction I would pose to the Daesh types – it was liberal ( in the classical sens ) Islam that led to glory, and rigid fundamentalism brought it down.
.
But just as with climate hysterics, there’s no reasoning with zealots.
I have no doubt that the majority of Syrian refugees are good people, looking to work hard and raise their families.
.
I also have no doubt that Daesh would like to send ( and probably are sending ) operatives in the flood to perform bloody acts on US soil.
.
We have to act to
1. make the main opposition and forces regional interests and
2. do so without inflaming Sunni/Shia civil war and
3. in a way which marginalizes Daesh and
4. rewards civil states in the middle east.
.
Simple, right?
In a free society, we may have to accept some amount of violence.
.
While economic wealth is important, what makes ‘exceptional’ is not divine blessing nor exceptional skill or being ( though immigrants have provided exceptional drive ).
.
What makes America exceptional is dedication to liberty and adherence to rule of law as specified in the Constitution.
.
Perhaps most important thing to ensuring rule of law a Congressional succession plan. ( Presidential succession seem well laid out by the Constitution, but not Congress or the Supreme court ). This was raised after 9/11, but did anything change?
.
Without succession plans, martial law might be imposed which would carry some uncertainty.
hunter, I’ve wondered if there are any other “foundations” that are US based which receive donations from foreign governments at the same level (amount?) as the Clintons’. Or whose proprietors get paid so well for speeches.
I would think such a thing could be discovered, but it would be a job and I don’t know how.
I thought Hillary’s dancing around whether she would run in 2016 was especially disingenuous. Of course she would. If she hadn’t, likely the massive support of Clinton Inc. would have stopped.
We were astonished during our annual June visit up the East Coast to visit old friends, mostly liberals and the females mostly grads of Hillary’s alma mater (older cohort, though) to find of the fourteen, only one supported her, or could support her, or could even stand her. And even more surprising, to me at least, although all had voted for Obama in 2008, many had switched to Romney in 2012, something about needing an adult.
More than half of them would vote for Jeb unless a democrat not now running surfaces. I hope the Republicans think about this. There are plenty of disenchanted Dems out there praying to be rescued from Hillary.
Unfortunately, this looks like it is going to be a very difficult election.
jferguson,
Unfortunately, this looks like it is going to be a very difficult election.
Worse. It is likely to followed by a bad four years– at least.
I realize there are people who like Trump. They have just as much a right to vote as I do. But it’s a dang shame he’s in the lead. A dang shame.
Turbulent Eddy:
Of course, one of the attackers was, in fact, a Syrian refugee, validating some caution.
I think some caution is advised, but it’s not confirmed that one of the attackers was a Syrian refugee.
If you go through the Cato report, they make (to me) a pretty compelling quantitative argument against allowing Syrian refugees into the US being even a marginal threat.
Simply put, there are much easier ways to attack the US than posing as refugees. Of the 860,000 or so displaced refugees there’s been world wide a total of 3 that were convicted of terrorism related activities.
Simply put, there are much easier ways to infiltrate the US than to spend as much as three years in a queue waiting for a turn to enter the US.
lucia, here’s a link about the origin of that claim about those “celebrations”:
A slightly friendlier interpretation is at Snopes, citing back to this article on 9/11 “snapshot memories” in general (and how accurate they aren’t).
Joseph W., that’s actually the same interpretation I’ve assumed from the beginning – Trump misremembered things and then just insisted those memories were true in the face of all contrary evidence. The former is forgivable; the latter is not. People remember things incorrectly all the time. That’s forgivable.
What’s not forgivable is smearing ethnic groups based upon faulty memories after people have pointed out those memories are faulty then insisting people are not agreeing with you due to some sore of societal pressure. That’s the point where you’re being delusional.
(Incidentally, mistakes in memories often shed light on people’s inner biases. That Trump managed to come up with this particular fantasy may well shed some light on his inner views.)
Carrick,
“Mario Rubio”
.
Is that Marco’s cousin or his brother? 🙂
jferguson,
“I was recently alerted to a hazard of cursing in a language you don’t know.”
.
Not the case here; I can curse with great fluency in Portuguese, and I understand exactly what I am saying.
Re: Carrick (Comment #140954)
I think their popularity stems from the unpopularity of Obama’s domestic agenda among conservatives.
Likely true and in line with the rise of the Tea Party. The rise of the Tea Party also has precedence in the depression-era American Liberty League launched in opposition to the New Deal.
jferguson,
” There are plenty of disenchanted Dems out there praying to be rescued from Hillary.”
.
Maybe, but I suspect they just they don’t like Hillary (the lies, theft, deception, corruption, etc. are an embarrassment) and wish there were a ‘cleaner’ candidate, not that they will ever actually vote for a Republican, no matter who it is. Should Hillary lose, and especially if the Republicans hold both Houses of Congress, much of the ‘progress’ of Mr Obama’s last 8 years will be undone; I don’t know many Democrats who could accept that.
SteveF:
.Is that Marco’s cousin or his brother
>.<
Or maybe his alter ego.
(Since he's out of the noise floor in the polls now, I suppose I should learn to spell his name correctly.)
Carrick,
“Since he’s out of the noise floor”
.
Well, he is probably the most credible candidate if you discount the crazy and the unconscious (Trump and Carson). Cruz is too much an a-hole, though he is trying very hard.
Regarding false memories, there’s a really good TED talk by one of the leading researchers, Elizabeth Loftus, on this topic.
I don’t have a problem with Trump mis-remembering the supposed celebration of Muslims in New Jersey after 9/11. I do have a problem with his lack of integrity for not coming forward and admitting error.
This is not the sort of person that should be president of the United States.
Trump is only one letter off.
Carrick,
Trump does not have, nor has he ever had, a shred of integrity. He is an ugly cross between an id!ot and a narcissistic madman. The sooner he is gone from the race the better. That he garners the support he does is even more surprising than the support an unvarnished socialist gets from leftist loons among Democrats. We clearly live in interesting times.
Turbulent Eddie:
Trump is only one letter off.
When I read that all I could think was “krump,” and it reminded me of Trump dancing. I hate you now.
Isaac Asimov, in the introduction to his autobiography(I think) mentioned that a lot of what he thought he remembered about the early days of the Golden Age of pulp science fiction was contradicted by his journals. Memory is quite plastic, unfortunately. See the recovered-memory therapy scandal, for example
Carrick – If another terrorist attack, or 2, occurred there is no way Jeb or Rubio would benefit. The underpinnings of Trump support comes strictly from his stance on immigration. Terrorists among immigrates is a large part of the issue.
Rubio and Jeb are known as being pro immigration.
We clearly live in interesting times.
And entirely too many of us are likely to get everything they wished for while people in high places notice them.
I know most have seen these one word descriptions that poll participants gave of candidates earlier, but how can we forget what at least some think of our would be presidents (selected for juvenile interest ):
Donald Trump:
arrogant, blowhard, idiot, clown, asshole, joke, pompous, egomaniac, racist, buffoon, jerk, ass, moron
That this means those who believe in Sharia will write laws leaving money to sons and not daughters– sure. They can do so in the US too.
That’s true. But when you go to the lawyer’s office you shouldn’t get to refer to a sanctioned manual on how to discriminate against women.
From the article
But to have an organisation such as The Law Society seeming to promote or encourage a policy which is inherently gender discriminatory in a way which will have very serious implications for women and possibly for children is a matter of deep concern
So the issue isn’t so much about how one chooses to distribute one’s wealth once one dies, rather its an issue of official procedure adopted by the law society.
Follow that thought through and you’ll see that people writing wills could easily be pressured into a distribution that they wouldn’t otherwise have chosen.
TTTM,
sanctioned manual
Sanctioned? What’s that even mean? Seriously.
It looks a professional society that may be UK equivalent of the ABA wrote a document that explained how a solicitor can write a will that carries out the wishes of a client. I’m not seeing what’s wrong with this. What is the society supposed to do– recommend solicitors refuse to write wills for people? That would seem rather ridiculous.
So the issue isn’t so much about how one chooses to distribute one’s wealth once one dies, rather its an issue of official procedure adopted by the law society.
“Official procedure”. Nonesense. A professional society wrote tips on how lawyers who are hired by private clients and paid by private clients could write wills private clients wanted should a client request such provisiosn.
you’ll see that people writing wills could easily be pressured into a distribution that they wouldn’t otherwise have chosen.
How will I see that? Real question. Because I don’t. And you haven’t explained how it would happen. There’s nothing about the existence of the document that would cause lawyers to write will that include provisions their clients don’t want or request.
Carrick (Comment #140965) says If you go through the Cato report,
“Of the 860,000 or so displaced refugees there’s been world wide a total of 3 that were convicted of terrorism related activities.â€
Cato report says
“Of the 859,629 refugees from 2001 onwards, only three have been convicted of planning terrorist attacks on targets outside of the United Statesâ€.
There are many millions of displaced refugees in the world. Many more than 3 of them have been convicted of terrorism related activities world wide.Some refugees become asylum seekers and hence are not listed as refugees, the Boston Marathon bombers Tamerlan and Dzokhar Tsarnaev were the sons of an asylum seeker. I see no real difference in the concerns between an asylum seeker and and a displaced refugee.
But perhaps they were christian in their beliefs?
They certainly were not even a marginal threat, let alone an argument against immigration.
Amongst other things…
How will I see that? Real question.
jim2 was right. That’s an interesting attitude from you on an obviously discriminatory process, Lucia.
TTTM
jim2 was right. That’s an interesting attitude from you on an obviously discriminatory process, Lucia.
Could you explain how any process is discriminatory? Jim2 didn’t. You haven’t. I get that you claim it is “obvious”, but if it is you should be able to describe how this “process” is “discriminatory”. I’m pretty sure you can’t (because it isn’t.) But if you or anyone can explain how the ‘process’ of will writing in the UK has become discriminatory as a result of a professional society explaining how a will can be written to comply with UK laws and also fulfill the wishes of the decedent, perhaps I’ll be able to see that it is discriminatory and how.
But for now: I can’t. And neither you nor jim2 have explained how. As far as I can tell, you haven’t even tried to explain how it is discriminatory.
FWIW: In the US, lawyers who are hired by those who wish to write will to comply with Sharia law also might wish to seek guidance. The main guidance is that the decendent must specify what s/he want. They can’t write something like “I want my law to be governed by Sharia law” and expect judges or executors to then decide what Sharia law is. Judges and executors don’t get to decide what religions call for. But they can enforce legal wills that happen to leave more money to sons than daughter, happen to not leave money to illegitimate children and happen to not leave money to ex-wives.
That a document might conveniently explain this to a lawyer is hardly “discriminatory”. But if you think it is, you’ll have to explain how it is “discriminatory”.
Could you explain how any process is discriminatory?
Unless I’ve misunderstood this, the article was describing a document on the shelf of a law firm sanctioned by the law society describing how to distribute money and doesn’t include women (for religious reasons) aimed at clients who want to apply “sharia law” to their will.
And you cant see how that is discriminatory?
TTTM,
And you cant see how that is discriminatory?
No. I have no idea in what way you think this is “discriminatory”.
Lawyers are hired by people to write wills whose provisions those clients wish to include in their wills. Those people pay the lawyers. Those people also have a right to leave their money to the people they wish to leave it to.
Lawyers having access to a document that helps them provide the service their client has paid them to provide is not “discriminatory”.
The exact same lawyers may also write wills for other clients who might want to leave money only to their daughters, only to the local humane society or to donate all their money to the Bill and Melissa Gates foundation. Lawyers having access to documents that help them write those wills is also not “discriminatory”.
As it happens: I favor people being allowed to leave their money to whomever or whatever they prefer. I have absolutely no objection to lawyers who accept money to help people write wills having access to whatever documents that might help them write will that fulfill the legal requirements necessary to have the money be distributed as the decendent wishes.
Beyond that: If someone really objects to the notion that a person could leave money to their sons only and not their daughters that persons shouldn’t be complaining that a document exists explaining that they perfectly well can (as they always have been able to– even before the Moslem population grew in the UK.) They should be clamoring to change UK law to ensure that the government decides who gets your money when you die.
I happen to think the government mandating who a decedent leaves his money to would be a very bad idea. (Heck if NY state had mandated equal division between boys and girls,– my Dad’s uncle Frank wouldn’t have been able to leave most of his money to take care of his mentally disabled son– Richard– rather than his high income daughter– Sandra. Sandra– and attorney– was appointed trustee to care for Richard. FWIW:Richard was sufficiently mentally disabled that he did not live alone until Uncle Frank died. Sandra was a prosecutor married to another attorney and lived in a Brownstone she and her husband owned in Park Avenue. Do you really think the government should have required Uncle Frank to split his money 50/50% between the two kids on the grounds of “equality of the sexes”? I don’t. )
In my opinions if someone really truly believe that people — including Christians and atheists– should not be allowed to decide how to partition their own money on death, that person should be complaining about laws that permit people to write their own wills rather than complaining that some professional society (who is not the government) has written a document to explain how a lawyer who takes money to provide a service might be able to provide the service the client paid for. If you want to change the long standing tradition that people get to write their own wills then day so. Don’t try to cloak this into some sort of grudge against “Sharia” which hasn’t changed people’s rights in anyway.
Sorry: but people being able to leave their own money to who they want is not “discriminatory” as a process. It doesn’t suddenly become “discriminatory” just because some clients might want to leave money to their sons rather than daughters (while others might make the other choice.)
That some people might “discriminate” is true. But society is better off letting individuals have their way in certain things rather than having the government mandate how every penny is distributed to everyone. If you think otherwise: then fine. But admit that what you are really asking for is the government to deprive people of the right to write their own wills.
That would be the huge change in our tradition of individual liberty.
TTM
And you cant see how that is discriminatory?
BTW: Can you explain how or why you think lawyers helping clients write wills to leave money to whever they want is discriminatory? Or is your full argument to ask me whether I can’t see it. Because: no, I can’t. In fact, I think it’s not.
But if you think it is presumably you have can explain how and why rather than limiting your argument for your position to asking a rhetorical questions. (I also remind you, my answer to that question is “No. I can’t see how it is. Not at all. Unless you explain how, I will continue to not see how and I won’t believe you really know how it is either.”)
Can you explain how or why you think lawyers helping clients write wills to leave money to whever they want is discriminatory?
This isn’t about personal choice, its about the Law Society sanctioning a discriminatory process.
Would you agree with a law society sanctioned document describing how to write your will if your daughter were to marry a black guy with a view to offering it to KKK members?
TTM,
People are free to do with their money, within very broad limits, whatever they want.
As long as those wants are within those broad limits lawyers are obliged to assist their clients.
If someone wished to give their money to the group in your example a good lawyer would point out that the KKK has a huge lawsuit judgement against it and that the Southern Poverty Law Center or their successors or assigns, would probably end up with the bequest.
People are marketed to leave at least part of their estates to the Public Broadcasting Corporation nearly every time one turns on a PBS station with the idea that TV is worth dying for, I guess.
To not allow Muslims to give leave their estates as they wish within the law is what would be discriminatory.
Hunter writes “…”
And I’ll say it again, this isn’t about personal choice, its about the Law Society sanctioning a discriminatory process.
” the Law Society sanctioning a discriminatory process”
How do you know they sanctioned a discriminatory process? As Lucia says, the Law Society is supposed to give its members advice on how to write wills that implement their wishes, subject to British law. It may well have been advising them of the limits imposed by British law. We can’t tell now, because the document seems to have disappeared from the internet.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. Under Sharia law, males were given twice as large a share of the inheritance as females as males were responsible for the household (wives, mothers, etc.) while females only needed the money for themselves. Some practitioners of Sharia law wish to continue this tradition, as well as other traditions regarding inheritance. The British Law Society drafted a document giving solicitors guidelines on how to draft wills according to those traditions.
TimTheToolMan and apparently others view this as discriminatory. They feel because some people wish to give a larger share of their inheritance to males of the family than females, and the document would explain how to draft a will according to their wishes, the document is discriminatory. According to them, while it is perfectly legal to give a larger share of an inheritance to male family members than female family members, it is completely unacceptable to have a document published by an organization which explains how one would draft a will which does so.
I believe I’ve got that right. I’m not positive though. It’s hard to be sure you’re understanding an argument when the people making it refuse to actually make it. In any event, it might be relevant the organization has withdrawn this document due to the idiotic public pressure. So now, solicitors won’t have an official document from the organization to use as guidance to use if a client ever asks them to draft a will in accordance to Sharia law… which will do absolutely nothing to affect their ability to draft a will in accordance with Sharia law.
I believe I’ve got that right. I’m not positive though.
You dont. I completely support freedom of choice in how people allocate their wealth after death. If a Muslim wants to allocate it all to the males in his family, then so be it.
What I dont agree with is a professional organisation producing a document describing how to distribute the wealth to the males according to Sharia law (if that’s indeed what’s being done here – it looked like that way to me, Nick)
If an individual law firm wanted to produce their own “streamlined”, sharia law abiding, will writing service then that’s up to them.
But the professional organisation “Law Society” that represents UK lawyers and their profession should not be endorsing a discriminatory process.
TTTM
But the professional organisation “Law Society†that represents UK lawyers and their profession should not be endorsing a discriminatory process.
They haven’t.
Lucia writes “They haven’t.”
They did (thanks for the reference Brandon)
And they withdrew it.
The Law Society has withdrawn guidance on how to prepare sharia-compliant wills following criticism from solicitors and the justice secretary, Chris Grayling. Recorded debates about the procedures have also been removed from the society’s website.
And then
The National Secular Society welcomed the decision. “This is an important reversal for what had seemed to be the relentless march of sharia to becoming de facto British law,†said its director Keith Porteous Wood. “Until now, politicians and the legal establishment either encouraged this process or spinelessly recoiled from acknowledging what was happening. This is particularly good news for women who fare so badly under sharia law, which is non-democratically determined, non-human rights compliant and a discriminatory code.â€
So how exactly is a procedure that describes unequally distributing wealth according to gender, not discriminatory?
TTTM,
Attorneys are advocates for their clients. They defend axe murderers, thieves, rapists, etc, no matter if there is clear and overwhelming evidence that their client is as guilty as sin. I am having a hard time understanding why your panties are in a knot over lawyers writing wills according to what their client wants. If British people think there should be restrictions on distributions in wills, then they can tell their elected representatives. Are you similarly upset by pre-nup agreements? (not rhetorical) Honestly, I see no rational argument in what you are saying.
SteveF writes “…â€
And I’ll say it again, this isn’t about personal choice, its about the Law Society sanctioning a discriminatory process.
TTTM
They did (thanks for the reference Brandon)
And they withdrew it.
They did not do what you claimed. You claimed they “endorsing a discriminatory process.” They did no such thing. Your suggesting writing a document (and withdrawing it) amounts to endorsing a discriminatory process” is silly.
They wrote a “practice note”. No one disputed they wrote a document. So showing they wrote a document isn’t remotely proof that they are doing what you claim– that is “endorsing” a “discriminatory process”.
You need to show they made any such endorsement– which you have not shown. Writing a “practice note” is not even remotely “endorsing” the decisions of any client or group of clients. At most writing of the “practice note” endorses the notion that lawyers who are paid by clients should provide effective accurate legal services to their client.
In fact, if you read their page, you will find helping their solicitors serve their clients was goal in writing the note in the first place. They write
‘Our practice note was intended to support members to better serve their clients as far as is allowed by the law of England and Wales.
This is in no way “endorsing” any sort of “discriminatory process”.
That the Law Society got blowback from some people is true. That they withdrew the document is true. That decision doesn’t mean there was ever anything actually wrong with their writing the practice note. It certainly doesn’t make the act of writing the note “endorsing” any “practice.” It merely means they didn’t like the flak and didn’t consider it useful or necessary to continue to host a document they wrote.
For what it’s worth: I’m sure plenty lawyers still have the note their hardrives and plenty of law librarians can still find it. (My sister is a law librarian, and I can assure you if one of her attorneys needed an old out of print document, she could dredge it up.)
I have no doubt the Law Society was fully aware of the information in the document would continue to be available to their members when they “withdrew” the document. Attorney’s who need the information can still get it.
SteveF
If British people think there should be restrictions on distributions in wills, then they can tell their elected representatives. Are you similarly upset by pre-nup agreements? (not rhetorical) Honestly, I see no rational argument in what you are saying.
I’m with you. I already suggested to TTTM that if people concerned about the “discriminatory” outcome of letting people write their own wills, they should try to get the laws changed. Complaining that the Law Society, a private professional society that exists to help their members provide paying clients legal representation wrote a leaflet explaining how to provide clients services they paid for is ridiculous. Calling the authoring such a pamphlet “endorsing a discriminatory process” is ridiculous.
If TTTM thinks the estate laws in the UK are ‘discriminatory’ and if he is a UK citizen, then he should write his legislators and get the estate laws corrected to force people to leave money equally to their sons and daughters. That would be a huge change in estate law. Those who value civil liberties would be totally and utterly against it. But if he thinks it’s important for the government to interfere with people’s ability to give money to whomever they want, that’s what he should be doing. Complaining that one of the thousands of leaflets the a professional society made available to help lawyers provide effective services to clients is someone “discriminatory” is ridiculous.
Lucia writes “This is in no way “endorsing†any sort of “discriminatory processâ€.
I can see why jim2 left the conversation like he did.
I should have done the same.
If you can’t see that sharia law is discriminatory in this respect and that the law society producing a document to enable that discriminatory practice to be acted in a will means the law society is complicit in the act of discrimination…If you can’t see that then there is nothing further to discuss here.
Among other things in the post, it points out the legal situation in the US (which is likely the same in the UK)
Religious motivation cannot validate contracts that are invalid for the reasons described above. But neither should religious motivation invalidate contracts that would otherwise be valid.
and then
So the proper approach to Sharia-motivated contracts or wills should be simple: continue to follow traditional American contract law principles. The strong presumption in American law is freedom of contract and freedom to dispose one’s property by will; an Islamic motivation, or any other religious motivation, doesn’t make a contract or a will unenforceable. But if the contract or will violates established public policy principles, for instance if it calls for improper remedies (the chopped-off hand), or violates family law limitations on prenuptial agreements, then it is unenforceable — again, without regard to its religious motivation.
I have no idea why people think that lawyers writing legally valid contracts (e.g. wills) for clients or the law society helping lawyers provide effective legal services for clients is “discriminatory”.
TTTM,
“I should have done the same.”
.
Considering that your argument is just silly, that would have been a wise choice…. but happily, one you can still make.
Lucia,
RealClimate seems to have disappeared (“service not available”). Perhaps they are too busy with preparations for the Paris confab to turn on the server. More seriously, it seems that the RealClimate crew has realized that successful implementation of dramatic fossil fuel ‘mitigation’ policies is a strictly political issue, not an information deficit issue, and are focusing on politics now. The child-like analysis, “If they only knew what I know, they would agree with me.” has not done well in the face of political and factual reality: they don’t agree with you because they don’t share you values, priorities, and goals. People are broadly supportive of reducing fossil fuel use…. so long as it doesn’t cost more than a few hundred dollars per year.
TTTM
If you can’t see that sharia law is discriminatory in this respect and that the law society producing a document to enable that discriminatory practice to be acted in a will means the law society is complicit in the act of discrimination…If you can’t see that then there is nothing further to discuss here.
Sharia law is discriminatory. Never denied it– wouldn’t.
But the law society writing a document explaining how to apply non-discriminatory UK law to writing wills for clients is not discriminatory.
I don’t know why you think it is. I don’t seem to be the only one here who doesn’t understand why you think it is. And as far as I can tell you haven’t even tried to explain why you think it is. You simply decree that it is so. Obviously, there isn’t any point in discussing further because you are either unwilling or unable to justify your claim.
SteveF
RealClimate seems to have disappeared (“service not availableâ€).
I’m getting auto-forwarded to other sites. The first try was to the chicago tribune. Now it’s to advertisements for bent handled pliers!
The child-like analysis, “If they only knew what I know, they would agree with me.†has not done well in the face of political and factual reality: they don’t agree with you because they don’t share you values, priorities, and goals. People are broadly supportive of reducing fossil fuel use…. so long as it doesn’t cost more than a few hundred dollars per year.
Well… yes.
On the site routing– I wonder if they were hacked? Of if someone fiddled with the template and “ooopsie”. I guess we’ll here soon.
SteveF-
By way of twitter, it turns out Realclimate has a little domain-name registration snafu. They registered this: http://realclimate-backup.org/
The server for that domain is also down for the moment!. But it was up for me a little while ago. (I suspect things are just moving around and so it will be resolving one and off possibly at different times for different people.) Oh.. it’s back up for me. 🙂
Luica,
Yes, back up now. It was down each time I check over the last few days…. several times causing nasty re-directs which locked up Safari on my iPhone. Gavin’s explanation is on the web site, dated Nov 23.
Thank goodness RealClimate is back up. I could feel that I was missing that special layer of RC propaganda while it was down. It’s a princess and the pea kinda thing. Or maybe I felt some coolness while Mr. Angry Hot Sun wasn’t blazing his evil gaze in my direction. I’m sensitive like that.
Andrew
I read Reason last night and came across this article about jihadist in Europe.
.
Main points:
.
majority are “second generation Muslims born in Europe
; almost none came as a young adult or as a teenager to Europe from the Middle East.”
.
There is a clear ‘breaking point,’ [to radicalization] often linked with a personal crisis – jail for instance.”
.
almost all of them [were] radicalised to the dismay of their parents and relatives.
.
It is a peer phenomenon: they radicalise in the framework of a small network of friends
.———————————————————————–
.
.
The article points out that it’s difficult to have top down ‘moderate Muslim’ influence, because the radicals are rejecting both their parents and the main stream Mosque, but getting reinforcement from their misguided peer group.
.
It seems to me that this is somewhat similar to gangs in the US which seemed to offer identity as well as substitute ‘family’ connections.
. To promote a “moderate Islam” to bring radicals back to the mainstream is nonsense. They just reject moderation as such.
–
To ask the “Muslim community” to bring radicals back to normal life is also nonsense. Radicals just don’t care about people they consider as “traitors,” “apostates,” or “collaborators” as long as they don’t choose the same path.
–
To consider Islam only through the lenses of “fighting terrorism” will validate the narrative of persecution and revenge that feeds the process of radicalisation.
Andrew_KY,
I don’t like the possibility that hackers take things down. I think my security is pretty good, but when other sites go down it makes me nervous. So I’m glad that wasn’t the issue.
TE,
Yeah. Gang affiliation in the US usually tended to attract those who were in economically disadvantaged fringes, those who fell into crime and were incarcerated and so on. While there is no doubt that currently, the jihadi flavor of the gang is religiously motivated– at least in the sense that the jihadi’s certainly have convinced themselves their behavior is condoned or encouraged by their religion, it’s not at all clear that other Moslem’s can convince the jihadis that behavior is not part of Islam.
But this shouldn’t be all that surprising. Different flavors of Christian haven’t consistently been able to sway each other. The Pope can sway many Roman Catholics. I don’t think his pronouncements hold much weight with Evangelicals. Certainly those who are LDS don’t pay the Pope much heed. And so on.
TTM, Come on and think this a bit deeper:
A parent who is an atheist decides his daughters only need half of the % of the estate the son should get.
That is a lawful choice.
It may not be popular with the daughters but it is lawful. Your opinion of discrimination is not relevant or applicable.
Regarding one of the previous sub-threads the poll described here suggests concerns about immigration for Trump’s popularity.
Trump first shot to the top of the GOP field by appealing to economically anxious voters who blame illegal immigration for pushing down their wages, reducing their job opportunities and soaking up taxpayer dollars. ….
Data from the latest Washington Post-ABC News national poll suggest those two issues — immigrants and refugees — differentiate Trump supporters from other Republicans.
Previous immigration waves culminated in restrictions and current foreign-born share of the population is near prior peaks . Perhaps this current immigration wave has peaked.
Here’s a question for TimTheToolMan, and it’s not rhetorical. If I want my lawyer to write a will for me in accordance with Sharia law, what resources should he be allowed to have at his disposal to figure out how to do so?
Serious question. You say I didn’t get your position right, but you didn’t say what I got wrong, and I’m genuinely curious about this. If it is wrong for private organizations to write documents explaining how lawyers can meet the legal requests of their clients, simply because the motivations of those requests might be discriminatory, then where’s the line drawn?
If writing that document amounts to endorsing discrimination, does a document explaining how to effectively challenge DNA test results in rape cases endorse rape because the primary motivation of people requesting that service from a lawyer is that they raped someone and want to get away with it? Maybe not. After all, innocent people would have motive to do it too.
What about a document explaining how to challenge the admissibility of a confession? The motivation for anyone asking a lawyer to challenge an admission to a crime is they confessed to a crime. Does that mean the document is endorsing all sorts of crime? Or are we again maybe saying that some innocent person might have falsely confessed, so it’s okay?
I honestly have no idea what your answer to any of these questions would be. I know what my answer to all of them would be. I think I know what the answer of any rational person would be. I just can’t guess what yours might be.
You know, while the questions in my previous comment were ones I’d want answered, they were also ones I made for rhetorical effect. Given that, I should probably go ahead and provide my answer to them just to be on the safe side:
Writing documents to help lawyers understand how to meet the legal requests of their clients is inherently proper behavior for any organization who’s purpose it is to help lawyers understand how to meet the legal requests of their clients. That is true no matter what those requests may be. The only way it could be wrong is if there was some sort of ethical or legal violation being called for in one or more of the documents being written.
This rapid immigration of Irish and other Europeans created fears among some native born Americans that the “foreigners†would bring undemocratic ideas, and authoritarian government. …
Competition for scarce jobs, low wages, crowded and expensive housing were blamed on the newcomers. …
The Syrian situation raises the question of just what a country is. Personally, I don’t see how a country can survive if it is open to everyone and that is the current situation. Once you sneak into the US, under Obama’s policies, you essentially have the right to stay here.
…
My big issue is not the roughly 20,000,000 illegal entrants in the US, but the next 30 or 50 million who will be coming unless we have some sort of standards for who we wish to welcome and who does not have the right to be here. Until we have meaningful controls on non-citizens, I am very leery of accepting large numbers of refugees. I believe the best way to strongly discourage illegal entry and illegal residency is to have strong economic disincentives that apply to illegal entrants. Exactly, what those would be I don’t know. However, the current system of no controls almost certainly will be a disaster.
…
In reference to potential Muslim immigrants or entrants, I think we have to recognize that Islam gives low lifes an excuse to kill other people. The vast majority of Muslims would not engage in terrorism, but the Islamic religion, much more so than other religions or ways of life is conducive to terrorism. Because Islam is being used to wage war against the West and the U.S., our immigration policies should probably require Muslims to explicitly renounce violence and intolerance of other religions as practiced by ISIS and other extremists. Those Muslims who wish to come to the US should be told that if they can’t live up to those standards, there are many Asians who would be happy to do so.
…
I would add that it doesn’t give me a great deal of comfort that it is the second generation of Muslims that commit the most terrorism. All that means is that by admitting large numbers of Muslims, we are setting in motion a ticking time bomb that will go off in the future.
….
Finally to see how extreme and hateful the Muslim religion can be I would suggest Googling Pam Geller and her drawing contest. Two people tried to execute her for having the contest and if you search for the image that was drawn, you can see that it is quite tame by American standards. Yet substantial portions of the Muslim community tepidly criticize those who would kill Geller and strongly criticize Geller for having the contest. I personally believe that those Muslims who can’t strongly and vigorously criticize those who would kill Geller should not be welcomed to the US.
JD
TimTheToolMan (Comment #140999)
“This is particularly good news for women who fare so badly under sharia law, which is non-democratically determined, non-human rights compliant and a discriminatory code.â€
Perspective is the name of the game TTT.
How can women fair badly under Sharia law if they are Muslim?
Your views come from a perspective of democratically determined outcomes [gives you both Bush and Obama], human rights compliance and a code against discrimination [which discriminates against indiscriminates but …].
Sharia law comes from god and therefore cannot treat [Muslim] women badly.
I think anyone watching this debate and the word games understands that The British Law Society is wrong ethically in giving advice to treat women differently from men when they currently enshrine women’s equality as a cornerstone of modern jurisprudence.
Technically they are right to do so as Lucia and Brandon submit.
That they refuse to admit a different perspective is possible is also their right ethically morally and legally.
It just makes it funny when they say the cannot see the problem but
“The Law Society has withdrawn guidance on how to prepare sharia-compliant wills following criticism from solicitors and the justice secretary, Chris Grayling.”
Obviously the Law society can see something which is invisible in the right perspective.
angech,
I think anyone watching this debate and the word games understands that The British Law Society is wrong ethically in giving advice to treat women differently from men when they currently enshrine women’s equality as a cornerstone of modern jurisprudence.
They didn’t advise anyone to treat women differently than men. That’s one of the conflations going on here.
As for the withdrawal: In another article, the law society discusses their decision to remove it. It was not because of discrimination, but rather they noted that it might be inaccurate on theology since theology varies. They decided it was better not to tread on anything touching on theology (anyone’s.) http://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/law-society-climbs-sharia-will-practice-note-apologises
So it was withdrawn. But the withdrawal gives us no reason to think the Law Society (a trade association) decided the arguments about “discrimination” had any merit.
Obviously, we are reading what you and TTTM say. But no, I don’t see any problem with a trade association for lawyers writing a leaflet to help lawyers provide services their customers are legally entitled to and pay for.
JD Ohio,
I also think immigration needs to be controlled. That is: we need programs for legal immigration and we do need border controls. There is also rate limiting required. Whether we agree on the proper rate I don’t know: but some limits are required.
our immigration policies should probably require Muslims to explicitly renounce violence and intolerance of other religions as practiced by ISIS and other extremists. Those Muslims who wish to come to the US should be told that if they can’t live up to those standards, there are many Asians who would be happy to do so.
I don’t have a problem with this. I wouldn’t have a problem requiring every immigrant to renounce violence.
As I noted before, I’d also like to see a program matching refugees with volunteer families who shepherd those they sponsor. This sort of thing should meet the desires of the churches mentioned above who are requesting the government admit more refugees. With a matching/sponsorship program, the number admitted would be in balance with the numbers those churches or individuals advocating charity are actually willing to provide themselves.
I seriously doubt a sponsorship program would result in a huge flood of refugees. Among the reasons are that at least some people are more “generous” with their willingness to allow refugees in if they believe the resources to aid the immigrants lands on someone else’s shoulder. If those wanting to help refugees are merely given to provide the aid out of their own resources, they tend to recognize they can help in proportion to what they themselves have.
I, for example, have no plans to foster a refugee family, but if I did, I’m pretty sure I could never afford to help more than 1-2 people find shelter, job etc. The number of families who are going to be willing to sponsor refugees is never going to approach be huge– it’s just too burdensome. So this would result in a rate limit of sorts.
Beyond that, requiring some sort of sponsorship program would tend to help refugees find a niche which would tend to ameliorate the 2nd generation problem because families would tend to have fit in economically and socially without necessarily changing religion.
JD Ohio:
My big issue is not the roughly 20,000,000 illegal entrants in the US, but the next 30 or 50 million who will be coming unless we have some sort of standards for who we wish to welcome and who does not have the right to be here. Until we have meaningful controls on non-citizens, I am very leery of accepting large numbers of refugees.
I don’t know if you were trying to draw some connection between illegal immigrants and refugees who, by definition, come legally. If so, it seems rather bizarre. Regardless, I’m totally confused as to what you consider “large numbers of refugees.” You just referred to 50 million illegal immigrants. I hope you realize even the largest amount of refugees the United States has considered taking in from Syria is miniscule in comparison to that.
Oh, and I will always take issue with the idea there is someone “who does not have the right to be here.” The idea that by fluke of birth I have some right other people do not offends me. The idea my ancestor committing genocide so they could steal this land somehow gives me the right to be here that is withheld from other people is just morally reprehensible. I know you can respond by referring to the fact I do have legal rights people in other countries don’t have, but that response doesn’t change how disgusting the idea is to me. You see, I’m not disputing the idea they don’t have a legal right – I’m saying morally I think it’s wrong they don’t.
In reference to potential Muslim immigrants or entrants, I think we have to recognize that Islam gives low lifes an excuse to kill other people. The vast majority of Muslims would not engage in terrorism, but the Islamic religion, much more so than other religions or ways of life is conducive to terrorism.
Um… no. You can recognize whatever you want, but I don’t recognize anything of the sort. I mean, it’s trivially true Islam gives an excuse to murderers in the same ways murderers can find an excuse in anything, but otherwise… no. I don’t agree at all. I don’t agree the Islamic religion is especially conducive to terrorism in and of itself, and I don’t think any fair-minded study of the religion would say it is. Quite frankly, I think you sound bigoted.
Because Islam is being used to wage war against the West and the U.S., our immigration policies should probably require Muslims to explicitly renounce violence and intolerance of other religions as practiced by ISIS and other extremists.
I’m sorry, but… this might be the dumbest idea I have ever heard. You’re not just instituting what has dangerous similarities to the loyalty oaths of old, but you’re specifically targeting members of a single ethnicity/religion. That’s completely wrong. Not only is it immoral to institutionalize bigotry by saying members of a religion/ethnic need to be treated more harshly than any others, it is idiotic because it would accomplish the exact opposite of the stated purpose.
Demanding people swear off violence would do absolutely nothing to stop them from committing violence. All it would do is single them out and increase their feeling of alienation, encouraging the very radicalization that is the problem. It would also create the perfect talking point for every group trying to radicalize youths.
And really, since we know just promising not commit violence wouldn’t accomplish anything, the policy would have to have some additional function. Namely, any Muslim who commits violence after swearing it off would face deportation. And if I need to explain why that’s wrong…
I would add that it doesn’t give me a great deal of comfort that it is the second generation of Muslims that commit the most terrorism. All that means is that by admitting large numbers of Muslims, we are setting in motion a ticking time bomb that will go off in the future.
You just stated, as fact, a specific generation of Muslims will commit terrorist acts in the United States… purely on the basis they are Muslims. I suspect you don’t realize if that happens, people like you will have helped cause it. Terrorists are like gang members. The more they get treated like criminals, the more they’ll act like criminals.
Finally to see how extreme and hateful the Muslim religion can be I would suggest Googling Pam Geller and her drawing contest. Two people tried to execute her for having the contest and if you search for the image that was drawn, you can see that it is quite tame by American standards. Yet substantial portions of the Muslim community tepidly criticize those who would kill Geller and strongly criticize Geller for having the contest. I personally believe that those Muslims who can’t strongly and vigorously criticize those who would kill Geller should not be welcomed to the US.
I personally believe Americans who can’t strongly and vigorously criticize Donald Trump for being a delusional and racist blowhard should be deported to another planet for the sake of the human race. But hey, instead, we give him billions of dollars and consider electing him president. And he’s not even threatening to murder us if we criticize him!
Yeah, that last thing is kind of a big mitigating factor that merits mention. Americans don’t have to live with the fear criticizing someone might get their entire family butchered. Moderate Muslims who have spoken out against terrorism have been assassinated.
Nevermind the fact Christians who commit acts the same as Muslims are almost never described as “terrorists” and never generate calls for the entire religion to condemn them. How many Americans even know about the mass-murder of 77 people by a self-proclaimed Christian, which is one of the few acts of a Christian terrorist this decade to actually get labeled “terrorism.” I’m sure none of the crowd bemoaning Islam got on television to shout about the evils of Christianity.
“The idea my ancestor committed genocide so they could steal this land somehow gives me the right to be here that is withheld from other people is just morally reprehensible.”
Actually, this is a pretty ridiculous smear. The “right to be here” comes from the fact that you were born here. Reaching into the past to justify some kind of outrage you have, is a big problem in itself.
Andrew
Brandon,
I don’t care what you think. I will not get into a ridiculously long discussion of trivialities which you specialize in. You lost all credibility when you claimed to have never said you hated Tom Fuller and you had. So trivialize away, and if others have something to offer and respond to, I will respond to them.
JD
JD Ohio:
Brandon,
I don’t care what you think. I will not get into a ridiculously long discussion of trivialities which you specialize in. You lost all credibility when you claimed to have never said you hated Tom Fuller and you had. So trivialize away, and if others have opinions, I will respond to them.
That’s a strange reaction given I immediately acknowledged my error and corrected it once it was pointed out. I thought Fuller was referring to a real, abiding sense of hatred, which I don’t feel toward anyone. It turns out he was referring to one of those spur of the moment exclamations, “I hate X!” Once I realized that, I explained my mistake and admitted I was wrong.
If that somehow means I’ve lost all credibility in your eyes, I can’t help that, but… it seems pretty bizarre.
Andrew_KY:
Actually, this is a pretty ridiculous smear. The “right to be here†comes from the fact that you were born here. Reaching into the past to justify some kind of outrage you have, is a big problem in itself.
You seem to have missed the part where I said:
The idea that by fluke of birth I have some right other people do not offends me.
So my point was focused on the very fact you say I should be focused on. It offends me that any fluke of birth should give me some right other people are precluded from. I think that is immoral.
That my ancestors helped commit genocide isn’t what causes that sentiment. It merely explains why I don’t think my ancestors being here somehow justifies me having rights precluded from other people.
“It offends me that any fluke of birth should give me some right other people are precluded from. I think that is immoral.”
Every human being has the right to exist on earth. It’s follows that that they have the right to be where they started existing on earth.
You are struck by the fact that from ten to twenty per cent are hirsute[hairy], low-browed, big-faced persons of obviously low mentality. ….
That the Mediterranean peoples are morally below the races of northern Europe is as certain as any social fact…..
The Northerners seem to surpass the southern Europeans in innate ethical endowment.
Andrew_KY:
Every human being has the right to exist on earth. It’s follows that that they have the right to be where they started existing on earth.
After that, it’s politics.
That a person has a right to be where they were born doesn’t inherently follow from the idea they have a right to exist. You can’t just say one thing follows from another and expect people to automatically accept it as true.
A baby is born on a boat adrift in the ocean; where does it “follow” they have the right to be from then on? The current legal ruling would involve any number of issues, including where its parents are from, even if it had never been there (even including time in the womb).
In fact, there’s been some call in the United States to change the legal system to stop granting citizenship to “anchor babies.” That would mean a baby born in the United States would have no inherent right to stay in the United States. On the other hand, many babies born outside the United States would have the right to stay within the United States as they would be citizens due to their parents.
So at the very least, the world’s legal systems disagree with you. That could just mean it’s all politics though. I wouldn’t expect morality from legal systems. They’re notably bad at it.
“That a person has a right to be where they were born doesn’t inherently follow from the idea they have a right to exist.”
You are asserting that persons have no right to be where they are born. Totally absurd, Brandon.
Andrew
Incidentally, JD Ohio’s number for illegal immigrants is off by a factor of 2. Also, their population has leveled off since around 2007, whether this is a secular change remains to be seen. More here .
“It’s follows that that they have the right to be where they started existing on earth.”
And just to make myself clear, this includes their mother’s womb and medical devices.
Andrew
Andrew_KY:
You are asserting that persons have no right to be where they are born. Totally absurd, Brandon.
If you meant something different you should try being a bit clearer.
Interestingly, the US not only grants universal birthright citizenship to children born of alien parents, our constitutional law also recognizes children with one US citizen for a parent as a natural-born citizen, with all of the rights that infers, even when the children aren’t born on US soil.
This sort of tolerance really seems to irk the intolerant among us.
Carrick,
I didn’t say anything about citizenship. That’s a political/legal issue.
BTW, it is possible to think outside a political/legal box.
Andrew
Andrew_KY:
I didn’t say anything about citizenship. That’s a political/legal issue.
But you said they had “a right to be where they are born”. Obviously if you’re not a citizen, you don’t have a right to be where you are born, and you’ll eventually have to leave.
“Obviously if you’re not a citizen, you don’t have a right to be where you are born”
Yes you do. And it may be temporary, but that’s ok.
This discussion is about rights. The Creator endows these. Legal/political systems sometimes recognize them, sometimes they don’t. I’m focusing on the rights of humans. I know you guys have your pet political inclinations that you are trying to interject, which is fine. But let’s try to stay focused on the discussion, though.
Andrew
What Andrew_KY is saying is that when a zygote is in a growth medium, it is rightfully there.
Andrew_KY:
This discussion is about rights. The Creator endows these
So let me get this straight: You “know” that the Creator endows us with a “right” to remain where we were born. So if I’m born on a plane, I should be able to spend my life there, right?
You’re just nuts.
I know you guys have your pet political inclinations that you are trying to interject,
Actually, no you don’t know this. You are just delusional if you really think you do.
Brandon,
I personally believe Americans who can’t strongly and vigorously criticize Donald Trump for being a delusional and racist blowhard should be deported to another planet for the sake of the human race.
I’m interpreting the deporting part as hyberbole, but I really like the ‘delusional and racist blowhard’ part. I might use ‘demagogue’ rather than blowhard, though.
RB. A Bear Stearns study found 20,000,000 illegal entrants. Everyone agrees that there are no really accurate ways to count the number of illegal entrants in the US. I just guessed when I threw out a number. Am using Android so can’t supply link. From my perspective, the basic point is that there are a lot, and there will be a lot more if Obama’s policies are followed.
JD
“So let me get this straight: You “know†that the Creator endows us with a “right†to remain where we were born.”
I said you have a right to be where you are born. Then I said it might be temporary. Stop putting words in my mouth.
“So if I’m born on a plane, I should be able to spend my life there, right?”
Again I said it might be temporary. Read for comprehension.
“Actually, no you don’t know this.”
It’s self-evident. 😉
Andrew
Carrick,
The phrase “endowed by their Creator” is in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Whether one of those rights is birthright citizenship is less clear, but can’t be ruled out.
Andrew_KY:
I said you have a right to be where you are born. Then I said it might be temporary. Stop putting words in my mouth.
If you are saying it’s a “right” for just one instant in time, then it’s not a right at all. It’s not an anything.
It’s self-evident
This is code for you thinking you can read other people’s minds and motives. Which you really can’t. In fact, you really, really suck at guessing my motives.
You are obviously as confused and delusional as ever, making any further conversation with you pointless.
Andrew_KY:
“That a person has a right to be where they were born doesn’t inherently follow from the idea they have a right to exist.â€
You are asserting that persons have no right to be where they are born. Totally absurd, Brandon.
Uh… no. Saying a person has done nothing to support their argument is in no way saying that argument is wrong.
DeWitt Payne:
I’m interpreting the deporting part as hyberbole, but I really like the ‘delusional and racist blowhard’ part. I might use ‘demagogue’ rather than blowhard, though.
Oh, believe me, demagogue is a word I’d use to describe him. I even think it’s more fitting than blowhard. I just spent a lot of time as a child learning to tone down my vocabulary because I had a lot of problems with people feeling I use “big words.”
(I’m still not sure how two syllable words can be “big” people!)
By the way, I’m pretty sure a large issue here is just a stupid semantic thing. Andrew_KY said:
This discussion is about rights. The Creator endows these. Legal/political systems sometimes recognize them, sometimes they don’t. I’m focusing on the rights of humans. I know you guys have your pet political inclinations that you are trying to interject, which is fine. But let’s try to stay focused on the discussion, though.
Which shows he is thinking of some sort of moral right, not a legal one. However, my comment which lead to this exchange referred to legal rights, clearly distinguishing them from any moral issues.
Sometimes people talk about moral rights, such as seen in the Declaration of Independence. Other times people talk about legal rights, such as in most discussions of legal issues. Sometimes they talk about both, such as when morality comes up in a discussion of legal issues. That’s all fine. It’s fine that people use words in different ways. It’s just silly to have arguments because of it.
JD Ohio,
“there are a lot, and there will be a lot more if Obama’s policies are followed”
.
Well, there are many millions here without documentation (I have talked with dozens myself). What policies will influence that are not clear. Certainly arm-waving rubbish about “prejudice” against the immigrants is counter-roductinve, even so than many millions can stay and become registered voters is a ‘wet dream’ for Democrats.
.
I think that most Republicans are not serious about this issue; support for holding businesses responsible when they employ undocumented immigrants is a litmus test which most Republicans fail. If prospective workers must produce documentation of identoity and place of birth. the terrorists are excluded.
JD Ohio,
“there are a lot, and there will be a lot more if Obama’s policies are followed”
.
Well, there are many millions in the States without documentation (I have talked with dozens myself). What policies will influence that is not clear. Certainly arm-waving rubbish about “prejudice” against the immigrants is counter-productive. If many millions can stay and become loyal supporters of the ‘give-away-equality-for-all’ party, then this is a wet dream for Democrats.
.
But I think that most Republicans are also not serious about this issue; support for holding businesses responsible when they employ undocumented immigrants is a litmus test which most Republicans (and many Democrats) fail. If prospective workers must produce documentation of identity and place of birth for work, then terrorists are excluded… as are all unlawful aliens looking for work. This is a simple solution which absolutely will not be entertained. Gives one perspective on just how broken the system is.
JD,
Sorry, not sure how the half-completed comment got posted.
“If you are saying it’s a “right†for just one instant in time”
Again, didn’t say that.
Andrew
A big problem here is that multi-cultural societies tend to have some drawbacks and a limited shelf life. One could point to some exceptions like Switzerland, but the first example was the Roman Empire and it was highly tyrannical. But as long as you worshiped the Emperor, you could become a citizen. We in the enlightened West tend to think culture and religion are secondary and that no one takes them seriously. That’s a very parochial view. We in the US fought a very bloody civil war over a cultural issue that just got worse and it has taken us a hundred years to put it behind us. Tolerance is not a natural human value or behavior and we make a mistake in assuming that we have a magic assimilation machine that will enable us to meld Islam for example into our society.
Brandon: “Nevermind the fact Christians who commit acts the same as Muslims are almost never described as “terrorists†and never generate calls for the entire religion to condemn them. How many Americans even know about the mass-murder of 77 people by a self-proclaimed Christian, which is one of the few acts of a Christian terrorist this decade to actually get labeled “terrorism.†I’m sure none of the crowd bemoaning Islam got on television to shout about the evils of Christianity.”
This is just dumb slathered on stupid. You just reduced your credibility by 90%. Having once demonstrated the inability to think clearly people will choose to ignore your arguments.
stan:
Brandon: “Nevermind the fact Christians who commit acts the same as Muslims are almost never described as “terrorists†and never generate calls for the entire religion to condemn them. How many Americans even know about the mass-murder of 77 people by a self-proclaimed Christian, which is one of the few acts of a Christian terrorist this decade to actually get labeled “terrorism.†I’m sure none of the crowd bemoaning Islam got on television to shout about the evils of Christianity.â€
This is just dumb slathered on stupid. You just reduced your credibility by 90%. Having once demonstrated the inability to think clearly people will choose to ignore your arguments.
While I’m sure your counterargument might be the epitome of intelligence, wit and panache, I suspect few people will find it convincing if you choose to never state it.
The solution to religious fundamentalism is already here, we just have to wait a while…
The fastest growing belief system in the world is non-belief. No religion grew nearly as fast over the past century. Whereas virtually nobody identified as a non-believer in 1900, today roughly 15 per cent do, and that number does not include soft Anglicans in Britain, mild Taoists in China, lukewarm Hindus in India or token Buddhists in Japan. Even so, the non-religious category has overtaken paganism, will soon pass Hinduism, may one day equal Islam and is gaining on Christianity.
“You are obviously as confused and delusional as ever, making any further conversation with you pointless.”
Carrick,
Your tendency for flingning insults makes you seem childish and then you quitting makes conversation with you impossible.
Andrew
Happy Turkey Day Blackboard! 🙂
Lucia: “I’d also like to see a program matching refugees with volunteer families who shepherd those they sponsor. This sort of thing should meet the desires of the churches mentioned above who are requesting the government admit more refugees.”
…
This is a reasonable idea worth looking at. However, I believe one unstated assumption of this idea is that we have a reasonably competent federal government. My fairly recent interactions with federal employees suggest otherwise.
…
1. I lost my tax refund check about 2 months ago. (In strange circumstance, I scanned it before I lost it.) I literally could not get a human being on the phone line to discuss and remedy the matter. Had to request the assistance of a Congressman and it looks like it will take several months.
…
2. My ex-Chinese-wife and stepdaughter had an issue with stepdaughter’s immigration docs not matching mother’s. The notice for the appointment to try to resolve the issue gave the wrong room no. in a large federal office building. (Semi-understandable mistake) However, no one in the office even bothered putting a notice on the wrongly identified room to tell people where to go. (2 floors lower). This showed an amazing level of arrogance and laziness. (Employees acknowledged that this was an error affecting a good number of people.) When we talked to someone there, he was totally unhelpful and refused to do anything other than say check your mail for future potential mailings. We had to get an immigration lawyer to take care of what should have been a simple clerical issue.
…
3. In applying for my ex’s K-1 visa, a question arose. I called the 800 number. The employee answering the phone asked me about 15 ridiculous questions attempting to find a way to say there was nothing she could do and cut me off the line. (Stuff like were you in Vietnam in 1981– just giving a hypothetical of what the questions were like. Don’t remember any of them from 3 years ago). Finally, after about 20 minutes of the employee’s fruitless efforts to terminate the conversation, I was allowed to briefly ask my question. (Should have been allowed to ask question at the beginning.) She simply said there was nothing she could do and to wait for a notice from the USCIS [Part of Department of Homeland Security]. (My question was not real hard, but wasn’t simple either.) My basic point is that in dealing with people working for USCIS is that if anything is in the slightest way off of the script, they are pretend employees. They have no competence and are instructed to tell people that they have no authority to investigate or do anything. If that is the case, they should be eliminated.
…
The bigger point of course, is that the incompetence of the federal government, in addition to Obama’s belief that he is above immigration law, means that it is very likely that there can be no effective monitoring of large numbers of refugees.
JD
Another example of federal incompetence related to an amazingly misguided impending law designed to withhold passports.
“Mr. Bruce noted that a report issued in September by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, or Tigta, a watchdog agency, found that the IRS sent 855,000 notices to U.S. citizens abroad in 2014. According to the report, “IRS data systems aren’t designed to accommodate the different styles of international addresses, which can cause notices to be undeliverable.â€
….
The Tigta report said that “current IRS processes for addressing international mail issues are ineffective or nonexistent.†In response, the IRS said that Tigta’s recommendations wouldn’t overcome the agency’s “budgetary, statutory, and operational constraints.†See http://www.wsj.com/articles/americans-pay-your-taxes-or-lose-your-passport-1447971424?mod=trending_now_4
….
JD
JD Ohio:
Another example of federal incompetence related to an amazingly misguided impending law designed to withhold passports.
One thing that always bugs me about people discussing new laws is they always seem to focus on one thing as the new “law” even if the part they’re talking about only makes up ~2% of the actual law in question. It’s incredibly misleading.
I happen to dislike this move, but it’s not the primary purpose of the law in question. In fact, it’s just a minor bargaining chip that’s been bandied about for years. If you compare Sec. 32101 of the new H.R. 22, you’ll find it is almost identical to Sec. 40304 of S. 1813 from three years ago.
These are massive bills which deal with lots of funding issues, and the section in question is one of the bargaining chips that has been used during negotiations. The simple reality is the IRS needs more money. This move is expected to generate money by forcing people who owe a significant amount of taxes to start paying their debts if they want to get/keep a passport. The idea has been around for years and years. It’s distasteful, and so far it has been withdrawn from negotiations as other solutions were chosen, but this time it looks like it might go through.
The point being, if you want to support or oppose a measure, you should understand it. Much of the reporting on this so far has failed to even mention previous attempts at passing it before. I suspect many of the people covering it don’t even know about the previous attempts. I think that’s a sign of bad journalism. I think a good investigative journalist would be asking the question, why would this measure pass now when it never did before?
I honestly don’t know the answer to that question. I wish I did. I just know this idea was being considered at least five years ago, and three years ago it got into a bill that had a decent chance at passing. Now, it looks like it might actually pass. I think it’d be interesting to read about the evolution of how that happened. I’d love to know what kind of negotiations have led up to this.
Oh! And a fun fact about that measure. If it does get passed now, it will in some ways be worse than if it had gotten passed three years ago. The measure only restricts passports of people who owe $50,000 or more in back taxes (and aren’t in the process of paying or disputing them). However, it accounts for inflation. That inflation is based on when the bill is passed. If the measure had passed earlier, the cap would actually be higher than if it passes now.
The difference is probably trivial (and the amount used is always rounded up to the next thousand dollars), but it is kind of interesting. There may come a time when someone owes $52,000 in taxes and can’t get a passport because this measure was passed now rather than three years ago.
JD Ohio,
Federal employees basically can’t be fired and they know it. If you have anything important that needs to be done, you should start with your Congressperson. Constituent service should be job #1 for them. If it isn’t, they shouldn’t be re-elected. If it is, they probably have the job as long as they want it, regardless of their politics. The best employees are assigned to Congressional liason.
The Civil Service Act needs a drastic overhaul. The spoils system of old was probably better.
Brandon,
The US, unlike any other country in the world, taxes overseas income for ex-pats regardless of whether the country of residence also levies a tax. The number of passports being surrendered by dual citizens has been increasing as a result of increased enforcement. It’s classic unintended consequences, much like the move to corporate tax inversion because the US taxes the foreign earnings of corporations at one of the highest rates in the world.
DeWitt Payne, it’s not actually true the United States is the only country which does this, but it might as well be as the exceptions are so trivial. North Korea is one exception (in some bizarre way I can’t even remember), and some African country starting with an E is the other. I used to know all the details because this is a subject which greatly offends me, but I still remember enough.
In the court case Cook v. Tait (1924), a US citizen living in the United States was contacted by the US government with a demand he pay taxes on income he had received. He paid the initial sum required and filed a complaint with the courts, saying that as he lived in Mexico and earned the income there, he shouldn’t have to pay any US taxes on it. The Court ruled against him.
In making this decision, the Court highlighted two previous cases, United States v. Goelet (1914) and United States v. Bennett (1914). In Bennett, a citizen living in the States who owned and used a yacht entirely outside of the country’s territory. The Court had ruled this was a taxable situation. In Goelet, a citizen living outside the States owning and using a yacht in a similar manner was found not to owe taxes. This demonstrated the two distinct conditions at play:
1) The residency of the individual.
2) The location of where the income was earned (or property located, etc).
In Bennett, one condition favored taxation while the other did not. The result was taxes were applied. In Goelet, neither condition favored taxation. The result was taxes were not applied. The obvious inference from this would be that in order to owe the United States government taxes, one must either reside in or earn income (own property, whatever) in the United States. That is not what Cook v. Tait found. In it, the Court noted in Goelet:
Pains were taken to say that the question of power was determined “wholly irrespective” of the owner’s “permanent domicile in a foreign country,” and the Court put out of view the situs of the yacht. That the Court had no doubt of the power to tax was illustrated by reference to the income tax laws of prior years and their express extension to those domiciled abroad. The illustration has pertinence to the case at bar, for the case at bar is concerned with an income tax, and the power to impose it.
Meaning the reason for the ruling in Goelet was the specific tax law in question, not the principle. The principle of taxing people permanently residing outside the States for income earned outside the States was considered sound because:
the principle was declared that the government, by its very nature, benefits the citizen and his property wherever found, and therefore has the power to make the benefit complete. Or, to express it another way, the basis of the power to tax was not and cannot be made dependent upon the situs of the property in all cases, it being in or out of the United States, nor was not and cannot be made dependent upon the domicile of the citizen, that being in or out of the United States, but upon his relation as citizen to the United States and the relation of the latter to him as citizen. The consequence of the relations is that the native citizen who is taxed may have domicile, and the property from which his income is derived may have situs, in a foreign country, and the tax be legal, the government having power to impose the tax.
The few people I’ve met who have heard of this ruling routinely mock this logic, but it is not unreasonable. The principle expressed here is that merely by being a citizen of the United States, one might derive some benefits which justify certain taxations. That is perhaps fair. However, as Goelet made clear:
speaking in a general sense, that the taxing power, when exerted, is not usually applied to those even albeit they are citizens, who have a permanent domicil or residence outside of the country levying the tax. Indeed, we think it must be conceded that the levy of such a tax is so beyond the normal and usual exercise of the taxing power as to cause it to be, when exerted, of rare occurrence, and in the fullest sense exceptional.
This is where things went wrong. Goelet acknowledged the government has the authority to tax people living outside the country for income earned outside the country, but it noted that happens only in incredibly rare circumstances. That is what led the Court to rule the tax law considered in Goelet was not intended to apply to citizens living outside the States.
Cook v. Tait didn’t discuss this issue. While in 1914 the Court held in Goelet taxing power “is not usually applied to those” living abroad, in 1924 Cook v. Tait decided the fact the United States has some potential authority to apply taxes to those living abroad means the standard income tax applies to everyone living abroad. This completely subverted principles in Goelet, principles Cook v. Tait didn’t even mention. Ultimately, Cook v. Tait says:
that power, in its scope and extent, it was decided, is based on the presumption that government, by its very nature, benefits the citizen and his property wherever found,
And that was used to justify imposing all sorts of burdens on US citizens living abroad, regardless of what (if any) benefits their citizenship actually granted them. The Court presumed there were benefits, disregarded the fact applying taxation power in this way was incredibly uncommon, and… there you have it.
It’s utterly absurd. It’s even more absurd when you realize it’s not United States citizenship that is supposedly beneficial – it’s United States “government, by its very nature.”
By the way, the reason this even happened was absurd as well. It used to be there non-resident US citizens were a rarity. Most of them were wealthy, able to leave the country to avoid the draft. Add to that the income tax only applied to the upper class at that time, and one can begin to guess why this measure would be desired – to at least attempt to treat the wealthy citizens of the United States who fled the country in times of crisis (especially to avoid things like the draft) equitably to everyone else.
Now fast forward to a time nearly a hundred years to a point where the income tax applies to the not just the upper class, but also the middle class, and the demographics have shifted so that non-resident citizens are common rather than the rarity there were of those times, and the draft no longer exists for people to dodge by leaving the country. Does it make any sense to continue practice, given the original reasons for it were both wrong, and are don’t even remotely apply anymore?
I would say no. That’s not what we’re seeing though. Instead of backing off from this practice, trying to move away from it, we’re actually seeing the government step up enforcement. When this practice was first implemented, it was almost entirely a symbolic measure. There was no practical way for the US government to collect taxes under this idea. Now that there is, the government is wanting to collect on them more and more. That the justifications for the entire practice grow weaker with each passing day doesn’t seem to matter.
Personally, I think the entire practice is unconstitutional and should be challenged as such.
Well, i’ve got one too. But I did get useful help from an IRS employee in Baltimore.
In 1984 I got one of those letters that spouse says makes me tremble — from the IRS. It was a threat, amazingly enough in response to a letter from me which tried to establish the basis for how taxes paid in three states in 1981 should be deducted from the federal tax for that year. I had shown the math and described the logic and invited them to suggest an alternate method for the apportionment.
They didn’t comment on any of that but did want another $0.85. Proceedings would commence in 30 days (IIRC) if they didn’t hear from me. I sent a check for the $0.85. Sixty days later i got another fiercer letter. This time i had ten days. So i sent them another check for $0.85. About a month later I got the really nasty one, but this one had a phone number. I called the number, read off the case number and was told to call a specific number in Baltimore. I did, got a pretty nice guy on the line, read the case number, waited for him to find it, and heard a lot of laughter. He asked me why I just didn’t give them their $0.85 and get it over with the easy way. I told him i had, and not only that had done it twice, they had cashed the checks and I could fax them to him. He thought that was good and I did it. He then agreed that they had my money but hoped that i didn’t want the extra $0.85 back because they couldn’t issue a check for less than a dollar. It also turned out that they had no way to enter the less than a dollar amount in their system which is why the checks had gotten cashed but not credited.
He said something like “I bet you don’t think I can kill this, but I can and will.”
He then gave me his direct line and name and told me to call him if this stupid thing ever surfaced again. I told him I’d use my only call from jail to let him know.
Of course I also have plenty of bad experience, but everyone has that.
JFerguson: 1984 was a long time ago. About 7 years ago, I had the same type of refund lost check problem. I was able to talk to someone and get it resolved. Now, the phone prompts are close to impassable and generally the service is much, much worse than it used to be.
JD
I have a 20 year old son who is a dual citizen (US, Brazil), presently a college student in Brazil. When I explained to him the requirement to file US income taxes when he earns money, he thought I was joking. From a practical standpoint: $99,000 is excluded if you spend 330 days in the year residing outside the States, so most people residing outside the States won’t pay any tax. The objective is mainly to keep rich US citizens from residing outside the States to avoid paying income taxes, like many wealthy Europeans do to avoid confiscatory European income taxes.
Brandon,
The principle expressed here is that merely by being a citizen of the United States, one might derive some benefits which justify certain taxations.
One does derive benefits from merely being a citizen. Some may seem pie in the sky to others, but they are real:
* If the country in which you reside is invaded, war torn or falls into an economic funk etc, you can move back to the US fairly readily. (That is: the US will let you in. They generally won’t find you a plane ticket; your own your own for that.)
* You may be able to get the consulate to intervene in cases of incarceration etc.
* Your kids will be US citizens and have the option of moving here, can fairly readily go to college. This also makes setting up international business easier for them and opens some job opportunities.
* The fact that one is applying for a passport is often demonstration they are accessing an advantage of a US passport. Depending on where you live, it can be a ticket to ease travel restrictions.
You might think “big whip”. But remember, I was born in El Salvador. One of our neighbors sent their daughter– not a US citizen — to live with us. It was a huge complicated ordeal to get her out and also get papers so she she could arrive legally in Illinois. Afterwards she applied to college got in and finished her degree. She went back after hostilities calmed down.
Other families with kids who were US citizens got their kids into US colleges and dorms much more easily with no interruption of studies. Of landed them jobs in US branches of businesses and so on.
Heck– Imagine the advantage of being a dual citizen in Hong Kong in the 70s-80s and so on. You could remain there but know you could have a landing place in the US. All of these are benefits even if one doesn’t exercise them.
How much taxation do these benefits justify? Dunno. But there are benefits. If there weren’t people wouldn’t maintain dual citizenship.
Brandon,
Now fast forward to a time nearly a hundred years to a point where the income tax applies to the not just the upper class, but also the middle class, and the demographics have shifted so that non-resident citizens are common rather than the rarity there were of those times, and the draft no longer exists for people to dodge by leaving the country.
Gee, that sounds very much like the Alternative Minimum Tax. That also started out as something that would only apply to a few hundred people. Now it’s in the tens of millions and growing. I’ve even seen suggestions that the AMT should replace the ever more complicated tax code.
lucia:
One does derive benefits from merely being a citizen. Some may seem pie in the sky to others, but they are real
Yup. It’s a bit weird though, as the ruling actually refers to the benefits coming from the United States government, not from being a citizen of the country. It’s much more difficult to find benefits that meet that requirement.
How much taxation do these benefits justify? Dunno. But there are benefits. If there weren’t people wouldn’t maintain dual citizenship.
To be fair, maintaining citizenship is easier than not. If you’re born a citizen of the United States, you have to fill out paperwork and pay over $2,000 to stop being a citizen.
DeWitt Payne, one thing to remember about the AMT is when it was first created, it was an additional tax for the people it applied to. It was only later that it was changed to be an alternative tax system. That alters the significance of the growth in numbers it applies to a bit.
Brandon
refers to the benefits coming from the United States government, not from being a citizen of the country.
It seems to me you are making some sort of fine distinction that ends up making no difference. Benefits like “possibility of being able to move to the US” come from the government permitting one to move to the US. Our government happens to never exile people– but that’s not always been the case. Citizens can’t be exiled because that’s a provision of our government. So you can see this as coming from “being a citizen”, but it’s “being a citizen of a country that has a certain form of government with certain policies”. So one would need a microscope to not see that as a “benefit from the United States government”. (And I’m not even sure those with the microscopes would even agree that it’s not a benefit from the government.)
Certainly access to a consulate if you get in a jam oversees is a benefit that involves the government not merely being a citizen. Access to evacuation resources during some unsettled situations is also “from the government”. Whether these are merely potential doesn’t strike me as unimportant since people do find things like insurance to be a benefit. For may in foreign countries, duel US citizenship amounts to a sort of “insurance”.
Brandon,
To be fair, maintaining citizenship is easier than not. If you’re born a citizen of the United States, you have to fill out paperwork and pay over $2,000 to stop being a citizen.
In spite of that, and the fee of $2,350 is a recent 422% increase from the previous charge, citizenship renunciation continues to increase. That’s small potatoes compared to paying US as well as foreign income taxes for an expat with a six figure annual income.
lucia:
It seems to me you are making some sort of fine distinction that ends up making no difference. Benefits like “possibility of being able to move to the US†come from the government permitting one to move to the US. Our government happens to never exile people– but that’s not always been the case. Citizens can’t be exiled because that’s a provision of our government. So you can see this as coming from “being a citizenâ€, but it’s “being a citizen of a country that has a certain form of government with certain policiesâ€.
That’s… not true. One’s ability to move to the United States if they’re a citizen is not due to the government allowing them to do so. It’s due to the fact the government has no authority to prevent them from doing so. The Constitution imposes restrictions on the government’s powers and grants rights to the citizens of the country. None of that can be considered to come from the government because the Constitution is inherently separate from the government.
Being allowed to live within the United States is part of being a citizen, and the government has no authority to strip a person of their citizenship (absent the expressed will of the person). The Supreme Court has held this for over a hundred years. Based on that, we can see the right to live here does not come from the government. That means the right to move or live here cannot be a benefit derived from the government.
DeWitt Payne:
In spite of that, and the fee of $2,350 is a recent 422% increase from the previous charge, citizenship renunciation continues to increase. That’s small potatoes compared to paying US as well as foreign income taxes for an expat with a six figure annual income.
Yup. This is particularly true given there seems to be more effort from the IRS to collect taxes from people living overseas. Some of those people renouncing their United States citizenship might not have done so before simply because it never mattered as they hadn’t actually needed to file/pay the taxes.
Which reminds me, another interesting thing about all this is it used to be people who spent their whole lives living abroad would lose their citizenship if they didn’t take any step to affirm it (usually involving moving to the United States). It only kicked in some time after they became adults, meaning they would have the opportunity to choose whether they wanted to remain a citizen or not.
The reason I find that interesting is scrapping that policy caused what I believe to be an immoral situation. People who are US citizens by birth but live their entire lives elsewhere used to just not “opt in” and not owe taxes. Now, they have to “opt out” or else they’ll owe taxes. And to “opt out,” they have to pay over $2,000.
In effect, the United States government is saying anyone born to citizens of its country (and thus being a citizen themselves) owes it at least $2,000, simply by being born. It’s really quite terrible.
Brandon,
Living with the protections of the US constitution is a benefit and it is one that is provided by the government established by that constitution.
The Constitution imposes restrictions on the government’s powers and grants rights to the citizens of the country.
The constitution would be the governing document. Ergo: anything granted by the constitution is granted by the government.
None of that can be considered to come from the government because the Constitution is inherently separate from the government.
Wrong. The constitution is our foundational governing document. Everything granted by the constitution is granted by the government.
Brandon,
Which reminds me, another interesting thing about all this is it used to be people who spent their whole lives living abroad would lose their citizenship if they didn’t take any step to affirm it (usually involving moving to the United States). It only kicked in some time after they became adults, meaning they would have the opportunity to choose whether they wanted to remain a citizen or not.
I think you are mistaken about when the potential for losing citizenship kicked in. My parents were advised by the consulate that if my sisters and I did not spend some minimum number of years in the US before we turned 18, we would lose our citizenship. This became moot both because our family moved back to the US and the law was thrown out (I think by SCOTUS. Not sure.)
People who are US citizens by birth but live their entire lives elsewhere used to just not “opt in” and not owe taxes. Now, they have to “opt out” or else they’ll owe taxes. And to “opt out,” they have to pay over $2,000.
That’s technically true. However, as a practical matter, if they never file for a passport or merely fail to renew after they reach the age of majority and never try to register their children at the consulate and so on, they will be “lost” by the US system.
Had I remained in El Salvador and never dealt with the US system in any way– no SSN number, no US bank account and so on– I don’t think they could find me. Trouble many who have US citizenship actually do use it to some extent. For example: They renew their passport after reaching 18 yo.
I’m not entirely sure what would happen if the government tried to collect back taxes if they did locate and identify a person who was a US citizen by virtue of their parents registering them at the consulate at birth but who otherwise never, ever, ever, ever did a thing to exercise any right of citizenship after reaching the age of majority and had never stepped foot on American soil. That person would need to be fairly rich for the IRS to bother and succeed in finding them. In that case, it’s quite likely that if they would either (a) have found it very tempting to exercise some right of citizenship and had done so or (b) gone through the formality of renouncing to avoid the uncertainty. So I suspect this is hypothetical and likely to remain so.
Lucia, although London Mayor Boris Johnson did apparently renew his passport (He left NY when he was 5), he was pursued for 44,000 in taxes by the US government on a capital gain that is not taxable in the UK, which is a comparatively small amount. He is now renouncing his US dual citizenship.
I suspect, but don’t know, that the collection of these taxes is more a matter of petty bureaucratic tyrants flexing their muscles as opposed to the collection of substantial amounts of tax dollars.
Stumbled on an article that discussed how arrogant and unhelpful the USCIS is. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/19f0eece-9539-11e5-8389-7c9ccf83dceb.html#axzz3svzd4yzP
…
Some quotes:
“The men I knew had been translators and drivers for the Chicago Tribune, then my employer. They reported through mortar attacks, even a car bomb. Then Sinan Adhem and Nadeem Majeed decided they wanted to live in the US. They applied 10 years ago for visas. As they waited, they became fathers, perfected their English and found better jobs. ..
“Last year, both Sinan and Nadeem received emails from the US Citizenship and Immigration Services stating that they could not be trusted. No one disputed they had presented all the proper papers or that the visa applications were credible. Yet form letters dismissed Sinan, then Nadeem, with vague finality: “Denied as a matter of discretion for security-related reasons.â€
…In the weeks that followed, though, I found few people in my government willing to help. No single bureaucrat wanted to accept responsibility.
…One retired general I knew warned against false hope. “The Department of Homeland Security is a ‘black hole’,†he said. “It has become a hall of mirrors where there are no answers.â€
….
I would let these people in.
JD
lucia:
Brandon,
Living with the protections of the US constitution is a benefit and it is one that is provided by the government established by that constitution.
…
The constitution would be the governing document. Ergo: anything granted by the constitution is granted by the government.
No, it is not. The United States Constitution grants power to the government created under its guidelines. Any power not granted to the government is power the government has no right to exercise. That includes the powers in question.
The protections of the Constitution come from the Constitution, not from the government. Any benefits derived from those protections are derived from the Constitution, not from the government.
Wrong. The constitution is our foundational governing document. Everything granted by the constitution is granted by the government.
Repeating the same claim over and over does not make it true any more than italicizing words does. If you think what you say is true, you should explain why you think it is true, not just say it is true. Over, and over, and over.
For instance, I pointed out the Constitution is separate from the government and explicitly grants powers to the government. It’s actually a bit more nuanced than that as the Constitution is really just a proxy for the people’s will, outlining the social contract being drawn in order to form the new government. Whether or not you want to worry about that nuance, you certainly can’t wave away the entire construction by simply repeating yourself yet again.
But perhaps the best way to head off what could be an annoying mess would be to quote the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This is part of the Constitution (as it has been amended to be included), referring to the United States government as being separate from the Constitution and receiving powers from the Constitution. I believe that makes it clear the Constitution is not part of the government.
lucia:
I think you are mistaken about when the potential for losing citizenship kicked in. My parents were advised by the consulate that if my sisters and I did not spend some minimum number of years in the US before we turned 18, we would lose our citizenship. This became moot both because our family moved back to the US and the law was thrown out (I think by SCOTUS. Not sure.)
There were actually many different laws passed which affected things, and things could be different depending on circumstance. When it came to not losing citizenship one had received by virtue of having one or more parents who were US citizens, I think the only issue (assuming they met the requirements for you to receive citizenship) that caused things to vary was if the child was illegitimate.
But the bigger changes were from time period. 1978 was when the practice of automatically revoking people’s citizenship was ended. The law in play before that had been passed in 1972, and it allowed “legitimate” children to maintain their citizenship even if they didn’t return to the United States until their 20s. I think that was also true for the law which came before that, sometime in the 50s. The main difference as I recall was how long a person had to live in the states in order to keep their citizenship.
That’s only for children born within wedlock though. Children born outside of wedlock had other rules applied to them, and they were weird. I don’t really know what all they were, but I do remember hearing about some adults facing the risk of deportation because the law precluded their fathers from officially declaring them as offspring because the law required it be done before the child reached 18, and as such, the people couldn’t prove their heritage in the eyes of the court even though they could prove it to all common sense.
And of course, there may be other rules/issues I don’t know about. I’ve done some basic research on the topic, but I’m definitely no expert.
Lucia:
Wrong. The constitution is our foundational governing document. Everything granted by the constitution is granted by the government.
This statement seems a bit Mosherian; an insufficiency of words.
I agree with Brandon that the Constitution is inherently separate.
Brandon
Repeating the same claim over and over does not make it true any more than italicizing words does. If you think what you say is true, you should explain why you think it is true, not just say it is true.
I think it is true because the definition of “government” includes
: the process or manner of controlling a country, state, etc.”
Consquently, Constitution establishes the system, process and manner of controlling the state and country. Hence: if the constitution grants a right, the government does. This is definitional. The Justices of the Supreme court and I are both permitted to understand and convey the meaning of a word according to an accepted standard dictionary defintion. I am; I assume they did.
For instance, I pointed out the Constitution is separate from the government and explicitly grants powers to the government.
You made this claim with no particular evidence to support it.
It’s actually a bit more nuanced than that as the Constitution is really just a proxy for the people’s will, outlining the social contract being drawn in order to form the new government. Whether or not you want to worry about that nuance, you certainly can’t wave away the entire construction by simply repeating yourself yet again.
No. And you can’t waive away the dictionary definition for the meaning of the word “government”. That written proxy which you’ve described is the What you’ve described is “particular system used for controlling a country, state, etc”. So: it is the government. You can explain it with more words and more nuance if you want and it will simply show that the Constitution is “government” according to the dictionary definition of the word.
Brandon
When it came to not losing citizenship one had received by virtue of having one or more parents who were US citizens, I think the only issue (assuming they met the requirements for you to receive citizenship) that caused things to vary was if the child was illegitimate.
That’s not what the consulate told my parents at the time I was born. Your memory may be faulty.
Do you have access to the wording of statute that was in place in 1959? I could also be mistaken– or the consulate could have. But that’s what we would need to check your memory. Changes after the SCOTUS ruling or laws passed in 1978 aren’t relevant here.
But the bigger changes were from time period. 1978 was when the practice of automatically revoking people’s citizenship was ended. The law in play before that had been passed in 1972,
Not relevant to when I was born.
BTW: I know people whose citizenship was revoked and re-instated. My father’s childhood friend (who’d been conscripted, naturalized, served and them moved to Latin America for “too long”). My sister’s god-mother who had been naturalized. These were reversed by a SCOTUS ruling.
Appellee challenges the constitutionality of § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which provides that one who acquires United States citizenship by virtue of having been born abroad to parents, one of whom is an American citizen, who has met certain residence requirements, shall lose his citizenship unless he resides in this country continuously for five years between the ages of 14 and 28. The three-judge District Court held the section unconstitutional, citing Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U. S. 253, and Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U. S. 163.
This would have been in place when I was born. Both my parents were US citizens, so this should not have applied to me. (Perhaps some other clause did.)
But note: The plaintiff was subject to losing citizenship. There is no issue of illegitimacy; his parents were married.
This is in the footnote of the SCOTUS ruling
“Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child’s twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization.“
The above matches the advise my parents were given in 1959. I haven’t sorted out how this matches various issues in the cited SCOTUS case which is much later.
jferguson,
I agree with Brandon that the Constitution is inherently separate.
One can since the dictionary has multiple definitions (as is often the case.) But the dictionary includes
“a particular system used for controlling a country, state, etc.
: the process or manner of controlling a country, state, etc.â€
The constitution is our “system” and “process”. That’s the definition I’m using. It is likely the one SCOTUS is using, and it is a common usage. (The various passages in SCOTUS articles on benefits from government are consistent with assuming they are using this definition.)
The other definition option “the governing body of a nation, state, or community.” That would seem to be the one Brandon is using.
That is fine– but we were initially discussing a SCOTUS ruling and whether or not the government conferred benefits and whether SCOTUS’s assumtion they did was true.
For that, it seemed natural to me to access the definition SCOTUS appears to be using rather than switching to a different one.
It is true that if we assume SCOTUS is prohibitted from using the word “government to mean ““a particular system used for controlling a country, state, etc.
: the process or manner of controlling a country, state, etc.â€
Then the Constitution is not part of “government”.
If so, their ruling seems odd.
But if we assume they are allowed to use that common dictionary definition that is often used, then the constitution is “government” and anything the constitution confers is conferred by “government”.
I tend to think that if we read a document and the logic makes sense when we pick a particular dictionary definition for a word, but not if we chose a rival definition, we interpret the logic using the definition that makes sense. In this particular ruling, “government” is used in a way that includes “constitution” in government. Other people do use it differently elsewhere– but not here.
Lucia,
This site provides the current rules: http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents
.
WRT to the Constitution versus the government: I think the distinction is in part, but not wholly, semantic. The Constitution provides for creation of a Federal government with specified and limited powers, where one did not previously exist. It acknowledges the pre-existing governments of the individual States, and specifies where the authority of the individual State governments can be limited or superseded by the newly formed Federal government. The authority and legitimacy of the Constitution comes directly from the people (“We the people..”), at least in theory. I would say it is more accurate to consider the Constitution separately from, and superior to, the Federal government.
.
One of the things which distresses me (and lots of other people!) about the Supreme Court is that it has consistently subverted the role of the Constitution in limiting the power of the Federal Government… there is no longer real consideration of the Constitution as superior to the Federal government. The “living Constitution” argument favored by justices who desire “progress” has regularly been used to justify Orwellian interpretations of the document, and effectively eliminated most Constitutional limits on Federal powers…. all the while ignoring the plain meaning of the words. This strikes me as nothing but a means by which constitutional limits on the powers of the Federal government are defacto eliminated, without ever amending the Constitution…. which would be in most cases politically impossible.
.
So from a practical POV, you are right that there is no longer any separation of ‘the government’ from the Constitution, since ‘the government’, via the Supreme Court, effectively changes the Constitution without amending it. But I doubt that was the intent of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution.
.
The fundamental issue is that, as originally conceived, the Constitution was in part designed to protect individual rights and liberties from increasing government power, by placing explicit limits on those powers, and by making any changes to the Constitution require super-majorities among elected representatives and the individual States. That protection was long ago lost to what I can only describe as political subversion. A bare majority of voters, if they hold power long enough to place like minded Justices on the Supreme Court, can have the Federal government do pretty much whatever they want it to.
SteveF,
Orwellian interpretation isn’t limited to the left. I’ve talked to a conservative that insisted that ‘jurisdiction’ didn’t mean what a normal person would think it means, i.e. subject to the local laws and courts, with respect to birth right citizenship.
Speaking of which, I wonder if the foreigners that travel to the US to have a child understand the tax implications.
New thread for the party in Paris?
Yes…. sigh.
DeWitt,
At different times many people have tried (and more or less succeeded) in subverting the plain meaning of the words in the Constitution via the Supreme Court. At present, it is mostly progressives who do the Orwellian contortions, but not always.
.
I don’t think tax considerations play much a role… having a US Citizen in the family is the primary goal, for pretty obvious reasons.
DeWitt,
Speaking of which, I wonder if the foreigners that travel to the US to have a child understand the tax implications.
Hmmm…. likely not. But for some, they probably figure the kid can renounce citizenship at 18 if they wish. Or after graduating college. That’s not much of a problem if the kid doesn’t have money in his own name which is not uncommon.
Even with respect to Boris above, the IRS likely only found him because he’s prominent. And I agree it’s probably someone at the IRS wanting to flex muscle or wanting to make a show more than it was the money. Many citizens over seas can keep their profile low– provided they don’t take out a passport as an adult. If they never want to visit the US they can just tell the IRS they can try to pry the money out of their non-US accounts. Likely Boris Johnson wants to be able to interact with the US so saying “shove off” to the IRS might not be a practical consideration for him.
Shollenberger:
Oh, and I will always take issue with the idea there is someone “who does not have the right to be here.†The idea that by fluke of birth I have some right other people do not offends me.
Cry me a river. Neither your sensibilitites nor the rights attendant to your natural born citizenship are anywhere near as important as the right of which they are a necessary conseqence, namely that of sovereign nations to control their borders, without which they can no more expect to survive than you can if you’re missing a square foot of your skin.
lucia:
Everything granted by the constitution is granted by the government.
You’ve got it upside down and backwards. The Constitution consists almost exclusively of grants of limited power TO the federal government and restrictions on the states, both descending from the People as represented, for almost all purposes, by 3/4 of the states. Moreover, the Constitution was obviously not authored originally by the federal government, nor has it ever been able to amend the Constitution.
Eli Rabett at Stoat.
” CCS technology is obvious. What is needed is a use for the CO2 that is captured and that is where research is needed although a bunny can be quite pessimistic about whether anything will come of it.
The basic approach is to use it to convert the CO2 into organics, like light (fuel)??? ”
In Australia the right suggests that Islam will have to change its views to fit into the Australian way of life.
Apart from the chutzpa this idea has some merits along with Eli’s suggestion.
We take in the refugees, australianise them and then turn them back into [homegrown] terrorists. problem of excess CO2 and excess terrorists solved.
lucia:
You made this claim with no particular evidence to support it.
I specifically said the Court has held what I said for 100+ years in a post which discussed multiple cases in some detail. I figured that was enough to show people if anyone wanted examples, I could provide them. I may not have provided evidence, but making it clear what that evidence is and that you can provide it is very different from simply asserting something as true without offering any basis.
In any event, I’m not sure it would have mattered. While you just said I didn’t provide evidence for my position in reference to earlier in the exchange, you managed to quote my newer comment up to the point where I quoted the Constitution as evidence for my case. It’s rather peculiar to say someone didn’t provide evidence while failing to say a word about the fact they are currently providing you that evidence.
Also, I repeat: The United States Constitution says it is separate from the government. You didn’t say a word about that, choosing to instead say I hadn’t provided any evidence before and claim a dictionary proves you right. Even though the dictionary doesn’t do that:
“a particular system used for controlling a country, state, etc.
: the process or manner of controlling a country, state, etc.â€
Consquently, Constitution establishes the system, process and manner of controlling the state and country. Hence: if the constitution grants a right, the government does.
The Constitution establishes the system of government. it is not the system of government. It is not even part of the system of government. It is the contract which was executed, after being ratified, in order to create the government.
Incidentally, I want to point out, as I usually do, looking at dictionary definitions is a bad way of determining what is meant by a person’s choice of words. On top of the normal issues I might mention, there are all sorts of issues which arise when using a regular dictionary within a field of specialty, such as with words used in a courtroom. Especially when those words were written nearly a hundred years ago and you’re using a modern dictionary. Time probably shouldn’t matter for a word like “government,” but it’s still an iffy thing to do.
A much better option would be to look at how the Supreme Court uses the words “government” and “Constitution.” If I am correct, the two will be referred to as distinct and disjoint. I’ll quote one of the cases I’ve already mentioned, United States v. Bennett:
The limitations of due process of law which prevent states from taxing property in another state do not apply to the United States, the admitted taxing power of which is coextensive with the limits of the United States and knows no restriction save as expressed in or arising from the Constitution itself.
The government of the United States as a nation, by its very nature, benefits the citizen and his property wherever found, and no imaginary barrier shuts that government off from exerting the powers which inherently belong to it by virtue of its sovereignty.
…
In other words, the whole argument proceeds upon the mistaken supposition, which is sometimes indulged in, that the calling into being of the government under the Constitution had the effect of destroying obvious powers of government, instead of preserving and distributing such powers.
There’s more like that in the case, and there are many other cases one could cite. I guess one could argue none of that *proves* anything because it just refers to the Constitution and government as being distinct, not disjoint. Maybe one could even find some reason why calling a government into being under the Constitution means… the Constitution is part of the government, sitting on the very top, maybe? I don’t know. Maybe one might think the Court constantly switched between referring to the whole government (government) and a part of it (the Constitution) too.
What I do know is I already showed the Constitution says it grants powers to the United States government. Now this case shows the Court seeming to say the government was created under and given its powers by the Constitution. I can show the same sort of usage in dozens of other cases. Even if a dictionary definition supported the idea the Constitution is part of the government (and I don’t agree it does), there’s just no indication that definition is one which was being used by the person who made the ruling in question.
This statement seems a bit Mosherian; an insufficiency of words.
I agree with Brandon that the Constitution is inherently separate.
#########
hardly
lucia:
: the process or manner of controlling a country, state, etc.â€
The constitution is our “system†and “processâ€. That’s the definition I’m using. It is likely the one SCOTUS is using, and it is a common usage. (The various passages in SCOTUS articles on benefits from government are consistent with assuming they are using this definition.)
…
That is fine– but we were initially discussing a SCOTUS ruling and whether or not the government conferred benefits and whether SCOTUS’s assumtion they did was true.
For that, it seemed natural to me to access the definition SCOTUS appears to be using rather than switching to a different one.
Leaving aside that I don’t think it makes any sense to call the Constitution “our ‘system’ and ‘process'” given it’s neither a system nor a process, but a document which lays out plans and grants powers for a system of government…
I prefer to look at what people say to judge what they mean. The legal system tends to use words in particular ways to convey certain meanings people will understand. This is especially true given case law can be binding, so they tend to have to refer back to what each other have said, including going so far back as to the Constitution.
As for you saying:
I tend to think that if we read a document and the logic makes sense when we pick a particular dictionary definition for a word, but not if we chose a rival definition, we interpret the logic using the definition that makes sense. In this particular ruling, “government†is used in a way that includes “constitution†in government. Other people do use it differently elsewhere– but not here.
What are you talking about? That’s not rhetorical. You hadn’t said that interpretation would be nonsensical before this comment of yours. In fact, you’ve previously written a comment which would suggest there is nothing nonsensical about that interpretation. It was one I would agree with. Now it seems you might disagree with it. I don’t know. I just can’t see how interpreting the ruling’s usage of “government” as not including the Constitution would create a nonsensical interpretation. It seems to create a perfectly sensible interpretation to me.
Mosher
hardly
Heh. Assuming that means you agree with me that the constitution is not “inherently separate” that seems to put us in the minority. If you disagree with me, looks like I’m the only one who sees it the way I do!!
Yet, I still think it’s not separate. I think the founding document establishing our system has at least as much claim to be seen as “the government” as the “house of representatives”, “the US Supreme Court”, “the IRS” is “the government”.
WRT to SteveF–
It sort of sounds like your reason for thinking the Constitution is not “government” is that the Supreme court isn’t sufficiently faithful in following it. That suggests you think this type of document might be “government” if it was followed but ceases to be if no one follows it. I would agree that if the document lapses it is not part of “government” as the system no longer involves referring to the document.
Of course lots of people disagree with all sorts of SCOTUS interpretations (and even a whole history of interpreting the commerce clause.) But even though there are lapses, I still see the document as “government” as it is followed to a large extent. (We still do have 3 branches of governement. SCOTUS at least pretends to follow the document and does in many cases– just not necessarily the ones people argue about most.)
If your interpretation about whether it is or is not “government” hinges on whether SCOTUS sticks to it, our difference may be whether the degree of lapse in following it is sufficient to make it “not government”. But my impression is Brandon thinks it’s “not government” no matter how faithfully followed. But I’m not sure if I’ve understood your reasoning. Maybe you think it’s “not government” even if followed to the last comma? Can you clarify?
Lucia,
My argument is pretty simple. Where the Constitution actually followed faithfully by the Supreme Court, then the federal government would have substantially diminished powers, both economic and otherwise. The federal government would be limited in many ways that it is not now limited, because, IMO, the intent of the Constitution has been subverted by political interference via the Supreme Court. In my ideal world, the federal government would be completely subservient to the plain words of the Constitution, and any changes in the power of the federal government would only take place via the prescribed amendment process. So in this ideal world, the federal government would in fact be subservient to and much more broadly restrained by the Constitution; the two would be effectively “separate”. I also think this was the intent of those who wrote and adopted the constitution (including the bill of rights amendments).
.
The reality is that “flexible” (AKA ‘living Constitution’) interpretation has led to de facto increases in federal government powers which were never foreseen by the Constitution, based upon the plain meaning of its words. The ‘necessary and proper’ clause and the commerce clause are probably the most blatant means by which federal powers have increased, but they are by no means the only.
.
Were even one the conservative justices to die and be replaced by an Obama appointee, I have not a bit of doubt that the right to bear arms would be quickly ‘interpreted’ by the court to mean something very different from an actual right to bear arms (District of Columbia v. Heller, was 5-4 after all); efforts to confiscate all guns would soon be underway wherever a majority of elected representatives, local, state, or federal, passed a confiscation law. The court has become a political tool used to change the constitution, bypassing the need for amendment.
.
Therefore, as far as I can see, the Constitution has ceased to be an effective control on federal power. The political process, via the Supreme Court, has changed the nature of US government to one where bare majorities can, over time, effectively implement constitutional changes that would never be possible absent constitutional amendment… where the Constitution actually followed by the court. The (sad) reality is that the Constitution has become subservient to and effectively subsumed by the federal government, and so is now “part of the federal government” as you suggest.
.
The Constitution is an impediment for those who believe simple majorities should have have political control over most everything. This is seems to be the position of most ‘progressives’, and even some who consider themselves conservatives (like Justice Roberts). In every instance where a case involving restrictions on government power comes before the court (Kelo V New London is the clearest case), you can count on the ‘progressives’ to vote as a block for increasing government power, reducing individual freedom and liberties. I have no doubt that these justices believe subverting the plain meaning of the Constitution is the morally right thing to do, because the Constitution is slowing ‘social progress’. It’s just ends-justify-means as far as I can tell.
.
On a more philosophical level, I think there are some who believe people have “inalienable rights” which are independent of the form of government, and independent of the views of the majority. There are others who consider all personal rights and liberties to be conditional upon circumstance, and only granted/allowed by the will of the majority. The later view has been in ascendance for at least a century, if not longer.
Brandon
I prefer to look at what people say to judge what they mean
Me too. That’s why I interpret what the justices mean by “government” to conform to the dictionary definition I pointed out.
lucia, that was pretty bad of you. You just took that sentence out of context in a way which greatly alters its apparent meaning. I suppose it’s fine to consistently not respond to the point a person is making, but doing so while misrepresenting what they say in such an obvious way is… I don’t know.
If you don’t want to have a discussion, just don’t have it. Don’t do things like that.
Brandon,
Previous to your comment, I’d already explained that my view on interpreting the word was to interpret it the way the users were using it. You seem to have ignored that in your paragraph.
I’m doing other things. You repeat you think what I claim is “silly”. Well, I think many of the things you are writing are silly. It’s also clear we are not going to agree. Moreover, this is not important enough to go on about. So I’m going to do the other things I am doing rather than re-explain what I already wrote.
I now see there was some further movement on this topic worthy of further discussion.
Brandon writes
Here’s a question for TimTheToolMan, and it’s not rhetorical. If I want my lawyer to write a will for me in accordance with Sharia law, what resources should he be allowed to have at his disposal to figure out how to do so?
Any resources they like, just not ones provided by the Law Society. The issue is with the Law Society providing the discriminatory documents, not the act of will writing which can be as discriminatory as one likes as its personal choice.
Serious question. You say I didn’t get your position right, but you didn’t say what I got wrong, and I’m genuinely curious about this. If it is wrong for private organizations to write documents explaining how lawyers can meet the legal requests of their clients, simply because the motivations of those requests might be discriminatory, then where’s the line drawn?
In this case its a “private” organisation representing a class of people. And in doing so, they lose their ability to be discriminatory. If Lucia was to put up a Sharia Law will writing procedure then that would be fine because she represents nobody but herself.
If writing that document amounts to endorsing discrimination, does a document explaining how to effectively challenge DNA test results in rape cases endorse rape because the primary motivation of people requesting that service from a lawyer is that they raped someone and want to get away with it? Maybe not. After all, innocent people would have motive to do it too.
What about a document explaining how to challenge the admissibility of a confession? The motivation for anyone asking a lawyer to challenge an admission to a crime is they confessed to a crime. Does that mean the document is endorsing all sorts of crime? Or are we again maybe saying that some innocent person might have falsely confessed, so it’s okay?
In both of your examples, the procedure applies after the fact and so it can apply to innocent people and therefore is fine.
In the case of the Sharia Law, it applies to a future event and therefore definitely means discrimination will be applied.
If somehow “magically” the Challenge DNA test or Challenge Admissibility procedure could only be applied to actual rapists and guilty people, then yes it would endorse those activities.
Posing question by providing tightly wrapped up examples to discuss always tends to drive the argument in the narrow direction chosen, not necessarily in the direction needed.
Islamic terrorists/jihadists kill innocent people virtually every day in various countries.
So, the takeaway is that when you let Islamic terrorists/jihadists into your country, you let violent death into your country.
I’m *very sure* bordering on metaphysical certitude our current national leadership is taking this seriously and will address it after they stop Global Warming.
Andrew
Evidently, we’re evolved toward in-group versus out-group behavior. Ironically, this evolution is what some in-groups ( fundamentalist religions ) would deny.
Andrew_KY,
Can’t say that my take-away is quite yours. But I an dubious about whether Obama will take this seriously.
Lucia,
He won’t take it seriuosly; over 7 years, he has demonstrated clearly that he will not address the problem of Muslim extremism at its root, and seems quite willing to accept continued atrocities. Heck, he won’t even acknowledge that the terrorists are uniformly Muslims!
.
He will do nothing. He will focus the remainder of his time in office beating the drum on climate change and destroying the US economy via stupid environmental regulations which accomplish nothing.
.
Nice that Hilliary is already promising to continue Obama’s ‘legacy’.
Obumbles had just announced that ISIS was under control.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/11/13/obama-isis-is-not-getting-stronger-we-have-contained-them/
And he wants to allow more Syrian immigrants, not less.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/427081/obama-admin-moves-speed-admission-more-syrian-refugees-andrew-c-mccarthy
OTOH, Donald Trump has rocketed to > 40% approval by likely Republican voters.
Data rules.
I am looking forward to finding out more about the terrorists who committed these acts.
Where they newly arrived to France?
Or were they long time residents?
I am sure there are lessons to be learned which we can apply to our country and which all of Europe may apply to their Syrian refuge situation.
IMO, a quick and severe military strike against ISIS would do wonders for President Obama’s approval, and possibly by extension favor for Hillary Clinton. It needn’t actually accomplish much over the long haul.
It’s not going to happen though, for which I am duly grateful.
RickA,
Me too. So far I’ve found this claiming that at least one of the terrorists was probably a Syrian refugee.
It may be facile, insensitive, and definitely not politically correct; but in instances like this, one is almost certain to know at least one of the names of one (or more) of the people involved, and BEFORE it happens.
Mohammed.
Mark Bofill (Comment #140704)
November 14th, 2015 at 1:46 pm
“IMO, a quick and severe military strike against ISIS …”
Since the root problem is Islam, specifically fundamentalist Muslims who interpret the Koran literally, the military action will eventually have to be against the Mullahs who foment this sort of violence and that promulgated by ISIS, also to include any substantive supporters of the militants. This is because Islam is a form of government and a social system, as well as a religion.
Once the Mullahs see that it is their head on the chopping block, they might change; but if not – c’est la vie.
Jim2,
Interesting. I worry that even were that to be accomplished, new upstart Muslim warlords would pop up to fill the void. My impression is that that’s what Mohammed was in the first place.
Mark:
Thanks for the link. That is bad news, because it is a worst case scenario for Europe. I wonder how many other terrorists are coming to Europe (and Canada and the USA) from Syria?
Mark. The Japanese changed their way of life after WWII, so I think it is possible for the Muslims also. I’m not suggesting nuclear weapons, but military action against the Islamic de facto government would have to be sharp and decisive.
jim2: That is exactly what ISIS wants; direct military intervention by the western powers. Sadly, it is also probably what is needed.
.
ISIS wants to engage “Rome” (the west) near a town called Debiq, near Aleppo. This is to fulfill a prophecy of the apocalypse.
.
ISIS will continue to attack the west, to try and force them to put boots on the ground. Expect more, much more, of the same as happened in Paris.
.
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
Jim2,
I hope so.
RickA,
Me too.
Thanks for your responses.
Jim2,
I wonder if what is needed is a unifying Muslim leader to outlaw such things. A universal benevolent Caliphate or something, if such a thing is conceivable. It’s not much different from what you were saying, except that (I think) they need some central figure. Like a Muslim Pope.
~shrug~
This particular threat has thousands of documented, verifiable casualties and refugees. The UN has been attached to various forms of this problem for decades. There is no reason to believe that it will not be with us for future generations. Where is weepy Bill McKibben’s lament that his grandchildren will live in a world of carnage that could have been dealt with in his lifetime?
Mark Bofill (Comment #140713)
November 14th, 2015 at 6:17 pm
“I wonder if what is needed is a unifying Muslim leader to outlaw such things”
That would be wonderful were there a way, but I’m not optimistic.
Jim2,
Yep, pretty unlikely, considering how much the various flavors (sunni, shi’a, what have you) like each other.
It is, as first noted in 1996, long before Sept11, a clash of civilizations: 21st century western pluralism versus middle ages Islam. The Saudis still cut off hands and heads and still flog people to death, all in the public square. Stoning an unfaithful wife or sister, or beheading an unfaithful husband remain socially acceptable in many muslim countries, even where those are formally illegal. Murdering French cartoonists over drawings of Mohammed is not a freedom of the press issue, it is the more fundamental issue of what cultural values will control the behavior of individuals. There is no room for compromise here: either we allow Islam to drag us back to the horrors of the middle ages, or we do not. So far, Western leaders have not had the courage to resist, nor even the common sense to see what is actually going on and take steps to reduce the broad cultural threat Islam presents….. like keeping a million Syrians from taking up residence in Europe. All rather frightening.
Obama has actually been following what amounts to the libertarian foreign policy in the Middle East. This is what happens when the principal power in the world withdraws its hand from an area, creating a power vacuum. Perhaps the original intervention in Iraq was a mistake and the aftermath was handled poorly. But that’s water under the bridge. You have to deal with the world as it is.
Once you start meddling, you can’t just stop and leave. Conniving at the assassination of the Diem brothers in Viet Nam was the action that made it morally impossible to just pick up and leave.
.
Spot on.
.
Invading Iraq may have been a mistake.
.
Leaving Iraq was definitely a mistake.
.
One problem if each was a mistake, each move was favored by a large majority of the US population at the time!
.
So Democracy may not be good for foreign policy.
.
Now, we’re faced with what to do going forward.
.
How can we trust the populace to determine which leader to choose to make the most important decisions going forward?
I read in various places (for example here) that originally it was a widespread requirement that one own land in order to vote. Of course, in those days one generally needed to be a white male as well.
Not advocating for this, but it bears mention that in the early days it wasn’t universally held to be a good idea that everybody ought to be able to vote.
~shrug~
Me personally, I’ll stick with the dumb decisions made by the majority. In my view, the alternative is to end up with dumb decisions made by a minority. There’s no fix for stupid.
Andrew_Ky – I once had an Indian (east) working for me. I had just interviewed another Indian when he came into my office and asked “Is he a Muslim?”. I indicated I did not know as we are not allowed to ask that question.
.
He said “You had better find out. We already have a Muslim working here. We cannot have two.”
.
“Why?” I asked
.
He responded, “Anywhere in the world there are two Muslims, there is war. Get a map. I will show you.”
I think we need to make a distinction between an IslamIC and an IslamIST. An IslamIC believes there is only one true god and one true prophet. An IslamIST believes this also but also believes that this belief gives them the right to force this belief on others. It is ISlamISM we are at war with not Islam, and like most ‘ISMs my observation (yes an anecdote not data) that outspkoen followers of an ‘ISM tend to chose an ‘ISM for the way it supports their beliefs rather than for any inherent appeal of the ‘ISM — so as usual it is all about power, and so often expressed as power over women.
Surely Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the other salafist regimes should be banned from attending the COP21 as they implicitly and explicitly fund ISIS and the numerous salafist terrorist organisations through the pretext of “charitable” organsations.
Andrew Kennett,
Yes, and the vast majority of Muslims do not participate in violence. But my personal observation is (based on conversations with a few dozen Muslims in the Middle East and Turkey) that many or even most think 1) Israel must be destroyed and all jews killed or driven away, 2) certain personal behaviors/choices which are socially accepted in Western countries should be legally prohibited everywhere, 3) laws must be ‘consistent with’ the principles given by the Koran. It is a very short step from those views to the horrors regularly perpetrated in the name of Allah. The horrors of Christendom from the middle ages to the Inquisition were just as inexcusable as, or even worse than, the horrors perpetrated today by those professing to act in the name of Allah. We can do nothing to change the past, but we have an obligation to not allow Islam to destroy Western culture and institute religious rule over all. And that is what they very clearly want to do.
SteveF,
I’ve only known Egyptian Muslims, and only three of those reasonably well. I don’t think they’d agree with any of those ideas you listed, or if they did, they certainly gave a different impression. One of them was fairly devout, far as I could tell.
~shrug~
Mark,
Consider it was the Muslim Brotherhood that won office in Egypt when there were free elections. The vast majority of Muslims (>75% in most muslim majority countries) favor enshrining Sharia law as national law (Pew polling interviews with >30,000 Muslims around the world). There is less universal support (but still very widespread support) for cutting off of hands and heads, floggings, stoning, etc. for infractions. The more devout tend to adhere to the letter of Sharia. Too many Muslims implicitly or explicitly support barbarism as a matter of religious faith, and we ignore this reality at out peril.
Russia and France will have to do the dirty work to help put Humpty Dumpty [Assad] back together again.
It would seem that only Shia rule is likely to put the lid back on the Sunni [Isis] problem in the short term.
America having facilitated the breakdown will need to put up with the egg on it’s face and accept real politic.
The loss of life in such a scenario is likely to be horrific and Sunni support from other sectors of the world, Indonesia and Saudi may see Isis as an entity move to these less regulated areas.
Give them all I pads and let them blog is the best solution longterm.
This may be the poll that SteveF’s numbers come from.
It’s probably worth noting that countries that have more totalitarian regimes tend to have a higher Muslim support for Sharia law. I believe this correlation is a result of distrust in the legal process of the (broken) central government rather than by an increase in devoutness of Muslims in these countries:
Sharia law is enforced by religious courts rather than by secular courts. And while punishments may seem extreme by western standards, I think this is still probably seen as a more fair system than what the people face from the central government in these regimes:
I think we tend to be rather blind to and accepting of the extreme corruption and acts of barbarism inherent in totalitarian governments in these areas. Torture and even mutilation is a normal part of detention in many of these countries. Detention without evidence of crimes is the norm, as is confiscation of property and wealth and “redistribution” to members of the totalitarian regime.
A world where you are begin judged harshly but fairly by Sharia judges must seem like quite a much better and attractive alternative.
My view is the underlying driving force here is totalitarianism. I see this totalitarianism in Middle East countries as mostly being propped up by Western dollars for oil. A reduction in our dependency on Middle Eastern oil is in my opinion would be a major step towards a reduction in radicalization in Arab nations.
I think the focus on the types of governments in the Middle East is misplaced. The problem from the Western point of view is that fundamentalist Muslims want to kill infidels – which is most people in the West. Don’t get distracted by other issues.
Carrick,
This is (of course) the view of the liberal political class in the West, and is sadly mistaken. Even where there is democracy, Sharia is very popular.
.
The page you link to has Pew’s left-leaning politics obscuring the actual data. This is what I was referring to: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/ The portion of Muslims who favor corporal punishment (cutting off hands, heads, flogging, stoning to death, etc.) is very high in many countries. And the very worst of offenses against Sharia? A Muslim choosing to change their beliefs…. the sentence for which is death by beheading. IMO, the charming beheading videos on offer from the ‘Muslim faithful’ are the DIRECT result of their religious beliefs. Nice though they think it’s good to toss homosexuals off roof-tops; pure savagery needs some variety, or it might become boring.
About 20 years ago I was contracted to work as a technical consultant in Saudi Arabia, and ended up spending several months there, spread out over a few years. When I applied for my Saudi visa at the Embassy, I had to sign a document explicitly accepting that I would be imprisoned, flogged, or killed for a laundry list of offenses against Sharia once I entered in Saudi Arabia. They were not joking…. I was invited to view corporal punishment displays in central Riyadh; I declined. IMO, it is extremely, even dangerously, unwise to make excuses for any of this, or to suggest it is not ‘as bad as it seems’… it is exactly as bad as it seems.
.
By the way, during the same period I was consulting regularly in Israel, and I had to have two US Passports, so that my visits to Israel would be hidden from the Saudis. After a few years of traveling in the region and getting to know the people, I concluded there would never in my lifetime be any resolution to conflict in the Middle East. The beliefs are immutable, intractable, and exclude the possibility of meaningful compromise. IMO, it is a waste of time and money to do anything but kill those who are a threat to innocents.
SteveF:
No, I think it’s just a less black and white view on a complicated problem than the one-dimensional perspective people like you are trying to shoe-horn this problem into.
“Very popular” is a subjective assessment of course. As the data shows, support varies widely. Support is greater in countries with a breakdown in civil government. I include Russia in this category by the way. There we have state controlled media, a de facto president for life, and regions of the country where you have to hire bodyguards to travel safely.
Sorry but this is a ridiculous comment. Nothing you’ve said about the data contradicts the summaries of the results.
This of course amounts to appeal to anecdote.
But ironically you’ve picked a totalitarian regime where widespread torture, human rights abuse, and capricious enforcement of secular law are the norm.
My point wasn’t that Sharia law doesn’t contain barbarous punishments (it does). Nor that I agree with Sharia law.
My point is is the convenient ignoring the deplorable treatment (in this case) of the Saudi people by their government. A government that the US helps prop up and a government that international dollars for petroleum goes a long way towards maintaining this status quo.
While it’s a favored but somewhat trite political theory on the right that Islam has always been this radical, the truth is this radicalization of the Middle East occurred around the turn of the 20th century with the Wahhabi movement, which itself appeared as a response to heavy handed European imperialism in the Muslim parts of the world. (The regions where we see radicalization were the Middle East and Southeast Asia… e.g., Indonesia.)
I have always advocated for a realistic perspective to guide policy. I don’t think what amounts to xenophobic American perspectives are any more helpful to understanding the roots of Islamic terrorism than equally distorted perspectives from the American left.
So, Carrick – do you deny the Koran instructs Islamic believers to kill infidels?
Jim2 – It depends on which time period of the Koran the believer wishes to take as literal. There are two separate and distinct themes within the Koran which correspond to where Mohammad was (Medina or Mecca) and his position in society at the time.
The writings from the two periods fundamentally end up in conflict with each other.
Kan – since you are familiar with the Koran, please provide references in the Koran where the conflicting themes, with respect to the killing of infidels, occur.
.
Wahhab was born in 1700, so trying to invoke European Imperialism is gross error by a couple of centuries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism#History
.
It is also gross error to ignore the history of Isalm where there is no distinction between religion and politics. Thus, the Koran includes prescriptions for warfare, death to infidels and religious conversion, and yes for the entire globe.
.
Earliest Islam was coincident with conquering Arab armies. Though interestingly, according to historian Tom Holland, when the Arab armies first conquered Palestine, there were no relics even mentioning Muhammed or Islam for decades, indicating that the religion may have been either invented, or appropriated by the Arab armies to cement legitimacy.
Regarding Imperialism, should also recognize that the land of the Umma and the land of the Ulema ( believers and disbelievers ) was once Europe ( Spain – Andulusia and Austria ).
Europe is seen ( amongst the Osama types ) as rightful Moslem provinces. And of course, Israel an an untenable loss.
Carrick,
Sorry, there are a lot of things you know, but in this case, you don’t know what you are talking about. The huge majority of the Saudis are actually pretty well treated by their government (been there and seen it). It is the millions of Muslim foreigners (Pakistanis and others) in the country as indentured servants/laborers who live wrenched lives (seen that too). There is some mistreatment of Saudi nationals…. the most fanatic of the fanatic (like Osama bin Laden) who object to the political control of the House of Saud. They want to bring down the royal family and replace it with even more repressive political control by a Wahhabi regime, with radical mullahs making all decisions… you know, the ‘death to Israel and the United States’ crowd. There is nobody looking to institute a pluralistic, Western style democracy, and unless you want a very rich and very dangerous state that supports terrorism instead of Saudi Arabia, you should hope the House of Saud survives.
.
I would suggest that you spend some time in the region to gain some perspective…. On second thought, no, too dangerous for Westerners. So long as your naive view of the problem controls Western policy (which I fear will be for a long time) the terror attacks in the west will continue.
There are important distinctions between Chrisitianity and Islam.
Christianity rose underground, out of power ( until Constantine ).
Islam rose as THE power.
Christianity rose from abstract third party accounts ( centuries after the supposed facts ) which made it easier for Christians to take the Bible figuratively.
The Koran is supposed to be the ‘word of god’ which makes it more difficult to stray from literal meaning.
Interesting recent story about Carbon dating of a Koran in an English museum that pre-dated the time of Mohammed.
Of course, there’s no historical evidence that Christ even existed ( writings all centuries after the fact ).
Mad Max rules in the middle east, Illiterates in charge of modern technological weapons.
Overpopulation and greed [ group self preservation] drive the conflicts.
With more widespread exposure to the real world religion will lose it’s grip but secular rather than religious reasons for indulging in conflict will then occur , I guess.
As individuals we are all fairly powerless.
The Saudis face the same problem as the Romans, Steve F.
Powerful autocrats threatened both by growing understanding of the “wrongness” in their population base and by growing recognition of their wrongness in some of their ruling elite.
Any changes will be ruthlessly opposed [lions and Christians/ Witches/ Democrats].
There is no guarantee that good must win, ever.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #140718) :
Problem is that politician/military don’t learn from their mistakes and are making the same mistake over and over again by enforcing regime change, siding with the wrong enemy and simply do not understand the local geo-politics. It’s still a left-over from the neocons who were heavily influencing the foreign politics 20-30 years ago. Most are gone now, good riddance, but their ghosts are still haunting the poltical corridors.
As for Islam, it’s still a religion firmly planted in the dark medieval times. It never went through the Age of Enlightenment as Christianity did. Most muslims in Europe are not radical but do see the Koran as their only authority, which is not an issue for now, but with their increasing numbers (their birthrate is MUCH higher) it will be a big issue in 30-60 years. Not recognizing the problem now will result in a problem that cannot be resolved anymore. I expect from my government that they protect my family and me which includes to see what will happen in the future and the risks that come with it, but unfortunately I do not see any politician (nation or EU) with enough REALpolitik abilities, like Helmuth Schmidt, to cope with the religious problems that ARE going to take place in Das Abendland.
I think Steve is right in describing the Islamic world as, by and large, “medieval,” in the sense of its political philosophy: it never experienced the amazing burst of rational enquiry into the forms of and the rationale for government that flourished in the Western world during the 17th and 18th centuries (Locke, Montesquieu and at least a dozen others), eventually leading to the establishment of democratic societies in Britain, France, and America. It is true that this kind of enlightened discussion only became possible after the twin forces of the Renaissance and the Reformation broke the Medieval compact between political and religious powers, and so to that extent it may be fair to “blame” Islam for the current situation; but the problem, IMO, is really more cultural than merely religious.
If you look at Western history, for instance, you can see that Prussia was never a democracy, and religion did not have anything to do with it; it was just untouched by the democratic revolutions, it remained an authoritarian state throughout the “age of Enlightenment,” and the consequences made themselves felt deep into the 20th century (in the first world war, and the second one that followed from it). Japan was also, basically, a medieval, authoritarian society until the late 19th century, again with tragic consequences for the world of less than a century ago. And let’s not even get started on Russia, etc.
I am not very familiar with Islam as a religion, but, based on my interaction with Muslim people, it seems to me that it does not have to be a violent religion, any more than, say, Christianity. There are elements of violence in there, as there are in the Bible, but it’s perfectly OK to agree (implicitly or explicitly) to regard them as a legacy from another time and culture that can be safely ignored today. But for that to happen on a large scale in the Islamic world, the culture itself has to change, and violence itself needs to become increasingly unacceptable.
This does not happen overnight. Again, our own history shows that human societies (even fairly “advanced” ones) can tolerate or turn a blind eye to extremely high levels of violence as long as they are somewhat limited in scope. The Romans were a highly civilized, rational bunch, but look at the circus. Or look at the U.S. Southern states during slavery, or even in the early 20th century, when lynching was still a more or less routine occurrence…
julio,
Sure, it is more than just religion. The problem is that separation of government and religion has never been broadly accepted in the Muslim world; the strong support in most Muslim majority countries for barbaric Sharia law reflects that. Even more troubling is the complete rejection of pluralism and the rejection of personal choice about religion. The entire Muslim world seems to me incapable of getting past intolerant middle age philosophies….. and middle age behaviors.
Unfortunately, we have evolved with a strong propensity to organize as a group. It’s easy to understand the ‘clan’ ( kinship theory ) or race ( though I in no way condone racism ). But we can achieve jihad like zeal based on religion, politics, gender, regionalism, sports team, and yes even global warming ( those advocating violent end or locking up others who fail to share their view ).
Turbulent Eddie: too true!
Steve, I guess I was trying to say (in at least partial agreement with Carrick) that the current conflict can also be viewed as another instance of the conflicts between the democracies and the totalitarian regimes (or ideologies) that have been the recurring theme throughout the twentieth century. And this, too, has a difficult solution because democracy does not “just happen” in a country or culture that has never really even considered it as a notion. Luckily, much of the world is nevertheless stumbling in that direction. Unfortunately, there is a lot of stumbling to go through yet… and many middle-eastern societies haven’t even taken the first step.
SteveF:
“Murdering French cartoonists over drawings of Mohammed is not a freedom of the press issue, it is the more fundamental issue of what cultural values will control the behavior of individuals. There is no room for compromise here: either we allow Islam to drag us back to the horrors of the middle ages, or we do not. So far, Western leaders have not had the courage to resist, nor even the common sense to see what is actually going on and take steps to reduce the broad cultural threat Islam presents….. like keeping a million Syrians from taking up residence in Europe. All rather frightening.”
.
It is not “rather” frightening. It is frightening as hell. I’m starting to think that my children will have to flee Europe in their lifetime. The problem is not so much a lack of common sense and courage to resist. The root problem as I see it is that common sense and courage to resist is routinely regarded as racism, xenophobia, fascism and what not. Opinions like yours could most certainly not be printed in a Swedish newspaper.
.
There is no limit to the number of refugees/migrants we will allow into the country, the Swedish PM has said. At the same time violent crimes have surged with the huge influx of mainly muslim immigrants to the country. Immigrants or children of immigrants are responsible for almost all rape assaults and Sweden is now the rape capital of the West.
.
The terrorists are not isolated criminals. They swim in a sea too. The problem lies with Islam as it is currently practised and understood. Journalists never, ever ask muslims how they regard and understand the appalling islamic texts that the jihadist use to justify their acts. Instead we usually hear from a couple of scarved women that islam is certainly not terrorism, it is a religion of peace and love etc. I think those difficult questions are not asked by journalists because they suspect they won’t like the answer or the non-answer that will reverse the intended message to the public that Islam is not the problem.
.
Journalists ask Christian fundamentalists questions like that all the time, and rightly so. It is vital that Muslims receive equal treatment. Now.
Niels,
Time for Swedes to elect different representatives, so that you get a PM with different plans. Charges of ‘racism’ are beyond wrong, they are a refusal to accept reality.
.
I am always astounded that my country’s airport TSA harasses a grandmother from Minnesota (probably of Swedish descent!) traveling with her granddaughter, in exactly the same way as they harass a 25 year old Egyptian man traveling with a 26 year old man from Algeria. It’s nuts. It’s stupid. Grandmothers from Minnesota don’t blow up airplanes. Instead of real security (Know who the hell is getting on the plane and why!) we get an expensive but politically correct charade of ‘airport security’ which is incapable of actually finding hidden weapons and bombs ~95% of the time. (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-us-airports-allowed-weapons-through-n367851)
.
“They swim in a sea too.”
More like a swamp… and one that needs to be drained.
Another problem, in my opinion, is gun control. It’s magical thinking that preventing ordinary citizens from bearing arms makes everyone safer. Declaring an area a gun free zone does not make it safe, it makes it a shooting gallery for terrorists.
julio,
The problem is that Islam is itself a totalitarian ideology that objects, as a matter of faith, to the existence of Western pluralistic civilization, which it considers inherently evil. Islam is a big part of why democracies in Muslim majority countries are fragile at best.
DeWitt,
” Declaring an area a gun free zone does not make it safe, it makes it a shooting gallery for terrorists.”
Of course. The chance of success for a terrorist in Dallas is a bit lower than in New York or Boston.
jim2:
How about lets start by talking about the Old Testament and its condoning of violence and cruelty…
The question isn’t whether “medieval” texts encompass barbaric acts we no longer embrace today, but whether we’ve moved beyond those acts.
Your eyes can only see what they are allowed to see.
If by huge majority, you mean anybody who hasn’t been arbitrarily and indefinitely detained without a trial, then you certainly are right. The most reliable number for that is around 30,000 political prisoners at any point.
You need to open your mind and do a bit of catch up reading about Saudi Arabia. If you read official Saudi Arabian press, of course, everybody is well treated. But what do you expect for a carefully coifed and government controlled image?
I agree of course about the deplorable treatment of foreign nationals. Torture and even maiming is not uncommon as forms of discipline of foreign workers.
Actually, at the moment, there are roughly 30,000 political prisoners in Saudi Arabia. (Saudi Arabia of course admits to none.)
And I guess you aren’t aware of the oppressive treatment of the Shia minority.
I think a much better way is to do some research, rather than just trusting what my eyes see, especially in countries where what foreigners are allowed to see is carefully controlled by the government.
Ask them if you can visit Ulaysha next time you go. See how that works out for you.
Steve,
Ye-es, I admit that it may function that way for some authoritarian, repressive governments, or for groups that are trying to establish such governments. But it does not have to function that way. It certainly does not function that way for the millions of muslims who live peacefully in America today, and it does not have to function that way for the refugees flooding into Europe either.
It is true that (1) all massive influxes of immigrants create social problems anywhere (but that should be a separate topic), and (2) that these particular immigrant communities may provide a fertile environment for home-grown terrorists, but then, so could German-American, or Japanese-American, communities provide opportunities for spies or saboteurs back in the day.
The smarter approach, IMO, is to welcome these people, and win (at least a majority of) them over, so that they will, themselves, keep an eye on their most troublesome elements for you. There is no question in my mind that, whatever the short-term risks, this is the only viable long-term strategy. The only way to get Islam to evolve into a faith that can engage constructively with modern-day Western culture (such as it is, but again that would be another topic) is to get it out of the toxic environment of the Middle East. Those immigrants are, in that respect, a golden opportunity.
“How about lets start by talking about the Old Testament and its condoning of violence and cruelty…”
Let’s finish with the New Testament, the entire basis of Christianity, founded by one of the worlds most famous hippies who would rather die than commit any kind of violence…
There is simply no comparison here. Christians have no excuse for committing violence regardless of whether or not they claim it from the Old Testament. Christians didn’t need to “move beyond” the teachings of Jesus to reject violence and barbaric acts, they merely had to follow them. This is where Islam runs into problems.
“How about lets start by talking about the Old Testament and its condoning of violence and cruelty…”
This is the old “lets smear Christians when Muslims kill people”.
Pathetic.
Andrew
Is religion the problem?
.
If so, history doesn’t indicate that we will be past the problem any time soon – religion has persisted even into the ‘Age of Reason’.
.
And religion may be just a subset of our deeper genetic predispositions for irrationality.
It’s painfully obvious what a catastrophic mistake it was to leave Iraq.
.
Patreus had ‘flipped’ the Sunni tribesmen and as he put it ‘reconciled the reconcilables, so we knew who the marginal remaining ‘irreconcilables’ were.
.
Patreus did this by bribing them with both cash and the promise of some power in the new government. When we left, the Shia gov immediately reverted to excluding and abusing the Sunni which left fertile ground for ‘flipping back’ and supporting the extremists – Daesh ( the proper Arabic for isis ).
.
Generals, especially Patreus, knew and predicted the result of leaving. But we did it anyway, because in part, that’s what Obama was elected to do.
.
It was the popular thing to do but it was catastrophically wrong.
.
There’s no guarantee that staying would have prevented Daesh but after flipping, the extremists were marginalized without popular support. Leaving left the vacuum and growing popular support for Daesh from the unempowered Sunni.
I bet there are quite a few regular posters to this blog who believe in a sky fairy. Unfortunately, the sky fairy that IS believe in is telling them to kill people. Maybe your sky fairy tells you to have bread and wine on a Sunday. Maybe it tells you to wear a funny hat.
Sky fairies are insane. Hopefully yours only tells you to do innocuous things.
.
Yes, when a book is the ‘word of god’, it’s as total an authority as we can conceive of. And when any one who questions the text is subject to death, there doesn’t seem much room for moderation.
.
The New Testament, on the other hand, is a bunch of letters, Psalms, and abstract stories, written a century or two after Jesus was supposed to have existed, some about things which may or may not include god/jesus.
.
Blessed are the cheese makers.
.
Not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturer of dairy products.
TE,
The Psalms are Old Testament.
Andrew
James Evans,
We have a mix of atheists and theists here. I happen to be one of the atheists. I find your use of “sky fairy” distasteful. I can’t prevent your using it elsewhere, but I prefer you not insult people here.
More generally: I think that sort of comment makes us atheist look small minded, petty, rude and stupid. For what it’s worth: I know plenty of theists who are not stupid.
Beyond that: Many of those who believe in Islam don’t believe in killing and maiming the innocent. Sadly, being religious does not inoculate one against wanting to kill and maim. Neither does being an atheist.
If you want to criticize IS, go ahead. But don’t suggest that somehow all those who hold religious beliefs are tainted by IS’s flaws.
Andrew_KY:
No, it’s lets be honest about the true state of affairs, something you’re obviously not very interested in.
Part of the story about recent jihadist activity is whether or not it is ‘about religion’.
.
We forget about how small religions are to start and how different sects arise, even within established religions.
.
For the jihadis, it very much is a matter of religion, whether or not what they practice is true to the larger observations.
.
The key is probably, like Patreus demonstrated in Iraq, reconciling the reconcilables, co-opting the moderates, and in the process, marginalizing the crazies. But is it too late?
I stand corrected.
Turbulent Eddy:
About all of the time I have for today, but I totally agree here.
“But don’t suggest that somehow all those who hold religious beliefs are tainted by IS’s flaws.”
I would suggest that, to an extent, all those who hold religious beliefs are tainted by IS’s flaws. Sorry about that.
Sorry also that you think I’m petty, rude and stupid. I’ll get over it though.
James,
You appear to be specifically suggesting theists are tainted by insanity. That is insulting and I believe incorrect.
If you are merely suggesting they are “tainted” by belief in a deity– of course it is trivially true that theists believe in a deity. Whether that is a ‘flaw’ that amounts to a “taint” is a matter of opinion. I don’t happen to believe in a deity. But I think it’s a bit much to make it sound like those who don’t share my view are some how nutso.
In fact: it is rather stupid to go around suggesting people who do not sure one’s religious views are either tainted or insane. Making such suggestions can cause outsiders to suspect you are a bit unhinged yourself.
James Evans, you might as well suggest that anybody who holds any kind of belief is tainted by irrationality. Certainly I see many more irrational beliefs on display in any internet forum, on any given day, than I do in church every Sunday, and most of them have nothing to do with religion at all.
But that’s OK, that’s the way we are 🙂 As long as we are aware of it…
*I* would suggest that when a religion lasts centuries, as Islam has, it must have some survival value. Natural selection acts on cultural constructs as it does on everything else.
In fact Islam has worked very well, and continues to work very well, for millions and millions of overwhelmingly peaceful people. It encourages stable families, almsgiving, and a social order in which hospitality is one of the highest values.
The main reason we in the Western world have a problem with it now stems from a series of political blunders that we collectively happened to make in a region of the world that is predominantly muslim. (Going back to the breakup of the Ottoman empire after WWI.) This is not to cast blame gratuitously, because at this point it hardly matters who started what; the point is that it was politics (and the fight for territory, influence, and resources), that created the current mess that is the Middle East. Religion played a minor role (as in, it just happened to be there, although I admit it does provide a convenient rallying flag to the various fighting factions).
You could pretty much see the same (or worse) things happening at the site of any post-colonial disaster (central Africa, anybody?)
Julio: “The smarter approach, IMO, is to welcome these people, and win (at least a majority of) them over, so that they will, themselves, keep an eye on their most troublesome elements for you.”
Well, sounds good and smart, but that’s not what is happening in the real world. Anyone daring to publically question central tenets of Islam, like the infallibility of the warlord Muhammad or the status of the Koran as the literal word of Allah will have to live the rest of their lives under police protection. Think Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Salman Rushdie.
There are moderate Muslims but they are moderate in spite of the Koran and the texts about the life of Muhammad.
.
Yes DaveJR, that was a stupid comment. Muhammad didn’t exactly reject violence or teach his followers to love their enemies. The terrorist will find ample support in the Islamic texts. The sharia law with all its rules about how to live your life, the haram/halal distinctions, also makes it harder for Muslims than for other groups to integrate into the host communities.
Based on the experiences of the last 30 years of Muslim immigration in Europe, I’m not optimistic. A golden opportunity? Win Muslims immigrants over? To what? Christianity?Democracy and the rule of law? No, I don’t see that happening. Europe is wasting its rich cultural legacy at a breathtaking pace.
julio,
I wouldn’t say it started with the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. Read T.E. Lawrence. The Arabs were a mess long before WWI. Which is not to say that Churchill drawing straight lines on a map to define new countries regardless of population distribution didn’t contribute to the problem.
Niels,
As I said earlier, any large influx of immigrants into a country will create problems. The U.S. has seen this with wave after wave. But I think it’s always the case that the troublemakers are always a minority, and usually a very, very small minority, even when they happen to be very visible.
Very few Italian immigrants to the U.S. went into organized crime, but obviously some did. Relatively few Mexican immigrants (or children of immigrants) join gangs, but obviously some do. Accepting immigrants is a challenge for any society, but the key thing to remember is that the vast majority of people who move to another country are just looking for a decent chance to live a peaceful life. If we acknowledge that, and try to help them achieve that, there’s no reason why they should become our enemies, religious or otherwise.
julio
I think this is largely true.
At least some sects of all religions “of the book” whether Christian, Moslem or Jewish have at times resorted to war. Some are described in the old testament. I suspect all sufficiently popular religions have done so. Atheists have also resorted to war. While it is true that one can find material in the Koran to justify jihad and I have absolutely no doubt that that material is used by some to justify and inspire jihad, it’s not at all clear that that feature is what is the root cause the current popularity of extremely violent sects. It seems much more likely that violence is caused by other features — in fact features we saw in areas like the Balkans, in Ireland when I was in HS in Europe during the beginning of the reformation. The New Testament doesn’t actually tell anyone to kill infidels, heretics or anyone. Yet we saw plenty of bloodshed with Christians killing heretics and infidels at different times. (Sack of Bezier anyone? Examples abound.)
My view is that it is the case that people will from time to time and for various reasons resort to violence. In those cases many will find and embrace whatever “philosophy” they can to justify their desire to resort to violence. But often the root causes are real or perceived poverty, hardship, injustice or– and this is not to be forgotten — greed and so on. It ends up a self-feeding cycle.
Yep. The problem started a while ago. It’s not clear who exactly is to blame most– even if one were to try to figure that out. It’s also not especially useful to pinpoint who is to blame.
I have no idea how this can be sorted out. If I truly knew, I would run for US President and sort it out myself. I probably wouldn’t get elected– but the fact is it’s just as well. Because I have no freakin’ idea how to sort this out. Ireland seems to have mostly sorted itself out for some time now. No idea exactly how that even worked– but things were bad when I was in high school– bombings, terror etc. Those weren’t Moslem’s putting bombs in garbage cans back them. (I am, btw, by DNA more Irish than anything else. So this isn’t anti-Irish stuff going on here.)
Lucia,
And, conversely, at some time or another all of them have managed to live in peace with each other. I always find it highly ironic (considering the current sentiment towards Israel in the Muslim world) that, during the Middle Ages in Spain, the Jews typically found themselves more at ease in the Muslim-occupied areas than in the Christian areas. But generally speaking, for long stretches of time, everybody got along. The problems always begin when somebody has something that the other person wants.
(And, yes, very rarely a religious fanatic comes along and starts trouble for “no reason.” But most of the time there is a solid material reason.)
Just in case I am giving the wrong impression–I do believe the ISIS gang are borderline-insane fanatics, that much is obvious. But, in large measure, their fight appears to be political–they started out fighting for a disenfranchised group (the Iraqi Sunnis, under the recent Shia governments). And yes, you may say Sunni vs. Shia, there’s the old religious conflict again–except that it probably has as little to do with religion as the Irish conflict ever did. Once upon a time there was a tribe here, and then another one, with slightly different customs, moved in and subjugated the first, and that’s what got the ball rolling.
And then we stepped in.
Religions are very different. Unlike Christianity, Islamic doctrine holds within an easy justification of theocracy and persecution.
David,
I think you need to be a bit careful when claiming things are truly different. In different times, some Popes certainly wanted to rule with an iron fist; they lacked sufficient power to do so. In the Holy Roman Empire and France, the king was crowned by they Pope, nominally indicating they were somehow beholden to the Pope. Judaeism in the Old Testament could be characterized as “theocracy” what with the whole sanhedrin thing.
The New Testament does happen to contain language that suggests a break between church and state (“Render unto Ceasar”.) But it’s hardly as if that’s generally interpreted to mean the church and state should be separate. It is merely that one does pay to taxes to the secular government that existed.
Currently few Christian sects try to promote theocracy. But I wouldn’t say Christianity itself contains elements that are “anti-theocracy”.
If it actually did contain such elements and they really worked, our Founding Father’s likely wouldn’t have felt the need to include the freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights. As it was, they knew different sects of Christians did want to have government favor or even impose religion. To the extent that a particular Founder or member of the voting citizen at the time either did not agree with a majority religion that might”win” that battle or merely thought that impulse didn’t result in better government, they tended really, really, really want insist on individuals having freedom of religion. That meant: no theocracy allowed.
Carrick,
“Your eyes can only see what they are allowed to see.”
.
Please. Nobody was controlling what I got to look at. I was accompanied, if accompanied at all, by foreign nationals (US, British, Germans, Indians) who I worked with daily, and who had no dog in the race. We went wherever we wanted to go (OK, not inside the Saudi royal family compounds), and no government officials were aware of what we were doing or seeing. These folks regularly ‘escaped’ for a few drinks at the various western embassies whenever a party was being held. There was no love for the Saudi regime among my regular associates, and some loathing among the more religious Christians.
.
“The most reliable number for that is around 30,000 political prisoners at any point.”
I do not doubt that number. Considering that there are about 30 million Saudis (not counting foreign nationals), and considering the constant incitement by radical clerics calling for revolt against the House of Saud, having only 1 in 1000 in jail seems quite remarkable… or perhaps a commentary on the low level of courage most people can muster.
.
“You need to open your mind and do a bit of catch up reading about Saudi Arabia. ”
My mind is both open and has quite a bit of on-site knowledge of Saudi Arabia. I suggest that you rely much less on second (or third, or fourth) hand accounts… by people with a political axe to grind. Maybe you think Hillary’s accounts of Saudi Arabia are more credible.
.
“And I guess you aren’t aware of the oppressive treatment of the Shia minority.”
I am quite aware of the political/religious conflict between the Sunni majority and the Shia minority. Of course, it works both ways… depending mostly on who has political power. Yes, the Muslim faith condones (even demands) brutal treatment of anyone considered an apostate. After all my earlier comments about the brutality, inhumanity, and even madness of the Muslim faith, what on Earth would make you think I was not aware of this barbarism? (This is not a rhetorical question.)
.
It’s something we take for granted.
.
Somehow, my classroom history education never seemed to include the Peace of Westphalia which really seemed to be the origin of the implementation. 500 years ago. Unfortunately it took the Thirty Years war and the Eighty Years war to come to this conclusion.
.
All parties would … have the right to determine the religion of his own state…
.
Christians living in principalities where their denomination was not the established church were guaranteed the right to practice their faith in public during allotted hours and in private at their will. ( Muslims and Jews were not afforded the same deal, but time expanded the concept ).
.
General recognition of the exclusive sovereignty of each party over its lands, ( the nation ).
.
Unfortunately, this did not translate to the Islamic peoples contained within the Ottoman Empire at that time.
Lucia,
“Many of those who believe in Islam don’t believe in killing and maiming the innocent.”
.
Of course. It is the <0.1% most extreme who are the immediate problem. A larger percentage, even if only a small minority, willing to turn a blind eye, or willing to accept/condone the atrocities, are a bigger problem. The culture must change, or there will be endless conflict.
julio,
“Just in case I am giving the wrong impression–I do believe the ISIS gang are borderline-insane fanatics..”
There is no boarder line about it, they are insane fanatics; on at least this we can agree. The bigger question is how to effectively deal with insane fanatics. That is where I think the West is failing to address reality.
Lucia,
“I have no idea how this can be sorted out. If I truly knew, I would run for US President and sort it out myself.”
.
Well… I would vote for you. 😉
.
There are no solutions in the Middle East, because there is no serious interest in resolving the disagreements, on any side. All we can do, as best we can, is keep bad guys from killing people. Some day (who knows when, a century?) Muslims will adopt more modern “secular” views which allow people to draw whatever cartoons they want, and believe whatever they want….. but I am not holding my breath.
.
In the mean time, we need to defend ourselves against the crazies and do our best to save innocents.
So Carrick dodged my question by bringing up Christianity and its misdeeds. Someone on another blog brought up the question if a Westerners life is better than a Muslim one.
I think we have to be clear on something. For whatever reasons, some very good I’m sure, tribalism has gotten a bad name. But under some circumstances, tribalism is a good thing.
I submit this is one of those times. The militant terrorists have forced our hand – arguments about the history of this aside. We in the West now have to band together and stamp out militant Islam. Our way of life, our form of government(s), our traditions, our heritage, and the lives of our friends, family, and countrymen depend on it. We have band together and become a tribe – where it is better to kill them than to let them kill us. Ugly, but true, IMO.
I believe that is where we are.
lucia (Comment #140763)
” Many of those who believe in Islam don’t believe in killing and maiming the innocent. Sadly, being religious does not inoculate one against wanting to kill and maim. Neither does being an atheist. ”
Most of those who believe in Islam do believe in killing and maiming the guilty.
Witness the punishments handed out to people for thieving and adultery.
This defines the difference between the two religions in the modern era [Christians did dunk witches and burn people at the stake].
The answer to killing and maiming appears to be kill and maim them first.
Personally I would think that 20,000 dollars and a free trip to the USA to spend it over 2 weeks for every afghan family would have been far cheaper than the war after 9/11 and by inculcating “bad” American values and aspirations would have done more to make them move to a modern viewpoint than occupying them.
The recent tragedies are the despairing efforts of a beaten group. Think Kamikaze, think IRA, think Palestine. They are dying being attacked by everyone and are spitting in the face of the world as they die.
angech said:”The recent tragedies are the despairing efforts of a beaten group.”
The actions of the Japanese after WWII are the actions of a beaten group. I’m not seeing that in the Middle East yet.
Re: SteveF (Comment #140782)
Well… I only said “borderline insane” because if I called them insane I would be absolving them of moral responsibility, and I’m not going to do that.
I agree that (unfortunately) we have been put in a position where we may just have to go to war… on the ground… again. It seems to be the only think that works, at least temporarily: you hit us, we hit you harder. It’s either that, or abandon the Middle East entirely, just get altogether out of there. Which is always a tempting proposition, except there’s Israel…
BTW, I agree with you also that “politically correct” screening at airports looks ridiculous. (But, just to play devil’s advocate, if they stopped doing it how long would it take the terrorists to figure out that they can kidnap a Swedish grandmother’s family, and force her to smuggle explosives past the checkpoint?)
What if it were a 26 year old man from New York state and a 25 year old man from Illinois? Would you have a problem with them being searched exactly the same way as the men from northern Africa?
The President’s response to his inadvertent (but excellent) Baghdad Bob impression does not bode well for sound policy or rational government.
I hope no one minds if, during this difficult period, I ask a standard statistical question pertaining to my son’s ACT Aspire scores from the eighth grade assessment last spring that I just received.
..
My son scored in the top 5% in science, the top 8% in math, the top 13% in reading, the top 16% in writing, and the top 27% in English. I would like to assume that all students took all 5 tests. That being the case, what % ranking would my son have, compared to other students across all 5 subjects?
….
If someone can answer this it will improve my knowledge of basic statistics and help my son get the correct bonus for his test scores. Thanks for any help that can be given.
JD
Jim2 – I am not a Koran scholar, but here is one example.
Surah Al-Muzzammil (73:1 – 19) is generally acknowledged to have been written during the Mecca period. In this Surah, God tells Muhammad to leave the deniers to God, for they will be punished on judgement day.
Specifically 73:11.
“And leave Me with [the matter of] the deniers, those of ease [in life], and allow them respite a little.”
In the Surah’s the Me is God, as he is speaking to Muhammad.
Jim2 – I am not a Koran scholar by any means. I have just looked into a few things, but here is one example: Surah 73:1-19 are generally accepted to have been written during the Mecca period (where Muhommad was not in power). Surah 73:20 is believed by some to have been written later in Medina.
.
In Surah 73:1 -19 – God tells Muhammad, after waiving the restrictions on night prayers, (1-7) that he is to leave the deniers (non-believers) to God as they will be punished on judgement day.
.
73:8 “And remember the name of your Lord and devote yourself to Him with [complete] devotion.”
.
73:9 “[He is] the Lord of the East and the West; there is no deity except Him, so take Him as Disposer of [your] affairs.”
.
73:10 “And be patient over what they say and avoid them with gracious avoidance.”
.
73:11 “And leave Me with [the matter of] the deniers, those of ease [in life], and allow them respite a little.”
.
73:12 “Indeed, with Us [for them] are shackles and burning fire”
.
73:13 “And food that chokes and a painful punishment -”
73:14 “On the Day the earth and the mountains will convulse and the mountains will become a heap of sand pouring down.”
73:15 – 19 then refer to the biblical story of the Pharaoh as an example.
JD Ohio
I think we don’t have sufficient information. It’s quite likely the scores on tests are positively correlated with each other. That is: Kids who score in the top 5% of math will tend to get relatively high scores on English (etc.) and vice versa. So all we can really say: Higher than 27% but lower than 8%. At best we could create a estimate based on assuming the scores are all uncorrelated.
Lucia,
” At best we could create a estimate based on assuming the scores are all uncorrelated.” By uncorrelated, I am assuming that you mean something like flipping coins. If someone could do that I would appreciate it. On a different Ohio assessment test, I contacted an education employee and the results seemed to be weakly correlated. Something like a top 10%, top 7% and top 5% would result in a general score of something like the top 3%.
I get your point and will try to call the testing service and see if they can help me. Doubt that they will though. Would like a rough estimate of where my son stands in general.
Thanks,
JD
I guess the most accurate way to get the overall ranking would be to add up the raw scores and see where my son stands.
JD
Lucia – there is still some rabble rousing going on in Northern Ireland. When I was there in 2013 a van was captured by police right before a large celebration in downtown Derry began with a machine gun setup to fire out the back doors.
My cousin (2nd) gave me some insight as to what has been going on in Northern Ireland. The Republic of Ireland has basically been subsuming Northern Ireland. The electricity, the hospitals, the education system, etc have all become intermingled. In the mid 90’s the Republic of Ireland built barns on every farm – including the North.
When you drive across the border the only thing you notice is the speed limit is in a new format, and the gas is in a new currency. I do not even think there was a sign on the road.
Kan selective quoting of the Koran is not helpful.
The issue is the screeds of the benevolent and all knowing advising the followers to do whatever it takes to infidels and unbelievers and a certain group.
All infidels are guilty and deserve punishment.
Doing so brings extra rewards in heaven.
Which raises the question of why a benevolent and all merciful person/entity could ever want to punish anyone for what he caused to exist in the first place.
Re: angech (Comment #140797)
angech,
jim2 asked if such references could be produced.
JD Ohio,
Yes, that is what they do with the composite: it is the average of all the individual ATC tests scores (maximum value on each is 36), rounded up to the next whole number. If I have found the right numbers, the individual scores are 30 (science), 28, 29, 29, and 24 (english), giving an average of 28, which is about 90th percentile. His profile is typical of an engineer, not a lawyer…. sorry. 🙂 Most colleges and universities publish information about the average and range of ATC and SAT scores for their incoming freshmen, so you and he can compare and get a feel for where he would be accepted. Unless your son is a qualified minority, he probably can’t get into the Ivys, MIT, or CalTech, but there are lots of good schools where they would be pleased to have him. Tell him you get out of school what you put into it. You guys might enjoy this video clip: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=60P1xG32Feo
SteveF,
Bear in mind: JDOhio said his kid is in 8th grade, not high school.
Angech – I do not want to get into a deep study of the Koran. I believe there is a big problem inherent with Islam.
I first tripped across the notion of the “two Korans” and adherents while reading something or other years ago, and there was a quote in it from a Professor of Islam at Cairo University.
As I said – some (many) of the earlier, Mecca period Surahs are contradicted by later Medina period
Surahs. By Islamic law the later Surahs overrule the earlier Surahs. The game however, is to figure out which one came first, as the Koran is not combined in chronological order.
My simple take away? Why would God contradict God just because of time and place?
Oliver,
“What if it were a 26 year old man from New York state and a 25 year old man from Illinois? Would you have a problem with them being searched exactly the same way as the men from northern Africa?”
.
No, and especially not if their names were Abdul and Mohammad, and their parents came from Syria and Morocco. The Israelis don’t have their jets bombed, because they actually do security in a serious way. We don’t. Instead, we preen in front of the PC mirror doing a comical security charade, and pronounce ourselves good people. Sorry, but a 5% success rate at actually catching weapons and bombs is not security.
.
The truth is that a determined terrorist who is willing to kill himself can place a bomb in….err…. a body cavity, and be no more inconvenienced by TSA than my hypothetical grandmother from Minnesota. To stop the crazies, you have to know who they are before they arrive at the airport (or arrive at the local shopping mall), not tell them they have to remove their laptop from their briefcase before it passes the x-ray machine and place all liquids in a single plastic bag.
Lucia,
I didn’t see that. Then by his senior year he may be a superstar.
SteveF,
Are you advocating for more controls on guys named Abdul and Mohammed if their parents (not they) came from middle eastern countries? How about descendants of Irish or Sicilian immigrants? How about good ol’ boys with good, strong American names like Ted and Tim?
What do you think about more extreme examples of limiting rights of American residents or citizens based on “profile risk,” e.g., internment camps?
Has anyone run a poll, Putin vrs Hillary or Trump? I wonder if he’d show a substantial lead if he were running for U.S. President.
Sad.
You might be interested in this article on how groups become extremists on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-hate-us-cass-sunstein
James Evans asserts:
“Sorry also that you think I’m petty, rude and stupid. I’ll get over it though.”
Apparently not.
Kan,
You raise one of the main pillars that support skepticism of so-called revealed knowledge: The contradictory nature of what is said, and the deeper contradiction of an omniscient God requiring His words to interpreted (and re-interpreted) time and time again.
Another pillar is the need for a grand apocalypse or revelation that rewards the enlightened/faithful and punishes the non-believers.
JD,
First: If you go by uncorrelated, unless I have a big boo-boo in my script, your kid is going to get his reward. . .
But just so we do this right: Do they report 1-100% or 0-99%? I’m going to do the latter for now.
I’m going to do a few checks to figure out if I have a big boo-boo, but if not, get ready to pay out big time.
Oliver,
The appropriate policy in dealing with terror risks is one were there is actual rational evaluation of risks. It means knowing more about someone boarding a plane than their name, and yes, that will sometimes increase the burden on young men more than grandmothers from Minnesota, and young muslims more that young non-muslims. If muslims in the USA object to that, too bad. The Muslim community should be fingering the nut-cakes and the crazy mullahs.
Nice that you suggest interment camps, you must think that is a good idea.
Lucia,
I think the ATC folks already publish percentiles for the composite average score across all the tests. Of course, the published percentiles are no doubt based on junior and seniors in high school, not 8th graders. There may be an estimate of improvement with age for the ATC; I remember reading something like that for the SAT.
JD,
Ok. Here is what I did:
I took the sum of percentile ranks. We know that if the test was just a coin flip, the changes of getting any particular score between 1-100% as the returned “score” is 1/100.
So, if each test is a coin flip, we want to find the distribution of the mean of 5 coin flips. Your kids mean would be
theScore=mean(c(10,8,13,16,27)); theScore
[1] 14.8
Which looked like his “average” percentile was 14.8%– which it is in some sense.
But, in fact, you’ve got a pretty smart kid and he did pretty well in math. Perhaps he’s done coin flips and he comes to you to explain that his percentile is better than that. Maybe if he’s a math whiz and had some probability he’ll argue the following:
Suppose we just think of “above 50%” as heads=1 and “below 50%” as tails=0. He got tails 5/5 times. The chances the average of the flips was 0 is (0.5)^5 = 3%. So– if tests are like coinflips, fewer than 3% got better than 50% on all 5 tests. That’s already quite a bit better than 14.5%, and your kid could use math to show that. (Does this get him his bribe yet?)
Doing things more specifically requires integration or Monte Carlo. These days Monte Carlo is faster. So, I used R.
—-
meanscore <-function (N){ mean(sample(c(1:100),N,replace=T)) } # create a shitwad of scores. NMonte=10^6 NumTests=5; #rep(5,NMonte) Scores=sapply(rep(NumTests,NMonte),meanscore); hist(Scores); P=ecdf(Scores) #P(Scores) # percentiles of scores. P(c(0:10)*10); theScore=mean(c(10,8,13,16,27)); theScore P(theScore); 1-P(theScore) P(c(1:100)); --- Your kids mean score was "theScore"= 14.8. I assumed the board tells them percentiles as 1% to 100%, not 0% to 99%. I created a distribution of scores assuming scores were uncorrelated (so like coin flips.) That resulted in the cumulative probability of 14.8 is 0.001687, which is 0.17%. So I'm guessing if you use the assumption of uncorrelated, you are giving him money. FWIW: Honestly, I *doubt* test are 'uncorrelated' or even "weakly correlated" at either the high or low end. It may be that test makers say they are uncorrelated in the aggregate, but really, does any kid who got top 5% in math get bottom 5% in reading? Sorry: doesn't happen. I don't for a second believe scores are uncorrelated especially not at the extremes. Nope. Just. Don't. Happen. Evah. So my guess is if you do more research his percentile rank is going to fall somewhere between the 14.8%-- the mean of his percentile ranks-- and the 0.17% computed assuming the test results are uncorrelated from each other.
SteveF,
There seems to be more and more testing going on these days. It seems to me when I was a kid no one did “ACT” or “SAT” prep. Kaplan had just started as a business. The “lore” was that prep didn’t help.
That was a big fat lie. The SAT of my high-school era wasparticularly “prepable” because it relies so much on “brain teasers” and like it or not, playing “brain teasers” does improves one speed and agility with “brain teasars”. The ACT was more “subject matter/reading comprehension/ordinary-not-‘tricky- logic”. Which meant it was “prepable” but less “crammable”. But a few practice ACT tests can also help a kid understand the “swing” of things.
The fact is if by “prepable” one means “optimizing one’s score without actually learning more subject matter or becoming smatter”, all tests are “prep-a-ble” if you can predict format and “style” of the test well. Simply being familiar vs. unfamiliar with the format and whether the test is heavily timed can make a 10%-20% difference on many tests.
Lucia,
I think what you had as a 10 (the science result) should have been a 5 (at least that’s what JD said in Comment #140790).
I agree that the simplest thing (the average of all the percentiles) is probably going to be a pretty good estimator. That would work to (5+8+13+16+27)/5 = 13.8, so he would be in the (approximately) top 13.8 overall.
julio, The “uncorrelated” result is now 0.001082 or 0.11%. But I would doubt the “true” percentile is better than 13.8%/2– that is somewhere half way between what we get if just average percentiles and if we assume uncorrelated.
Still, if JD made a deal to fork over money with to his kid based on some cut-off, it seems he needs to think about how this is going to be computed going forward. He’ll need to find out what he can know before his next bribe deal!
Lucia,
What I have read is there is some improvement (generally) on the ATC over time, due (it is said) to gaining subject matter knowledge. But typical improvements appear modest from the 10th to 12th grades, and improvements tend to be more likely for kids who score lower than those who score higher. I haven’t seen any data for 8th graders, but my guess is they would probably have greater average improvement on retakes than older kids.
.
There was clearly a knowledge-base component in the SAT achievement tests, but in my era (late 1960’s) I don’t recall seeing or hearing of any big improvements in the basic tests on retake. Of course, nobody even told us the PSAT test was important, and told us it was a “practice” for the real thin. AFAIK, there was no prepping for the PSAT or SAT.
Lucia,
I don’t believe that theists are insane. I think they are wrong, but not insane. (And I think they might even be right. Personally I believe that life is a spiritual experience, of some sort.)
The problem I have is with religious people. There’s a huge difference between being a theist and being religious. Being a theist means you believe in a god. Being religious tends to mean that you believe you know what everyone should be doing, because god wrote it in a book that people have told you about.
The stuff in those books tends not to be based on rigorous logic. We’re not talking A J Ayer. We’re talking “you shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.” [sic]
Is that rational? I don’t think so. I think it’s irrational. And as the gospel says, sorry I mean as Wikipedia says, the irrational is “an action or opinion given through inadequate use of reason, emotional distress, or cognitive deficiency.”
I must go now, as I think the milk is boiling.
James
I am particularly puzzled by the ‘cloven hoof’ restriction… I didn’t see a lot of bacon when I was in Turkey some weeks back.
SteveF,
I took both the SAT and ACT.
I distinctly remember there being lots of “logic” type q’s on the SAT. As in “Sally sits next to Joe. Fred sits next to Betsy. Who is sitting next to ___”. That sort of thing was rarely covered in school, is very learnable. So it’s “knowledge” based on some sense, but it wasn’t the sort of thing one got much practice in school. Similarly: Between some time and some other time, how many times does the second hand cross the hour hand” and so on. On verbal they had lots of “analogy” type things.
The ACT in contrast actually had facts like: Knowing when the civil war happened mattered. These were the sorts of things actually covered in school. It’s hard to cram all the appropriate subject matter. Also, the “science” was really “read passages and then ask questions about interpreting those passages”. I’m sure it does help to practice that a few times compared to having never done it.
It’s true no one reported big increases in scores due to test prep before the 80s. For one thing ‘test prep’ was new. But in the 80s Kaplan claimed increases of about 100 points in the 80s, but the FTC found they managed 25 points. (This is still useful for many students hoping to get into competitive schools.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Kaplan
I actually think one can improve scores on old “SAT” test. I don’t know if one can with newer tests. The real question is whether it is worth the effort.
Many parents with means now think it is worth it to get their kids scores up those 25 points (on average.) But in the 70s? No one did it. I’m sure no one did it in the 60s!
In the late ’50s we did have some prepping at a Chicago suburban high school. I vaguely recall that our junior high school district as well as the high school ran Princeton Testing Service tests a couple of times a year and so we all had experience with the design of these things. We were also advised to be alert to cost of errors and that in some cases guessing could work out if you really had no clew.
I can also remember the advice to read the whole thing first and pick off the easy ones, not to get hung on anything challenging lest you miss opportunity to pick up points on the easy ones.
I suppose this is all pretty obvious, but it was clear at the time that testing well was important, especially to people like me whose grades were terrible. And yes, I think grades in HS do presage performance at the U, although i would say that my performance soared about 4 years into it when i quit giving a damn and just wanted to get out of there.
lucia,
I wouldn’t recommend an SAT or ACT prep course, but I remember reading one of the prep course’s books, which seemed to have everything you needed to know.
You need to know a few basic rules, like for a timed test, don’t spend time on hard questions until you’ve answered all the easy ones. They count the same. On multiple choice, if you can eliminate even one answer as obviously wrong, it’s worth guessing. I don’t know if they still do reading comprehension, but on the old SAT tests, you should read the questions before reading the passage.
Since standardized testing is so important now, I don’t see why kids aren’t taught this in school. It wouldn’t take much time.
If the left has climate alarmists, the right has its economic and cultural armageddonists.
jferguson
Read the whole thing first? That strikes me as terrible advise on a timed ACT/SAT or anything by the college board. You don’t have time to prioritize which are hard or easy on an ACT or SAT. You need to start answering those you do know.
The advise I would give is: Read a question. If you can answer, answer it. If you can’t answer it pretty quickly, scratch a ‘slash’ through obviously wrong answers in the booklet, perhaps circle your ‘best guess”, then, move on. Then, if you finish, come back to the hard ones.
Also: about every few questions consciously verify you are still “aligned” on the bubble sheet. that is: if you are filling q15, make sure you are filling q15. (You should be watching as you go along, but sometimes if you skip… well… bad test taking ensues.)
That said: perhaps the “right” advise depends on whether your ultimate score is above 700 or below 300. Kids who are going to really bomb might do best to hunt for question they can answer. Kids who can answer most of them are best off just starting to answer them!
James Evans
I believe you are very mistaken in the above.
I know very religious people who do not believe they know what everyone should be doing. I know atheists who do think they know what everyone should be doing. It’s just that the opinion of the latter isn’t based on “religion”.
No. But they don’t claim to be. Lots of useful stuff in life is not remotely based on logic. Deciding whether to visit the theater vs. the dance hall isn’t based on “rigorous logic”. Nor is my preference for opera over ballet. (Or heck, nearly anything to ballet.)
In any case, I don’t know how one who relies on logic would conclude that lack of belief in God causes anyone to become “logical”. It’s perfectly possible to not believe in God and be utterly, totally completely lacking in logic.
Glad to know we aren’t talking about someone who hasn’t previously been mentioned!
As for some religious tenets: Sure. Some don’t make any sense to outsiders. Sometimes the reasons are little more than symbolic. I don’t have a big problem with people adhering to habits and norm for symbolic reasons– that is provided they don’t try to impose those habits and norms on me. I don’t see any good reason to not eat bacon. But I’m not upset that Jews and Moslems exclude it from their diet. Big. Whip.
RB,
The left does indeed have climate ‘alarmists’. The right tends to focus more on Mexicans ‘pouring through a sieve-like border’ to pick vegetables. The realists are the ones worried about significant immediate threats. You know, like those who want to decide what cartoons warrant a death sentence, and are quite ready to personally carry out the execution.
SteveF,
The enlightened realists also believe that they can decisively force the medievalists to submit to the truths of Enlightenment.
RB,
Are you quoting someone?
.
I sure don’t rhink you can force enlightenment on anyone, and I doubt anyone on this thread but you said that.
.
You can defend yourself and what you believe in from Islamic crazies. That may (horrors!) require military action.
Re: James Evans (Comment #140816)
You have some funny notions about what “religious” people are like! First of all, very few people have read the Bible from cover to cover, so very few people can really be expected to believe in everything it says (since they do not even know it in the first place). It is true that there are a few groups out there that take the approach that “whatever it says, I believe it to be literally true.” That is an irrational approach, I grant you that; but it describes only, at best, the religion of a very small minority.
The rest of us simply believe, to varying degrees, in the important parts (which are the ones we are familiar with) and assume that the rest may have been useful to somebody once.
Religions are living things, cultural things; you “learn” them from your parents or your friends, you do not learn them from a book. That’s one reason I’m not particularly worried about whether the Koran says this or that. If your parents taught you to be kind to people, you will be kind to people. If they taught you you must fight the evil foreign crusaders, well…
In addition, there’s high minded discussion about root causes, theologies, cultural influences etc, which are all important discussions…
…and then there’s some low minded realities that need to be dealt with sooner like how to keep dangerous people who are already here from killing people in your community and how to prevent them from coming here, if possible, if they mean to come here.
Andrew
RB,
It’s easy to make fun of anyone’s ideas. It contributes nothing positive to the discussion. Try saying something useful or go away.
To demonstrate:
The enlightened liberal believes that we can persuade the medievalists to submit to the truths of Enlightenment by simply talking to them. Any other action would be immoral. Besides their views are just as valid as ours and they have a right to act on them.
DeWitt,
“Besides their views are just as valid as ours and they have a right to act on them.”
.
Yup, especially beheadings done as performance art…. they have a perfect right to do that.
Human populations started small and the archaeological evidence we have is of very small groups (clans?) which grew to larger groups ( villages? ) and larger still as agriculture evolved.
.
There are many examples of small groups being led by an alpha male. If, as some posit, religions developed to unify the larger and larger populations of settlements, it wouldn’t be surprising that ‘gods’ took the form of an alpha male as with the smaller groups.
.
If any of this speculation is accurate, it could be that we are evolved to ‘believe’ in god and participate in religion.
.
As populations grew larger still, religion may have evolved into government which organizes society across multiple religions ( Peace of Westphalia ).
.
Now, it used to be that the bumper sticker ‘Question Authority’ was popular, and I took that slogan as the true meaning of the ‘Enlightenment’.
.
But it’s a lot easier to Question Authority and deny god when sudden death is not the alternative.
Internment camps – the unvetted will need to go somewhere while the vetting takes place.
.
Or not.
James Evans – “The stuff in those books tends not to be based on rigorous logic. ”
There are those that are.
Hunter – There is nothing wrong with being skeptical about it, and it is a strong pillar to begin the search from. The key is to find that which is logically consistent and does not contain contradictions.
Lucia “Do they report 1-100%” Seems so. Ends in 100%, but doesn’t identify beginning. If there is a simple way to explain why that matters, let me know. Will have more comments later.
JD
Kan,
Thank you for the words of wisdom.
My journey has led me more and more to deeply question any set of claims based on circular or self-validating evidence.
At the same time, I am completely open and supportive of people with differing views as long as they don’t feel empowered by their views to dehumanize those who disagree. Dehumanization, not anger, is the path to the dark side.
JD Ohio,
It doesn’t matter much. I get small differences depending on whether my function said kids were reported numbers like 1:100 vs 0:99. If I know I’d match. But really, the difference is tiny.
The major issue is correlation between scores on different tests. Even though someone told you “weak” correlation, I don’t actually believe it’s all that weak. I think it’s pretty rare for a kid to get 99% in one subject and 1% in others. They tend to lump together to some extent.
Re: SteveF (Comment #140809)
“Rational†evaluation of risks also means weighing costs. There is a significant risk to our freedoms, which I hold quite dear as an American. Unfortunately it’s also a lot easier to overlook infringements upon the rights of others. So, I’d like to hear more specific justifications instead of simply “too bad for them.â€
Also, be aware that seniors of a certain age actually do get some leniency in the TSA line relative to young adults.
What makes you think they aren’t?
I don’t happen to think that internment camps are a good idea. But it’s nice that you’re turning my question on me to avoid answering whether you think they are a good idea, or whether there is some clear line between “reasonable profiling and infringement of rights†and “internment.â€
We in the West have to realize it is the MILITANT Muslims that are the problem. We have to realize that Islam is also a form of government.
We have to fight that form of government of which the leaders, Mullahs, want to kill infidels and urge their followers to do that.
Once we have identified the Mullahs, we obliterate them and their followers. That’s a start to the solution of the problem.
Lucia ” I think it’s pretty rare for a kid to get 99% in one subject and 1% in others. They tend to lump together to some extent.”
I agree with that. However, I don’t think it is unusual to be very good in math (for instance) and only above average in English (or vice versa). If someone did uniformly well — for instance, in the top 5% in math, English & Science, I would expect that person to be in the top 1% overall.
JD
Re: lucia (Comment #140837)
Lucia,
I strongly agree with your intuition. In JD Ohio’s earlier example:
Were the scores truly uncorrelated, I would expect the general score percentile to be a vanishingly small difference from top 0%.
From this table , one can use scores of science 25, math 23, reading 25, writing 22 and English 21, more or less around a score of 23 in each subject. The naive average of top 13% when aggregating all scores seems reasonable.
Oliver,
Seems you care a lot more about the ‘costs’ of lost freedom for young Muslims if they are subject to rigorous airport security than the costs of forcing people to stop using fossil fuels. I find that strange.
I travel quite a lot both in the States and elsewhere (30 or 40 flights a year), and I am aware of the revised TSA procedures for elderly people, which I figure was because the TSA grew tired of being called id!ots. Oh well, it is a first step toward the kind of profiling the TSA should always use. I happened to be in an airport this afternoon and picked up a copy of the Economist, which has an article on airport security screening. You might find it informative. Here is an on-line link: http://www.economist.com/news/international/21678236-lot-what-passes-security-airports-more-theatrical-real-no-more
.
I did not suggest anyone go to interment camps, that was all your fevered imagination.
SteveF (Comment #140843)
I don’t believe I have advocated forcing people to stop using fossil fuels without a weighing of costs. If you have any support of your assertion then I would like to see it.
Ironically, you seem to rail often against government regulation fairly regularly when it affects you or those whom you sympathize with, but when governmental action affects “others†then you seem less reserved.. Are you the one being hypocritical here?
Then why did you complain that grandmothers are harassed the same as 26-year-old Middle-Eastern Muslim males when you knew it wasn’t true?
Harassment goes beyond effective profiling. I am profiled in the opposite (low-risk) group and I still get “harassed” from time to time.
I didn’t feverishly “imagine” anything. Internment camps are back in the news, so given your previous statements I asked your opinion on them. Why are you so bent on attributing positions to me that have no basis? Is it just some kind of habitual re-casting of other people’s words on your part?
Here are the recent scores . I dont’ see any writing category, but there already is a composite category. edit. details on writing category here .
Oliver 140838 what makes you think…
The grand mufti of Australia would not initially condemn the Paris atrocities his community is in lock step with him the silence of western Muslim leaders and communities is deafening.
Not that it matters Isis is in tatters and all that is left is bit of desperation revenge
angech,
This is one of the first links I found when I Googled “grand mufti of Australia”:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/19/five-things-australia-grand-mufti-paris-attacks
It seems to differ with the sources you have been reading. (What were they, anyway?)
Searching on “what are Muslim leaders saying” also generates a whole bunch of hits. For example, since I am from the U.S., this one caught my eye:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/american-muslim-leaders-isis-declared-war-us/story?id=35206627
Oliver,
I object to foolish, ineffective, and wasteful government activities. And yes, many regulations, and most environmental regulations, fall in that category, as does current airport ‘security screening’. I am pleased you think the cost of fossil fuel reduction should be weighed against benefits. You must then be pleased by the recent demise of ‘Cape Wind’ in Massachusetts… a costly boondoggle that would only have increased electricity rates.
.
If you are actually interested in my views on internment (which I doubt): there is no need to send anybody to interment camps, not even climate scientists. There is a need to be very careful about who is allowed to become resident in the USA, and to exclude or at least minimize those groups who have demonstrated resistance to assimilation.
“interment camps” ??
jferguson,
Freudian slip.
Oliver
It is good that you found a link to the guardian and put that up as “proof”
The Guardian is a factual and respected paper which only publishes the truth as regards both muffed up climate science and muffed up mufti comments.
The mufti did not condemn the Paris attacks in his initial response, blaming the west for causing the attacks.
The Guardian article is a Nutty attempt to paper over this fact by selective misquoting and avoidance of the substance of the complaint to his initial response.
But you know this and still wish to pretend?
Good for debating but nil marks for truth and honesty.
In Denmark, the Copenhagen city council has stopped cooperating with Islamisk Trossamfund, the local community of the islamic faith, because they keep inviting speakers usually islamic clerics from abroad with views that members of the council regard as nutty or crazy.
The statements of these self-proclaimed representatitives of the muslim community following terrorist attacks are almost always ambiguous, they mourn deaths of innocents but they are careful not to say that all the victims were innocent and they don’t confront the terrorists or their islamic proclamations. We or fellow muslims are never informed how their understanding of islam is wrong and why the islamic texts cannot be read and understood like the terrorist do. Wouldn’t that be a nice contribution to the war against terror? Pinpointing exactly why the terrorists are wrong about Islam? I think it would.
.
http://www.anic.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ANIC-MOURNS-LOSS-OF-INNOCENT-LIVES-TO-TERRORIST-ATTACKS.pdf
.
And muslim protests against islamic terror are usually laughably weak compared to the loud and huge crowds that show up when a cartoonist is making a drawing of Muhammad. 30 people out of 5 million muslims in France showed up in Paris the other day:
.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3322064/We-need-wage-jihad-against-jihad-French-Muslims-join-mourners-condemn-Paris-attacks-late.html
.
From the article:
.
We…and our children and grandchildren.
Niels A. Nielsen:
As per: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
Maybe the problem is that the clerics understand that ISIS goals and the incidental actions of the terrorists ARE encompassed in the Koran.
Graeme Wood makes a pretty convincing argument that it is difficult for a muslim to disavow the ISIS understanding of the Koran without risking apostasy.
This is going to be really tough, maybe because many of us assume that the bases of Islam are just a different flavor of religions with which we may be more familiar.
This is the sort of view you are left with by Edward Said, Karen Armstrong and others in at least Armstrong’s attempt to ‘help’ us understand the middle east and the various societies that live there. If you accept Wood’s view, it is much less encouraging, much more than simple misunderstanding.
angech (Comment #140851)
Do you have any specific facts in the article that you would like to dispute or alternative sources that you could provide? That would be more conducive than general accusations of dishonesty.
Oliver,
I would not consider The Guardian as an unbiased primary source either. Rather than angech providing an alternative source, I would suggest that you provide another source with a less obvious bias that corroborates the interpretation of The Guardian.
Oliver (Comment #140854)
“angech (Comment #140851)
Do you have any specific facts in the article that you would like to dispute or alternative sources that you could provide? That would be more conducive than general accusations of dishonesty.”
Dear Oliver, It was not an accusation of dishonesty, please.
It was a statement that the Guardian article is a farrago of misinformation.
To be clear.
The Grand Mufti deliberately blamed the Paris killings on western xenophobia and islamophobia.
He deliberately did not condemn the Paris Bombings.
He was picked up on this by the Australian media and Government.
After 2 days he issued through the Islamic Council a begrudging and mealy mouthed condemnation of people who kill innocent people.
Since the Mufti knows in Islamic eyes the people killed were guilty in the eyes of Islam by being western infidels in the first place it was not even a real apology.
But if the Guardian and you wish to persist in your sophistry go ahead.
Perhaps you should have read all the other links you found when you Googled “grand mufti of Australia†instead of putting up the debased Granuard [British Spelling] article.
Re: jferguson (Comment #140853)
Interesting perspective on the level of military engagement in contrast with certain bellicose sections of the American political spectrum. While “contained” seems to have as bad a connotation as “accomplished” (remember “subprime is contained” ?) the article seemed to be encouraging in some ways i.e., on the potential for containment.
But then there is this:
“It is impossible to understand Islam and Muslims by listening to their protestations against terror and their proclamations of patriotism for America. Usually, it is wise and fair to give people the benefit of the doubt but when it comes to national safety and the future of America, we had better look twice, even thrice at Muslim patriotism. Why? Because Islam permits lying! It is called “Al-taqiyya.†One Muslim said that Al-taqiyya means dissimulation then he expanded it to diplomacy but he should have gone further to deception. Now some Muslims who do not follow the Koran are as faithful Americans as any of us, but the problem is, we cannot know.”
http://muslimfact.com/bm/terror-in-the-name-of-islam/islam-permits-lying-to-deceive-unbelievers-and-bri.shtml
Re: angech (Comment #140856)
Your exact words were: “Good for debating but nil marks for truth and honesty.†Are you leaving some wiggle room between nil honesty and dishonesty?
The passage from the original press release which you seem to be referring to reads:
So how does criticizing the current approach to countering terrorism and calling for a focus on “causative factors†become equivalent to blaming the Paris killings on western xenophobia and islamophobia?
Also, let’s be honest here: those causative factors are exactly what security experts have been telling us for years (if not decades).
The press release started that he and the council “mourn the loss of innocent lives†and refers to the people “tragically killed.†He also said “We reiterate that the sanctity of human life is guaranteed in Islam.†You really have to work to read into those statements a deliberate not-condemning of the Paris bombings.
But if the Guardian and you wish to persist in your sophistry go ahead.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re: jim2 (Comment #140858)
Good heavens! Are you suggesting that Islam has a word for “tact”? How very un-American!
From the article:
In Shi’a Islam, taqiya (تقیة taqiyyah/taqÄ«yah) is a form of religious dissimulation,[1] or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts, especially while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution.[2]
Al-Jamil’s “Hiding in Plain Sight” explains: …social behaviors associated with religious dissimulation – known as “taqiyya,†a practice in which a Shi’ite can lie about their faith in order to save a life.”[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya
oliver (Comment #140859)
“Your exact words were: “Good for debating but nil marks for truth and honesty.†Are you leaving some wiggle room between nil honesty and dishonesty?”
Just trying to be civil on this site, I guess you worked that out though?
My exact words before you selectively misquoted me hence avoiding the substance of my observation was that the Guardian used
“selective misquoting and avoidance of the substance of the complaint to his initial response.
‘
I also said
“But you know this and still wish to pretend?
Good for debating but nil marks for truth and honesty.”
There were no general accusations of dishonesty. They were your words I believe though I now hesitate to quote them.
There was a statement of
“selective misquoting and avoidance of the substance of the complaint to his initial response.”
It seems that you would also interpret this as being as a dishonest statement from the Guardian so you do understand the concept of ethics and honesty to some degree.
I then said
“But you know this and still wish to pretend?
Good for debating but nil marks for truth and honesty.”
So the Guardian statement in your view could be seen as dishonest?
Your defense of it is sophistry [ nil [marks for truth and] honesty.”]
It seems that you certainly found wriggle room when you tried hard enough to compare two different comments.
“He deliberately did not condemn the Paris Bombings.
You really have to work to read into those statements a deliberate not-condemning of the Paris bombings.”
There is no condemnation of the evil acts of the bombers and the evil bombers.
I am not trying to read into other statements.
I am trying to see a condemnation in actual words.
There is none.
That is why he had to put out, under immense pressure, a new press release days later condemning the bombers. You must have seen this with all your “searching”.
So still Sophistry.
Good for debating but nil marks for truth and honesty.
oliver: jim2 is not talking about diplomacy, you should read that bizarre article to see where he’s going. You can’t argue with people like jim2, I’ll leave it at that.
RB: I note you attack me buy don’t deny the Koran blesses the lying of Muslims to infidels. Here, maybe you can argue with the Koran.
…
he Qur’an:
Qur’an (16:106) – Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.
Qur’an (3:28) – This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves” against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim may appear friendly to non-Muslims, though they should not feel that way..
Qur’an (9:3) – “…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…” The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.
Qur’an (40:28) – A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must “hide his faith” among those who are not believers.
Qur’an (2:225) – “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts” The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.
Qur’an (3:54) – “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.” The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means ‘deceit’. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)
Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be “compelled” to deceive others for a greater purpose.
…
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/011-taqiyya.htm
jim2: The floor is yours. Adios!
jim2:
When I read this, in of all places, the Qur’an, I thought it meant that if your oath involved Allah it wouldn’t count against you unless you really intended to involve him in your complaint. Unless I’m more confused than usual, I don’t think the Bible has this very reasonable flexibility.
I think you’ve expanded the context a bit. Maybe you ought to read the whole thing for yourself.
The Qur’an is talking about swearing as in G**Damnit, here, btw.
jferguson. There are several quotes there. I take the lot of them to mean a Muslim can lie to infidels, say, for example, if he or she is a militant Muslim with intent towards mayhem, then he or she can lie as necessary to achieve the goal of killing infidels or just blending in until the terrorist strike. That’s really the point here. AFAIK, the Bible isn’t relevant to believers of Islam.
MASSACRE IN MALI: At least 27 bodies found dead inside hotel as US Special Forces take out two Al-Qaeda terrorists and rescue terrified survivors after storming building
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3326708/Jihadists-gunmen-launch-grenade-shooting-rampage-hotel-Mali.html
Well gosh, Jim2, there is no “marriage” context in either of the two Qur’ans I have with regard to invoking the name of Allah in vain.. As I said, i think you could grasp this yourself if you read it directly. True, I read English translations, one from 1983 and one from 1890, likely before there were any axes which needed grinding.
Quoting stuff you find on the net exposes you to the possibility that the person who wrote it is just repeating stuff he heard somewhere.
Probably doesn’t bridge any divides, but here is Why scientists don’t believe in god.
Turbulent Eddie,
It is certainly true that a link to a Richard Dawkin’s video is not going to bridge any divides. Also: Richard Dawkin’s view on religion are shallow and polarizing. Also: he is a wanker.
But if there was some point he made you thought worth our consider, feel free to tell us what that point is. In your owns words. Because I can assure you, video highlighting Richard Dawkins screams “WASTE of time and brain cells to me”. So… give us the cliffs note version if you think there is something worthwhile there. In your own words.
I say this as an atheist. But the fact is: Dawkins is an atheist who almost makes an atheist wish they did believe in god just do they wouldn’t be associated with someone who is a big a Dick-Head as Dawkins.
🙂
Thanks Lucia! After a long and difficult day I needed a smile.
As an agnostic, I’m not interested in the religious angle of militant Islamists. Religion, and some bad blood between East and West, is the apparent reason for the mass murders we in the West continue to experience. I’m not happy about it. I’m more interested in how to make it go away than the whys and wherefores.
Lucia,
Please don’t hold back, tell us what you really think about Dawkins! 😉 Don’t know for sure, but that comment seemed almost fueled by a good Chardonnay.
Way to go, Lucia! 🙂
Personally, of course, I find it very easy to ignore Dawkins, since I am a scientist myself, and my science is better than his, so there 😛
Wrt Dawkins:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_God_Go
IMO, militant atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens are really, really annoying. They have this insane idea that all (well a lot anyway) of the problems of the world would go away if no one believed in God. It’s human behavior that’s probably genetically wired that is the problem. If religion didn’t exist, we would invent some other excuse for people to kill each other.
SteveF,
I prefer red wine. 🙂
julio,
I generally ignore Dawkin’s also. He periodically creates brouhaha’s on twitter due to his sexist and racist tweets. But my disdain for the man springs from his militant atheism which is rather unhinged.
DeWitt,
Agreed. Those two do seem to convey the notion that somehow, religion is the cause of the problems of the world. I realize that religion doesn’t prevent things like war. But I’m pretty dang sure we’d still have it without religion.
Oddly, the two of those guys seem to want to take a perfectly respectable lack of belief in god and turn that lack of belief into some sort of pseudo-religious belief system and association. You’d get the impression from them that if we don’t believe in god we are supposed to then adhere to a whole bunch of other poorly thought out and poorly reasoned ideas they set forward. Well… no.
Those two do seem to convey the notion that somehow, religion is the cause of the problems of the world.
.
The ‘Peace of Westphalia’ did come about because of religious wars, and that is what led to both nation states and the beginnings of separation of church and state very recently in historical terms.
.
But more to Daesh and the Paris murders, yes, religion and belief in god are the basis. Whether or not they are linked to the larger Islam, Daesh is moved by belief in god.
.
Dawkins is kindofan ahole, but his point in the video – don’t believe in things without evidence – holds. Isn’t that the issue you hold with calimitologist? Don’t have faith in catastrophe because of dogma, but demand evidence?
.
This is the ‘Age of Reason’. While we have evolved traits that predispose us to religion or other groups which supplant them ( such as the IPCC, or the Chicago Cubs ), we have also evolved traits toward reason. Devotion to god, murderous or otherwise, is not rational. Of course, getting out of bed in the morning isn’t strictly rational, either.
.
When Martin Luther wrote that ‘Absolute power corrupts absolutely’, it was about the pope. But, as is evident with Daesh, it’s clear that no power can be more absolute than that of a hypothetical omnipotent god, and the concept of omnipotent god can be appropriated and corrupted by anyone. This corruption would cease if the rank and file rejected god for lack of evidence. That is difficult, particularly in strictly Muslim lands, because those even asking ‘does god exist?’ are blasphemers subject to death.
.
I do have some mixed feelings. I have come to atheism, but was raised in christian observance. I’m not sure how much of my moral code comes from upbringing, religion, or adult assessment of the world. And the golden rule seems a good philosophical guide.
.
I realize that the majority of humans are theists, and that marginalizing the extremists means co-opting the moderates by accommodating their beliefs. And there are other groupings we join which are not strictly religious but are also dogmatic. But none seem quite as inspirational to war as devotion to god.
“I have come to atheism”
TE,
Since you think there is no God, then the idea of God and how He might relate to humans is simply a notion that people have. Hence, there’s nothing “wrong” with it. It’s just human behavior. But my guess is that you still think some human behavior is “better” in some way than other human behavior.
Andrew
Turbulent Eddie,
ISIS does have religious beliefs that are directly connected to their killing people. There is no doubt about that. That has nothing to do with Dawkins. The fact that religious beliefs do sometimes become hateful clear from history. That doesn’t mean that lack of religious belief would result in any less bloody killing. Nor does it mean those who lack religion are saner, more peaceful more rational or anything else relative to those who are religious. Example of nuts on both sides exist.
TE “But none seem quite as inspirational to war as devotion to god.”
Then what is your explanation for the warlike tendencies of Stalin & Mao. Also, strong evidence indicates that Hitler was anti-religious although he appears to have sometimes used religious appearances to advance his agenda. I personally am an atheist, but I cringe at the idea of whole societies being populated by people who act purely in their own self-interest and who have no loyalty to higher principles than mere self-interest.
JD
.
Does atheism imply self-interest?
.
Does religion imply human interest? Daesh doesn’t think so – they’re only interested in your contribution to the same god adhering group.
The thing is, does Dawkins think that this idea has never occurred to anybody before him in the history of Christendom? Does he think–for instance–that Roger Bacon, a Franciscan monk and early pioneer of the “scientific method” would disagree with it?
Over the past 20 centuries, many extremely intelligent, critical thinkers have embraced Christianity. This was a fact early on, it continued to be so after the Renaissance, and has continued to be so into the modern age. So how did they do it, and why? How did they understand their faith? What evidence did they think they had for it? You’d think a real scientist might find this intriguing enough to want to look into it.
Instead, Dawkins sets up a caricature of religious faith and declares that everybody who believes that must be an idiot. How is that helpful, or even intelligent?
Andrew_KY (Comment #140881)
November 21st, 2015 at 9:03 am
It’s just human behavior. But my guess is that you still think some human behavior is “better†in some way than other human behavior.
Andrew
*******************
How can you believe some human behavior IS NOT better than some other human behavior? I can think of some examples – Hitler comes to mind. Even in war, there are more humane was to kill people.
But thinking beyond some absolute definition of good or bad, I think we in the West need to evaluate our actions in terms of our tribe. We need to preserve and protect our tribe: the Western way of life, rule of law, personal freedoms, democrat republic government, our culture – even though it is now mixed to some extent. That’s no reason to mix it even further with Muslims!
So, back to Daesh.
.
Bernard Lewis writes about Islam versus Christendom, and when I first read that, it seemed alien to me. Like most, I saw the world in terms of the existing nations both in the west and middle east.
.
But going back just a little reminds us that more of the world was organized by religion for centuries.
.
The rapid rise of Islam was later governed by series of different caliphates, sometimes of from different cultures, but more or less unified by the religion. The last, the Ottoman Empire, lasted four centuries.
.
The most important event in Christianity was said to be the conversion of Constantine, which more or less unified Christian rule under the Roman Empire. When the Roman Empire eventually dissolved, and after the long Dark Ages, Feudalism emerged. There was no unified rule, but the numerous feudal kings invoked religion to legitimize their rule. The different religions engaged in countless horrible bloody wars ( the thirty years war and the eighty years war ) which lead to the Peace of Westphalia which led to nation states.
.
It has been less than a century since the Ottoman Empire, which was the unifying Muslim rule, finally collapsed. It may not have been so much the British map makers but the fact that, unlike the bloodily motivated Westphalia, the concept of nation state is counter to Islam. It would seem easy to say ‘adopt separation of mosque and state and be nice to others’ but not as easily done.
Lucia and TE, I agree that ISIS does have an Islamic religious ideology that motivates or at least justifies their actions, just as the Nazi party had an ideology that justified theirs. There are some interesting connections between European fascism in its heyday and Islamism. One must bear in mind that fascism was very much in fashion in Europe (including in France) before WWII.
But the interesting question here is whether some religions and ideologies lend themselves more to violence and dictatorship. Looking at the modern world, one might draw some rather strong conclusions here. The Islamic world is not too strong on liberal democracy or cultural tolerance.
The problem here I think is that all religions are vague and offer large scope for interpretation. However, one issue that is pretty clear is that separation of religion and state is a concept that Christianity grew up with (since it was an illegal religion until the 4th Century). I don’t think there is any such concept that is really compatible with Islam. And that’a a pretty fundamental problem.
Yes Julio, Dawkins is in the tradition of Bertrand Russell, whose views on religion were pretty sophomoric and really based on lack of understanding. At least Walter Kaufman understands religion from the inside. Kaufman’s critique is at least informed by a deep knowledge and understanding.
Re: David Young (Comment #140889)
I had never heard of Kaufmann (life is short…), but from the Wikipedia page I see he admired Kierkegaard, who would certainly be one of the Christian thinkers I alluded to earlier, and also seems to have liked Martin Buber, a Jewish religious philosopher that I am personally very fond of.
The bottom line, I think, is that it is perfectly possible for intelligent, thoughtful people to hold different religious beliefs, and yet respect and even admire each other.
In the Christian tradition, we are told that faith is a gift. This is a very puzzling idea, but it suggests several things: for one, that nobody has a right to look down on or condemn anybody else for their lack of faith. For another, that God has some use for atheists as well. 🙂
David Young
Could be true. It is certainly true that the New Testament doesn’t contain text that explicitly suggests the government can or should enforce or set up a religion and that squares well with the fact that historically, Christianity was outlawed at the start. Ultimately, that makes it easier to square with separation of church and state– which is a good thing. Islam is different on that front. No doubt about it.
But wrt to Dawkins, he doesn’t like Christianity either.
Julio, You will find however, that Kaufmann kind of held the view that each religion was different and had a fundamentally different view about what human nature was and what mankind could become.
Because of modern ignorance, there is a tendency to lump all religions into the same mental bucket and ignore the important differences.
julio,
“God has some use for atheists as well. ”
Well, I have heard some make OK tutors. 😉
.
Just went through the TSA charade (yet again, about the 50th time this year). This time I was pulled aside for ‘random extra screening’, which seems to involve being patted down and having another set of eyes ‘evaluate’ if you might present a danger. Sadly, there were only female ‘pat-downers’ available, and they are not allowed to pat down men. So I had to wait for a male pat-downer…. and wait, and wait, and wait. After about 15 minutes, when I was ready to declare myself a homosexual, and request a woman pat me down, one of the male TSAers stopped inspecting bags long enough to don examination gloves and pat me down, a process that took not more that 4 seconds, and I was finally declared ‘safe’. As I said up thread, it is the most id!otic ‘security screening’ system I can imagine: ineffective, slow, and stupid. A 65 year old man who has traveled multiple millions of miles over the last 23 years is NOT a security risk. The half dozen scary looking young men they waved through while I awaited my pat-down probably would have been worth patting down. A foolish waste of our time and money.
SteveF, I know TSA is the most ridiculous and politically correct answer we could have come up with. You can apply for TSA Pre, pay a fee, and go through a less intrusive check. Why not let people who pass a background check just walk through with no screening? That would only happen in a sane country not controlled by people who don’t want to “discriminate” in any way. It is a sad commentary on the way common sense has taken a back seat to grotesque legalistic formulations.
Politicians in the US are in something of a turmoil. Well, I guess that’s not anything new. Anyway, from the article:
…
The argument that, ‘That’s not who we are,’ that’s just one of the mantras that they put out. And it’s not supported by logic or rationale… Well, ‘who we are,’ we should not be a suicidal nation… if you had 100 grapes and you knew that two of them were fatally poisonous, would you sit there and eat the grapes until one of them kills you?
…
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/21/following-show-vote-house-republicans-warn-ryan-reject-obamas-refugee-funding-request/
Re: David Young (Comment #140892)
David, I think that depends. In a way, we are all fundamentally different from each other, and in another–just as true–way, we are all fundamentally the same.
In my life, I have approached (studied might be too strong a word) several religious traditions beyond my native Catholicism: Protestantism, Judaism, and Buddhism in particular. In every one of these I have found at least one thinker with whom I was in essential agreement on 95% or more of all the important questions (here are a few names, if you want any: Reinhold Niebuhr, Abraham Joshua Heschel, Thich Nhat Hanh).
Given this experience, I am very reluctant to throw Islam under the bus, just because I have never looked at it in depth. My contacts with Muslims have invariably been pleasant and mutually respectful, including the (relatively) rare occasions when we have exchanged information about our respective faiths. (I particularly remember one time in Pakistan when some college students asked me to explain the Holy Trinity…)
Steve,
Our best TSA story was the time they discovered an enormous knife inside my high-school daughter’s backpack (she had been cutting a cake the previous day…)
On the other hand, my wife (who also doesn’t look like a security risk) had to put up with a couple of thorough searches this year, so she would certainly sympathize with you!
David Young,
I know about pre-check screening. I was actually being routinely directed to the pre check line for a year or so, probably based on my ‘travel profile’ and age, but then people who had taken the time and spent the money for the formal background check started complaining that too many people were slowing down the pre check lines. The pre check lines are again empty. So now I am forced to go through the full monty process once again. I may take the time to go through the TSA background check, if only because episodes like today are bad for my sanity.
julio,
I have lots of worse TSA stories. When my dad was in the early stages of Alzheimers, 78 years old, I traveled with him from Fort Lauderdale to Boston so that he would not become ‘lost’. We had checked his golf bag and suitcase, but he had packed a small carry-on with his really important stuff…. medications and his golf shoes. Unfortunately, he had walked through freshly applied nitrate fertilizer on the golf course, and there was a bomb-sniffing dog at the security checkpoint…. who promptly declared my dad’s carry-on contained explosives. In the ensuing commotion, there was not a sane head involved. No amount of explanation of who we were or why the dog was wrong seemed to help. A 78 year old, decorated WWII vet IS NOT a security risk. The TSA numbskulls wouldn’t know a security risk if he walked up and announced himself. It took half an hour for the bomb experts to finally believe the carry-on just contained a pair of (slightly dirty) golf shoes. My poor dad never really understood what was going on…. but he was plenty frightened.
I haven’t vetted all the the links in this article, so be warned. From the article:
…
All of the major Christian churches in America have come out in favor of importing hundreds of thousands of Muslims into the US from the Middle East, even though such a move will speed up the extinction of both European-Americans and Christianity itself.
…
http://newobserveronline.com/us-christian-churches-back-muslim-invasion/
I know Jim2. It’s a little crazy. It illustrates I think how divorced the hierarchies in many churches are from the people who support them. Based on what has happened across the middle east, where Christians have been systematically persecuted and forced out, one must ask why its not a bigger issue for these same churches. Most are silent about it. Or in Lebanon, where the Switzerland of the Middle East has been turned into a continuous state of civil war. Perhaps its the ultimate sign of the irrelevance of Christianity in most of the West. Certainly in Europe, Christianity is largely irrelevant to anything important.
Steve, Wow, that is awful…
David Young (Comment #140901)
November 21st, 2015 at 9:43 pm
I know Jim2. It’s a little crazy. It illustrates I think how divorced the hierarchies in many churches are from the people who support them.
**********************************
David, from my POV, it seems many of our politicians are divorced from the people who support them. I don’t hold much in common with the Dimowits, but many of the Redimowits made promises to get elected, then immediately forgot those promises.
Also, Christians aren’t simply persecuted, frequently they are killed outright. I’m confused over the response of these churches.
The world to me seems upside-down along many dimensions.
jim2:
Let it be known as a sad day when members of one religion reaching out and helping members of another religion is depicted as a horrible thing.
I find it fascinating many people genuinely seem to believe showing love and kindness to their neighbor will be the downfall of their religion… based on showing love and kindness to their neighbor. I suppose that’s like people who demand we make it illegal to burn the flag because protecting the symbol of freedoms like the freedom of expression is more important to them than actually protecting freedoms like the freedom of expression?
I suppose it’s really no surprise the country decided terrorism is so bad we should, in the height of ironies, kidnap and torture people to prevent it. I’m not sure which part of that logic is more troubling, the idea of using terrorist acts to combat terrorism or that it didn’t actually accomplish anything yet people wanted to keep doing it anyway.
Honestly though, as amusing as the perceived contradictions in all these cases may be, the truth is probably just that the stated motivations have nothing to do with the real reasons for people’s positions.
Brandon,
It is the foolishness and self-destructiveness of the form of help that is being rightfully questioned.
That you rely on red herrings and strawman arguments is simply you being consistent.
hunter,
I don’t think it’s self-destructive for churches to want to permit more Syrian refugees to arrive. I do think some degree of background checks likely need to be required and also know that even fairly good background checks will be imperfect. I also think if we are going to bring in refugees we’d to well to create and enforce a program to associate them with a sponsor — preferably already US citizen whose lived well above the poverty line for at least the past 2 years– and that person who must give them assistance of some sort for a period of time. (I don’t necessarily mean a financial allowance. I mean help finding job– even if that’s janitor. Help find housing and so on. Have over for dinner from time to time to practice English– find ESL classes for people. )
People arriving who can’t find a niche tend to respond badly in the end– and that’s certainly not what we should want in a situation like this. Those people are supposedly trying to find an actual refuge but they also need more than mere shelter, if people are going to be allowed in as refugees, the program should help make the new destination more than mere shelter from violence. It should help people settle in.
As for those objecting to refugees ariving….I also think the first paragraph of the article Jim2 linked is clearly wild eyed and delusional:
Do you really think allowing more Muslims to immigrate into the US form the middle east will result in the extinction of European Americans? Extinction?! I certainly don’t think so.
Moreover, that’s the exact sort of inflammatory and prejudiced argument that was used to justify limiting immigration of Irish, Poles, Italians.. eastern Europeans, Jews and every later wave of immigration to the country.
The fact that jim2’s article link opens with such widely delusional language makes me suspect it’s going to be rather full of similarly delusional view and claims.
Brandon – I find your analysis to be naive. Lucia – This thread got kicked off because of the terrorist attack in Paris. Considering the situation in Europe – the language of the website isn’t looking all that delusional. We have an actual example of that process occurring in France – reality, not a racist fantasy.
I would rather be on the safe side and stop all immigration from the Middle East now, at least until we can know for sure we can Westernize any such immigrants.
And WRT this “mentoring” program you envision, hopefully the citizen in question would volunteer and not be forced to comply.
An article from 2007. I can only imagine these concerns have become more pronounced over the intervening years.
…
“In today’s rapidly changing world, people from nations rich and poor worry about losing their traditional culture. In 46 out of 47 countries, majorities say their traditional way of life is getting lost,†the poll said.
Some are more worried than others.
While 73 percent of American respondents fretted about the trend, the sentiment was more pronounced in Britain, France, Germany and Spain. It was more than 90 percent in South Korea and Bangladesh. Concern for loss of tradition, however, was less strident in many Middle Eastern countries, at 51 percent among Palestinians and 53 percent in Jordan.
Sweden, at 49 percent, was the lone exception to the finding.
Should each country guard their innate culture and lifestyle? The answer was a rousing “yes†— again in 46 out of 47 of the countries. In the U.S., 62 percent said we should protect our way of life. Those sentiments were more pronounced among Republicans (71 percent) than Democrats (60 percent).
…
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/oct/5/immigration-loss-of-culture-worry-nations/?page=all
jim2,
Sorry, but suggesting “extinction” is delusional even after Paris.
Yes. We have an actual example. And that example does not include extinction. So: the example shows the article is delusional. Parisians have not become extinct, nor will they.
Evidently some are so worried they have become delusional.
It’s fine to be worried. But succumbing to delusions is not helpful.
It’s one thing to have a preference. You’re entitled to that. Some other people– evidently some in these churches would rather err or the generous and caring side. That’s their preference.
But suggesting that immigration — or letting others preference be granted rather than yours– will result in extinction is either ridiculous hyperbole or delusion. Suggesting that what happened in Paris is evidence these delusions are true is utterly unconvincing because Parisian are no more extinct that Irish in Belfast. Terrorism is bad, it should be stopped. But hyperbole is not the way to stop it and resorting to it to make your preference sound the only reasonable just makes those who hold your prefreence sound wild eyed and unhinged.
It’s not going to make make me think your preference is the more reasonable view. If you want to explain why your view is reasonable provide reasons that are not nutty. Immigration is not going to lead to extinction of European American’s.
It wouldn’t work unless the citizen was a volunteer. Conscripted mentors would almost certainly do inadequate jobs. Given your views, I’m pretty sure you would be terrible at it! After all: you don’t want the immigrants here and don’t want to help them.
But I’d be against conscription even if some of them felt duty bound to help– this should be volunteer. I have generally libertarian views and I don’t see any reason why a citizen should be forced to help a refugee.
My vision is a bit like this:
It strikes me that if the Lutherans (for example) would like the US to bring in refugees a parish could set up a program to sponsor. Then those members of the parish who wish to aid could volunteer to sponsor. The number of refugees sponsored would be in proportion to the individuals who are actually willing to assist. Perhaps the program would require 1 US citizen volunteer per family unit of 2 or less and 1 extra for every additional 3 members. (So wife,husband grandma and 2 kids needs 2 adults).
This strikes me as fairly balanced, ensures the amount of work per volunteer is in the “do-able” range – and would also tend to distribute refugees in a way that doesn’t overburden any particular community. If churches were involved, you’d likely get clustering but not flooding in areas. That’s likely best.
“How can you believe some human behavior IS NOT better than some other human behavior?”
TE,
Of course I believe some human behavior IS NOT better than some other behavior. And I have a reason I believe that way. I suspect you don’t.
Andrew
jim2,
People “worry” about a lot of things.
But even if they “worry” the fact is much of “traditional” culture changes because of technology. Our current culture is hardly the same as in 1776. Among other things: the South lost slavery. Women can own property and vote. Heck…. they can go to university rather easily. There aren’t as many male only or female only colleges as in the 50s. And older people no longer live with their younger family members because — as much as they complain about elderly poverty– many have social security which is sufficient to make them decide they have enough money to not have to live under their kids roofs. All of those other things were “traditional culture”.
Oh. Also: fewer people go to church. And may of us spend time on the internet instead of fetching water from the well.
None of this “death” of the “traditional” culture is due to “extiction” caused by “immigration”.
Well. Yes. The threat of electricity and financial prosperity does mean the “traditional” culture of South Korea is likely to vanish. Possibly that of Bangladesh. It may well be that some in those countries like to dream of retaining “tradition”, but likely they also dream of financial prosperity and a decent standard of living. That the later may displace many of the former “traditions” is not unlikely. One can only hope.
Funny thing about polls. People will contradict themselves. If you asked Bengali’s if they’s like their kids to go to college, get a good education and so on. Bet they’ll say yes too. But that would end up destroying their culture.
jim2,
So this is now a dead letter? Culture is like climate, it’s always changing.
Lucia. Of course, no one said Parisians will cease to exist, but instead their way of life.
I admire the tenacity of your beliefs. But I think you have to realize that sometimes by applying one’s principles to all situations can conceivably destroy those very principles. I’m not here simply for an argument. I believe any further argument from me will simply cause you to dig a deeper fox hole. And any evidence I provide will be viewed as tainted. I will leave some links, but I urge everyone to attempt to be as objective as possible while you research the actual effects of Muslim immigration on European countries. If you do, I believe you will change your POV.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/23/sharia-law-enshrined-in-uk-legal-system_n_5016396.html
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/566111/Boris-Johnson-Sharia-law-UK-absolutely-unacceptable-Islamic-legal-code
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3287364/Muslim-men-British-communities-having-20-children-Sharia-law-allows-wives.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/25/atheist-mubarak-bala-deemed-mentally-ill-medicated-detained-nigerian-psychiatric-ward_n_5528658.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/23/sharia-law-enshrined-in-uk-legal-system_n_5016396.html
I’m done with this thread.
jim2
Uhmm…
You said it was evidence to support this
No extinction process of Parisians is underway, and so it is not evidence of that any extinction process for “European-Americans” in the US. That paragraph which you quoted is wild eyed hyperbole or delusion. Take your pick which. Your claim it is evidence of said extinction process is ludicrous.
Odd you think I’m the one in the fox hole.
DeWitt,
Presumably there are some who think that part of the traditional American way of life should be extinguished. Only other parts (that involve saving “European-Americans” or some such) are worth saving. . .
jim2
You might want to provide us your opinion on those links. The first one:
The UK now allows people to write wills of their own choosing. We already have a right to do exactly that in the US. Evidently they must not have in the UK– which in my view means they are finally becoming civilized.
That this means those who believe in Sharia will write laws leaving money to sons and not daughters– sure. They can do so in the US too. Gosh. Husbands don’t need to leave money to wives who they divorced. Fancy that?! (Note to SteveF: how would you feel about being forced to leave money to an ex wife? The way the article jim2 links it sounds like UK law would have required that in the past, but this has somehow “changed” due to immigration of Moslems. Not sure if the article is true or not. But I suspect many divorced people would be glad for that change.)
Form my POV, that sounds like influx of moslems is making the UK more libertarian which is a good thing.
jim2: so was that the ‘take home point’ you thought your first link made? Real question.
If you could tell us the ‘take home point’ you think the other ones make, perhaps I’ll click and read them.
I think Nial Ferguson, Professor of History at Harvard, sums up some of the concerns reasonable people are thinking about rather well:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/11/16/paris-and-fall-rome/ErlRjkQMGXhvDarTIxXpdK/story.html
Brandon is right, of course: the Christian churches are just being Christian–refreshingly so.
Lucia and deWitt are also right: culture is always changing. But if there is a part of American culture that I would not want to change is their welcoming of strangers.
I have had little on which to comment in threads with topics such as this one and mainly I suppose because I shy away from defining individuals by the larger groups to which they may claim membership. Those individuals who acknowledge belonging to widely recognized political and religious groups frequently can have views which differ significantly with the group orthodoxy or tenets. Those differences can viewed as good or bad depending on the viewers point of view on a specific difference.
On the other hand, I do not think a reasonable discussion of these various groupings can avoid assessing general group tendencies and actions, however, the existence of individual differences within group members should always be assumed. Some groupings arising from agreement on a basic tenet can be misapplied when differing behaviors/views of members within that group are ignored and applied generally – and particularly so when a negative view is suggested. That is apparent when Lucia notes that she disagrees with the behavior/views of some other non believers who imply their behavior/views stem from a commonly held tenet. I am firmly in Lucia’s camp on this one.
The Roman Catholic Church, because its tenets are well defined and publicized, comes to mind as an example of differences of individual members with the group tenets. Individual members of political parties can also have a wide range of views on a specific issue and at the same time that the political parties can be regarded as very much the same when more basic tenets are applied to their philosophies.
I often wonder why individuals want to group identify and what benefits derive from that identification. I can think only of a single exception and that is being a Cubs fan – or at least for the time being.
I would have no problem with refugees entering a nation where the sponsorship of those refugees is well documented and that responsibility firmly held. Refugees as a practical matter are going to feel more welcome and adjust better if a caring individual or organization is involved in their settlement. Doing it as a matter of political gain and/or correctness and then shifting the care off onto some non caring bureaucracy of a public agency will create more problems than it solves.
Have we discussed the specifics of how these refugees are handled or to be handled in the US? How about the Muslim immigrants to France? How were and are they handled/treated?
Lucia,
(Note to SteveF: how would you feel about being forced to leave money to an ex wife? The way the article jim2 links it sounds like UK law would have required that in the past, but this has somehow “changed†due to immigration of Moslems. Not sure if the article is true or not. But I suspect many divorced people would be glad for that change.)
.
Most states have divorce laws designed to make asset separation fair and reasonable at the time of the separation, even if “fair and reasonable” is not always what actually happens in practice. On the assumption of fair and reasonable, it is kind of hard to justify (ok, truly nuts) forcing any additional obligations at a later date… including at death. My guess is that any such requirement in the UK was a left-over from the days when a husband was required to support his ex wife for ever, because she did not work, nor get a reasonable share of assets at the time of separation, potentially leaving her destitute when her ex husband died and his assets distributed to heirs.
julio,
Which is why I find the anti-immigrant opinions expressed by too many Republican candidates this year disturbing.
Lucia
I am coming in at the end of this comments thread but your latest post seemed to contain a weird inaccuracy:
“You might want to provide us your opinion on those links. The first one:
The UK now allows people to write wills of their own choosing. We already have a right to do exactly that in the US. Evidently they must not have in the UK– which in my view means they are finally becoming civilized.”
First, the whole point of a “will” is that it allows you to divide your estate as you will/wish it to be divided. This is a common law notion that, for example, is not necessarily applicable in Roman law jurisdictions such as France, where some property is divided according to primogeniture. However, such wills (even in Roman law countries) are subject to legal challenge. I am not sure why any link would say that a fundamental change has been made in English law with result to will-writing any time recently.
Second, I am fairly sure that the US laws derive from English law in this respect.
So the link to which you refer must be pretty well screwed-up.
Just for further clarification, in England (and in France) you can write whatever will you like. However, it is subject to legal challenge. And, the executor of a will is able to disregard the provisions of a will, subject to certain legal constraints. I am sure you knew this already but I cannot think why anyone would say that the legal situation in England has changed in the recent past.
WRT to the will issue in the UK, it appears that there has been no change. (Which, franky, isn’t all that much of a surprise to those who’ve watched PBS mysteries including “Agatha Christie”. If the UK previously has laws dictating who one must give ones money to on death, the plots of a huge number of mysterys stories could not involve people discovering someone changed their will to disinherit “suspect A” in favor of “suspect C” and so on.)
Reading through links: The law has not changed at all as a result of arrival on Moslems. Rather, some body wrote a document to explain how one can draft provisions that match those a sub set of clients might request. That subset of clients happens to be “Moslems who adhere to Sharia Law”.
Why anyone would foam at the mouth to discover that the laws the pre-date recent influx of Islamic religionists have not been changed at all and that people contunue to have the right to write will the prefer and that the laws have not been changed to say “you have these rights unless you are
CatholicMoslem. But if you areCatholicMoslem your rights will be limited. Because…well… even though our recent traditions previously said everyone has these rights, your arrival is forcing us to change those. Because. Well… we have to change them so that they will remain unchanged, see? Right..”But some are foaming at the mouth. And I guess we are supposed to read their foaming at the mouth and conclude the immigrants are changing the traditions. And the proof of this is that they inheritance laws have not changed one iota as a result of this immigration.
Diogenes,
I agree. The article jim2 linked was foaming at the mouth at the thought that people were allowed to write the will they preferred and seemed to suggesting this was a change from the past and that change was coming about because of “Sharia law”.
In fact: the article (by no esteemed a news agency than “Huffington Post) is entirely misleading. The estate law does not appear to be “changed”. So that article is not evidence of any “problem” with moslem immigration.
Thanks for the clarification, Lucia….it looks as if the Daily Mail or similar British newspapers have been at work spreading disinformation/propaganda that feeds their readers’s worldviews.
Diogenes,
Our laws are similar. You can write any will you want. For the most part, you can leave money to whomever you want. Much of our estate law is at the state level and different states have different provisions for contesting them and a few limitions on distribution.
For example, one might need to leave provisions for children less than the age of majority or might need to leave provisions for current spouses. But I’m not sure that is required in all– or even any states. But it’s historically sometimes been a limit. (One doesn’t want 3 year olds left wards of the state if there is money to support them.)
Contests are generally over whether some sort of undue pressure was exerted on the decedent or whether they were of sound mind when the will was written. Or, occasionally, the executors interpretation of the will might be whacky. But generally, you leave money to whom you wish.
lucia
yes, those kinds of considerations are why executors have leeway to vary the provisions of a will. But there are considerable legal safeguards to ensure that assets are divided in a way the testator might have wanted.
And, further to another strange inaccuracy, once a court has divorced you and agreed on the division of resources, there is no recourse, unless it emerges at a future time that one of you made a material misdeclaration of your assets at the time the court made its decision. So it is unlikely (but not totally impossible) that an ex-wife could be supported from the estate of her former husband after his death. This must date back to sometime in the 19thc. , when wives stopped being regarded as “chattels” of their husband. Before then, IANAL, but I suspect a man could divorce a wife and retain all of the marital assets, as long as there was no legal barrier such as an entailment, without the wife having any right to protest.
Community property laws in the states that have them probably have an effect on wills. Even in common law states, IIRC, it’s difficult to completely disinherit a family member.
Do relatively generous welfare payments in the wealthier EU nations have influence on the Syrian refugees going so far from home to seek relief from the ongoing war in their country? Are safe zones closer to Syria a more practical attempt to mitigate this problem?
Does the Muslim immigration to France where many in that population require welfare and subsidized housing and have high unemployment rate – and particular amongst the youth have any forebearance on the current refugee immigration?
France provides subsidies and welfare for these immigrants but there government controlled economy generates few jobs and thus you have a dependent population with little hope of improving their lot in life – similar to generational welfare dependents in the US.
Kenneth…too many questions to attempt to answer. However, Syria was in the French Mandate after 1918. But I do not know whether that meant that Syrians learned French. From my highly limited experience, the answer is “no”. (you can cross check with Agatha Christies’s memoirs of her husbands’s digs in the 1920s….Max Mallowan…And if you cannot speak French, the French tend not to be foithcoming, just like any police force
De Witt…I hope you picked up that was my point…..there are legal limits in UK/US law to disinheriting people without a real reason
Howvever, Kenneth,
If you were in Syria and wanted to escape. Where would you go?
Turkey?….perhaps a similar religion and culture but maybe difficult top get a metropolis.
Iraq?
Lebanon?
Israel?
Saudi?
maybe one of them will supply a boat to the EU. We now have have refugees coming in from Northern Norway….probably not for much longer
DeWitt,
In community property states, each spouse owns 1/2 of what’s earned by the other during marriage. One can’t will away the portion that is not their own. For a couple who had nothing when married and one or the other earned a fortune while the other stayed at home, the earner can’t will away the home-makers portion because that money doesn’t belong to the earner even if they think it does. This can be very confusing to people and often makes people reading of “awards” during divorce in California marvel at the ‘size’ of the award. But to some extent, what’s often happening is the couple negotiated some division of assets (because things are hard to split.) Then the non-earner is reported by the news as “being grated” their half. But the way the law works in that state, technically they merely kept money that was already theirs.
(One can also get alimony and so in in California– but often with Hollywood news covering, the “huge” size of the award has to do with the fact that according to community property laws the spouses “owned” the earnings during marriage 50%-50%.
Kenneth,
I suspect the reason Syrians are swarming out of Syria is the fact that it’s war torn and in disarray. Once they’ve left, I’m sure economic opportunities and material conditions in potential destination countries affect their preferences of where to settles. So does the difficulty in getting to a destination country. These factors would affect the preferences of anyone sane.
So yes, I’m sure the social welfare benefits and opportunities for employment affect where refugees prefer to go and how hard they try to get there.
DeWitt,
It’s trivially easy to ‘disinherit’ an adult child in Illinois. You just don’t give then anything. Unless they can have the will overturned for something like “not in correct state of mind” or “undue influence” the will wins. It’s very very difficult to prove “not in correct state of mind” (unless you already claimed so while they were alive). It’s difficult to prove “undue influence”. I’ve heard of the latter happening more often than the former. (Not a lawyer — but when you read of families disputing, they are generally alleging the latter. Not the former.)
Generally, spouse who is ‘disinherited’ in the will can insist of 1/3rd to 1/2 of anything in the estate. They’ll get it. (Or they can sign it away.) I don’t know if a pre-nup can affect this. Perhaps a prenup has them signing it away before you die. Dunno. But that still would be an agreement on the part of the ‘disinhereted’ spouse to agree give up their portion.
In Illinois, if you want to keep your money away from your spouse when you die, you need to first set up a living trust and have that trust disbursed to someone else. In that case the money is not in the estate and so isn’t subject to the laws. I’m not sure what happens in other states.
But– of course– while you are alive you can give away money that is actually yours. So if you are willing to pauperize yourself, you are generally able to avoid leaving anything to anyone. But you have to give away your money before you die. Quite often people don’t want to do that.
Lucia, DeWitt — The basic “common law” rule is that you can’t completely disinherit a spouse, but you can completely disinherit a child. Spouses get an “elective share”…which varies from state to state, 1/3 of the estate being common, I believe. If you leave a spouse less than that, he can come back and insist on at least that much.
I’ve drafted wills for people going through divorces which include language to this effect: “I am leaving my spouse the minimum allowable under [mystate] law; my purpose is to disinherit my spouse to the maximum extent possible under the law.” That way, when the divorce goes through, the spouse’s share sinks to zero with no need to re-draft the will.
After 9/11 Time magazine had a statistic that the majority of Arabs in America were Christians. I don’t know if that’s still the case but it makes sense that the first to flee would be atheists and Christians and that would seem likely for Syria refugees also. NPR had a story on Syrians fleeing to Germany and converting to Christianity and struggling to sing the Latin hymns.
This is kind of off-topic, but it goes to the whole wild-eyed and delusional anti-Muslim rhetoric thing. Plus, it’s just crazy. Apparently Donald Trump, a leading contender for the Republican nomination for president, said he saw thousands of Muslims from New Jersey celebrating the September 11th terrorist attacks as the World Trade Center buildings collapsed.
Yes, he’s that nutso. And he’s not just nutso to say it once. He then repeated the claim during an interview when asked about it, repeatedly insisting he had seen it with his own eyes, even saying it was widely covered at the time. He went so far as to suggest it is just some sort of political correctness or something that makes people not talk about the fact it happened nowadays.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/22/donald-trumps-outrageous-claim-that-thousands-of-new-jersey-muslims-celebrated-the-911-attacks/
The worst part though? I was spending some time with family today and brought this up. I was a little… not happy about it, and I mentioned that it would probably be a bad idea to elect a person as president if he is basically going to slander ethnic groups based upon crazy ideas that exist purely as figments of his imagination when all available evidence shows they are false. The first reaction I got was:
Which probably should have been a warning sign that I should have just shut up. Instead, I got to spend five minutes seeing family members and a couple of their neighbors try to shrug off the issue as not mattering to whether or not Trump should be elected. One even said, “How do you know they weren’t celebrating?”
I think the fact there is so much anti-immigration hysteria is probably a sign of something, but I wouldn’t care to guess what. All I know is people scare me. As in, I’m starting to realize how many people I see on a daily basis would read the articles jim2 linked to and agree with them. It’s frightening.
OK, you got me 🙂
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/wapo-officials-investigated-muslims-in-new-jersey-holding-rooftop-parties-on-911-across-river-from-attack-scene/
Oh. My. God. Are people seriously so desperate to justify anti-immigrant hysteria or Donald Trump worship they’ll stoop to that level? A story said this:
Let’s assume this is completely accurate. All it says is some people were questioned and detained for allegedly celebrating the attacks on some rooftops. This was actually mentioned in one of the “fact checks” of Donald Trump’s claims, and as they point out, these were just allegations. There’s no evidence the allegations were true or that anything ever came of them. Despite that, jim2 and from what I’m seeing apparently quite a few other people want to believe that somehow justifies Donald Trump saying:
Allegations were made a number of people celebrated on some rooftops. Trump claimed to have watched thousands of people cheering. According to him, these weren’t just allegations:
Not only was it on television:
Nothing in that story is remotely like what Donald Trump said, and there’s not even any evidence the allegations of the story were even true. Despite that, I’ve seen over a dozen people link to that same story as though it somehow makes what Trump said right.
I’m starting to see how people came to burn witches.
Jfergusion – “As I said, i think you could grasp this yourself if you read it directly. True, I read English translations, one from 1983 and one from 1890, likely before there were any axes which needed grinding.”
I have to ask JFergusion – did you also read the Hadith?
To Jfergusion – A second question about your reading of the Koran – was it in the order by number of the Surahs, or by an order of estimated Surah chronology?
I am only asking because I am curious to how well known these two aspects of the Islamic faith are.
Turbulent Eddy:
Also, in spite of what some out there are claiming (not a neutral source, but there are plenty who agree with the sentiment) Muslims do convert to Christianity. If you think about it,it makes sense to see people abandoning the religion of their childhood if they blame religious extremism for depriving them of their homeland.
By the way here’s Cato weighing in Syrian Refugees Don’t Pose a Serious Security Threat
My own comments on this:
The trouble I have with all of this handwringing about refugees is the incremental risk of allowing refugees to come to the US is very small (ISIS has plenty of ways to strike here without using refugees, and have done so). I believe that the Syrian refugee crisis is more an existential threat to that terrorist/thug organization than it is to the nations receiving refugees:
Muslims are supposed to be flocking to them, not fleeing from them. And as people leave Syria, they carry actionable intelligence that can be used against ISIS. Naturally ISIS is trying to foul the waters, and it’s turned out to be trivial to get people in the US to freak out over this.
Kan, No I haven’t read the Hadith. I read the Surahs in the order they were found in the two editions and in some innocence because I had no idea that sequence might have mattered. I read the first in 2001 suspecting that a lot of what I saw in the newspaper describing what was in the Koran wasn’t accurate. I confess that I was also looking for the passage that went something like “Building is the most foolish thing which eateth up the wealth of a believer”
Alas, it’s not in there.
I read the older translation around 2010 to assure myself again, that a lot of the “quotes” I was seeing on some of the blogs i read at the time still weren’t in there.
I don’t doubt that a lot of those things are in the Hadith. I probably didn’t look hard enough but concluded in 2010 that there were a variety of versions of it and that it was not downloadable as a whole. Maybe it is now.
I objected to jim2’s quote of an interpretation of the Koran’s latitude in punishing unintended oaths involving the Almighty. I could well remember my reaction on first seeing it that it was one of the most reasonable things i’d ever read in a religious tract. And this remarkable outbreak of looseness was not part of any setup to escape an unintended marriage, or at least not in the Koran.
Diogenes,
I worked with Syrian engineer in 1970. He knew French. Also worked with Lebanese engineer who, while attending LSU in Baton Rouge, got lost in the country and while seeking navigational guidance from a local, was compelled to ask if he was speaking English. He thought he was.
My friend could not understand the guy’s English (could you?) but somehow discovered that he also spoke French. Friend was able to hack the local French.
While it is very PC to suggest Islam “has nothing to do with terrorism”, there is in fact considerable acceptance of and support for terror (eg suicide bombing) to ‘defend Islam’: http://pewrsr.ch/1azmY9e
What constitutes a threat to islam is, of course, open to a broad range of interpretations.
.
In any case, the number of Muslims who hold a favorable view of terrorist organizations like al Qaida is far from zero, even in countries like Turkey and Malaysia which people in the West consider allies. The sad reality is that the culture associated with Islam is where terrorists are recruited from, and dealing honestly with that reality is something many in the West (like our current president and his most likely successor) completely refuse to do. Should Islamist terrorists make the strategic mistake of a terror attack in the USA in the next 11 months, or even one or two more in Europe, the next president is unlikely to be Hillary.
jferguson,
I worked as a consultant many years ago at a chemical plant in Israel. One of the production supervisors knew not a word of English, but turned out to have been born in a Spanish speaking group of Jews (Sephardic Jews) and had moved to Israel as a child. So while English and Hebrew were not possible, we got by quite well in “Portanol”. (mix of Spanish and Portuguese)
jferguson,
We discovered this communication channel when he understood some of my cursing in Portuguese……. over my inability to communicate with him in English. 🙂
Hi SteveF,
I was recently alerted to a hazard of cursing in a language you don’t know. I worked at an engineering company in Chicago in the ’60s – with among 350 others, Lucia’s late father-in-law. One of the Filipinos used to curse, under his breath in Tagalog. Some of us picked it up, and to date, I still find it useful under appropriate provocation.
Having done so in the presence of my Filipina sister-in-law, I’ve come to understand that the word is REALLY nasty and should NEVER be used in the presence of ladies. Of course, she could be pulling my leg.
Brandon
Not only are they just allegations, they are allegations made during a period of panic. Is it likely some people watched the towers falling from roof tops. Of course. I’m sure LOTS of people climbed up to roofs to watch the towers. I didn’t because I live in Illinois. So I watched the towers on tv. Obviously, television stations possitioned camera men on in places to not only watch the tower but broadcast it to the zillions of people across the world, many of whom watched.
Is it likely that some of those watching brought up coolers and beverages to watch over time? Of course. Does “eating” or “drinking” mean “celebrating”. No.
Would some of those on rooftops have been Moslem? Of course. Some Moslems live in NJ. Are they somehow uniquely expected to show no interest in an event everyone else was watching? That notion is idiotic.
Might some people in NJ somehow jump to the conclusion that the subset of people of roofs who looked (and may well have been) Moslems must be “celebrating”? Probably. Does that mean they were “celebrating”. No. Does the story even give any evidence to suggest the allegations of “celebrating” were true? Were they firing off firecrackers? Playing celebratory music? Having belly dancers cavort to create an especially celebratory atmosphere. Nope. As far as we can tell, the “evidence” anyone was on the roof “celebrating” was that they were on the roof (and I’m sure many people were) and they looked Moslem to those allegging “celebrations”.
Would police go talk to people if others “alleged” they were “celebrating” the towers falling? Of course. Police investigate allegations all the time. That’s what the Police do.
In the wake of 9/11, they were intensively focusing on allegations about anyone or anything that might result in clues to who carried out the bombing. So of course they would have knocked on the doors of people who were “alleged” to be “celebrating”. That doesn’t mean those making allegations were remotely correct about the state of mind of those one the roof was; it doesn’t even mean the police thought there was anything much in the way of evidence.
Did the article intimating that they were celebrating (by telling us this was “alleged”) link to any video recordings of said “celebration”? Nope. By some near miracle no one took a video recording of people “celebrating”.
I have no idea what point jim2 thought he was making by linking to that blog post. He would need to tell us what point he thought he was making for me to know. But to me, it appears to be evidence that some delusional people have lost all ability to look at evidence and think critically about things they read on the internet.
SteveF
Yes. And since Islamist terrorist do exist, it’s possibly they may make this strategic mistake. My guess if they are already making plans, and those plans are progressing, they will not consider the consequences of the upcoming election.
Sadly, the current Republican front runner is not someone who I think is a good person to hold the reigns of power. But I do know one thing: Hillary is corrupt. I will not vote for her. Ever.
jferguson….
My nephew could tell you if she’s pulling your leg. 🙂
I’m not so sure that a terrorist attack favors Donald Trump or Ben Carson. (I think their popularity stems from the unpopularity of Obama’s domestic agenda among conservatives.)
Recent polling certainly doesn’t seem to favor the notion that Trump or Carson would benefit.
Mario Rubio or Jeb Bush possibly would benefit.
Lucia:
Yeah, random blog links with nothing explaining a connection to their post makes the links kind of worthless. A bit like rhetorical questions that way: Nobody has an idea what point they are really trying to argue.
Carrick
Depends when it happens. Before or after the Republican nomination matters.
Just a reminder to refer to ‘isis’ as Daesh – which is the Arabic acronym, but also a word that roughly translates to ‘bigot’ which is what many of the Arab peoples think of them.
.
We should certainly not give them anymore legitimacy than the Arabs at large do, which is none.
.
NPR kind of flops around by calling them ‘the self proclaimed Islamic State’, but using Daesh would be better.
CNBC had this good piece this morning.
.
Reminder that by far, most victims of jihadists are Muslims, not Christians. And that Most of the Parisian attackers were second generation Frenchmen, not foreigners.
.
Of course, one of the attackers was, in fact, a Syrian refugee, validating some caution.
.
Also, most were poor and unemployed, making them suceptible to the Daesh identity when they lacked an identity as French or employee.
The distraction over refugees, like the idea that America has always had an open door to refugees or should have an open door in the future is nice distraction from the root issue: The feckless incoherent policy that Mr. Obama, and Ms. Clinton while working for Obama, created.
Lucia sums up the future choices well: Trump does not seem to exhibit the temperament to POTUS (which begs the question about the current POTUS), but Ms. Clinton is profoundly and flagrantly corrupt.
Even today there are well documented reports that the Clinton Foundation is operating an unregistered private investment company out of Foundation offices in Bogota Colombia.
The clear evidence of donations and favorable Dept. of State treatment by Ms. Clinton have not at all been resolved. The email abuse and her large gray area (ahem) with dual rolled employees between her private interests and Dept. of State have not fairly resolved. And the list grows from there.
Bernard Lewis writes about the ‘Golden Age’ of Islam ( I think it’s in What Went Wrong? ).
.
That was about the time of the Alhambra. Islamic culture was at the peak of power and wealth and also learning and culture. Knowledge, libraries, hospitals, even arts were at a peak but fundamentalists seemed to take down the Islamic leaders of the time for infidelity ( not being true to the religion ).
.
That is the contradiction I would pose to the Daesh types – it was liberal ( in the classical sens ) Islam that led to glory, and rigid fundamentalism brought it down.
.
But just as with climate hysterics, there’s no reasoning with zealots.
I have no doubt that the majority of Syrian refugees are good people, looking to work hard and raise their families.
.
I also have no doubt that Daesh would like to send ( and probably are sending ) operatives in the flood to perform bloody acts on US soil.
.
We have to act to
1. make the main opposition and forces regional interests and
2. do so without inflaming Sunni/Shia civil war and
3. in a way which marginalizes Daesh and
4. rewards civil states in the middle east.
.
Simple, right?
In a free society, we may have to accept some amount of violence.
.
While economic wealth is important, what makes ‘exceptional’ is not divine blessing nor exceptional skill or being ( though immigrants have provided exceptional drive ).
.
What makes America exceptional is dedication to liberty and adherence to rule of law as specified in the Constitution.
.
Perhaps most important thing to ensuring rule of law a Congressional succession plan. ( Presidential succession seem well laid out by the Constitution, but not Congress or the Supreme court ). This was raised after 9/11, but did anything change?
.
Without succession plans, martial law might be imposed which would carry some uncertainty.
hunter, I’ve wondered if there are any other “foundations” that are US based which receive donations from foreign governments at the same level (amount?) as the Clintons’. Or whose proprietors get paid so well for speeches.
I would think such a thing could be discovered, but it would be a job and I don’t know how.
I thought Hillary’s dancing around whether she would run in 2016 was especially disingenuous. Of course she would. If she hadn’t, likely the massive support of Clinton Inc. would have stopped.
We were astonished during our annual June visit up the East Coast to visit old friends, mostly liberals and the females mostly grads of Hillary’s alma mater (older cohort, though) to find of the fourteen, only one supported her, or could support her, or could even stand her. And even more surprising, to me at least, although all had voted for Obama in 2008, many had switched to Romney in 2012, something about needing an adult.
More than half of them would vote for Jeb unless a democrat not now running surfaces. I hope the Republicans think about this. There are plenty of disenchanted Dems out there praying to be rescued from Hillary.
Unfortunately, this looks like it is going to be a very difficult election.
jferguson,
Worse. It is likely to followed by a bad four years– at least.
I realize there are people who like Trump. They have just as much a right to vote as I do. But it’s a dang shame he’s in the lead. A dang shame.
Turbulent Eddy:
I think some caution is advised, but it’s not confirmed that one of the attackers was a Syrian refugee.
If you go through the Cato report, they make (to me) a pretty compelling quantitative argument against allowing Syrian refugees into the US being even a marginal threat.
Simply put, there are much easier ways to attack the US than posing as refugees. Of the 860,000 or so displaced refugees there’s been world wide a total of 3 that were convicted of terrorism related activities.
Simply put, there are much easier ways to infiltrate the US than to spend as much as three years in a queue waiting for a turn to enter the US.
lucia, here’s a link about the origin of that claim about those “celebrations”:
https://irfankhawajaphilosopher.wordpress.com/2015/11/23/yes-trump-is-lying/
A slightly friendlier interpretation is at Snopes, citing back to this article on 9/11 “snapshot memories” in general (and how accurate they aren’t).
Joseph W., that’s actually the same interpretation I’ve assumed from the beginning – Trump misremembered things and then just insisted those memories were true in the face of all contrary evidence. The former is forgivable; the latter is not. People remember things incorrectly all the time. That’s forgivable.
What’s not forgivable is smearing ethnic groups based upon faulty memories after people have pointed out those memories are faulty then insisting people are not agreeing with you due to some sore of societal pressure. That’s the point where you’re being delusional.
(Incidentally, mistakes in memories often shed light on people’s inner biases. That Trump managed to come up with this particular fantasy may well shed some light on his inner views.)
Carrick,
“Mario Rubio”
.
Is that Marco’s cousin or his brother? 🙂
jferguson,
“I was recently alerted to a hazard of cursing in a language you don’t know.”
.
Not the case here; I can curse with great fluency in Portuguese, and I understand exactly what I am saying.
Re: Carrick (Comment #140954)
Likely true and in line with the rise of the Tea Party. The rise of the Tea Party also has precedence in the depression-era American Liberty League launched in opposition to the New Deal.
jferguson,
” There are plenty of disenchanted Dems out there praying to be rescued from Hillary.”
.
Maybe, but I suspect they just they don’t like Hillary (the lies, theft, deception, corruption, etc. are an embarrassment) and wish there were a ‘cleaner’ candidate, not that they will ever actually vote for a Republican, no matter who it is. Should Hillary lose, and especially if the Republicans hold both Houses of Congress, much of the ‘progress’ of Mr Obama’s last 8 years will be undone; I don’t know many Democrats who could accept that.
SteveF:
>.<
Or maybe his alter ego.
(Since he's out of the noise floor in the polls now, I suppose I should learn to spell his name correctly.)
Carrick,
“Since he’s out of the noise floor”
.
Well, he is probably the most credible candidate if you discount the crazy and the unconscious (Trump and Carson). Cruz is too much an a-hole, though he is trying very hard.
Regarding false memories, there’s a really good TED talk by one of the leading researchers, Elizabeth Loftus, on this topic.
I don’t have a problem with Trump mis-remembering the supposed celebration of Muslims in New Jersey after 9/11. I do have a problem with his lack of integrity for not coming forward and admitting error.
This is not the sort of person that should be president of the United States.
Trump is only one letter off.
Carrick,
Trump does not have, nor has he ever had, a shred of integrity. He is an ugly cross between an id!ot and a narcissistic madman. The sooner he is gone from the race the better. That he garners the support he does is even more surprising than the support an unvarnished socialist gets from leftist loons among Democrats. We clearly live in interesting times.
Turbulent Eddie:
When I read that all I could think was “krump,” and it reminded me of Trump dancing. I hate you now.
Isaac Asimov, in the introduction to his autobiography(I think) mentioned that a lot of what he thought he remembered about the early days of the Golden Age of pulp science fiction was contradicted by his journals. Memory is quite plastic, unfortunately. See the recovered-memory therapy scandal, for example
Carrick – If another terrorist attack, or 2, occurred there is no way Jeb or Rubio would benefit. The underpinnings of Trump support comes strictly from his stance on immigration. Terrorists among immigrates is a large part of the issue.
Rubio and Jeb are known as being pro immigration.
And entirely too many of us are likely to get everything they wished for while people in high places notice them.
I know most have seen these one word descriptions that poll participants gave of candidates earlier, but how can we forget what at least some think of our would be presidents (selected for juvenile interest ):
Donald Trump:
arrogant, blowhard, idiot, clown, asshole, joke, pompous, egomaniac, racist, buffoon, jerk, ass, moron
Hillary Clinton:
liar, crook, criminal, deceitful, crooked, bitch, deceptive, sneaky, devious
Jeb Bush:
weak, moderate, establishment, nice, boring, nepotism, idiot, wishy-washy, mediocre, wimp
Lucia writes
That’s true. But when you go to the lawyer’s office you shouldn’t get to refer to a sanctioned manual on how to discriminate against women.
From the article
So the issue isn’t so much about how one chooses to distribute one’s wealth once one dies, rather its an issue of official procedure adopted by the law society.
Follow that thought through and you’ll see that people writing wills could easily be pressured into a distribution that they wouldn’t otherwise have chosen.
TTTM,
Sanctioned? What’s that even mean? Seriously.
It looks a professional society that may be UK equivalent of the ABA wrote a document that explained how a solicitor can write a will that carries out the wishes of a client. I’m not seeing what’s wrong with this. What is the society supposed to do– recommend solicitors refuse to write wills for people? That would seem rather ridiculous.
“Official procedure”. Nonesense. A professional society wrote tips on how lawyers who are hired by private clients and paid by private clients could write wills private clients wanted should a client request such provisiosn.
How will I see that? Real question. Because I don’t. And you haven’t explained how it would happen. There’s nothing about the existence of the document that would cause lawyers to write will that include provisions their clients don’t want or request.
Carrick (Comment #140965) says If you go through the Cato report,
“Of the 860,000 or so displaced refugees there’s been world wide a total of 3 that were convicted of terrorism related activities.â€
Cato report says
“Of the 859,629 refugees from 2001 onwards, only three have been convicted of planning terrorist attacks on targets outside of the United Statesâ€.
There are many millions of displaced refugees in the world. Many more than 3 of them have been convicted of terrorism related activities world wide.Some refugees become asylum seekers and hence are not listed as refugees, the Boston Marathon bombers Tamerlan and Dzokhar Tsarnaev were the sons of an asylum seeker. I see no real difference in the concerns between an asylum seeker and and a displaced refugee.
But perhaps they were christian in their beliefs?
They certainly were not even a marginal threat, let alone an argument against immigration.
Amongst other things…
jim2 was right. That’s an interesting attitude from you on an obviously discriminatory process, Lucia.
TTTM
Could you explain how any process is discriminatory? Jim2 didn’t. You haven’t. I get that you claim it is “obvious”, but if it is you should be able to describe how this “process” is “discriminatory”. I’m pretty sure you can’t (because it isn’t.) But if you or anyone can explain how the ‘process’ of will writing in the UK has become discriminatory as a result of a professional society explaining how a will can be written to comply with UK laws and also fulfill the wishes of the decedent, perhaps I’ll be able to see that it is discriminatory and how.
But for now: I can’t. And neither you nor jim2 have explained how. As far as I can tell, you haven’t even tried to explain how it is discriminatory.
FWIW: In the US, lawyers who are hired by those who wish to write will to comply with Sharia law also might wish to seek guidance. The main guidance is that the decendent must specify what s/he want. They can’t write something like “I want my law to be governed by Sharia law” and expect judges or executors to then decide what Sharia law is. Judges and executors don’t get to decide what religions call for. But they can enforce legal wills that happen to leave more money to sons than daughter, happen to not leave money to illegitimate children and happen to not leave money to ex-wives.
That a document might conveniently explain this to a lawyer is hardly “discriminatory”. But if you think it is, you’ll have to explain how it is “discriminatory”.
Unless I’ve misunderstood this, the article was describing a document on the shelf of a law firm sanctioned by the law society describing how to distribute money and doesn’t include women (for religious reasons) aimed at clients who want to apply “sharia law” to their will.
And you cant see how that is discriminatory?
TTTM,
No. I have no idea in what way you think this is “discriminatory”.
Lawyers are hired by people to write wills whose provisions those clients wish to include in their wills. Those people pay the lawyers. Those people also have a right to leave their money to the people they wish to leave it to.
Lawyers having access to a document that helps them provide the service their client has paid them to provide is not “discriminatory”.
The exact same lawyers may also write wills for other clients who might want to leave money only to their daughters, only to the local humane society or to donate all their money to the Bill and Melissa Gates foundation. Lawyers having access to documents that help them write those wills is also not “discriminatory”.
As it happens: I favor people being allowed to leave their money to whomever or whatever they prefer. I have absolutely no objection to lawyers who accept money to help people write wills having access to whatever documents that might help them write will that fulfill the legal requirements necessary to have the money be distributed as the decendent wishes.
Beyond that: If someone really objects to the notion that a person could leave money to their sons only and not their daughters that persons shouldn’t be complaining that a document exists explaining that they perfectly well can (as they always have been able to– even before the Moslem population grew in the UK.) They should be clamoring to change UK law to ensure that the government decides who gets your money when you die.
I happen to think the government mandating who a decedent leaves his money to would be a very bad idea. (Heck if NY state had mandated equal division between boys and girls,– my Dad’s uncle Frank wouldn’t have been able to leave most of his money to take care of his mentally disabled son– Richard– rather than his high income daughter– Sandra. Sandra– and attorney– was appointed trustee to care for Richard. FWIW:Richard was sufficiently mentally disabled that he did not live alone until Uncle Frank died. Sandra was a prosecutor married to another attorney and lived in a Brownstone she and her husband owned in Park Avenue. Do you really think the government should have required Uncle Frank to split his money 50/50% between the two kids on the grounds of “equality of the sexes”? I don’t. )
In my opinions if someone really truly believe that people — including Christians and atheists– should not be allowed to decide how to partition their own money on death, that person should be complaining about laws that permit people to write their own wills rather than complaining that some professional society (who is not the government) has written a document to explain how a lawyer who takes money to provide a service might be able to provide the service the client paid for. If you want to change the long standing tradition that people get to write their own wills then day so. Don’t try to cloak this into some sort of grudge against “Sharia” which hasn’t changed people’s rights in anyway.
Sorry: but people being able to leave their own money to who they want is not “discriminatory” as a process. It doesn’t suddenly become “discriminatory” just because some clients might want to leave money to their sons rather than daughters (while others might make the other choice.)
That some people might “discriminate” is true. But society is better off letting individuals have their way in certain things rather than having the government mandate how every penny is distributed to everyone. If you think otherwise: then fine. But admit that what you are really asking for is the government to deprive people of the right to write their own wills.
That would be the huge change in our tradition of individual liberty.
TTM
BTW: Can you explain how or why you think lawyers helping clients write wills to leave money to whever they want is discriminatory? Or is your full argument to ask me whether I can’t see it. Because: no, I can’t. In fact, I think it’s not.
But if you think it is presumably you have can explain how and why rather than limiting your argument for your position to asking a rhetorical questions. (I also remind you, my answer to that question is “No. I can’t see how it is. Not at all. Unless you explain how, I will continue to not see how and I won’t believe you really know how it is either.”)
This isn’t about personal choice, its about the Law Society sanctioning a discriminatory process.
Would you agree with a law society sanctioned document describing how to write your will if your daughter were to marry a black guy with a view to offering it to KKK members?
TTM,
People are free to do with their money, within very broad limits, whatever they want.
As long as those wants are within those broad limits lawyers are obliged to assist their clients.
If someone wished to give their money to the group in your example a good lawyer would point out that the KKK has a huge lawsuit judgement against it and that the Southern Poverty Law Center or their successors or assigns, would probably end up with the bequest.
People are marketed to leave at least part of their estates to the Public Broadcasting Corporation nearly every time one turns on a PBS station with the idea that TV is worth dying for, I guess.
To not allow Muslims to give leave their estates as they wish within the law is what would be discriminatory.
Hunter writes “…”
And I’ll say it again, this isn’t about personal choice, its about the Law Society sanctioning a discriminatory process.
” the Law Society sanctioning a discriminatory process”
How do you know they sanctioned a discriminatory process? As Lucia says, the Law Society is supposed to give its members advice on how to write wills that implement their wishes, subject to British law. It may well have been advising them of the limits imposed by British law. We can’t tell now, because the document seems to have disappeared from the internet.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. Under Sharia law, males were given twice as large a share of the inheritance as females as males were responsible for the household (wives, mothers, etc.) while females only needed the money for themselves. Some practitioners of Sharia law wish to continue this tradition, as well as other traditions regarding inheritance. The British Law Society drafted a document giving solicitors guidelines on how to draft wills according to those traditions.
TimTheToolMan and apparently others view this as discriminatory. They feel because some people wish to give a larger share of their inheritance to males of the family than females, and the document would explain how to draft a will according to their wishes, the document is discriminatory. According to them, while it is perfectly legal to give a larger share of an inheritance to male family members than female family members, it is completely unacceptable to have a document published by an organization which explains how one would draft a will which does so.
I believe I’ve got that right. I’m not positive though. It’s hard to be sure you’re understanding an argument when the people making it refuse to actually make it. In any event, it might be relevant the organization has withdrawn this document due to the idiotic public pressure. So now, solicitors won’t have an official document from the organization to use as guidance to use if a client ever asks them to draft a will in accordance to Sharia law… which will do absolutely nothing to affect their ability to draft a will in accordance with Sharia law.
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/nov/24/law-society-withdraws-guidance-sharia-wills
Brandon writes
You dont. I completely support freedom of choice in how people allocate their wealth after death. If a Muslim wants to allocate it all to the males in his family, then so be it.
What I dont agree with is a professional organisation producing a document describing how to distribute the wealth to the males according to Sharia law (if that’s indeed what’s being done here – it looked like that way to me, Nick)
If an individual law firm wanted to produce their own “streamlined”, sharia law abiding, will writing service then that’s up to them.
But the professional organisation “Law Society” that represents UK lawyers and their profession should not be endorsing a discriminatory process.
TTTM
They haven’t.
Lucia writes “They haven’t.”
They did (thanks for the reference Brandon)
And they withdrew it.
And then
So how exactly is a procedure that describes unequally distributing wealth according to gender, not discriminatory?
TTTM,
Attorneys are advocates for their clients. They defend axe murderers, thieves, rapists, etc, no matter if there is clear and overwhelming evidence that their client is as guilty as sin. I am having a hard time understanding why your panties are in a knot over lawyers writing wills according to what their client wants. If British people think there should be restrictions on distributions in wills, then they can tell their elected representatives. Are you similarly upset by pre-nup agreements? (not rhetorical) Honestly, I see no rational argument in what you are saying.
SteveF writes “…â€
And I’ll say it again, this isn’t about personal choice, its about the Law Society sanctioning a discriminatory process.
TTTM
They did not do what you claimed. You claimed they “endorsing a discriminatory process.” They did no such thing. Your suggesting writing a document (and withdrawing it) amounts to endorsing a discriminatory process” is silly.
They wrote a “practice note”. No one disputed they wrote a document. So showing they wrote a document isn’t remotely proof that they are doing what you claim– that is “endorsing” a “discriminatory process”.
You need to show they made any such endorsement– which you have not shown. Writing a “practice note” is not even remotely “endorsing” the decisions of any client or group of clients. At most writing of the “practice note” endorses the notion that lawyers who are paid by clients should provide effective accurate legal services to their client.
In fact, if you read their page, you will find helping their solicitors serve their clients was goal in writing the note in the first place. They write
https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/news/press-releases/law-society-withdraws-sharia-succession-principles-practice-note/
This is in no way “endorsing” any sort of “discriminatory process”.
That the Law Society got blowback from some people is true. That they withdrew the document is true. That decision doesn’t mean there was ever anything actually wrong with their writing the practice note. It certainly doesn’t make the act of writing the note “endorsing” any “practice.” It merely means they didn’t like the flak and didn’t consider it useful or necessary to continue to host a document they wrote.
For what it’s worth: I’m sure plenty lawyers still have the note their hardrives and plenty of law librarians can still find it. (My sister is a law librarian, and I can assure you if one of her attorneys needed an old out of print document, she could dredge it up.)
I have no doubt the Law Society was fully aware of the information in the document would continue to be available to their members when they “withdrew” the document. Attorney’s who need the information can still get it.
SteveF
I’m with you. I already suggested to TTTM that if people concerned about the “discriminatory” outcome of letting people write their own wills, they should try to get the laws changed. Complaining that the Law Society, a private professional society that exists to help their members provide paying clients legal representation wrote a leaflet explaining how to provide clients services they paid for is ridiculous. Calling the authoring such a pamphlet “endorsing a discriminatory process” is ridiculous.
If TTTM thinks the estate laws in the UK are ‘discriminatory’ and if he is a UK citizen, then he should write his legislators and get the estate laws corrected to force people to leave money equally to their sons and daughters. That would be a huge change in estate law. Those who value civil liberties would be totally and utterly against it. But if he thinks it’s important for the government to interfere with people’s ability to give money to whomever they want, that’s what he should be doing. Complaining that one of the thousands of leaflets the a professional society made available to help lawyers provide effective services to clients is someone “discriminatory” is ridiculous.
Lucia writes “This is in no way “endorsing†any sort of “discriminatory processâ€.
I can see why jim2 left the conversation like he did.
I should have done the same.
If you can’t see that sharia law is discriminatory in this respect and that the law society producing a document to enable that discriminatory practice to be acted in a will means the law society is complicit in the act of discrimination…If you can’t see that then there is nothing further to discuss here.
BTW, Eugene Volokh (law professor at UCLA) wrote a post on Sharia laws and wills in the US.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/18/enforcing-contracts-and-wills-that-are-motivated-by-islamic-law/
Among other things in the post, it points out the legal situation in the US (which is likely the same in the UK)
and then
I have no idea why people think that lawyers writing legally valid contracts (e.g. wills) for clients or the law society helping lawyers provide effective legal services for clients is “discriminatory”.
TTTM,
“I should have done the same.”
.
Considering that your argument is just silly, that would have been a wise choice…. but happily, one you can still make.
Lucia,
RealClimate seems to have disappeared (“service not available”). Perhaps they are too busy with preparations for the Paris confab to turn on the server. More seriously, it seems that the RealClimate crew has realized that successful implementation of dramatic fossil fuel ‘mitigation’ policies is a strictly political issue, not an information deficit issue, and are focusing on politics now. The child-like analysis, “If they only knew what I know, they would agree with me.” has not done well in the face of political and factual reality: they don’t agree with you because they don’t share you values, priorities, and goals. People are broadly supportive of reducing fossil fuel use…. so long as it doesn’t cost more than a few hundred dollars per year.
TTTM
Sharia law is discriminatory. Never denied it– wouldn’t.
But the law society writing a document explaining how to apply non-discriminatory UK law to writing wills for clients is not discriminatory.
I don’t know why you think it is. I don’t seem to be the only one here who doesn’t understand why you think it is. And as far as I can tell you haven’t even tried to explain why you think it is. You simply decree that it is so. Obviously, there isn’t any point in discussing further because you are either unwilling or unable to justify your claim.
SteveF
I’m getting auto-forwarded to other sites. The first try was to the chicago tribune. Now it’s to advertisements for bent handled pliers!
Well… yes.
On the site routing– I wonder if they were hacked? Of if someone fiddled with the template and “ooopsie”. I guess we’ll here soon.
SteveF-
By way of twitter, it turns out Realclimate has a little domain-name registration snafu. They registered this:
http://realclimate-backup.org/
The server for that domain is also down for the moment!. But it was up for me a little while ago. (I suspect things are just moving around and so it will be resolving one and off possibly at different times for different people.) Oh.. it’s back up for me. 🙂
Luica,
Yes, back up now. It was down each time I check over the last few days…. several times causing nasty re-directs which locked up Safari on my iPhone. Gavin’s explanation is on the web site, dated Nov 23.
Thank goodness RealClimate is back up. I could feel that I was missing that special layer of RC propaganda while it was down. It’s a princess and the pea kinda thing. Or maybe I felt some coolness while Mr. Angry Hot Sun wasn’t blazing his evil gaze in my direction. I’m sensitive like that.
Andrew
I read Reason last night and came across this article about jihadist in Europe.
.
Main points:
.
majority are “second generation Muslims born in Europe
; almost none came as a young adult or as a teenager to Europe from the Middle East.”
.
There is a clear ‘breaking point,’ [to radicalization] often linked with a personal crisis – jail for instance.”
.
almost all of them [were] radicalised to the dismay of their parents and relatives.
.
It is a peer phenomenon: they radicalise in the framework of a small network of friends
.———————————————————————–
.
.
The article points out that it’s difficult to have top down ‘moderate Muslim’ influence, because the radicals are rejecting both their parents and the main stream Mosque, but getting reinforcement from their misguided peer group.
.
It seems to me that this is somewhat similar to gangs in the US which seemed to offer identity as well as substitute ‘family’ connections.
.
To promote a “moderate Islam” to bring radicals back to the mainstream is nonsense. They just reject moderation as such.
–
To ask the “Muslim community” to bring radicals back to normal life is also nonsense. Radicals just don’t care about people they consider as “traitors,” “apostates,” or “collaborators” as long as they don’t choose the same path.
–
To consider Islam only through the lenses of “fighting terrorism” will validate the narrative of persecution and revenge that feeds the process of radicalisation.
Andrew_KY,
I don’t like the possibility that hackers take things down. I think my security is pretty good, but when other sites go down it makes me nervous. So I’m glad that wasn’t the issue.
TE,
Yeah. Gang affiliation in the US usually tended to attract those who were in economically disadvantaged fringes, those who fell into crime and were incarcerated and so on. While there is no doubt that currently, the jihadi flavor of the gang is religiously motivated– at least in the sense that the jihadi’s certainly have convinced themselves their behavior is condoned or encouraged by their religion, it’s not at all clear that other Moslem’s can convince the jihadis that behavior is not part of Islam.
But this shouldn’t be all that surprising. Different flavors of Christian haven’t consistently been able to sway each other. The Pope can sway many Roman Catholics. I don’t think his pronouncements hold much weight with Evangelicals. Certainly those who are LDS don’t pay the Pope much heed. And so on.
TTM, Come on and think this a bit deeper:
A parent who is an atheist decides his daughters only need half of the % of the estate the son should get.
That is a lawful choice.
It may not be popular with the daughters but it is lawful. Your opinion of discrimination is not relevant or applicable.
Regarding one of the previous sub-threads the poll described here suggests concerns about immigration for Trump’s popularity.
Previous immigration waves culminated in restrictions and current foreign-born share of the population is near prior peaks . Perhaps this current immigration wave has peaked.
Here’s a question for TimTheToolMan, and it’s not rhetorical. If I want my lawyer to write a will for me in accordance with Sharia law, what resources should he be allowed to have at his disposal to figure out how to do so?
Serious question. You say I didn’t get your position right, but you didn’t say what I got wrong, and I’m genuinely curious about this. If it is wrong for private organizations to write documents explaining how lawyers can meet the legal requests of their clients, simply because the motivations of those requests might be discriminatory, then where’s the line drawn?
If writing that document amounts to endorsing discrimination, does a document explaining how to effectively challenge DNA test results in rape cases endorse rape because the primary motivation of people requesting that service from a lawyer is that they raped someone and want to get away with it? Maybe not. After all, innocent people would have motive to do it too.
What about a document explaining how to challenge the admissibility of a confession? The motivation for anyone asking a lawyer to challenge an admission to a crime is they confessed to a crime. Does that mean the document is endorsing all sorts of crime? Or are we again maybe saying that some innocent person might have falsely confessed, so it’s okay?
I honestly have no idea what your answer to any of these questions would be. I know what my answer to all of them would be. I think I know what the answer of any rational person would be. I just can’t guess what yours might be.
You know, while the questions in my previous comment were ones I’d want answered, they were also ones I made for rhetorical effect. Given that, I should probably go ahead and provide my answer to them just to be on the safe side:
Writing documents to help lawyers understand how to meet the legal requests of their clients is inherently proper behavior for any organization who’s purpose it is to help lawyers understand how to meet the legal requests of their clients. That is true no matter what those requests may be. The only way it could be wrong is if there was some sort of ethical or legal violation being called for in one or more of the documents being written.
The history of anti-Catholicism is also interesting, as in history does not repeat itself but it rhymes.
The Syrian situation raises the question of just what a country is. Personally, I don’t see how a country can survive if it is open to everyone and that is the current situation. Once you sneak into the US, under Obama’s policies, you essentially have the right to stay here.
…
My big issue is not the roughly 20,000,000 illegal entrants in the US, but the next 30 or 50 million who will be coming unless we have some sort of standards for who we wish to welcome and who does not have the right to be here. Until we have meaningful controls on non-citizens, I am very leery of accepting large numbers of refugees. I believe the best way to strongly discourage illegal entry and illegal residency is to have strong economic disincentives that apply to illegal entrants. Exactly, what those would be I don’t know. However, the current system of no controls almost certainly will be a disaster.
…
In reference to potential Muslim immigrants or entrants, I think we have to recognize that Islam gives low lifes an excuse to kill other people. The vast majority of Muslims would not engage in terrorism, but the Islamic religion, much more so than other religions or ways of life is conducive to terrorism. Because Islam is being used to wage war against the West and the U.S., our immigration policies should probably require Muslims to explicitly renounce violence and intolerance of other religions as practiced by ISIS and other extremists. Those Muslims who wish to come to the US should be told that if they can’t live up to those standards, there are many Asians who would be happy to do so.
…
I would add that it doesn’t give me a great deal of comfort that it is the second generation of Muslims that commit the most terrorism. All that means is that by admitting large numbers of Muslims, we are setting in motion a ticking time bomb that will go off in the future.
….
Finally to see how extreme and hateful the Muslim religion can be I would suggest Googling Pam Geller and her drawing contest. Two people tried to execute her for having the contest and if you search for the image that was drawn, you can see that it is quite tame by American standards. Yet substantial portions of the Muslim community tepidly criticize those who would kill Geller and strongly criticize Geller for having the contest. I personally believe that those Muslims who can’t strongly and vigorously criticize those who would kill Geller should not be welcomed to the US.
JD
TimTheToolMan (Comment #140999)
“This is particularly good news for women who fare so badly under sharia law, which is non-democratically determined, non-human rights compliant and a discriminatory code.â€
Perspective is the name of the game TTT.
How can women fair badly under Sharia law if they are Muslim?
Your views come from a perspective of democratically determined outcomes [gives you both Bush and Obama], human rights compliance and a code against discrimination [which discriminates against indiscriminates but …].
Sharia law comes from god and therefore cannot treat [Muslim] women badly.
I think anyone watching this debate and the word games understands that The British Law Society is wrong ethically in giving advice to treat women differently from men when they currently enshrine women’s equality as a cornerstone of modern jurisprudence.
Technically they are right to do so as Lucia and Brandon submit.
That they refuse to admit a different perspective is possible is also their right ethically morally and legally.
It just makes it funny when they say the cannot see the problem but
“The Law Society has withdrawn guidance on how to prepare sharia-compliant wills following criticism from solicitors and the justice secretary, Chris Grayling.”
Obviously the Law society can see something which is invisible in the right perspective.
angech,
They didn’t advise anyone to treat women differently than men. That’s one of the conflations going on here.
As for the withdrawal: In another article, the law society discusses their decision to remove it. It was not because of discrimination, but rather they noted that it might be inaccurate on theology since theology varies. They decided it was better not to tread on anything touching on theology (anyone’s.)
http://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/law-society-climbs-sharia-will-practice-note-apologises
So it was withdrawn. But the withdrawal gives us no reason to think the Law Society (a trade association) decided the arguments about “discrimination” had any merit.
Obviously, we are reading what you and TTTM say. But no, I don’t see any problem with a trade association for lawyers writing a leaflet to help lawyers provide services their customers are legally entitled to and pay for.
JD Ohio,
I also think immigration needs to be controlled. That is: we need programs for legal immigration and we do need border controls. There is also rate limiting required. Whether we agree on the proper rate I don’t know: but some limits are required.
I don’t have a problem with this. I wouldn’t have a problem requiring every immigrant to renounce violence.
As I noted before, I’d also like to see a program matching refugees with volunteer families who shepherd those they sponsor. This sort of thing should meet the desires of the churches mentioned above who are requesting the government admit more refugees. With a matching/sponsorship program, the number admitted would be in balance with the numbers those churches or individuals advocating charity are actually willing to provide themselves.
I seriously doubt a sponsorship program would result in a huge flood of refugees. Among the reasons are that at least some people are more “generous” with their willingness to allow refugees in if they believe the resources to aid the immigrants lands on someone else’s shoulder. If those wanting to help refugees are merely given to provide the aid out of their own resources, they tend to recognize they can help in proportion to what they themselves have.
I, for example, have no plans to foster a refugee family, but if I did, I’m pretty sure I could never afford to help more than 1-2 people find shelter, job etc. The number of families who are going to be willing to sponsor refugees is never going to approach be huge– it’s just too burdensome. So this would result in a rate limit of sorts.
Beyond that, requiring some sort of sponsorship program would tend to help refugees find a niche which would tend to ameliorate the 2nd generation problem because families would tend to have fit in economically and socially without necessarily changing religion.
JD Ohio:
I don’t know if you were trying to draw some connection between illegal immigrants and refugees who, by definition, come legally. If so, it seems rather bizarre. Regardless, I’m totally confused as to what you consider “large numbers of refugees.” You just referred to 50 million illegal immigrants. I hope you realize even the largest amount of refugees the United States has considered taking in from Syria is miniscule in comparison to that.
Oh, and I will always take issue with the idea there is someone “who does not have the right to be here.” The idea that by fluke of birth I have some right other people do not offends me. The idea my ancestor committing genocide so they could steal this land somehow gives me the right to be here that is withheld from other people is just morally reprehensible. I know you can respond by referring to the fact I do have legal rights people in other countries don’t have, but that response doesn’t change how disgusting the idea is to me. You see, I’m not disputing the idea they don’t have a legal right – I’m saying morally I think it’s wrong they don’t.
Um… no. You can recognize whatever you want, but I don’t recognize anything of the sort. I mean, it’s trivially true Islam gives an excuse to murderers in the same ways murderers can find an excuse in anything, but otherwise… no. I don’t agree at all. I don’t agree the Islamic religion is especially conducive to terrorism in and of itself, and I don’t think any fair-minded study of the religion would say it is. Quite frankly, I think you sound bigoted.
I’m sorry, but… this might be the dumbest idea I have ever heard. You’re not just instituting what has dangerous similarities to the loyalty oaths of old, but you’re specifically targeting members of a single ethnicity/religion. That’s completely wrong. Not only is it immoral to institutionalize bigotry by saying members of a religion/ethnic need to be treated more harshly than any others, it is idiotic because it would accomplish the exact opposite of the stated purpose.
Demanding people swear off violence would do absolutely nothing to stop them from committing violence. All it would do is single them out and increase their feeling of alienation, encouraging the very radicalization that is the problem. It would also create the perfect talking point for every group trying to radicalize youths.
And really, since we know just promising not commit violence wouldn’t accomplish anything, the policy would have to have some additional function. Namely, any Muslim who commits violence after swearing it off would face deportation. And if I need to explain why that’s wrong…
You just stated, as fact, a specific generation of Muslims will commit terrorist acts in the United States… purely on the basis they are Muslims. I suspect you don’t realize if that happens, people like you will have helped cause it. Terrorists are like gang members. The more they get treated like criminals, the more they’ll act like criminals.
I personally believe Americans who can’t strongly and vigorously criticize Donald Trump for being a delusional and racist blowhard should be deported to another planet for the sake of the human race. But hey, instead, we give him billions of dollars and consider electing him president. And he’s not even threatening to murder us if we criticize him!
Yeah, that last thing is kind of a big mitigating factor that merits mention. Americans don’t have to live with the fear criticizing someone might get their entire family butchered. Moderate Muslims who have spoken out against terrorism have been assassinated.
Nevermind the fact Christians who commit acts the same as Muslims are almost never described as “terrorists” and never generate calls for the entire religion to condemn them. How many Americans even know about the mass-murder of 77 people by a self-proclaimed Christian, which is one of the few acts of a Christian terrorist this decade to actually get labeled “terrorism.” I’m sure none of the crowd bemoaning Islam got on television to shout about the evils of Christianity.
“The idea my ancestor committed genocide so they could steal this land somehow gives me the right to be here that is withheld from other people is just morally reprehensible.”
Actually, this is a pretty ridiculous smear. The “right to be here” comes from the fact that you were born here. Reaching into the past to justify some kind of outrage you have, is a big problem in itself.
Andrew
Brandon,
I don’t care what you think. I will not get into a ridiculously long discussion of trivialities which you specialize in. You lost all credibility when you claimed to have never said you hated Tom Fuller and you had. So trivialize away, and if others have something to offer and respond to, I will respond to them.
JD
JD Ohio:
That’s a strange reaction given I immediately acknowledged my error and corrected it once it was pointed out. I thought Fuller was referring to a real, abiding sense of hatred, which I don’t feel toward anyone. It turns out he was referring to one of those spur of the moment exclamations, “I hate X!” Once I realized that, I explained my mistake and admitted I was wrong.
If that somehow means I’ve lost all credibility in your eyes, I can’t help that, but… it seems pretty bizarre.
Andrew_KY:
You seem to have missed the part where I said:
So my point was focused on the very fact you say I should be focused on. It offends me that any fluke of birth should give me some right other people are precluded from. I think that is immoral.
That my ancestors helped commit genocide isn’t what causes that sentiment. It merely explains why I don’t think my ancestors being here somehow justifies me having rights precluded from other people.
“It offends me that any fluke of birth should give me some right other people are precluded from. I think that is immoral.”
Every human being has the right to exist on earth. It’s follows that that they have the right to be where they started existing on earth.
After that, it’s politics.
Andrew
From the annals of history
Andrew_KY:
That a person has a right to be where they were born doesn’t inherently follow from the idea they have a right to exist. You can’t just say one thing follows from another and expect people to automatically accept it as true.
A baby is born on a boat adrift in the ocean; where does it “follow” they have the right to be from then on? The current legal ruling would involve any number of issues, including where its parents are from, even if it had never been there (even including time in the womb).
In fact, there’s been some call in the United States to change the legal system to stop granting citizenship to “anchor babies.” That would mean a baby born in the United States would have no inherent right to stay in the United States. On the other hand, many babies born outside the United States would have the right to stay within the United States as they would be citizens due to their parents.
So at the very least, the world’s legal systems disagree with you. That could just mean it’s all politics though. I wouldn’t expect morality from legal systems. They’re notably bad at it.
“That a person has a right to be where they were born doesn’t inherently follow from the idea they have a right to exist.”
You are asserting that persons have no right to be where they are born. Totally absurd, Brandon.
Andrew
Incidentally, JD Ohio’s number for illegal immigrants is off by a factor of 2. Also, their population has leveled off since around 2007, whether this is a secular change remains to be seen. More here .
“It’s follows that that they have the right to be where they started existing on earth.”
And just to make myself clear, this includes their mother’s womb and medical devices.
Andrew
Andrew_KY:
ORLY?
U.S. Almost Alone In Granting Birthright Citizenship.
If you meant something different you should try being a bit clearer.
Interestingly, the US not only grants universal birthright citizenship to children born of alien parents, our constitutional law also recognizes children with one US citizen for a parent as a natural-born citizen, with all of the rights that infers, even when the children aren’t born on US soil.
This sort of tolerance really seems to irk the intolerant among us.
Carrick,
I didn’t say anything about citizenship. That’s a political/legal issue.
BTW, it is possible to think outside a political/legal box.
Andrew
Andrew_KY:
But you said they had “a right to be where they are born”. Obviously if you’re not a citizen, you don’t have a right to be where you are born, and you’ll eventually have to leave.
“Obviously if you’re not a citizen, you don’t have a right to be where you are born”
Yes you do. And it may be temporary, but that’s ok.
This discussion is about rights. The Creator endows these. Legal/political systems sometimes recognize them, sometimes they don’t. I’m focusing on the rights of humans. I know you guys have your pet political inclinations that you are trying to interject, which is fine. But let’s try to stay focused on the discussion, though.
Andrew
What Andrew_KY is saying is that when a zygote is in a growth medium, it is rightfully there.
Andrew_KY:
So let me get this straight: You “know” that the Creator endows us with a “right” to remain where we were born. So if I’m born on a plane, I should be able to spend my life there, right?
You’re just nuts.
Actually, no you don’t know this. You are just delusional if you really think you do.
Brandon,
I’m interpreting the deporting part as hyberbole, but I really like the ‘delusional and racist blowhard’ part. I might use ‘demagogue’ rather than blowhard, though.
RB. A Bear Stearns study found 20,000,000 illegal entrants. Everyone agrees that there are no really accurate ways to count the number of illegal entrants in the US. I just guessed when I threw out a number. Am using Android so can’t supply link. From my perspective, the basic point is that there are a lot, and there will be a lot more if Obama’s policies are followed.
JD
“So let me get this straight: You “know†that the Creator endows us with a “right†to remain where we were born.”
I said you have a right to be where you are born. Then I said it might be temporary. Stop putting words in my mouth.
“So if I’m born on a plane, I should be able to spend my life there, right?”
Again I said it might be temporary. Read for comprehension.
“Actually, no you don’t know this.”
It’s self-evident. 😉
Andrew
Carrick,
The phrase “endowed by their Creator” is in the Declaration of Independence:
Whether one of those rights is birthright citizenship is less clear, but can’t be ruled out.
Andrew_KY:
If you are saying it’s a “right” for just one instant in time, then it’s not a right at all. It’s not an anything.
This is code for you thinking you can read other people’s minds and motives. Which you really can’t. In fact, you really, really suck at guessing my motives.
You are obviously as confused and delusional as ever, making any further conversation with you pointless.
Andrew_KY:
Uh… no. Saying a person has done nothing to support their argument is in no way saying that argument is wrong.
DeWitt Payne:
Oh, believe me, demagogue is a word I’d use to describe him. I even think it’s more fitting than blowhard. I just spent a lot of time as a child learning to tone down my vocabulary because I had a lot of problems with people feeling I use “big words.”
(I’m still not sure how two syllable words can be “big” people!)
By the way, I’m pretty sure a large issue here is just a stupid semantic thing. Andrew_KY said:
Which shows he is thinking of some sort of moral right, not a legal one. However, my comment which lead to this exchange referred to legal rights, clearly distinguishing them from any moral issues.
Sometimes people talk about moral rights, such as seen in the Declaration of Independence. Other times people talk about legal rights, such as in most discussions of legal issues. Sometimes they talk about both, such as when morality comes up in a discussion of legal issues. That’s all fine. It’s fine that people use words in different ways. It’s just silly to have arguments because of it.
JD Ohio,
“there are a lot, and there will be a lot more if Obama’s policies are followed”
.
Well, there are many millions here without documentation (I have talked with dozens myself). What policies will influence that are not clear. Certainly arm-waving rubbish about “prejudice” against the immigrants is counter-roductinve, even so than many millions can stay and become registered voters is a ‘wet dream’ for Democrats.
.
I think that most Republicans are not serious about this issue; support for holding businesses responsible when they employ undocumented immigrants is a litmus test which most Republicans fail. If prospective workers must produce documentation of identoity and place of birth. the terrorists are excluded.
JD Ohio,
“there are a lot, and there will be a lot more if Obama’s policies are followed”
.
Well, there are many millions in the States without documentation (I have talked with dozens myself). What policies will influence that is not clear. Certainly arm-waving rubbish about “prejudice” against the immigrants is counter-productive. If many millions can stay and become loyal supporters of the ‘give-away-equality-for-all’ party, then this is a wet dream for Democrats.
.
But I think that most Republicans are also not serious about this issue; support for holding businesses responsible when they employ undocumented immigrants is a litmus test which most Republicans (and many Democrats) fail. If prospective workers must produce documentation of identity and place of birth for work, then terrorists are excluded… as are all unlawful aliens looking for work. This is a simple solution which absolutely will not be entertained. Gives one perspective on just how broken the system is.
JD,
Sorry, not sure how the half-completed comment got posted.
“If you are saying it’s a “right†for just one instant in time”
Again, didn’t say that.
Andrew
A big problem here is that multi-cultural societies tend to have some drawbacks and a limited shelf life. One could point to some exceptions like Switzerland, but the first example was the Roman Empire and it was highly tyrannical. But as long as you worshiped the Emperor, you could become a citizen. We in the enlightened West tend to think culture and religion are secondary and that no one takes them seriously. That’s a very parochial view. We in the US fought a very bloody civil war over a cultural issue that just got worse and it has taken us a hundred years to put it behind us. Tolerance is not a natural human value or behavior and we make a mistake in assuming that we have a magic assimilation machine that will enable us to meld Islam for example into our society.
Brandon: “Nevermind the fact Christians who commit acts the same as Muslims are almost never described as “terrorists†and never generate calls for the entire religion to condemn them. How many Americans even know about the mass-murder of 77 people by a self-proclaimed Christian, which is one of the few acts of a Christian terrorist this decade to actually get labeled “terrorism.†I’m sure none of the crowd bemoaning Islam got on television to shout about the evils of Christianity.”
This is just dumb slathered on stupid. You just reduced your credibility by 90%. Having once demonstrated the inability to think clearly people will choose to ignore your arguments.
stan:
While I’m sure your counterargument might be the epitome of intelligence, wit and panache, I suspect few people will find it convincing if you choose to never state it.
The solution to religious fundamentalism is already here, we just have to wait a while…
The Rise Of Humanism
“You are obviously as confused and delusional as ever, making any further conversation with you pointless.”
Carrick,
Your tendency for flingning insults makes you seem childish and then you quitting makes conversation with you impossible.
Andrew
Happy Turkey Day Blackboard! 🙂
Lucia: “I’d also like to see a program matching refugees with volunteer families who shepherd those they sponsor. This sort of thing should meet the desires of the churches mentioned above who are requesting the government admit more refugees.”
…
This is a reasonable idea worth looking at. However, I believe one unstated assumption of this idea is that we have a reasonably competent federal government. My fairly recent interactions with federal employees suggest otherwise.
…
1. I lost my tax refund check about 2 months ago. (In strange circumstance, I scanned it before I lost it.) I literally could not get a human being on the phone line to discuss and remedy the matter. Had to request the assistance of a Congressman and it looks like it will take several months.
…
2. My ex-Chinese-wife and stepdaughter had an issue with stepdaughter’s immigration docs not matching mother’s. The notice for the appointment to try to resolve the issue gave the wrong room no. in a large federal office building. (Semi-understandable mistake) However, no one in the office even bothered putting a notice on the wrongly identified room to tell people where to go. (2 floors lower). This showed an amazing level of arrogance and laziness. (Employees acknowledged that this was an error affecting a good number of people.) When we talked to someone there, he was totally unhelpful and refused to do anything other than say check your mail for future potential mailings. We had to get an immigration lawyer to take care of what should have been a simple clerical issue.
…
3. In applying for my ex’s K-1 visa, a question arose. I called the 800 number. The employee answering the phone asked me about 15 ridiculous questions attempting to find a way to say there was nothing she could do and cut me off the line. (Stuff like were you in Vietnam in 1981– just giving a hypothetical of what the questions were like. Don’t remember any of them from 3 years ago). Finally, after about 20 minutes of the employee’s fruitless efforts to terminate the conversation, I was allowed to briefly ask my question. (Should have been allowed to ask question at the beginning.) She simply said there was nothing she could do and to wait for a notice from the USCIS [Part of Department of Homeland Security]. (My question was not real hard, but wasn’t simple either.) My basic point is that in dealing with people working for USCIS is that if anything is in the slightest way off of the script, they are pretend employees. They have no competence and are instructed to tell people that they have no authority to investigate or do anything. If that is the case, they should be eliminated.
…
The bigger point of course, is that the incompetence of the federal government, in addition to Obama’s belief that he is above immigration law, means that it is very likely that there can be no effective monitoring of large numbers of refugees.
JD
Another example of federal incompetence related to an amazingly misguided impending law designed to withhold passports.
“Mr. Bruce noted that a report issued in September by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, or Tigta, a watchdog agency, found that the IRS sent 855,000 notices to U.S. citizens abroad in 2014. According to the report, “IRS data systems aren’t designed to accommodate the different styles of international addresses, which can cause notices to be undeliverable.â€
….
The Tigta report said that “current IRS processes for addressing international mail issues are ineffective or nonexistent.†In response, the IRS said that Tigta’s recommendations wouldn’t overcome the agency’s “budgetary, statutory, and operational constraints.†See http://www.wsj.com/articles/americans-pay-your-taxes-or-lose-your-passport-1447971424?mod=trending_now_4
….
JD
JD Ohio:
One thing that always bugs me about people discussing new laws is they always seem to focus on one thing as the new “law” even if the part they’re talking about only makes up ~2% of the actual law in question. It’s incredibly misleading.
I happen to dislike this move, but it’s not the primary purpose of the law in question. In fact, it’s just a minor bargaining chip that’s been bandied about for years. If you compare Sec. 32101 of the new H.R. 22, you’ll find it is almost identical to Sec. 40304 of S. 1813 from three years ago.
These are massive bills which deal with lots of funding issues, and the section in question is one of the bargaining chips that has been used during negotiations. The simple reality is the IRS needs more money. This move is expected to generate money by forcing people who owe a significant amount of taxes to start paying their debts if they want to get/keep a passport. The idea has been around for years and years. It’s distasteful, and so far it has been withdrawn from negotiations as other solutions were chosen, but this time it looks like it might go through.
The point being, if you want to support or oppose a measure, you should understand it. Much of the reporting on this so far has failed to even mention previous attempts at passing it before. I suspect many of the people covering it don’t even know about the previous attempts. I think that’s a sign of bad journalism. I think a good investigative journalist would be asking the question, why would this measure pass now when it never did before?
I honestly don’t know the answer to that question. I wish I did. I just know this idea was being considered at least five years ago, and three years ago it got into a bill that had a decent chance at passing. Now, it looks like it might actually pass. I think it’d be interesting to read about the evolution of how that happened. I’d love to know what kind of negotiations have led up to this.
Oh! And a fun fact about that measure. If it does get passed now, it will in some ways be worse than if it had gotten passed three years ago. The measure only restricts passports of people who owe $50,000 or more in back taxes (and aren’t in the process of paying or disputing them). However, it accounts for inflation. That inflation is based on when the bill is passed. If the measure had passed earlier, the cap would actually be higher than if it passes now.
The difference is probably trivial (and the amount used is always rounded up to the next thousand dollars), but it is kind of interesting. There may come a time when someone owes $52,000 in taxes and can’t get a passport because this measure was passed now rather than three years ago.
JD Ohio,
Federal employees basically can’t be fired and they know it. If you have anything important that needs to be done, you should start with your Congressperson. Constituent service should be job #1 for them. If it isn’t, they shouldn’t be re-elected. If it is, they probably have the job as long as they want it, regardless of their politics. The best employees are assigned to Congressional liason.
The Civil Service Act needs a drastic overhaul. The spoils system of old was probably better.
Brandon,
The US, unlike any other country in the world, taxes overseas income for ex-pats regardless of whether the country of residence also levies a tax. The number of passports being surrendered by dual citizens has been increasing as a result of increased enforcement. It’s classic unintended consequences, much like the move to corporate tax inversion because the US taxes the foreign earnings of corporations at one of the highest rates in the world.
DeWitt Payne, it’s not actually true the United States is the only country which does this, but it might as well be as the exceptions are so trivial. North Korea is one exception (in some bizarre way I can’t even remember), and some African country starting with an E is the other. I used to know all the details because this is a subject which greatly offends me, but I still remember enough.
In the court case Cook v. Tait (1924), a US citizen living in the United States was contacted by the US government with a demand he pay taxes on income he had received. He paid the initial sum required and filed a complaint with the courts, saying that as he lived in Mexico and earned the income there, he shouldn’t have to pay any US taxes on it. The Court ruled against him.
In making this decision, the Court highlighted two previous cases, United States v. Goelet (1914) and United States v. Bennett (1914). In Bennett, a citizen living in the States who owned and used a yacht entirely outside of the country’s territory. The Court had ruled this was a taxable situation. In Goelet, a citizen living outside the States owning and using a yacht in a similar manner was found not to owe taxes. This demonstrated the two distinct conditions at play:
1) The residency of the individual.
2) The location of where the income was earned (or property located, etc).
In Bennett, one condition favored taxation while the other did not. The result was taxes were applied. In Goelet, neither condition favored taxation. The result was taxes were not applied. The obvious inference from this would be that in order to owe the United States government taxes, one must either reside in or earn income (own property, whatever) in the United States. That is not what Cook v. Tait found. In it, the Court noted in Goelet:
Meaning the reason for the ruling in Goelet was the specific tax law in question, not the principle. The principle of taxing people permanently residing outside the States for income earned outside the States was considered sound because:
The few people I’ve met who have heard of this ruling routinely mock this logic, but it is not unreasonable. The principle expressed here is that merely by being a citizen of the United States, one might derive some benefits which justify certain taxations. That is perhaps fair. However, as Goelet made clear:
This is where things went wrong. Goelet acknowledged the government has the authority to tax people living outside the country for income earned outside the country, but it noted that happens only in incredibly rare circumstances. That is what led the Court to rule the tax law considered in Goelet was not intended to apply to citizens living outside the States.
Cook v. Tait didn’t discuss this issue. While in 1914 the Court held in Goelet taxing power “is not usually applied to those” living abroad, in 1924 Cook v. Tait decided the fact the United States has some potential authority to apply taxes to those living abroad means the standard income tax applies to everyone living abroad. This completely subverted principles in Goelet, principles Cook v. Tait didn’t even mention. Ultimately, Cook v. Tait says:
And that was used to justify imposing all sorts of burdens on US citizens living abroad, regardless of what (if any) benefits their citizenship actually granted them. The Court presumed there were benefits, disregarded the fact applying taxation power in this way was incredibly uncommon, and… there you have it.
It’s utterly absurd. It’s even more absurd when you realize it’s not United States citizenship that is supposedly beneficial – it’s United States “government, by its very nature.”
By the way, the reason this even happened was absurd as well. It used to be there non-resident US citizens were a rarity. Most of them were wealthy, able to leave the country to avoid the draft. Add to that the income tax only applied to the upper class at that time, and one can begin to guess why this measure would be desired – to at least attempt to treat the wealthy citizens of the United States who fled the country in times of crisis (especially to avoid things like the draft) equitably to everyone else.
Now fast forward to a time nearly a hundred years to a point where the income tax applies to the not just the upper class, but also the middle class, and the demographics have shifted so that non-resident citizens are common rather than the rarity there were of those times, and the draft no longer exists for people to dodge by leaving the country. Does it make any sense to continue practice, given the original reasons for it were both wrong, and are don’t even remotely apply anymore?
I would say no. That’s not what we’re seeing though. Instead of backing off from this practice, trying to move away from it, we’re actually seeing the government step up enforcement. When this practice was first implemented, it was almost entirely a symbolic measure. There was no practical way for the US government to collect taxes under this idea. Now that there is, the government is wanting to collect on them more and more. That the justifications for the entire practice grow weaker with each passing day doesn’t seem to matter.
Personally, I think the entire practice is unconstitutional and should be challenged as such.
Well, i’ve got one too. But I did get useful help from an IRS employee in Baltimore.
In 1984 I got one of those letters that spouse says makes me tremble — from the IRS. It was a threat, amazingly enough in response to a letter from me which tried to establish the basis for how taxes paid in three states in 1981 should be deducted from the federal tax for that year. I had shown the math and described the logic and invited them to suggest an alternate method for the apportionment.
They didn’t comment on any of that but did want another $0.85. Proceedings would commence in 30 days (IIRC) if they didn’t hear from me. I sent a check for the $0.85. Sixty days later i got another fiercer letter. This time i had ten days. So i sent them another check for $0.85. About a month later I got the really nasty one, but this one had a phone number. I called the number, read off the case number and was told to call a specific number in Baltimore. I did, got a pretty nice guy on the line, read the case number, waited for him to find it, and heard a lot of laughter. He asked me why I just didn’t give them their $0.85 and get it over with the easy way. I told him i had, and not only that had done it twice, they had cashed the checks and I could fax them to him. He thought that was good and I did it. He then agreed that they had my money but hoped that i didn’t want the extra $0.85 back because they couldn’t issue a check for less than a dollar. It also turned out that they had no way to enter the less than a dollar amount in their system which is why the checks had gotten cashed but not credited.
He said something like “I bet you don’t think I can kill this, but I can and will.”
He then gave me his direct line and name and told me to call him if this stupid thing ever surfaced again. I told him I’d use my only call from jail to let him know.
Of course I also have plenty of bad experience, but everyone has that.
JFerguson: 1984 was a long time ago. About 7 years ago, I had the same type of refund lost check problem. I was able to talk to someone and get it resolved. Now, the phone prompts are close to impassable and generally the service is much, much worse than it used to be.
JD
I have a 20 year old son who is a dual citizen (US, Brazil), presently a college student in Brazil. When I explained to him the requirement to file US income taxes when he earns money, he thought I was joking. From a practical standpoint: $99,000 is excluded if you spend 330 days in the year residing outside the States, so most people residing outside the States won’t pay any tax. The objective is mainly to keep rich US citizens from residing outside the States to avoid paying income taxes, like many wealthy Europeans do to avoid confiscatory European income taxes.
Brandon,
One does derive benefits from merely being a citizen. Some may seem pie in the sky to others, but they are real:
* If the country in which you reside is invaded, war torn or falls into an economic funk etc, you can move back to the US fairly readily. (That is: the US will let you in. They generally won’t find you a plane ticket; your own your own for that.)
* You may be able to get the consulate to intervene in cases of incarceration etc.
* Your kids will be US citizens and have the option of moving here, can fairly readily go to college. This also makes setting up international business easier for them and opens some job opportunities.
* The fact that one is applying for a passport is often demonstration they are accessing an advantage of a US passport. Depending on where you live, it can be a ticket to ease travel restrictions.
You might think “big whip”. But remember, I was born in El Salvador. One of our neighbors sent their daughter– not a US citizen — to live with us. It was a huge complicated ordeal to get her out and also get papers so she she could arrive legally in Illinois. Afterwards she applied to college got in and finished her degree. She went back after hostilities calmed down.
Other families with kids who were US citizens got their kids into US colleges and dorms much more easily with no interruption of studies. Of landed them jobs in US branches of businesses and so on.
Heck– Imagine the advantage of being a dual citizen in Hong Kong in the 70s-80s and so on. You could remain there but know you could have a landing place in the US. All of these are benefits even if one doesn’t exercise them.
How much taxation do these benefits justify? Dunno. But there are benefits. If there weren’t people wouldn’t maintain dual citizenship.
Brandon,
Gee, that sounds very much like the Alternative Minimum Tax. That also started out as something that would only apply to a few hundred people. Now it’s in the tens of millions and growing. I’ve even seen suggestions that the AMT should replace the ever more complicated tax code.
lucia:
Yup. It’s a bit weird though, as the ruling actually refers to the benefits coming from the United States government, not from being a citizen of the country. It’s much more difficult to find benefits that meet that requirement.
To be fair, maintaining citizenship is easier than not. If you’re born a citizen of the United States, you have to fill out paperwork and pay over $2,000 to stop being a citizen.
DeWitt Payne, one thing to remember about the AMT is when it was first created, it was an additional tax for the people it applied to. It was only later that it was changed to be an alternative tax system. That alters the significance of the growth in numbers it applies to a bit.
Brandon
It seems to me you are making some sort of fine distinction that ends up making no difference. Benefits like “possibility of being able to move to the US” come from the government permitting one to move to the US. Our government happens to never exile people– but that’s not always been the case. Citizens can’t be exiled because that’s a provision of our government. So you can see this as coming from “being a citizen”, but it’s “being a citizen of a country that has a certain form of government with certain policies”. So one would need a microscope to not see that as a “benefit from the United States government”. (And I’m not even sure those with the microscopes would even agree that it’s not a benefit from the government.)
Certainly access to a consulate if you get in a jam oversees is a benefit that involves the government not merely being a citizen. Access to evacuation resources during some unsettled situations is also “from the government”. Whether these are merely potential doesn’t strike me as unimportant since people do find things like insurance to be a benefit. For may in foreign countries, duel US citizenship amounts to a sort of “insurance”.
Brandon,
In spite of that, and the fee of $2,350 is a recent 422% increase from the previous charge, citizenship renunciation continues to increase. That’s small potatoes compared to paying US as well as foreign income taxes for an expat with a six figure annual income.
lucia:
That’s… not true. One’s ability to move to the United States if they’re a citizen is not due to the government allowing them to do so. It’s due to the fact the government has no authority to prevent them from doing so. The Constitution imposes restrictions on the government’s powers and grants rights to the citizens of the country. None of that can be considered to come from the government because the Constitution is inherently separate from the government.
Being allowed to live within the United States is part of being a citizen, and the government has no authority to strip a person of their citizenship (absent the expressed will of the person). The Supreme Court has held this for over a hundred years. Based on that, we can see the right to live here does not come from the government. That means the right to move or live here cannot be a benefit derived from the government.
DeWitt Payne:
Yup. This is particularly true given there seems to be more effort from the IRS to collect taxes from people living overseas. Some of those people renouncing their United States citizenship might not have done so before simply because it never mattered as they hadn’t actually needed to file/pay the taxes.
Which reminds me, another interesting thing about all this is it used to be people who spent their whole lives living abroad would lose their citizenship if they didn’t take any step to affirm it (usually involving moving to the United States). It only kicked in some time after they became adults, meaning they would have the opportunity to choose whether they wanted to remain a citizen or not.
The reason I find that interesting is scrapping that policy caused what I believe to be an immoral situation. People who are US citizens by birth but live their entire lives elsewhere used to just not “opt in” and not owe taxes. Now, they have to “opt out” or else they’ll owe taxes. And to “opt out,” they have to pay over $2,000.
In effect, the United States government is saying anyone born to citizens of its country (and thus being a citizen themselves) owes it at least $2,000, simply by being born. It’s really quite terrible.
Brandon,
Living with the protections of the US constitution is a benefit and it is one that is provided by the government established by that constitution.
The constitution would be the governing document. Ergo: anything granted by the constitution is granted by the government.
Wrong. The constitution is our foundational governing document. Everything granted by the constitution is granted by the government.
Brandon,
I think you are mistaken about when the potential for losing citizenship kicked in. My parents were advised by the consulate that if my sisters and I did not spend some minimum number of years in the US before we turned 18, we would lose our citizenship. This became moot both because our family moved back to the US and the law was thrown out (I think by SCOTUS. Not sure.)
That’s technically true. However, as a practical matter, if they never file for a passport or merely fail to renew after they reach the age of majority and never try to register their children at the consulate and so on, they will be “lost” by the US system.
Had I remained in El Salvador and never dealt with the US system in any way– no SSN number, no US bank account and so on– I don’t think they could find me. Trouble many who have US citizenship actually do use it to some extent. For example: They renew their passport after reaching 18 yo.
I’m not entirely sure what would happen if the government tried to collect back taxes if they did locate and identify a person who was a US citizen by virtue of their parents registering them at the consulate at birth but who otherwise never, ever, ever, ever did a thing to exercise any right of citizenship after reaching the age of majority and had never stepped foot on American soil. That person would need to be fairly rich for the IRS to bother and succeed in finding them. In that case, it’s quite likely that if they would either (a) have found it very tempting to exercise some right of citizenship and had done so or (b) gone through the formality of renouncing to avoid the uncertainty. So I suspect this is hypothetical and likely to remain so.
Lucia, although London Mayor Boris Johnson did apparently renew his passport (He left NY when he was 5), he was pursued for 44,000 in taxes by the US government on a capital gain that is not taxable in the UK, which is a comparatively small amount. He is now renouncing his US dual citizenship.
I suspect, but don’t know, that the collection of these taxes is more a matter of petty bureaucratic tyrants flexing their muscles as opposed to the collection of substantial amounts of tax dollars.
JD
Here is link to Boris Johnson situation. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/01/22/379056075/london-mayor-boris-johnson-settles-u-s-tax-bill-ahead-of-visit
Stumbled on an article that discussed how arrogant and unhelpful the USCIS is. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/19f0eece-9539-11e5-8389-7c9ccf83dceb.html#axzz3svzd4yzP
…
Some quotes:
“The men I knew had been translators and drivers for the Chicago Tribune, then my employer. They reported through mortar attacks, even a car bomb. Then Sinan Adhem and Nadeem Majeed decided they wanted to live in the US. They applied 10 years ago for visas. As they waited, they became fathers, perfected their English and found better jobs. ..
“Last year, both Sinan and Nadeem received emails from the US Citizenship and Immigration Services stating that they could not be trusted. No one disputed they had presented all the proper papers or that the visa applications were credible. Yet form letters dismissed Sinan, then Nadeem, with vague finality: “Denied as a matter of discretion for security-related reasons.â€
…In the weeks that followed, though, I found few people in my government willing to help. No single bureaucrat wanted to accept responsibility.
…One retired general I knew warned against false hope. “The Department of Homeland Security is a ‘black hole’,†he said. “It has become a hall of mirrors where there are no answers.â€
….
I would let these people in.
JD
lucia:
No, it is not. The United States Constitution grants power to the government created under its guidelines. Any power not granted to the government is power the government has no right to exercise. That includes the powers in question.
The protections of the Constitution come from the Constitution, not from the government. Any benefits derived from those protections are derived from the Constitution, not from the government.
Repeating the same claim over and over does not make it true any more than italicizing words does. If you think what you say is true, you should explain why you think it is true, not just say it is true. Over, and over, and over.
For instance, I pointed out the Constitution is separate from the government and explicitly grants powers to the government. It’s actually a bit more nuanced than that as the Constitution is really just a proxy for the people’s will, outlining the social contract being drawn in order to form the new government. Whether or not you want to worry about that nuance, you certainly can’t wave away the entire construction by simply repeating yourself yet again.
But perhaps the best way to head off what could be an annoying mess would be to quote the Tenth Amendment:
This is part of the Constitution (as it has been amended to be included), referring to the United States government as being separate from the Constitution and receiving powers from the Constitution. I believe that makes it clear the Constitution is not part of the government.
lucia:
There were actually many different laws passed which affected things, and things could be different depending on circumstance. When it came to not losing citizenship one had received by virtue of having one or more parents who were US citizens, I think the only issue (assuming they met the requirements for you to receive citizenship) that caused things to vary was if the child was illegitimate.
But the bigger changes were from time period. 1978 was when the practice of automatically revoking people’s citizenship was ended. The law in play before that had been passed in 1972, and it allowed “legitimate” children to maintain their citizenship even if they didn’t return to the United States until their 20s. I think that was also true for the law which came before that, sometime in the 50s. The main difference as I recall was how long a person had to live in the states in order to keep their citizenship.
That’s only for children born within wedlock though. Children born outside of wedlock had other rules applied to them, and they were weird. I don’t really know what all they were, but I do remember hearing about some adults facing the risk of deportation because the law precluded their fathers from officially declaring them as offspring because the law required it be done before the child reached 18, and as such, the people couldn’t prove their heritage in the eyes of the court even though they could prove it to all common sense.
And of course, there may be other rules/issues I don’t know about. I’ve done some basic research on the topic, but I’m definitely no expert.
Lucia:
This statement seems a bit Mosherian; an insufficiency of words.
I agree with Brandon that the Constitution is inherently separate.
Brandon
I think it is true because the definition of “government” includes
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/government
“a particular system used for controlling a country, state, etc.
: the process or manner of controlling a country, state, etc.”
Consquently, Constitution establishes the system, process and manner of controlling the state and country. Hence: if the constitution grants a right, the government does. This is definitional. The Justices of the Supreme court and I are both permitted to understand and convey the meaning of a word according to an accepted standard dictionary defintion. I am; I assume they did.
You made this claim with no particular evidence to support it.
No. And you can’t waive away the dictionary definition for the meaning of the word “government”. That written proxy which you’ve described is the What you’ve described is “particular system used for controlling a country, state, etc”. So: it is the government. You can explain it with more words and more nuance if you want and it will simply show that the Constitution is “government” according to the dictionary definition of the word.
Brandon
That’s not what the consulate told my parents at the time I was born. Your memory may be faulty.
Do you have access to the wording of statute that was in place in 1959? I could also be mistaken– or the consulate could have. But that’s what we would need to check your memory. Changes after the SCOTUS ruling or laws passed in 1978 aren’t relevant here.
Not relevant to when I was born.
BTW: I know people whose citizenship was revoked and re-instated. My father’s childhood friend (who’d been conscripted, naturalized, served and them moved to Latin America for “too long”). My sister’s god-mother who had been naturalized. These were reversed by a SCOTUS ruling.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html
This might be the provision:
This would have been in place when I was born. Both my parents were US citizens, so this should not have applied to me. (Perhaps some other clause did.)
But note: The plaintiff was subject to losing citizenship. There is no issue of illegitimacy; his parents were married.
This is in the footnote of the SCOTUS ruling
The above matches the advise my parents were given in 1959. I haven’t sorted out how this matches various issues in the cited SCOTUS case which is much later.
jferguson,
One can since the dictionary has multiple definitions (as is often the case.) But the dictionary includes
“a particular system used for controlling a country, state, etc.
: the process or manner of controlling a country, state, etc.â€
The constitution is our “system” and “process”. That’s the definition I’m using. It is likely the one SCOTUS is using, and it is a common usage. (The various passages in SCOTUS articles on benefits from government are consistent with assuming they are using this definition.)
The other definition option “the governing body of a nation, state, or community.” That would seem to be the one Brandon is using.
That is fine– but we were initially discussing a SCOTUS ruling and whether or not the government conferred benefits and whether SCOTUS’s assumtion they did was true.
For that, it seemed natural to me to access the definition SCOTUS appears to be using rather than switching to a different one.
It is true that if we assume SCOTUS is prohibitted from using the word “government to mean ““a particular system used for controlling a country, state, etc.
: the process or manner of controlling a country, state, etc.â€
Then the Constitution is not part of “government”.
If so, their ruling seems odd.
But if we assume they are allowed to use that common dictionary definition that is often used, then the constitution is “government” and anything the constitution confers is conferred by “government”.
I tend to think that if we read a document and the logic makes sense when we pick a particular dictionary definition for a word, but not if we chose a rival definition, we interpret the logic using the definition that makes sense. In this particular ruling, “government” is used in a way that includes “constitution” in government. Other people do use it differently elsewhere– but not here.
Lucia,
This site provides the current rules: http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents
.
WRT to the Constitution versus the government: I think the distinction is in part, but not wholly, semantic. The Constitution provides for creation of a Federal government with specified and limited powers, where one did not previously exist. It acknowledges the pre-existing governments of the individual States, and specifies where the authority of the individual State governments can be limited or superseded by the newly formed Federal government. The authority and legitimacy of the Constitution comes directly from the people (“We the people..”), at least in theory. I would say it is more accurate to consider the Constitution separately from, and superior to, the Federal government.
.
One of the things which distresses me (and lots of other people!) about the Supreme Court is that it has consistently subverted the role of the Constitution in limiting the power of the Federal Government… there is no longer real consideration of the Constitution as superior to the Federal government. The “living Constitution” argument favored by justices who desire “progress” has regularly been used to justify Orwellian interpretations of the document, and effectively eliminated most Constitutional limits on Federal powers…. all the while ignoring the plain meaning of the words. This strikes me as nothing but a means by which constitutional limits on the powers of the Federal government are defacto eliminated, without ever amending the Constitution…. which would be in most cases politically impossible.
.
So from a practical POV, you are right that there is no longer any separation of ‘the government’ from the Constitution, since ‘the government’, via the Supreme Court, effectively changes the Constitution without amending it. But I doubt that was the intent of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution.
.
The fundamental issue is that, as originally conceived, the Constitution was in part designed to protect individual rights and liberties from increasing government power, by placing explicit limits on those powers, and by making any changes to the Constitution require super-majorities among elected representatives and the individual States. That protection was long ago lost to what I can only describe as political subversion. A bare majority of voters, if they hold power long enough to place like minded Justices on the Supreme Court, can have the Federal government do pretty much whatever they want it to.
SteveF,
Orwellian interpretation isn’t limited to the left. I’ve talked to a conservative that insisted that ‘jurisdiction’ didn’t mean what a normal person would think it means, i.e. subject to the local laws and courts, with respect to birth right citizenship.
Speaking of which, I wonder if the foreigners that travel to the US to have a child understand the tax implications.
New thread for the party in Paris?
Yes…. sigh.
DeWitt,
At different times many people have tried (and more or less succeeded) in subverting the plain meaning of the words in the Constitution via the Supreme Court. At present, it is mostly progressives who do the Orwellian contortions, but not always.
.
I don’t think tax considerations play much a role… having a US Citizen in the family is the primary goal, for pretty obvious reasons.
DeWitt,
Hmmm…. likely not. But for some, they probably figure the kid can renounce citizenship at 18 if they wish. Or after graduating college. That’s not much of a problem if the kid doesn’t have money in his own name which is not uncommon.
Even with respect to Boris above, the IRS likely only found him because he’s prominent. And I agree it’s probably someone at the IRS wanting to flex muscle or wanting to make a show more than it was the money. Many citizens over seas can keep their profile low– provided they don’t take out a passport as an adult. If they never want to visit the US they can just tell the IRS they can try to pry the money out of their non-US accounts. Likely Boris Johnson wants to be able to interact with the US so saying “shove off” to the IRS might not be a practical consideration for him.
Shollenberger:
Cry me a river. Neither your sensibilitites nor the rights attendant to your natural born citizenship are anywhere near as important as the right of which they are a necessary conseqence, namely that of sovereign nations to control their borders, without which they can no more expect to survive than you can if you’re missing a square foot of your skin.
lucia:
You’ve got it upside down and backwards. The Constitution consists almost exclusively of grants of limited power TO the federal government and restrictions on the states, both descending from the People as represented, for almost all purposes, by 3/4 of the states. Moreover, the Constitution was obviously not authored originally by the federal government, nor has it ever been able to amend the Constitution.
Eli Rabett at Stoat.
” CCS technology is obvious. What is needed is a use for the CO2 that is captured and that is where research is needed although a bunny can be quite pessimistic about whether anything will come of it.
The basic approach is to use it to convert the CO2 into organics, like light (fuel)??? ”
In Australia the right suggests that Islam will have to change its views to fit into the Australian way of life.
Apart from the chutzpa this idea has some merits along with Eli’s suggestion.
We take in the refugees, australianise them and then turn them back into [homegrown] terrorists. problem of excess CO2 and excess terrorists solved.
lucia:
I specifically said the Court has held what I said for 100+ years in a post which discussed multiple cases in some detail. I figured that was enough to show people if anyone wanted examples, I could provide them. I may not have provided evidence, but making it clear what that evidence is and that you can provide it is very different from simply asserting something as true without offering any basis.
In any event, I’m not sure it would have mattered. While you just said I didn’t provide evidence for my position in reference to earlier in the exchange, you managed to quote my newer comment up to the point where I quoted the Constitution as evidence for my case. It’s rather peculiar to say someone didn’t provide evidence while failing to say a word about the fact they are currently providing you that evidence.
Also, I repeat: The United States Constitution says it is separate from the government. You didn’t say a word about that, choosing to instead say I hadn’t provided any evidence before and claim a dictionary proves you right. Even though the dictionary doesn’t do that:
The Constitution establishes the system of government. it is not the system of government. It is not even part of the system of government. It is the contract which was executed, after being ratified, in order to create the government.
Incidentally, I want to point out, as I usually do, looking at dictionary definitions is a bad way of determining what is meant by a person’s choice of words. On top of the normal issues I might mention, there are all sorts of issues which arise when using a regular dictionary within a field of specialty, such as with words used in a courtroom. Especially when those words were written nearly a hundred years ago and you’re using a modern dictionary. Time probably shouldn’t matter for a word like “government,” but it’s still an iffy thing to do.
A much better option would be to look at how the Supreme Court uses the words “government” and “Constitution.” If I am correct, the two will be referred to as distinct and disjoint. I’ll quote one of the cases I’ve already mentioned, United States v. Bennett:
There’s more like that in the case, and there are many other cases one could cite. I guess one could argue none of that *proves* anything because it just refers to the Constitution and government as being distinct, not disjoint. Maybe one could even find some reason why calling a government into being under the Constitution means… the Constitution is part of the government, sitting on the very top, maybe? I don’t know. Maybe one might think the Court constantly switched between referring to the whole government (government) and a part of it (the Constitution) too.
What I do know is I already showed the Constitution says it grants powers to the United States government. Now this case shows the Court seeming to say the government was created under and given its powers by the Constitution. I can show the same sort of usage in dozens of other cases. Even if a dictionary definition supported the idea the Constitution is part of the government (and I don’t agree it does), there’s just no indication that definition is one which was being used by the person who made the ruling in question.
This statement seems a bit Mosherian; an insufficiency of words.
I agree with Brandon that the Constitution is inherently separate.
#########
hardly
lucia:
Leaving aside that I don’t think it makes any sense to call the Constitution “our ‘system’ and ‘process'” given it’s neither a system nor a process, but a document which lays out plans and grants powers for a system of government…
I prefer to look at what people say to judge what they mean. The legal system tends to use words in particular ways to convey certain meanings people will understand. This is especially true given case law can be binding, so they tend to have to refer back to what each other have said, including going so far back as to the Constitution.
As for you saying:
What are you talking about? That’s not rhetorical. You hadn’t said that interpretation would be nonsensical before this comment of yours. In fact, you’ve previously written a comment which would suggest there is nothing nonsensical about that interpretation. It was one I would agree with. Now it seems you might disagree with it. I don’t know. I just can’t see how interpreting the ruling’s usage of “government” as not including the Constitution would create a nonsensical interpretation. It seems to create a perfectly sensible interpretation to me.
Mosher
Heh. Assuming that means you agree with me that the constitution is not “inherently separate” that seems to put us in the minority. If you disagree with me, looks like I’m the only one who sees it the way I do!!
Yet, I still think it’s not separate. I think the founding document establishing our system has at least as much claim to be seen as “the government” as the “house of representatives”, “the US Supreme Court”, “the IRS” is “the government”.
WRT to SteveF–
It sort of sounds like your reason for thinking the Constitution is not “government” is that the Supreme court isn’t sufficiently faithful in following it. That suggests you think this type of document might be “government” if it was followed but ceases to be if no one follows it. I would agree that if the document lapses it is not part of “government” as the system no longer involves referring to the document.
Of course lots of people disagree with all sorts of SCOTUS interpretations (and even a whole history of interpreting the commerce clause.) But even though there are lapses, I still see the document as “government” as it is followed to a large extent. (We still do have 3 branches of governement. SCOTUS at least pretends to follow the document and does in many cases– just not necessarily the ones people argue about most.)
If your interpretation about whether it is or is not “government” hinges on whether SCOTUS sticks to it, our difference may be whether the degree of lapse in following it is sufficient to make it “not government”. But my impression is Brandon thinks it’s “not government” no matter how faithfully followed. But I’m not sure if I’ve understood your reasoning. Maybe you think it’s “not government” even if followed to the last comma? Can you clarify?
Lucia,
My argument is pretty simple. Where the Constitution actually followed faithfully by the Supreme Court, then the federal government would have substantially diminished powers, both economic and otherwise. The federal government would be limited in many ways that it is not now limited, because, IMO, the intent of the Constitution has been subverted by political interference via the Supreme Court. In my ideal world, the federal government would be completely subservient to the plain words of the Constitution, and any changes in the power of the federal government would only take place via the prescribed amendment process. So in this ideal world, the federal government would in fact be subservient to and much more broadly restrained by the Constitution; the two would be effectively “separate”. I also think this was the intent of those who wrote and adopted the constitution (including the bill of rights amendments).
.
The reality is that “flexible” (AKA ‘living Constitution’) interpretation has led to de facto increases in federal government powers which were never foreseen by the Constitution, based upon the plain meaning of its words. The ‘necessary and proper’ clause and the commerce clause are probably the most blatant means by which federal powers have increased, but they are by no means the only.
.
Were even one the conservative justices to die and be replaced by an Obama appointee, I have not a bit of doubt that the right to bear arms would be quickly ‘interpreted’ by the court to mean something very different from an actual right to bear arms (District of Columbia v. Heller, was 5-4 after all); efforts to confiscate all guns would soon be underway wherever a majority of elected representatives, local, state, or federal, passed a confiscation law. The court has become a political tool used to change the constitution, bypassing the need for amendment.
.
Therefore, as far as I can see, the Constitution has ceased to be an effective control on federal power. The political process, via the Supreme Court, has changed the nature of US government to one where bare majorities can, over time, effectively implement constitutional changes that would never be possible absent constitutional amendment… where the Constitution actually followed by the court. The (sad) reality is that the Constitution has become subservient to and effectively subsumed by the federal government, and so is now “part of the federal government” as you suggest.
.
The Constitution is an impediment for those who believe simple majorities should have have political control over most everything. This is seems to be the position of most ‘progressives’, and even some who consider themselves conservatives (like Justice Roberts). In every instance where a case involving restrictions on government power comes before the court (Kelo V New London is the clearest case), you can count on the ‘progressives’ to vote as a block for increasing government power, reducing individual freedom and liberties. I have no doubt that these justices believe subverting the plain meaning of the Constitution is the morally right thing to do, because the Constitution is slowing ‘social progress’. It’s just ends-justify-means as far as I can tell.
.
On a more philosophical level, I think there are some who believe people have “inalienable rights” which are independent of the form of government, and independent of the views of the majority. There are others who consider all personal rights and liberties to be conditional upon circumstance, and only granted/allowed by the will of the majority. The later view has been in ascendance for at least a century, if not longer.
Brandon
Me too. That’s why I interpret what the justices mean by “government” to conform to the dictionary definition I pointed out.
lucia, that was pretty bad of you. You just took that sentence out of context in a way which greatly alters its apparent meaning. I suppose it’s fine to consistently not respond to the point a person is making, but doing so while misrepresenting what they say in such an obvious way is… I don’t know.
If you don’t want to have a discussion, just don’t have it. Don’t do things like that.
Brandon,
Previous to your comment, I’d already explained that my view on interpreting the word was to interpret it the way the users were using it. You seem to have ignored that in your paragraph.
I’m doing other things. You repeat you think what I claim is “silly”. Well, I think many of the things you are writing are silly. It’s also clear we are not going to agree. Moreover, this is not important enough to go on about. So I’m going to do the other things I am doing rather than re-explain what I already wrote.
I now see there was some further movement on this topic worthy of further discussion.
Brandon writes
Any resources they like, just not ones provided by the Law Society. The issue is with the Law Society providing the discriminatory documents, not the act of will writing which can be as discriminatory as one likes as its personal choice.
In this case its a “private” organisation representing a class of people. And in doing so, they lose their ability to be discriminatory. If Lucia was to put up a Sharia Law will writing procedure then that would be fine because she represents nobody but herself.
In both of your examples, the procedure applies after the fact and so it can apply to innocent people and therefore is fine.
In the case of the Sharia Law, it applies to a future event and therefore definitely means discrimination will be applied.
If somehow “magically” the Challenge DNA test or Challenge Admissibility procedure could only be applied to actual rapists and guilty people, then yes it would endorse those activities.
Posing question by providing tightly wrapped up examples to discuss always tends to drive the argument in the narrow direction chosen, not necessarily in the direction needed.