Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-16-2011, 11:18 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-17-2011, 12:54 AM
chamblee54 chamblee54 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 319
Default Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)

What is the "places" where we want to see a "liberal, tolerant, civil" society emerge? The word "liberal" is an insult in American politics.
If we can't have this sort of government here, why would be demand that other countries have one?
chamblee54
__________________
Chamblee54
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-17-2011, 02:40 PM
Hal Morris Hal Morris is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 85
Default Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)

Quote:
Originally Posted by chamblee54 View Post
What is the "places" where we want to see a "liberal, tolerant, civil" society emerge? The word "liberal" is an insult in American politics.
If we can't have this sort of government here, why would be demand that other countries have one?
chamblee54
Some almost wholly random comments:

Are you being completely ironic or what? By the way, what a remarkably artistic and interesting web site you have, chamblee54, no kidding! Still, I have no idea whether you think "liberal" is an insult or not. It certainly is a source of confusion, as are almost all the most popular political words. Von Mises among others wanted to reclaim "liberalism" (ala John Stuart Mill) for his belief system, and Von Mises' axiom driven system would certainly have made Edmund Burke gag.

Did you know the party of Jefferson were often referred to as "Democratic Republicans"?

And in Lincoln's time, some of the Democrats (at least half of whom were slaveocrats) resented the misappropriation of the name "Whig" by their principal political opponents (try as I have, I cannot imagine my heart beating faster when I hear the word "Whig" - see article http://jmisc.net/whigs.htm, or anyone declaring "I belong to the Whig wing of the Whig party!")
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-17-2011, 01:00 AM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Saudi spare oil production capacity

Josh's comment here

Josh; It's doubtful that Saudi has anywhere near the spare capacity you think they do. Gahwar, Saudi's crown jewel which has historically produced half of all Saudi oil and the world's most prolific oil field ever is probably declining. While technically true Saudi, and possibly the UAE, could temporary increase the rate of extraction of oil through overproducing their fields through methods such as "Waterflooding" no one is going to since overproducing a field decreases the total cumulative production that field would have. Even if they did it's difficult to see how this could affect price as the raising of production would lead to the "Water Cut" soaring and neither Saudi nor the UAE have any spare water-oil separation facilities so all that would result is a bunch of crude, which would probably have to high a water content to be shipped in any appreciable quantity, sitting around in the middle of a dessert unused.

From your talk I'm guessing oil is periphery to your expertise Josh. I'm not saying you have not come across reports that disagree with my assertions above but what you should know is that when you look behind those numbers you only find unverifiable numbers originating from the Saudi state itself. Saudi stopped giving field-by-field numbers decades ago. The only reason agencies such as the EIA (or is it IEA?) use these Saudi supplied numbers is because of the remarkable "Iron Curtain" the Saudis have put up in order to prevent other contradicting data from coming out.

I'm also not saying that prices will not drop. Estimating future oil prices is a bit of a fool's errand since predicting future demand is tricky tricky. What I am saying is that if prices do drop it will not be because of anything on the supply side resulting from Saudi Arabia.
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants

Last edited by Starwatcher162536; 07-17-2011 at 01:34 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-18-2011, 06:40 PM
cragger cragger is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 632
Default Re: Saudi spare oil production capacity

You aren't the only one questioning Saudi reserves and capacity. It seems fairly widespread in those who follow the industry to think the Saudis have been overstating things for years.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-19-2011, 06:02 PM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Re: Saudi spare oil production capacity

It's going to be interesting to see how Gahwar's production curve looks like post peak. It was the first supergiant to use water injection during the pre-peak phase and no one is quite sure what ramifications this is going to have. Whatever it is this is going to have huge ramification for the world at large since a number of other super giant fields followed in Gahwar's footsteps and the world has always been overdependent on it's fewest big fields*.

*As of 2008 20% of the world's crude came from it's 14 largest fields. There are about 60,000 fields (maybe... memory has never been sharp)
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-17-2011, 01:44 AM
chamblee54 chamblee54 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 319
Default Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)

1- It was said that Arab/Persian countries use Israel bashing as a way to divert attention from their own shortcomings. What about Israel screaming about Iran to divert attention from the plight of the Palestinians?
2- Mr. Block (I think it was him. I was multi tasking, and not watching.) said that Iran today is not Iraq in 2003. The games that were played to get us to invade Iraq make it difficult to believe these same governments. When you cry wolf, soon you are not believed.
3- Iran has been the winner of our war in Babylon. They no longer have to fear Saddam. They can exert influence in Iraq.
4- There will be no .gif files produced of these four moving lips.
chamblee54
__________________
Chamblee54
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-17-2011, 01:22 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)

Quote:
Originally Posted by chamblee54 View Post
What about Israel screaming about Iran to divert attention from the plight of the Palestinians?
The PLIGHT of the 'Palestinians' (not a real people)? If they had done to any other country what they do to Israel, they would have suffered severe consequences - forcing 1 million people into bomb shelters with rockets, attacking women and children, voting in governments dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Had Mexicans done this to the US, they would have been nuked by now.

Of course, some people can't stand the fact that Jews may finally be able to live in peace at last - no, they have to be attacked an vilified for defending themselves against murderous terrorists.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-18-2011, 12:26 AM
ohreally ohreally is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 666
Default Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
The PLIGHT of the 'Palestinians' (not a real people)?
Oh yes, "A land without a people for a people without a land."

Trust a hasbaranik on duty to recycle the old racist trope.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-18-2011, 09:30 AM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohreally View Post
Oh yes, "A land without a people for a people without a land."

Trust a hasbaranik on duty to recycle the old racist trope.
Those poor 'Palestinians'. Before 1967, they were part of Jordan and Egypt, and no one was even aware of their 'plight' - not even the 'Palestinians' themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-18-2011, 01:01 AM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)

Quote:
The PLIGHT of the 'Palestinians' (not a real people)?
Perhaps you are "American" or "Israeli."

Quote:
Had Mexicans done this to the US, they would have been nuked by now.
The USA has not tortured, assassinated or illegally imprisoned any Mexicans. The USA has not occupied Mexico, demolished Mexican homes as collective punishment, or established Apartheid Settlements on Mexican land.

Quote:
Of course, some people can't stand the fact that Jews may finally be able to live in peace at last - no, they have to be attacked an vilified for defending themselves against murderous terrorists.
Jews live in peace virtually wherever they want Earth, including Iran. Here in North and South America, Jews have flourished everywhere, completely independently of Israel and Zionism. Jews are doing splendidly in Germany, if you haven't noticed. Times change.

Israel does not speak for all Jews, or even the majority of Jews. In fact, the majority of Jews worldwide has chosen NOT to emigrate to the Zionist state. Increasingly, young Jews are rejecting the anachronistic, anti-democratic and exclusionist movement that is Zionism. I hope you care enough about the Jewish people to understand this.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-18-2011, 09:34 AM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Playing with Dangerous Things (Joel Rubin & Josh Block)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
The USA has not tortured, assassinated or illegally imprisoned any Mexicans. The USA has not occupied Mexico, demolished Mexican homes as collective punishment, or established Apartheid Settlements on Mexican land.
Why has the USA not done that? Because Mexicans aren't waging a campaign of terror against the USA. Mexicans are not flooding the country to blow up old men and pregnant women in buses. Mexicans aren't forcing 50 million Americans (1/6 of the population) into bomb shelters with missiles. Mexicans aren't electing governments that don't recognize the USA and want to drive Americans into the sea.

Get it now? BTW, New Mexico, California, and other states won during the Mexican War are "illegal settlements".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
Jews live in peace virtually wherever they want Earth, including Iran.
You're so delusional that it isn't even funny.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
Increasingly, young Jews are rejecting the anachronistic, anti-democratic and exclusionist movement that is Zionism.
Ah, so you're an anti-Zionist.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-18-2011, 02:51 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default One state

Quote:
Ah, so you're an anti-Zionist.
I'm better described as a non-Zionist or a post-Zionist. I was a supporter of a two-state resolution of the conflict until about 2000, when it became apparent that Israel and Palestinians would never agree on the parameters of a new state.

I support the upcoming Palestinian independence vote at the UN however, which I expect will pass overwhelmingly this fall, when virtually every country on the planet, except the US and Israel, sign on to a '67 borders outcome.

Freedom for Palestinians has enormous international support, even including the USA in theory (and in Obama and Bush speeches), but I don't believe it's doable on the ground.

That's why I wholeheartedly wish, pray and work for a bi-national, democratic, secular one-state that encompasses Gaza, the WB, J-lem and all of present-day Israel. This state, however, must be achieved through nonviolent means. It's coming, be patient.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-18-2011, 04:11 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: One state

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
I'm better described as a non-Zionist or a post-Zionist. I was a supporter of a two-state resolution of the conflict until about 2000, when it became apparent that Israel and Palestinians would never agree on the parameters of a new state.
If these two peoples can't agree on the parameters of a new state (mostly because the 'Palestinians' reject generous Israeli offers), what makes you think that throwing them together in one country will work out well? Because it worked out so well in Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Belgium? Multiculturalism is a failure everywhere. Also, Islam is incompatible with democracy, and with a secular state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
This state, however, must be achieved through nonviolent means. It's coming, be patient.
Ever the liberal idealist, eh?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-18-2011, 07:11 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: One state

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post

That's why I wholeheartedly wish, pray and work for a bi-national, democratic, secular one-state that encompasses Gaza, the WB, J-lem and all of present-day Israel. This state, however, must be achieved through nonviolent means. It's coming, be patient.

You have a lot of faith. I think we are going to learn in the coming years, as the 'arab spring' progresses, that democracy does not always produce secularism and human rights.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-18-2011, 10:11 PM
chamblee54 chamblee54 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 319
Default Re: One state

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
You have a lot of faith. I think we are going to learn in the coming years, as the 'arab spring' progresses, that democracy does not always produce secularism and human rights.
Substitute "2012 elections" for "arab spring"
Chamblee54
__________________
Chamblee54
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-18-2011, 10:20 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: One state

Quote:
Originally Posted by chamblee54 View Post
Substitute "2012 elections" for "arab spring"
Chamblee54
Or the 2008 elections. See: TSA gropings.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-19-2011, 12:33 AM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: One state

Quote:
Originally Posted by chamblee54 View Post
Substitute "2012 elections" for "arab spring"
Chamblee54
Equating the solid consensus in American culture in regards to theocracy, with the consensus in Muslim countries, smacks of the nihilism. IMHO
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-19-2011, 12:40 AM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: One state

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
Equating the solid consensus in American culture in regards to theocracy, with the consensus in Muslim countries, smacks of the nihilism. IMHO
I'm not sure what you mean there exactly. They're not exactly the same, but I doubt Hagee would be preferable to an Iranian Mullah as a head of state. The Mullahs have a strategic advantage since they already have their theocracy. I think Jeff Sharlet has shown pretty clearly that that aspiration is alive and well among American evangelicals.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-19-2011, 02:45 AM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: One state

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
I'm not sure what you mean there exactly. They're not exactly the same, but I doubt Hagee would be preferable to an Iranian Mullah as a head of state. The Mullahs have a strategic advantage since they already have their theocracy. I think Jeff Sharlet has shown pretty clearly that that aspiration is alive and well among American evangelicals.
The fact that Christian theocrats exist, and they are not preferable to Muslim theocrats, is not a basis for equating the probabilities of Arab theocracies in the ME with the practical impossibility of a Christian theocracy in America. Paranoia, resulting in seeing a 'Christian theocrat' behind every prayer breakfast, notwithstanding.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-19-2011, 02:48 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: One state

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
... Christian theocrats exist ... a Christian theocracy in America. ... a 'Christian theocrat' behind every prayer breakfast ...
Thank you.

As they say, the first step in conquering a problem is admitting that there is a problem.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-19-2011, 03:03 AM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: One state

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Thank you.

As they say, the first step in conquering a problem is admitting that there is a problem.
Right. And while we're at it, don't forget those Muslim Americans who would replace the constitution with Sharia law if they could.
Oh..wait..that's not a politically correct paranoia is it?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-19-2011, 03:07 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: One state

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
Right. And while we're at it, don't forget those Muslim Americans who would replace the constitution with Sharia law if they could.
First sentence here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
Oh..wait..that's not a politically correct paranoia is it?
Mighty sad that you think that's the worst part about what you just said.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-19-2011, 03:19 AM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: One state

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
First sentence here.



Mighty sad that you think that's the worst part about what you just said.
I'm not sure if this correlates with the riddle that is your last post, but I'll take a stab at it, and I feel like saying this in any case.

I oppose paranoia all around. But if I really, really, with a gun to my head, had to choose one. You can bet it would be any of those politically incorrect ones.

Last edited by whburgess; 07-19-2011 at 03:22 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-19-2011, 02:46 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: One state

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
Right. And while we're at it, don't forget those Muslim Americans who would replace the constitution with Sharia law if they could.
Oh..wait..that's not a politically correct paranoia is it?
I thought your argument about the 2012 comment was that it's silly to think the US will become a theocracy. That's true, although I don't think that was the point the 2012 comment was making. But if it's true and relevant, as I think it is, then it's also true and relevant that it's ridiculous to think there's a chance of the US becoming a Muslim theocracy or rejecting the Constitution in favor of sharia. It's so insane that I don't think that anyone in their right mind could possibly believe it will happen. Thus, the purpose of scare rhetoric about sharia law in place of the Constitution can't be genuine fear of such a thing happening. Pointing this out has nothing to do with "political correctness."
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-19-2011, 02:55 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: One state

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
Thus, the purpose of scare rhetoric about sharia law in place of the Constitution can't be genuine fear of such a thing happening.
No? Tell that to Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, and other victims of Islam.

The presence of large numbers of Muslims is clearly deleterious.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-19-2011, 03:22 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: One state

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
No? Tell that to Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, and other victims of Islam.
Gosh, I didn't know that they suffered due to the replacement of the Constitution by sharia law. Indeed, it seems to me that federal judges and Supreme Court justices have continued to apply the Constitution and not sharia. Seems like someone needs to better communicate this incredible change that apparently just magically happened.

Either that or your post is a complete non-sequitur.

I realize you have a particular topic that you really want to have people argue with you about, but the topic that I was addressing was a different one.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-19-2011, 03:35 PM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: One state

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
Gosh, I didn't know that they suffered due to the replacement of the Constitution by sharia law. Indeed, it seems to me that federal judges and Supreme Court justices have continued to apply the Constitution and not sharia. Seems like someone needs to better communicate this incredible change that apparently just magically happened.

Either that or your post is a complete non-sequitur.

I realize you have a particular topic that you really want to have people argue with you about, but the topic that I was addressing was a different one.
I do love it when the nuts expose your snarky side.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-19-2011, 03:52 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: One state

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
Gosh, I didn't know that they suffered due to the replacement of the Constitution by sharia law.
Well, I guess you learned something, then. These people suffered because individual vigilantes enforced sharia law on their own, and that is why people like Herman Cain resist the spread of Islam and its institutions. In these cases, it was effectively sharia law that was enforced, and not the constitutional protections afforded to free speech.

To argue that this is not sharia law triumphing over liberal democracy, is almost as foolish as saying that in the post-Reconstruction South, white supremacy backed by intimidation and vigilante action did not triumph over the constitutional protections granted to blacks, because nominally, these constitutional protections continued to be upheld.

But then again, if you believe that Islam is a religion of peace, you might as well believe this too.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-19-2011, 04:47 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: One state

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
... and that is why people like Herman Cain resist the spread of Islam and its institutions.
Today is the day I withdraw my support for Herman Cain. It's one thing to be suspicious, but it's another thing to deny rights. It's a shame because I like him for a lot of other reasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
If Israel is a " liberal democracy" then so was Jim Crow Alabama and Apartheid South Africa.
Speaking of South Africa, it gives a bit of insight into what happens when liberal optimists engage in social engineering. It might be worth it in the end, but it's hardly the slam dunk that people think.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.

Last edited by sugarkang; 07-19-2011 at 05:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-19-2011, 05:16 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: One state

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Today is the day I withdraw my support for Herman Cain. It's one thing to be suspicious, but it's another thing to deny rights. It's a shame because I like him for a lot of other reasons.
I think Herman Cain's comments here are shameful.

I find his paranoia shameful because Muslims make up less then 1% of the US population.

I find paranoia of christian theocrats shameful because they probably make up about the same percentage of the population.

However, I have little doubt of the possibility that a majority of Muslims in many Muslim majority countries are theocrats.

I wonder what are the views of a majority of Muslim Americans re. the Constitution vs. Sharia?
I recognize the danger in asking this question.
It's dangerous because the answer may not be pretty while the answer is as politically irrelevant as christian theocrats are. And the demagoguery re. Muslim theocrats can be just as disgusting as that re. christian theocrats.

But is it a relevant question in any other sense? What do you think?
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-19-2011, 05:48 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: One state

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
I think Herman Cain's comments here are shameful.
...
I wonder what are the views of a majority of Muslim Americans re. the Constitution vs. Sharia?
...
But is it a relevant question in any other sense? What do you think?
Things have been getting more adult around here recently, so, we might be able to have a reasonable discussion. I've mentioned it before, but, like you, apple, Herman Cain, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, I'm also not blind to Muslim extremism.

I think we ought to start with what is permissible and not permissible. A lot of the problems stem from a misunderstanding of law. We all have constitutional rights, but people are less aware that those rights can even conflict with each other. For example, we're guaranteed the freedom from discrimination, but we also have freedom of association under Boys Scouts of America v. Dale. So, if one were to think about that for a second, that means that I can form groups with whoever I want, but I'm not allowed to discriminate against certain people from joining my group. That's flat out contradictory! And that's the law of the land and we do the best to balance one against the other; there are no absolutes.

So, in the case of mosque building, Cain is just flat out wrong; I don't know why he doesn't have a lawyer to advise him on these matters. Still, every U.S. citizen is entitled to believe in whatever they want, stupid or smart, good or evil, true or false, as long as one doesn't infringe on someone else's rights. Basic John Locke, selfish libertarian. And in case anyone missed it, religious freedom is specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights as we all know.

Now, there are some common law cases that might be used for the purpose of keeping mosques out of a neighborhood. There are some old property law cases that allow for a community to "preserve the character of their neighborhood" aka "keep blacks out." I've forgotten the exact language since it's been a while since I've looked at those cases, so I don't know if they're still good.

As far as keeping Sharia law out, any state can enact any law they want as long as it doesn't infringe on constitutional rights. We're just going to have to wait and see what happens. I'm sure some states will overstep and they'll reach the Supremes. Get ready for some more 5-4 decisions.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-19-2011, 06:01 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: One state

I guess, this is my subjective nature but when I think about these kinds of questions, I think about the actual Muslim people I know IRL. In that instance, they're more balanced than many of the Christians I know IRL.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-19-2011, 06:02 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: One state

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
I guess, this is my subjective nature but when I think about these kinds of questions, I think about the actual Muslim people I know IRL. In that instance, they're more balanced than many of the Christians I know IRL.
What state do you live in? All the Christians and the Muslims I know are all reasonable. And I make fun of them in Gran Torino fashion.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-19-2011, 06:26 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: One state

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
What state do you live in? All the Christians and the Muslims I know are all reasonable. And I make fun of them in Gran Torino fashion.
Why yes, youse liberterrarians tend to imagine that your bubble applies universally.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-19-2011, 06:36 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: One state

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
What state do you live in? All the Christians and the Muslims I know are all reasonable. And I make fun of them in Gran Torino fashion.
I live in Illinois. I have some friends who attend some of the storefront churches, and have witnessed sermons that would make Jeremiah Wright blush.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-19-2011, 07:22 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: One state

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
I live in Illinois. I have some friends who attend some of the storefront churches, and have witnessed sermons that would make Jeremiah Wright blush.
I live in IL too, but all the Christians and Muslims I personally know around here are reasonable. Or, well, reasonable-ish.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-19-2011, 07:38 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: One state

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
I live in IL too, but all the Christians and Muslims I personally know around here are reasonable. Or, well, reasonable-ish.
Don't get me wrong, most are for me too. Just when I think of the out there ones I know, they're almost all Christians.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-19-2011, 06:27 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: One state

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
I've mentioned it before, but, like you, apple, Herman Cain, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, I'm also not blind to Muslim extremism.
I think everyone, including Americans on the left, are not completely blind to Muslim extremism.

My question is, do most American Muslims believe Sharia law should replace the constitution if America was majority Muslim. And more specifically, is this a relevant question since a Muslim majority in the US isn't likely for the forseeable future?

Throughout our history, we've had 80+ majority of Christians. We've never been a theocracy or even close. Our founders came here to escape theocracies. We are taught this in school. I was raised in the most right wing fundamentalist christian home some here could imagine. I was taught freedom of religion as a first principle of this country, and we were founded by people escaping theocracies. I know a lot of Christians and they all love the bill of rights and the constitution. History has proven the nature of the Christian religion in America.

My question is whether or not Muslim Americans feel the same way and does it matter? I know just asking this question has a big downside. Such a big downside that asking it on television would be hugely irresponsible, even loathsome. But I think its a question we can discuss here among reasonable people.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-19-2011, 06:50 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: One state

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
My question is, do most American Muslims believe Sharia law should replace the constitution if America was majority Muslim. And more specifically, is this a relevant question since a Muslim majority in the US isn't likely for the forseeable future?
It's a good question, I think. And personally, I think it should be part of the standard citizenship test to run through the Bill of Rights and really test a person's tolerance under that. It's stupid to ask generic questions about American history that immigrants don't give a shit about.

People that think that Sharia law supersedes the Constitution shouldn't be granted citizenship, and IMO, even permanent residence. Now, if they lie on their applications, there's nothing we can do about it. But it should still be a part of the application.

Quote:
My question is whether or not Muslim Americans feel the same way and does it matter? I know just asking this question has a big downside. Such a big downside that asking it on television would be hugely irresponsible, even loathsome. But I think its a question we can discuss here among reasonable people.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask these questions. People have fears. Sometimes people have fears that they themselves know to be irrational. But the last thing anyone should do is start pointing fingers and call them racists, xenophobes, homophobes, etc. We need a PEW poll.

Did you watch the Anti-Americanism diavlog? I don't think they get into American Muslim attitudes, but it's illustrative of this being a complicated issue. And then, there's a matter of opinions changing over time, as well.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:52 PM.


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