A thread about nothing at all....

[mikeyw64]

The same argument goes for any religion.

Take Christianity as a good example, ie a Top Level Religion (or TLR) in the same way as Islam is or Judaism is

look at the differences in doctrine between even the big players (ie the Anglicans & the Catholics) and thats before you even start going down the road of Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses, Baptists, Orthodox Greeks etc etc

NB Islam has the same basic as Judaism, "That which is necessary makes the forbidden permissible." otherwise known as the Law of Necessity under Islam

I do not disagree with you regarding how things are. But I do question whether or not a 'sub group' that has given up one or more tenants of something based entirely on dogma and rules can still be considered a member of the original group. So are these people really Muslim but a different sub- group or are they simply in violation of a very significant rules (or rules) and therefore actually not Muslim at all but people claiming to be so?

I am really very ignorant of Islam but as far as I know, the consumption of alcohol, as well as pig products and several (many?) other things are strictly forbidden and further, there is no allowance for any circumstances that would allow it. That is the safety valve in, say Judaism, something about a situation being 'life or death' allowing a rule to be suspended. Again, pretty ignorant of Judiasm too but given my poor understanding, if a Muslim and Jewish person were isolated and trapped in, say, some kind of spare, and the only food was bacon, the Jew could, in order to avoid certain death, eat bacon only as long as needed while the Muslim must avoid it even it it results in death. Applied to alcohol, there is no tolerance or allowance.

Brian

[mikeyw64]

Not strictly true as Islam has as many (if not more)  sub branches as Christianity.

(some ) Turkish Muslims for example are free to drink alcohol  whilst others discourage rather than prohibit.

On the other hand Black Pudding is a definite nono , not only being a pork product but being made of blood

Interesting factoid I just discovered, The Alevi Muslims in Turkey (the group who consider alcohol halal [or allowed)] ) consider rabbit haram(or  forbidden) unlike the wider Islamic world

Go figure

[B.D.F.]

Excellent! Just looked and found this: "Allah does not require from a soul more than what it can bear". Followed by a long and detailed description of that 'escape clause' written into the contract (the imaginary contract between the followers and, well, Allah I guess).

Thanks for that Mike, the original information I got was, believe it or not, from a conversation with a Rabbi and simply took it as accurate. But apparently there is that 'safety valve' in Islam as there sometimes is in other, very strict, religions.

It has always been difficult to learn much about Islam here, at least in my part of the US, as it is pretty rare and even passing by the occasional Muslim, that person is usually not familiar enough with Islam (which is true of almost all religions' members) to educate the ignorant. And I have never even seen an Imam as far as I know. Finally, the attitude in the US is.... let us just say, not conducive to assisting people like me, ignorant in this area, to become any more enlightened. So again, thanks for that input because knowledge is the absolute best way to address ignorance. Although it is easier, and often encouraged by society, to replace any learning with hatred. I find with a little effort the hatred can be kept and still learn something. 

Brian

The same argument goes for any religion.

Take Christianity as a good example, ie a Top Level Religion (or TLR) in the same way as Islam is or Judaism is

look at the differences in doctrine between even the big players (ie the Anglicans & the Catholics) and thats before you even start going down the road of Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses, Baptists, Orthodox Greeks etc etc

NB Islam has the same basic as Judaism, "That which is necessary makes the forbidden permissible." otherwise known as the Law of Necessity under Islam

[mikeyw64]

A lot does depend on where you live

For example Bolton (where I live) has a Muslim population of 11.7% (compared to 5% for the UK as a whole) and the part I live in is probably higher than that again.


Mind you Bolton also has more Jedi Knights than Satanists (698 to 1)


http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/10110940.Census_reveals_town___s_religious_diversity/

Excellent! Just looked and found this: "Allah does not require from a soul more than what it can bear". Followed by a long and detailed description of that 'escape clause' written into the contract (the imaginary contract between the followers and, well, Allah I guess).

Thanks for that Mike, the original information I got was, believe it or not, from a conversation with a Rabbi and simply took it as accurate. But apparently there is that 'safety valve' in Islam as there sometimes is in other, very strict, religions.

It has always been difficult to learn much about Islam here, at least in my part of the US, as it is pretty rare and even passing by the occasional Muslim, that person is usually not familiar enough with Islam (which is true of almost all religions' members) to educate the ignorant. And I have never even seen an Imam as far as I know. Finally, the attitude in the US is.... let us just say, not conducive to assisting people like me, ignorant in this area, to become any more enlightened. So again, thanks for that input because knowledge is the absolute best way to address ignorance. Although it is easier, and often encouraged by society, to replace any learning with hatred. I find with a little effort the hatred can be kept and still learn something. 

Brian

[B.D.F.]

Both of those stats. are impressive to me as an American: almost 12% in your community and 5% overall of the population is Muslim. Just looked and the US Muslim population is shown by several sources to be 0.9%. And where I live I suspect it is approaching zero so my chances of running into a learned Muslim are low. I did go to school with a few Muslims from the Middle East, and I did chat with them about Islam but found just like most religions, those practicing them are far more concerned with 'following procedure' than understanding the structure of that religion.

Brian

A lot does depend on where you live

For example Bolton (where I live) has a Muslim population of 11.7% (compared to 5% for the UK as a whole) and the part I live in is probably higher than that again.


Mind you Bolton also has more Jedi Knights than Satanists (698 to 1)


http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/10110940.Census_reveals_town___s_religious_diversity/

[just gone]

Brian

Brian

Can't sleep?

[B.D.F.]

Nah, I am on Mike's time so we can point / counterpoint faster. I wonder if he knows the line "Mike, you ignorant slut...."?

 

Yeah, stress is a killer. On the other hand, I picked up some new reading glasses and I have to say that I am finding all of you people just a bit sharper, more focused and are able to type faster than you could just this morning.    

Brian

Can't sleep?

[B.D.F.]

http://nypost.com/2017/07/30/desnudas-have-gone-wild-in-times-square/

Well, I did not see this one coming. Apparently it is a 'thing' in NYC. Kinda' funny 100- odd miles away from NYC, probably not nearly as amusing up close and personal.

My youngest son commutes daily from northern VA. to 'The Belly of the Beast', Washington, DC. Lots of homeless people (or whatever those 'huddled masses' on the streets are) and they can be quite annoying. Of course they have every right to be there, under the Constitution, all of our laws and customs, at least as far as I know, but a small minority are belligerent, aggressive and cross the line of 'acceptable behavior' in my opinion in their interactions with other people.

Things such as this bother me because I cannot see any solution. Or at least not any solution that would not cause more problems, violate our very foundation of laws, or similar. Put simply, no solution that would work given the bigger picture.

But still, nothing exceeds like excess, and these 'Desnudas' are apparently another, fairly recent facet of the excess that makes NYC so..... well, make NYC, NYC. As long as one does not have to live or work there, fascinating places to visit and see things I could not have envisioned or thought of. And I have an active imagination. 

Brian

[Rhino]

http://nypost.com/2017/07/30/desnudas-have-gone-wild-in-times-square/

Well, I did not see this one coming. Apparently it is a 'thing' in NYC. Kinda' funny 100- odd miles away from NYC, probably not nearly as amusing up close and personal.

My youngest son commutes daily from northern VA. to 'The Belly of the Beast', Washington, DC. Lots of homeless people (or whatever those 'huddled masses' on the streets are) and they can be quite annoying. Of course they have every right to be there, under the Constitution, all of our laws and customs, at least as far as I know, but a small minority are belligerent, aggressive and cross the line of 'acceptable behavior' in my opinion in their interactions with other people.

Things such as this bother me because I cannot see any solution. Or at least not any solution that would not cause more problems, violate our very foundation of laws, or similar. Put simply, no solution that would work given the bigger picture.

But still, nothing exceeds like excess, and these 'Desnudas' are apparently another, fairly recent facet of the excess that makes NYC so..... well, make NYC, NYC. As long as one does not have to live or work there, fascinating places to visit and see things I could not have envisioned or thought of. And I have an active imagination. 

Brian

The older I get, the farther I want to be from population centers.

[VirginiaJim]

+1

[gPink]

Left coast moving east?

[maxtog]

Things such as this bother me because I cannot see any solution. Or at least not any solution that would not cause more problems

Quote from article:

A law-enforcement source shrugged that the officers’ hands were tied since most of the costumed panhandlers are illegal — and under the de Blasio administration, it’s a no-no to go after them.

Translation:  These annoying people who are breaking the law are illegal immigrants (not citizens) and we are not allowed to go after them to enforce the laws because it would be politically incorrect and horrify the "Left".

[B.D.F.]

No but there are very liberal pockets or bastions here on the east coast, at least the mid- Atlantic and northeast US coasts. General 'rule of thumb', the coasts are liberal, the core of the US is conservative. But that is so simple it is wrong; the left coast is generally liberal and ranges from moderate to hard- left. Moving east, things are generally quite conservative until one gets to 'the rust belt' where they would like to be conservative but there is such a large union presence that it causes conflict with that idea. The southeast is again generally conservative but it is a bit unusual in that a lot of (most?) southern / south eastern states value individual rights in very high regard. Remember, the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, were a requirement for the southern states to ratify the constitution, which was done INCLUDING the first ten amendments. I am not aware of anything more blatantly American than the Bill of Rights, and it was an afterthought jammed 'in there' by a faction of the struggling new country too big to ignore. And then the <generally> left wing Northeast. But that is too simple too because it is generally the densely populated areas of the northeast that are liberal (NYC, but not the majority of the <area> that is NY state, MA, CT, RI (hey, I am doing what I can do....) are very conservative while NH, VT and ME are.... impossible to gauge, at least from where I sit. The act ultra conservative in many important ways and then elect Bernie Sanders as a US Senator (NH). They are fiercely right- leaning liberal states. Or maybe they are fiercely left leaning conservative states. Either way, they vote blue but are fiercely red in most metrics I care about.

I think Oscar Gamble said it best when he stated: "They don't think it be like it is, but it do". Now Mr. Gamble was not speaking about political events or landscape but hey, when you can articulate your thoughts like that, why restrict a quote to any particular subject?

Brian

Left coast moving east?

[maxtog]

are very conservative while NH, VT and ME are.... impossible to gauge, at least from where I sit. The act ultra conservative in many important ways and then elect Bernie Sanders as a US Senator (NH). They are fiercely right- leaning liberal states. Or maybe they are fiercely left leaning conservative states. Either way, they vote blue but are fiercely red in most metrics I care about.

The "Left" has taken over what was Liberal and even Progressive.  Now all three are different, but confused.  Here are some examples:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiVQ8vrGA_8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-Qg_4zqpDI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWzEL2Mlr-g

No simple answers.  And especially frustrating when there are only ever really two choices due to the spoiler effect built into our stupid "first past the post" voting system:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqblOq8BmgM

[mikeyw64]

random morning thought/

Constitutionally is it theoretically possible for one of the 50 States to "leave" the USA and declare independence if a mandate of that States population were for it?

Ie a Stexit (State exit)

[mikeyw64]

random morning thought/

Constitutionally is it theoretically possible for one of the 50 States to "leave" the USA and declare independence if a mandate of that States population were for it?

Ie a Stexit (State exit)

Ah Ok 14th Amendment (citizenship of the Union trumps citizenship of an Individual State) says no

Gotta love Google


Right morning ponderings over

[B.D.F.]

Constitutionally is it possible? Yes. There is nothing in the Constitution that I know of that makes or claims to make leaving the Union illegal or even difficult.

In practice, eleven states did leave the Union at one point, the crescendo a serious argument (one that had been raging for 80 + years) that got quite heated. Four years and 620,000 dead soldiers later, the answer was no.

In practical terms, today: to state it bluntly in what I think is correct British English: Not bloody likely. The States are so interwoven with the Fed. gov't that I cannot see how they can separate. By that I mean actual separation, not instituting local laws, customs and so forth. Some states are large enough to do so, both in area as well as in population and economic terms; California has 40 million people and the sixth largest economy in the world, ranking right behind the UK in fact. With a coastline and both large cities and very rural areas, it <could> be a country as far as I can see. There are more than a few, both inside as well as outside California, who would like to see it become a country. :-)  But I cannot imagine a path that would lead to Californian independence and in the end, I do not believe it would be beneficial, overall, to either the Country or that State to be independent.

All of that said, our system of States united to form a country is an odd one and has significant results. Very serious things may be limited or outright illegal in one state are perfectly legal and common in another state. We are now seeing more and more stages or steps in differing behavior, and a relatively new thing which is States passing laws making certain Federal behavior 'illegal' in those states, the most important, at least in my view, are the laws preventing the seizure of property w/out due process. An interesting and to my knowledge, untried concept and one that is essentially backwards; Federal laws and gov't  override and triumph over State level gov't normally. So it remains to be seen just where the lines will end up, if they even settle at all, regarding State to Federal relationship(s).

Brian

random morning thought/

Constitutionally is it theoretically possible for one of the 50 States to "leave" the USA and declare independence if a mandate of that States population were for it?

Ie a Stexit (State exit)

[B.D.F.]

Well, went and re- read it (and that is an important amendment, having been the point of quite a few precedent setting cases) and I am not seeing anything preventing state departure from the Union. ?

Brian

Ah Ok 14th Amendment (citizenship of the Union trumps citizenship of an Individual State) says no

Gotta love Google


Right morning ponderings over

[gPink]

.

[mikeyw64]

Well, went and re- read it (and that is an important amendment, having been the point of quite a few precedent setting cases) and I am not seeing anything preventing state departure from the Union. ?

Brian

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:  "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

By withdrawing from the Union, a state would effectively be denying someone who is a citizen of the United States their rights except by due process.  The key there is "due process" and in this case, the state would need to find a LEGALLY RECOGNIZED way to withdraw.  This would either be some kind of legislation passed in Congress or an Amendment to the Constitution.  Anything less will ensure a civil war and no state will win such a war.

https://www.quora.com/Can-a-US-state-secede-from-the-Union