No, it has not. People are giving Islam a lot more power to change the world than it has or should be granted. Especially they are claiming that a bunch of idiot fundamentalist which are a small subset of the world's Muslim population have any real chance of winning much of anything.

Of course if people are morally and ethically bankrupt and totally relativist in thinking about culture then a militant nutcase subculture looks much more vibrant and appealing to them than the limp washcloth that they have made of their own culture. So I suppose I should not be surprised.

It's Michigan for God's (or whoever) sake!

we checked that, and concluded that it was prednisone
and overeating. . we're still losing it, gradually. . down 20
at the moment. -- j
.

I'd check with an endocrinologist if I were you. Sounds like type 2 diabetes. I'm sure you know that weight gain screws everything up. At my age, my only vice is overeating and I try to keep that in check. Then, there's Thanksgiving.

did my gaining 60 pounds do it? . my feet have peripheral
neuropathy, and I have never known why. -- j
.

I've got neuropathy in my legs & feet. However, I did nothing athletic to deserve it. Just got too fat.

ouch! . I just ran track as a quarter-miler, and had such a
long stride that I shocked my upper thighs into serious
pain . . . pissed 'em all off when I accepted a car ride
down the boulevard to catch up with the kids running
distance for conditioning. . never lived it down. . but I
could hardly climb stairs for the pain in my legs. -- j
.

A kid I grew up with, Marty, forgot to hold onto his slide in that maneuver and it slid of his trombone into the air and hit the formation guide guy in the ear. Put a dent in the slide making it useless. Actually he played piano and quit the band after that. Mr. Begian, our musice teacher/director didn't know whether to get mad or laugh. We laughed.

Hillary will say she's Chinese if she's talking to a Chinese audience. She'll drop a tear when describing the struggle of her grandfather when coming to America. When that story is challenged, she would say she made a mistake like she did when she claimed to be under sniper fire. Then "What difference does it make" before the main stream media gives her a pass.

and how do you spin, carrying a trombone? . raise it up to the sky,
that's how! . these people are real athletes!!! -- j
.

"Every time I hear someone defending Islam as if it was a champion for women causes, I can't help but chuckle."

Hillary Clinton comes to mind. She's not at all abashed about accusing her political opponents of waging a war on women, yet she has no problem persecuting the women her husband raped and abused. Nor does she have any problem accepting financial largesse from the very countries which oppress women. She's worse than a hypocrite.

All your points are good. Rape victims are worth one half of the rapist's denial. Therefore, a woman would need two male eye witnesses against the rapist. If she didn't prevail, as you said, she would have to face the consequences of her allegation. Every time I hear someone defending Islam as if it was a champion for women causes, I can't help but chuckle. I think Ayn Rand would be a ferocious lioness pointing these things out about Islam.

Well said. I am not denying that there is a significant conflict of rights at play here: the rights of choice being matched up against the rights to be free of coercion. I'm also not saying that there is a cut-and-dried solution through law. Your suggestion of education and responsibility are the ideas I also would endorse, but they only work on a population that is interested in their own welfare. Laws are generally implemented for the weakest - not the strongest - and I think you would agree. The problem in this case is that the weakness of those weakest members is a significant threat not only to themselves but to others. It is an issue where unfortunately the irresponsibility of a few can have far-reaching effects on many who are innocent. So who's rights take precedence? There probably will not be an answer which satisfies both parties.

I believe I understand your position, (and have enjoyed the discussion), but I believe if the alternative of liberty has not been given its day in court so to speak. None of your points can be disputed. I just feel the goals of human achievement are best reached by experience, education, and responsibility.

A well-thought out argument. Thank you. +1

The best point that you made was one of self-control and education. I heartily agree with both.

I support banning sales of alcohol to minors simply from the standpoint that medical studies show a disparate impact with potentially lasting negative effects on the brains of those who drink alcohol before their bodies (and especially minds) have matured. This applies to most currently illegal drugs as well. Medical studies also show the dangers of alcohol not only in the short term with impaired reasoning capabilities, but also in the long term with permanently-impaired functions and actual destruction of brain matter - not to mention the kidneys and liver. When all these are combined with the other negative effects that happen as a result of impaired judgement such as drunk driving and domestic abuse, I think there is a strong case to be made for limitations on the sale of alcohol - even to adults - and which has nothing to do with religion. Should personal rights be taken into account? Absolutely. But the trick in this case is what you perfectly point out: responsibility. And in the case of this irresponsibility, others often feel the effects and have their rights infringed.

Tell me about it. Try marching, bringing your knees up to your belt buckle while playing a trombone. Football players are sissies in comparison. (At least I like to think so)

I think that one of the things Rand would immediately point out is that Shariah law is coercive in nature. Punishment is also somewhat arbitrary and whimsical because it demands no trial before sentence is carried out in many cases - disallowing for the defense and representation of the victim even in capital cases. I think she would also point out how unequally the laws are applied - with gender being an inherent separator of many actions. I think one of the things that would horrify her most is that in several applications of Sharia, it is the victim who is punished for the crimes of an aggressor, such as in rape where they then stone the rape victim.

Then feel free to do as I have and quote the parts you feel I misrepresented. I'm not infallible, but I am going to challenge assertions I can demonstrate to have fundamental flaws. You began the whole disagreement by stating explicitly that Sharia was no different than so-called "blue laws" which you attributed to Christianity. I asked for an example as support for your argument.

What I would note is that I did not say that the example you gave was not without merit, I then went on to ask if the law itself - regardless of the background of the implementer - had merit. My point was that of a fallacy of association: you are associating "religion" wholesale with bad policy instead of examining the policy first. Now if one wants to argue that part of that argument is being made in my observations in this post, I can see that might have some validity. But the focus of my argument is to point out that the individual policies which make up Sharia law are dangerous because they directly conflict with the US Constitution. I don't see that from any other ideology here in the United States.

The question is not about the implied source of the law, but whether or not the principle is sound. The argument being forwarded is that the law is invalid simply because of the purported source - without actually examining the merit of the law in the first place! That's like saying because the messenger is ugly we're going to ignore the message entirely. It doesn't follow from a logical standpoint.

I wholly agree with you that sentencing in today's age has become too lenient. But having seen the effects of domestic violence - of which nearly all is the result of alcohol - I can't simply agree to the notion that it is in society's best interest to just deal with the effects - especially when the effects are multi-generational.

Feel free to expand your posts, then. An equation in a debate is just exactly that. And to equate two things one must demonstrate equality in all applications. I pointed out that your assertion of equality between Christianity and Sharia/Islam is completely invalid - even if one wants to include history. Have there been atrocities committed in the name of the Catholic Church in past centuries? Absolutely. But these pale in comparison to the history of Islam and any serious student of history can gladly point out the times that Islamic invaders committed genocide on entire regions.

I am not advocating for Christianity, and certainly not for Islam. I merely point out that there are vast differences between the two. It is an absolute fallacy of inclusion to simply lump them both in under "religion" and call them the same thing. I would argue exactly the same were it Hindu, Buddha, or Wiccans. One is encouraged to look at the principles and examine each in detail.

"You created an argument out of thin air to then argue with."

-1. I was not the one who charged that Christians are trying to infringe on people's liberties. That argument was made by you and I responded by asking for an example. I went on to further ask you to explain if the laws have a sound basis regardless of their source. You answered neither question.

I would further ask why you downvoted me without replying to any of the arguments. I give -1 not because people disagree, but when they are disagreeable and resort to ad hominem and character assassination instead of sticking to the policy debate.

"So which of the alcohol laws I cited limit consumption? None. They are all directed at commerce."

So let me ask you two questions.
1. Do you support the sale of alcohol to minors?
2. Do you agree that when one loses the ability to reason, one loses the ability to claim full exercise of rights as a result.

Neither of these two policy questions have anything to do with religion, but both very much apply to the application of liquor laws.

Intriguing question. I know many "adults" who act like minors, and the reciprocal is true as well. Perhaps with parental approval. When I raised my kids we never mystified alcohol by creating a taboo and took every learning opportunity to point out consequences of bad decisions even at a young age. The laws on the books don't stop alcohol abuse. Knowledge does. When a society attempts to create a safe space it lulls people into the false belief they are no longer responsible for their own safety. So I suppose yes I support freedom of choice and accept my responsibility to teach my children the consequences of their choices.

have you seen the movie "drumline?" . that marching band
stuff is work! -- j
.

I remember Rush saying Tyson was a big $ supporter of first black President Bill Clinton way back when. To this day I avoid buying Tyson products.
I was a small time newspaper reporter/photographer in that dry county.
I was in awe of marijuana plants standing twice my 6-foot height in a field as wide as an average house when I was with county mounties, who made a raid on a young man's home deep in the boonies.
The suspect got off really light with a possession plea bargain.
Yeah, as if he could actually smoke all the pot I saw!
It can pay off to save the legal process money by pleading guilty when you're caught red-handed.

When my mom discovered cleat marks along my spine, she wrote a note forbidding me to play. (Wide receiver). Frankly, I didn't mind since being in the marching band was more than enough exercise for me.