Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6846)

Bloggingheads 06-28-2011 03:57 PM

Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 

sugarkang 06-28-2011 04:25 PM

Re: Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 
There could be legitimate, secular criticism of Islam, but it's best to keep it out of electoral politics.

Let's shorten that sentence for clarity and make it a principle:
"Legitimate criticism should be kept out of politics."

wat

badhatharry 06-28-2011 08:07 PM

Re: Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 
I find it really irritating when people talk about stuff and only describe the controversy. Michael talks about the people who are trying to bann Sharia law in their state as simply goofy, Islam averse and latently hostile . But neither of them goes into any description of the anti-sharia laws. Why are the laws being proposed bad law? They didn't even discuss why Sharia shouldn't be banned.

Let's get some facts and quit pointing fingers. Would that be too hard?

And Justin's analysis for the reason this is coming to the forefront is that the floodgates which were held back by Bush's tolerance for Islam have broken or are, at least, leaking.

carkrueger 06-28-2011 09:06 PM

Re: Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 
Top ten reasons why sharia is bad for all societies

piscivorous 06-28-2011 09:28 PM

Re: Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 
I'm sure Abu Noor Al-Irlandee will soon chime in that these are mere translations and unless you read the original Arabic you are not qualified to comment, or something along those lines.

Simon Willard 06-28-2011 09:31 PM

Re: Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 214574)
...neither of them goes into any description of the anti-sharia laws. Why are the laws being proposed bad law? They didn't even discuss why Sharia shouldn't be banned.

Let's get some facts and quit pointing fingers. Would that be too hard?

I agree with this, and I agree with the converse: Can someone explain why there's any threat of sharia happening in the US?

Starwatcher162536 06-28-2011 10:36 PM

Re: Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 
Sharia is when disputes are arbitrated by an imam that is guided by a particular code of conduct that is partially laid out in the Qur'an. Sharia as it is supposed to be practiced is only applicable when both conditions are met; That one party is Muslim and when all parties voluntarily submit to it. It isn't always practiced this way.

The reason many say, myself included, that anti-sharia proposals are just a manifestation of bigotry is the reasoning can be equally applied to proposals banning a party of conflicted individuals from seeking a resolution from a trusted local Priest. Sharia has in places been co-opted by the state for nefarious purpose. The same is true for Christianity. To ban "Sharia" but not seeking to ban "Confession" or other similar practices is only something to be vied for by the stupid, craven, & tribal.

Starwatcher162536 06-28-2011 10:41 PM

Re: Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 
Thanks. I was hoping to hoard a few more links showing just how stupid American Thinker is that were not related to climate change. Now I can show it's just all around stupid!

piscivorous 06-29-2011 12:23 AM

Re: Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 
Yes we all know that 3 Hail Marys is equivalence to losing ones hand, 6 for an eye and 10 for a head.

sugarkang 06-29-2011 12:26 AM

Re: Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 214597)
The reason many say, myself included, that anti-sharia proposals are just a manifestation of bigotry is the reasoning can be equally applied to proposals banning a party of conflicted individuals from seeking a resolution from a trusted local Priest.

This is probably true, but I haven't looked at it closely. But to the extent that any religious group wants to subvert our Bill of Rights, I better see you liberals throw your shoes up in disgust!

Sulla the Dictator 06-29-2011 05:05 AM

Re: Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Willard (Post 214590)
I agree with this, and I agree with the converse: Can someone explain why there's any threat of sharia happening in the US?

There isn't one really. Sharia bubbling in Europe, however, is the final stage of a multicultural tumor. On the other hand, what does it matter? Sharia law is objectionable. If the citizens of Anytown USA want to express their objections to it, why is any free man bothered by it? Is there a virtue in Sharia law that is being obscured by objections to it?

Sulla the Dictator 06-29-2011 05:06 AM

Re: Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 214597)
Sharia is when disputes are arbitrated by an imam that is guided by a particular code of conduct that is partially laid out in the Qur'an. Sharia as it is supposed to be practiced is only applicable when both conditions are met; That one party is Muslim and when all parties voluntarily submit to it. It isn't always practiced this way.

That is a very generous description of Sharia law. Where in the Islamic world would you say that Sharia law is practiced this way?

Sulla the Dictator 06-29-2011 05:24 AM

Re: Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 
Justin Elliot has a lot of opinions on what people are allowed to talk about. What "legitimate" debate is. And surprise, surprise; there is very little "legitimate" about debate outside of the narrow confines of approved left wing positions. At least he doesn't support the persecution of Gert Wilders.

stephanie 06-29-2011 01:13 PM

Re: Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Willard (Post 214590)
I agree with this, and I agree with the converse: Can someone explain why there's any threat of sharia happening in the US?

Whatever happened to the libertarian principle that we should require legislators to justify laws in order to pass them or even permit them to exist? Seems like many on the right are trying so hard to find excuses for these laws.

Here, there has been no showing why we need to ban sharia. There's been no showing that those voting for these laws have an understanding of what they ban or are claiming to ban. The US government cannot enforce religious law, and Muslims aren't in a position to put their law into statute if that weren't the case. If they were, they would also have the political power to vote down the sharia bans.

However, like halakha, sharia applies also also a religious code that observant Muslims will follow (or follow in part, like Jews many Muslims have reasons not to follow some of the more problematic aspects of the law as set forth in scriptures in their private practice). Therefore, it does seem as if banning sharia could be interpreted to go to private conduct, such as the authorization of foods as consistent with sharia. And we have seen evidence that at least some idiots got upset with food companies who made such statements. I posted it here a while ago.

I would agree that there's a problem to the extent that people in insular groups, including but not limited to some Muslim communities. pressure people in ways not permitted by the law, and that it makes sense to try and find ways to avoid this. This is the purpose of the anti-burka laws suggested by some and defended in part on these grounds in France. (I don't think they are a good idea in the US, but we've talked about that at length here.) The sharia bans do nothing to address this real problem. They are either just a political game, which is my suspicion, or a way of expressing an animus, which is not a permissible purpose for the law. See Romer v. Evans. The latter is objectionable largely because I think it is likely to stand in the way of our usual Americanization process for immigrants and probably cause people to cling to more radical or fundamentalist ideas of Islam more than they otherwise would, as well as to take longer to feel primarily American.

harkin 06-29-2011 01:34 PM

Re: Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 
Just because forced marriages and honor killings happen in Norway, the UK and France (oh yeah, Germany too!) is no reason to suspect they could ever happen here, oh wait they have.

Gotta believe that most muslim women have no problem with being slapped, beaten or worse for the sharia crime of 'high-handedness'. I mean, who hasn't wanted to pour gas on one's uppity sister and set her alight?

And the msm's complicity in creeping sharia by failing to disclose the religion of perpetrators of sharia-enforcement crimes or by watering down the influence of religion on terrorists (Maj Hasan etc) is despicable.

Everyone take Stepanie's caution to heart, criticizing islam to the point of protecting its victims is really just a way to express animus. So don't object or even draw pictures of the prophet (peace be upon him and death to anyone who disagrees) because to do so slows americanization.....lol.

When is BhTV going to schedule Douglas Murray?

piscivorous 06-29-2011 01:51 PM

Re: Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 
I like parts of it you know where 1 woman is = 1/2 a man. At least a slave was worth 3/5ths.

stephanie 06-29-2011 01:52 PM

Re: Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by harkin (Post 214687)
Just because forced marriages and honor killings happen in Norway, the UK and France (oh yeah, Germany too!) is no reason to suspect they could ever happen here, oh wait they have.

Does banning sharia law stop these things? No, it does not.

Are these things legal in the US? No, they are not.

Should we prosecute those who do those things? We do and we should. In fact, if you didn't want so badly to turn this into a political wedge issue and really wanted to address existing problems, you'd get lots of agreement. But we can't have that! That wouldn't support your real goals, would it?

If there weren't actual negative effects that could result from such pointless and ill-intentioned laws, this would bother me less.

Nice of you to illustrate for us the dishonesty behind the sharia bans, though. Being against a ban that either has no effect (if it merely says that religious law is not to be made law in the US) or which bans religious practice (the broader reading, since sharia goes to all kinds of things, like food laws) is being twisted into somehow being in favor of abusive practices that of course we don't support.

Legislation as "when did you stop beating your wife." Ah, such high-minded debate.

opposable_crumbs 06-29-2011 02:44 PM

Re: Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 
Quote:

Just because forced marriages and honor killings happen in Norway, the UK and France (oh yeah, Germany too!) is no reason to suspect they could ever happen here, oh wait they have.
All the more reason to incorporate Sharia law, as they are illegal under both Sharia and Norway's laws.

opposable_crumbs 06-29-2011 02:52 PM

Re: Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 
I think it says more about why The America Thinker, is bad for all American thinkers.

DenvilleSteve 06-29-2011 03:06 PM

what about adoption by gay married couples?
 
Does being married provide a couple with any additional legal standing to be accepted as a suitable family for adoption? I would think that it would and think the republicans should focus on "protecting the children" as the reason to oppose gay marriage.

badhatharry 06-29-2011 03:12 PM

Re: Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 214597)
Sharia is when disputes are arbitrated by an imam that is guided by a particular code of conduct that is partially laid out in the Qur'an. Sharia as it is supposed to be practiced is only applicable when both conditions are met; That one party is Muslim and when all parties voluntarily submit to it. It isn't always practiced this way.

The reason many say, myself included, that anti-sharia proposals are just a manifestation of bigotry is the reasoning can be equally applied to proposals banning a party of conflicted individuals from seeking a resolution from a trusted local Priest. Sharia has in places been co-opted by the state for nefarious purpose. The same is true for Christianity. To ban "Sharia" but not seeking to ban "Confession" or other similar practices is only something to be vied for by the stupid, craven, & tribal.

Thanks Starwatcher. Good information.

I just wonder if your analogy holds up. Confession to my knowledge doen't involve two parties unless you think God can be considered a party. Also, doesn't sharia impose real world punishment whereas penance is usually in the form of hail marys and our fathers?

However, upon further thought, I imagine there are some priests who engage in arbitration. Again I wonder if there are any real world punishments involved as I think there are in sharia law.

badhatharry 06-29-2011 03:24 PM

Re: Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Willard (Post 214590)
I agree with this, and I agree with the converse: Can someone explain why there's any threat of sharia happening in the US?

That, too.

badhatharry 06-29-2011 03:35 PM

Re: Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 
This is kind of interesting and sheds a little light.

Quote:

Republican state Rep. Rex Duncan authored State Question 775, also known as the “Save our State” constitutional amendment. The issue reportedly arose after a Muslim woman in New Jersey went to a family court requesting a restraining order against her abusive spouse. The woman’s request was denied after the judge ruled that the husband had been rightfully abiding by his Muslim beliefs regarding spousal duties. Though the judge’s controversial decision was later overruled by an appellate court, the case drew a firestorm of attention, including the attention of voters in Oklahoma.
But it looks like in the end the good old US appellate system saved the day.
USA!USA!

badhatharry 06-29-2011 03:45 PM

Re: what about adoption by gay married couples?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve (Post 214704)
Does being married provide a couple with any additional legal standing to be accepted as a suitable family for adoption? I would think that it would and think the republicans should focus on "protecting the children" as the reason to oppose gay marriage.

How's the weather out there in left field, Steve?

stephanie 06-29-2011 04:01 PM

Re: Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 214597)
Sharia is when disputes are arbitrated by an imam that is guided by a particular code of conduct that is partially laid out in the Qur'an.

This isn't accurate. Sharia is simply the Muslim version of halakha (what Christians often call Jewish law, although "law" isn't necessarily the correct term). It includes the various rules and guidelines that Muslims who follow it understand their conduct to be governed by. This includes rules that are akin to a criminal code (as you also find in the Torah) and rules that relate more to private conduct (food laws, requirements relating to prayer, holy days, alms giving, so on).

Muslims differ with respect to how to interpret and follow these laws and also which of them could and should properly be enforced by an Islamic government. Obviously, in the US, we understand that religion cannot be enforced by law, so there's no genuine concern about sharia being enforced by the government.

Part of what the people going on about sharia are playing on, however, is the difference between the Christian understanding of law and government and what religious "law" is, which tends to be negative, and the Islamic understanding, which is more similar to Judaism. Another huge difference, obviously, is that Christians have gone through the whole argument about whether the state should be religious or not, and generally have decided not. This is not always so recognized when we are talking about other issues, of course, or other countries, but I'm happy to accept this if we are all liberals on the issue now. Jews, of course, had this recognition forced upon them, historically. Islam hasn't gone through that debate to the extent that we'd like, and Islamic-majority countries tend to lack the kind of first amendment type understanding of the separation of mosque and state that Americans have. However, in the US obviously we do have that understanding, and no one is suggesting that we give it up.

What you are talking about, the arbitration, isn't so much what sharia law is as a really limited example of practices that have been proposed in other countries that people who want to come up with some reason that we should ban sharia have raised as what we are protecting against. This is silly. If we don't want to have these kinds of arbitrations, there are already laws protecting us -- arbitration has to have certain protections for due process and so on and the reasons to be skeptical of these kinds of practices relate to the fear that those protections wouldn't be met.

More significantly, we'd have to set up such systems, so it makes more sense to debate the issue in connection with that effort (unlikely to be spearheaded in Oklahoma, but who knows). But if we did that, we couldn't get into a big argument about "sharia: pro or con" which then becomes "stoning women, pro or con."

Again, it seems obvious to me that the people trying to ban sharia law are not working from a position of good faith. This could be because, as you say, they are "just a manifestation of bigotry." Just as likely, they are a cynical political strategy by people who just don't care much about bigotry but are happy to encourage it and create a greater wedge between Islam and American values in the minds of many. I think that might be even worse.

DenvilleSteve 06-29-2011 04:07 PM

Re: what about adoption by gay married couples?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 214712)
How's the weather out there in left field, Steve?

I don't follow. Do you think gay adoption is OK? Should the public focus on the issue and decide whether it should be allowed or not? I think it is much more important that gay marriage. And I think the visceral opposition people have to gay marriage is because they don't think gays should be raising children.

badhatharry 06-29-2011 05:09 PM

Re: what about adoption by gay married couples?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve (Post 214716)
I don't follow. Do you think gay adoption is OK? Should the public focus on the issue and decide whether it should be allowed or not? I think it is much more important that gay marriage. And I think the visceral opposition people have to gay marriage is because they don't think gays should be raising children.

sorry. I was focused on the sharia part of the diavlog and completely forget that they had discussed gay marriage.

As far as gay adoption or gay marriage or gay rights...I think that ship has sailed, right or wrong. we should accept that these things are going to be part of America from now on or be forever frustrated.

DenvilleSteve 06-29-2011 07:03 PM

Re: what about adoption by gay married couples?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 214722)
... As far as gay adoption or gay marriage or gay rights...I think that ship has sailed, right or wrong. we should accept that these things are going to be part of America from now on or be forever frustrated.

or push for more states rights so that what happens in NYC stays in NYC. Obama is still on the fence on GM. That means that substantial pushback on the issue exists in the country. While GM has been debated repeatedly, I have yet to hear anything on GA. Esp adoption by male gay couples ( MGCs ).

sugarkang 06-29-2011 07:17 PM

Re: what about adoption by gay married couples?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 214722)
As far as gay adoption or gay marriage or gay rights...I think that ship has sailed, right or wrong. we should accept that these things are going to be part of America from now on or be forever frustrated.

Harry, you dirty liberal.

badhatharry 06-29-2011 09:10 PM

Re: what about adoption by gay married couples?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve (Post 214734)
or push for more states rights so that what happens in NYC stays in NYC. Obama is still on the fence on GM. That means that substantial pushback on the issue exists in the country. While GM has been debated repeatedly, I have yet to hear anything on GA. Esp adoption by male gay couples ( MGCs ).

Just a little logistics question...in your scenario would a gay marriage recognized in NYC be recognized in Georgia, say if the couple moved?

This is sort of a nightmare, really. It's akin to the situation when a state legalizes or decriminalizes drugs but the federal government still sees drug use as illegal

Diane1976 06-29-2011 09:35 PM

Re: Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 214684)
Whatever happened to the libertarian principle that we should require legislators to justify laws in order to pass them or even permit them to exist? Seems like many on the right are trying so hard to find excuses for these laws.....

I would agree that there's a problem to the extent that people in insular groups, including but not limited to some Muslim communities pressure people in ways not permitted by the law, and that it makes sense to try and find ways to avoid this. This is the purpose of the anti-burka laws suggested by some and defended in part on these grounds in France.....

I agree with this whole post. There are interesting differences in the sharia debate in US and other countries (not just France). There are people everywhere who fear the threat of Muslims taking over the world and imposing their beliefs on others, but that angle is what seems most emphasized in the US. In other countries there's more emphasis on the liberal/feminist/secular arguments against any religious group imposing its backward beliefs on its own people. That's a lot of what's behind burka bans and objections to "faith based arbitration" involving any religion because they all seem unfair to women, but especially Muslims. That also reflects more secularism and less belief in unfettered free speech in other countries. The right answer might be somewhere in between.

sugarkang 06-29-2011 09:59 PM

Re: Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 214684)
Whatever happened to the libertarian principle that we should require legislators to justify laws in order to pass them or even permit them to exist? Seems like many on the right are trying so hard to find excuses for these laws.

1. There is no libertarian principle to require legislators to justify laws. Legislators can pass whatever they want provided they have enough votes.

2. You probably misunderstood what I said about government entities having to justify their existence. That's my opinion on what should happen, but probably won't happen. That's not libertarian, per se. That's just me.

3. Muslims have freedom of religion, period. They have that freedom no more and no less than any other religious followers in our country. If you are alleging some kind of hypocrisy on my part, I'd suggest you try again. I've already mentioned it in another post that bans on Sharia law are likely a pretext to justify Islamophobia. However, I tend to keep my mouth shut about things that I don't know about. But in case I wasn't fucking clear, Muslims who are U.S. citizens deserve all the rights and protections that citizenship affords them. No exceptions.

I'm going to decrease my responses to these troll attempts. There's no reason to have an exchange with unreasonable people. I've demonstrated quite clearly that I'm able to have civil discussions with people on all sides of our political spectrum. If there are some of you have been unable to do so with me, well, at least we know it has nothing to do with ideology. And if you're sure that it's because I'm an insufferable prick, I'm pretty okay with that.

Now, I have shit to do.

stephanie 06-30-2011 12:39 PM

Re: Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 214747)
If you are alleging some kind of hypocrisy on my part, I'd suggest you try again.

I wasn't. Really, it's not all about you. You haven't supported sharia bans around here, that I've noticed, or even done the "hmm, we need a serious discussion of why they might be necessary" nonsense.

I am alleging hypocrisy (political cynicism and bad faith, really) on the part of people who ordinarily go on and on about government being too large, but who respond to sharia bans by insisting that, well, they should be assumed to be reasonable until demonstrated otherwise or with "what's the harm of another law" type arguments.

look 06-30-2011 02:46 PM

Re: Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 214801)
I wasn't. Really, it's not all about you. You haven't supported sharia bans around here, that I've noticed, or even done the "hmm, we need a serious discussion of why they might be necessary" nonsense.

I am alleging hypocrisy (political cynicism and bad faith, really) on the part of people who ordinarily go on and on about government being too large, but who respond to sharia bans by insisting that, well, they should be assumed to be reasonable until demonstrated otherwise or with "what's the harm of another law" type arguments.

Now, stephanie, we don't all have that terrible-swift-sword blinding insight that you have. Please be patient with us.

stephanie 06-30-2011 03:07 PM

Re: Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by look (Post 214824)
Now, stephanie, we don't all have that terrible-swift-sword blinding insight that you have. Please be patient with us.

Maybe we can have an oh-so-fake-serious discussion of whether to reinstute segregation next. I'm sure if some Republican pol decided that would be an effective way to stir up support there'd be people on this board insisting that was an important conversation to have.

look 06-30-2011 03:14 PM

Re: Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 214834)
Maybe we can have an oh-so-fake-serious discussion of whether to reinstute segregation next. I'm sure if some Republican pol decided that would be an effective way to stir up support there'd be people on this board insisting that was an important conversation to have.

Instead we could talk about how instituting voter ID constitutes the reestablishment of Jim Crow.

AemJeff 06-30-2011 03:30 PM

Re: Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by look (Post 214836)
Instead we could talk about how instituting voter ID constitutes the reestablishment of Jim Crow.

Or we could start by explaining how asserting a straw-man position that your interlocutors neither hold, nor claim to have held, is an example of bad faith.

look 06-30-2011 03:33 PM

Re: Values Added: Moral Revolutions (Justin Elliot & Michael Tracey)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 214842)
Or we could start by explaining how asserting a straw-man position that your interlocutors neither hold, nor claim to have held, is an example of bad faith.

Jeff! :)


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.