Why do these people presume to think they know what the word of God is? And why do they believe they have the right to impose their beliefs on others?
Update:
A federal judge today ordered county clerk, Kim Davis, to jail for contempt of court.
Judge's decision
Update 2:
Judge Orders Kim Davis' release - but bars her from interfering with deputies issuing marriage licenses
Update:
A federal judge today ordered county clerk, Kim Davis, to jail for contempt of court.
Judge's decision
Update 2:
Judge Orders Kim Davis' release - but bars her from interfering with deputies issuing marriage licenses
119 comments:
The second question I can answer. They believe they have the ‘right’ because they know what the word of God is, and the rest of us do not.
And people think we are arrogant! I have never presumed to speak for God.
I (as a non-believer in God) have to say it's a vast difference betweeen these two videos, so great that presenting them both as religous intolerance beside each other borders on insult.
In the first case you have a report of pre-teen girls taken as slaves in a war they weren't even in and then being systematically sold and raped.
In the second you have some priest who refuses to marry gays because she feels it goes against her religion to do so.
In the first case the girls have no options other than possibly suicide.
In the second case the gay couple can choose to either be together without marrying or simply find a priest that has no issues with marrying them - and afaik there are many such priests.
How are those two cases of religous intolerance even comparable? Why debate them in in the same blogpost?
For the record I have NO issues with gays or them marrying and a close friend of mine is gay. But I think that sometimes the gay movment is a bit to insensitive towards religous people. And even if I'm not religous myself I can understand a priest who believes marriage is a "contract between a man and a woman" and therefor he/she cannot in good faith marry a gay couple - something I have told my gay buddy and something he being gay actually agrees with.
As long as the law permits him to marry and there are some priests who will perform the ceremony my gay friend is OK with it. He doesn't need to seek out a priest who isn't OK with it just to stick it in his face that gay marriage is legal and force the priest to go against his beliefs and perform a gay marriage.
Onto another matter. Did anyone see the new reports about increased Russian involvment in Syria? Apparently they now have boots on the ground:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/01/russia-puts-boots-on-the-ground-in-syria.html
Thoughts?
Good comment, Marcus.
How are those two cases of religous intolerance even comparable? Why debate them in in the same blogpost?
First of all the woman in Kentucky is an elected official, not a priest. As such she is required, I emphasis required, to follow the law, just like everyone else is. What she is saying by not doing so because of her religious beliefs is that God's laws, as understood by her, are above any law that is written here. She is trying to say that her right to religious freedom, in effect, trumps the Supreme Court's ruling supporting gay marriage. The various lower courts have said no, it does not, and the Supreme Court has also declined to support her view. They all say issue the marriage license.
There is a meeting set for today where she is supposed to present her position as to why she should not be fined and/or jailed for contempt of court. If she is really so set in her religious views as to be unable to perform her duties because she objects to the ruling she should resign. She has chosen not to do so. I presume it is her way of fighting the law.
My point in placing both of these videos in this post is to present a picture of what can happen when people choose to put their religious beliefs over secular laws, to the point that their beliefs are harmful, humiliating, and unjust to other people. They are then infringing on the rights of others.
The case in Kentucky is certainly not as extreme as what we see with ISIL, but it is similar in that one person, or a group of people. are saying they are above the law because God says so. Well, maybe not everyone has the same God. That doesn't mean those people are valueless. They should be considered when creating a just society.
As long as the law permits him to marry and there are some priests who will perform the ceremony my gay friend is OK with it.
The county clerk will just issue a marriage license. The couple can then be married by whomever they want who will agree to do the ceremony. If a priest will not, and I am sure many, if not most, won't, they can go before a judge.
I have nothing against gay marriage. I have a cousin who is gay. What I find irritating is those who believe that they are above the law because their God says so. Sorry, I don't agree with that. How they choose to live their life is their choice. They do not have the right to tell others how to live theirs.
P.S.
She cannot be fired because she is an elected official, but it is my understanding that the state legislature could choose to impeach her for non-performance of her duties.
I'll have to check out the Russia/Syria article later...
It is a fairly short step from a County Clerk deciding she doesn't have to perform her duties when it means processing license applications from people she don't like to her son and his friends deciding to process some people they don't like to put a stop to those pesky applications. A shorter step than some people think.
"Thoughts?"
The Russians are taking a risk of becoming a target in their own right--and the jihadi can get at them.
Also, I wanted to add that by allowing her reasoning to stand it sets a precedent for anyone else who wants to flout the law because of their religious belief. A short step to extremist ideology becoming mainstream.
Thoughts?
Pro-Russian sources, too, are now trafficking in speculation that Moscow may be seriously considering sending soldiers to Syria.
I think the Russian actions are making the possibility of an "oops" moment between American and Russian forces a greater risk.
It makes the situation far more complicated.
There is no safe asset anymore
Saudis surprised by strength of rebels in bloody conflict
The County Clerk is in jail for Contempt of Court. Judge says she'll stay there until she agrees to comply with the law and issue marriage licenses to all legally qualified applicants. (Presumably, she could resign, and likely would be released from jail upon her resignation taking effect.)
Three more Democrat Senators have announced they'll support the Iran nuclear deal. (It seems they didn't want to go into their next campaign branded as the decisive vote in favor, but now that it's a done deal, they'll support the Obama administration.) That means Obama only needs four (4) more to get to a Senate filibuster of any Republican attempt to override the deal. I expect he'll probably pick up the necessary four votes.
(Presumably, she could resign, and likely would be released from jail upon her resignation taking effect.)
I believe he even offered to free her if she promised not to interfere with her deputies issuing marriage licenses. She refused. *shrug* She doesn't get any sympathy from me.
She's not looking for sympathy from you. With a little luck she'll get a few hundred thousand in donations for her "defense fund", and she'll be able to retire early. Darren Wilson, the cop who shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, pulled down about a half million.
Lynnette:
"First of all the woman in Kentucky is an elected official, not a priest. As such she is required, I emphasis required, to follow the law, just like everyone else is."
Aha. Ok that does make a difference. Of course she must follow the law.
"If she is really so set in her religious views as to be unable to perform her duties because she objects to the ruling she should resign."
I agree.
"My point in placing both of these videos in this post is to present a picture of what can happen when people choose to put their religious beliefs over secular laws, to the point that their beliefs are harmful, humiliating, and unjust to other people."
Hmmm. I still can't get rid of the feeling that it somehow either belittles case #1 or seriously exaggerates case #2 or both to put these two videos in the same context.
Although your explanation is noted and goes some way to explain your reasoning.
"…or seriously exaggerates case #2…to put these two videos in
the same context."
Perhaps it's our experience with our Civil War in the 1860s, 600,000 to 700,000+ dead (depending on whose count one accepts) from a population of only 31 million, or perhaps its because the unifying principle for our people is adherence to the Constitution rather than loyalty to a common ethnic heritage. Whatever: We tend to take it seriously when local government officials begin to rebel against the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. And she knows we take it serious; her side lost that war once already. That was an intentional attack on the equal administration of justice, our bedrock principle. That's a rather more serious thing than you seem to want to acknowledge.
Claiming religious belief will get ya a lot of slack over here on a lot of things, but this lady wasn't being asked to approve the marriage; that decision was made way above her pay grade, and far away from her office; so her religious beliefs were irrelevant to her task at hand. Her job was merely to process the forms and confirm that the applicants did not appear to be acting under duress or legal incompetence (too crazy; too drunk; too young, whatever), and that their IDs matched up with their signatures on the application. It wasn't her job to perform or participate in the wedding, nor to give or withhold permission.
Or, put another way, the two circumstances are different in degree, they were not essentially different in kind. In fact, I think that was part of Lynnette's point.
Hmmm. I still can't get rid of the feeling that it somehow either belittles case #1 or seriously exaggerates case #2 or both to put these two videos in the same context.
I actually struggled a little on the order of how I should post the videos. Because it was a post to try to show people what can happen when a group of people try to make up their own laws.
If Kim Davis is allowed to use freedom of religion as her defense for her actions what is to stop someone like an ISIL extremist from claiming religious freedom when they rape someone? I mean, hey, according to ISIL's reading of Islamic law slavery and rape are just fine and dandy. I know that may sound ridiculous in the West, an extreme situation, but it is the same reasoning.
Lee's comment at 6:39 am clarifies my meaning very well. We are a nation built on certain ideals, individual liberty being one of them. We are not a nation built on one religious concept, even though we have been for a long time of a majority Christian faith. We have always tried to adhere to an equal opportunity in beliefs. People, with all their prejudices being what they are, means we may not have succeeded in it at all times, but try we have done.
Kim Davis had options. That she chose not to resign is her choice. She does not have a choice on which laws to follow.
She's not looking for sympathy from you. With a little luck she'll get a few hundred thousand in donations for her "defense fund", and she'll be able to retire early.
At the moment she's the guest of the state. But I get your meaning. Yes, I do wonder sometimes about people's motives.
Darren Wilson, the cop who shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, pulled down about a half million.
He's young, for him, not enough to retire. Wait, he'll probably write a book.
They have started issuing marriage licenses, including to gay couples, in that county of Kentucky.
Trump has been saying that the US should possibly take in some of the refugees that are in Europe. Hmmm...never thought I'd hear that from him. I don't disagree. Unfortunately, I still don't like Trump very much.
The refugees that have been stranded in Hungary because they have stopped the trains have decided to take matters into their own hands and walk to Austria.
People who disagree with their government's handling of the crisis have been stopping and giving them food and water. That restores a little of my faith in humanity.
Lee: "That was an intentional attack on the equal administration of justice, our bedrock principle. That's a rather more serious thing than you seem to want to acknowledge."
I understand that. And I agree with you that she should abide by the law. I think it's a bit strange that she was prosecuted instead of just fired from her job for refusing to perform her tasks which to me seems the obvious reprecussion. She was hired to do a job, refuses to perform the tasks it demands of her, so she should be promptly fired - is my opinion.
And I too believe very strongly in the Law as the guiding principles for a society - we're not so different from you in that regard as you may think.
Still, I think the case where a woman is sold as a sex-slave and this is OK under the law in that "caliphate" of theirs is not only several but extremely many orders of magnitude worse; than the second case where some woman refuses to sign a marriage license for gays and this is then swiftly dealt with and the gays can go ahead and marry as is their legal right.
In the first case which is infinetly worse the Law is on the side of intolerance. In the second way less serious case the Law is on the side of the victims of intolerance. So IMO a comparasion between the two is not very relevant. So I stand by my previous comments.
Lee, do you subscribe to Stratfor? I entered my email when I wanted to read a link you posted and am now getting offers to subscribe with them. $109 for 18 months. If you subscribe, do you recommend it?
"And I agree with you that she should abide by the law. I think it's
a bit strange that she was prosecuted instead of just fired from her
job…"
She can't be fired because it's an elective office. She can be impeached by the Alabama legislature, but they're not going to do it; Alabama isn't known as a bastion of tolerance. So, in this case what passed for the law locally was on the side of intolerance. Not only that, but the local law refused to conform after the citizens had successfully invoked the assistance of the national law, i.e. the federal courts. The last time we let intolerant Southerners get away with that it led to 700,000 dead (not counting the wounded and maimed)
I think Lynnette's point was that the one can lead to the other; will lead to the other if not nipped early; the difference between the two is merely a matter of degree, not a matter of kind.
No, I have not subscribed to Stratfor.
In fact, I decided to quit posting links to them when they started hitting me up for a subscription.
Lee: "She can't be fired because it's an elective office."
Aha, and yet again I learn something new. Here such a position would be a job plain and simple. Which is why I said that terminating her position - something I would do were I her employer or boss - was the most reasonable outcome.
I guess dragging her into court was the only available option then. And given that I say it wa the right thing to do.
But I STILL stand by my critisism when if comes to comparing these two cases. I STILL believe it's not only apples and oranges but more like apples and jellyfish.
Lee: "In fact, I decided to quit posting links to them when they started hitting me up for a subscription."
I don't subscribe to any news outlet at all. I get my 10 or so free articles in NYT and similar in some swedish outlets. But Stratfor seemed to me to be something I might be willing to pay for, since I am very interested in global politics and that seems to be what they are about. We'll see, Maybe I'll sign up but probably I won't.
Now that I think about it… The last time we let intolerant Southerners get away with that it lead to Jim Crow laws, and a segregated South, where the lot of negros was sometimes and in some places little better than when they had been slaves. And in all places subservient to the white power structure.
We eventually started cleaning that up, got serious about it with the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. But we're still paying the price for it.
"I STILL believe it's not only apples and oranges but more like apples
and jellyfish."
Perhaps, in the one case the believer thinks the law is on his side (that'd be the rapist). In the other case the believer knows damn well the law is not on her side, but decides she's going to flout the law anyway and promote a bogus religious freedom claim as her justification. And, she knows it's a bogus claim--she is not being asked to approve of gay marriage; she's not being asked to allow gay marriage; she's not being asked to participate in any manner in the marriage. Her job simply put, is to process the paperwork and determine if the applicants meet the criteria set out by those whose job it is to approve or disapprove, or allow or disallow, or participate or not. Her religious principles are not involved in any way. She is taking advantage of an opportunity to involve herself in a decision that is not hers to impact. We might as well allow her to block them from access to their church of choice. Same thing. She grabs at the opportunity; she will grab at the next one.
^still apples and jellyfish.
No way you can argue these two cases are similar.
One is way, way, way worse to begin with. And that case is supported by the Law in that area granting the slave handlers the moral rights.
The second is way, way, way less serious. And in that case the law is on the side of the "oppressed".
I am f-ing sick and f-ing tired of all whitewashing of muslim intolerance these days (sure they are no good (although they are really good
) but look at us we are worse still because, because , because). And equating these two scenanarios smells bad to me. it stinks!
This is almost funny:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c38_1441366030`
I say - give 'em paintball guns and have'em do pretend war, because in the very real fight that is coming they won't amount to much.
"And equating these two scenanarios smells bad to me."
No one is equating the two ‘scenarios’. They differ markedly in severity. They require a marked difference in brutality both on the part of the actors and on the part of any who would condone the conduct. They are not equal.
However, in both cases we find persons who are willing to use (or abuse as the case may be) their position of temporal power to inflict their version of religion on someone otherwise unwilling to accept their religion.
The difference, and there is a difference, is a matter of the severity of the crime, not a difference in the type of the crime.
No that's not right either. There is a difference in the type of the crime--rape vs. non-violent denial of civil rights. I didn't get that said right. Let me swing by that again…
There isn't any difference in the rationalization presented to justify the crime--the power to inflict ones own religion on others is the justification offered in both instances. Once that justification finds acceptance we'll find the distance from the less severe crime to the more severe crime is rather less than most people would like to think.
"…in the very real fight that is coming they won't amount to much."
They've got grenades in Mälmo and you do not.
Still, I think the case where a woman is sold as a sex-slave and this is OK under the law in that "caliphate" of theirs is not only several but extremely many orders of magnitude worse; than the second case where some woman refuses to sign a marriage license for gays and this is then swiftly dealt with and the gays can go ahead and marry as is their legal right.
Of course the situation is worse in ISIL land, and most sensible people wouldn't want to live in such a place. That is another reason you are seeing flocks of refugees landing on Europe's shores.
There is no intent to "whitewash" anything here, Marcus. It is just as Lee said earlier:
...There isn't any difference in the rationalization presented to justify the crime.
That is my point in comparing the two situations.
I will add that we do understand that the punishment should fit the crime. Kim Davis' punishment should in no way be as severe as those militants in ISIL who rape in the name of God. While they may think that they have some legal justification because they are doing these things in this caliphate of theirs, they may be in for a rude awakening. Certainly Hitler and the Nazis were.
Marcus,
I went back and watched the "gumball" video about immigration you posted in the last comments section. He does have a point about helping people to thrive in their home countries, and there are people who are trying to do that. One of the things that many of those who immigrate to the US do, though, is send money back to their home countries to help family that are still there. They also have been known to go back and help.
But not everyone can relocate to the US or Europe. It is not logistically possible. It is better to try to improve the lot of the more impoverished countries themselves, yes.
European leaders saw the refugee hord coming says this lady, and decided to just wait for it.
I found this link in your article, Lee. I have to say I am proud of Amy Klobuchar.
Even I, who am not an expert on foreign affairs, could see this crisis coming. It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. No, people just stuck their heads in the sand and hoped some miracle would occur to prevent this from happening. Well, sorry, that didn't happen and now we are seeing even the middle class in Syria throwing in the towel and taking to the road.
Btw, I see this morning that the people of Austria are saying enough too and taking it upon themselves to provide train tickets for the refugees. They are also meeting them at the border with food and drink.
"Austria are saying enough too and taking it upon themselves to
provide train tickets…"
Happy to help them get somewhere else.
Lee: "No one is equating the two ‘scenarios’. They differ markedly in severity. They require a marked difference in brutality both on the part of the actors and on the part of any who would condone the conduct. They are not equal."
And my main point from the beginning was that I thought this very blogpost DID equate them. And I still feel that way. And I still think it's a bad blogpost for that very reason.
We have religous intolerance against a gay couple in the US who will nonetheless marry and where the intolerant lady who tried to put a spanner into the works is jailed. We have a sold and raped woman in the "Caliphate" where the "law" says it was OK to sell and rape her. Both these stories are presented under the same headline and with no real debate other than them both being religous intolerance. It does equate these two stories. There's no other way to see it than that it does equate them.
I think this is wrong and this is a bad blogpost which should be taken down altogether or at the very least expanded on to recognize the vast difference between these two cases.
Lee: "European leaders saw the refugee hord coming says this lady, and decided to just wait for it."
They, the leaders, are for the most part clueless, useless or at best reactionary.
I've said it before and I can say it again: the faliure of our politicians to adress this issue, the ostrich tactics they use, will quite likely lead to serious bloodshed and mayhem. And it'll affect everyone, you too.
Europe combined is after all the biggest economy in the world, followed by the USA and followed closely by China. Civil war here will affect ya'll too. And it will come. Not next year perhaps and maybe not the next after that but if we can keep this blog going for 10 more years or so you'll see I was right.
It appears to me that you're fixated on the notion that Islamic fanaticism is something special, something unique in the world, like your forebears didn't burn people at the stake for thinking unconventional thoughts, or gleefully wage war against the infidels, pagans and papists. Not to mention how many Europeans participated in pogroms and more recently were enthused over the final solution to the Jews. Well, it's not new and unique to Islam. It's just fairly brutal in its current incarnation. But, that brutality is neither new nor unique. They don't have any new moves to show off that ain't been shown off before.
You know all those people who "hate our freedoms"? Kim Davis is one of them."
"'ve said it before and I can say it again: the faliure of our
politicians to adress this issue, the ostrich tactics they use, will
quite likely lead to serious bloodshed and mayhem."
I think that's probably true. No doubt Americans will be pleased to forget the violence that has accompanied our Civil Rights movement and denounce Europe for its racism when that day comes. I rather doubt it'll lead to actual Civil War in Europe though, although it may break down the EU.
Lee; "It appears to me that you're fixated on the notion that Islamic fanaticism is something special, something unique in the world, like your forebears didn't burn people at the stake for thinking unconventional thoughts, or wage war against the infidels, pagans and papists."
Where did you get that idea? I am an atheist and I would oppose any damn infringments on personal liberties from Christians - even though I recognixe I have a christian heritage.
But I do not see many of those oppressive Priests, in fact I have come across zero in my life. The film Lynnette showed us was an abberration as far as I see it. Still I denounce that as well.
And I'm way less concerned about what our forebears did than what is going on right now. Not concerned at all to be true.
You forebears massacred native americans, does that mean you are prohibited from debating current events?
And, you seem to be unable to discern the difference between comparing things and equating them. At least in this instance. I suspect that's related to your desire to see Islamic extremism as something unique in the world.
Lee: "I rather doubt it'll lead to actual Civil War in Europe though, although it may break down the EU."
Well, maybe not civil war per se, but rather civil unrest bordering on war.
"Where did you get that idea?"
From your posts.
Lee:
"And, you seem to be unable to discern the difference between comparing things and equating them. At least in this instance. I suspect that's related to your desire to see Islamic extremism as something unique in the world."
BS! I was right to question the validity of this blogpost. And you're just running cover for it (probably because you didn't have the wits to be the first to question it). That's why you try to obfuscate with non-relevant comments about Christian intolerance. But you are sh-t out of luck because I'm not religous and you can't make it seem I have a religous ax to grind here.
This blogpost should be removed because it equates bad form with seriously henious human rights violations. Apples and jellyfish.
Maybe this will assist your understanding of Lynnette's point.
This is a periodic table from the chemistry discipline. There are similarities to be noted between helium and radon. Radon is both radioactive and poisonous. Helium, however, is not known to be either. Helium does not equal Radon; they do not equate. They can be compared for similarities without being equated.
"poisonous" Well, carcinogenic a least.
BS again. I don't think Lynnette had the periodical chart in mind when she posted this.
This is simply a PC whitewash of islamic extremism using a few dumbass christians who have no real power anywhere as a readymade opposite to an Islam that DOES have political backing.
It's BS, and I'm not sure Lynnette even realises it. You do Lee, but you just bicker for the h-ll of it and I beat you to the punch this time or youd've taken the opposite position.
"I don't think Lynnette had the periodical chart in mind when she
posted this."
The question was whether or not you can comprehend what she had in mind. The answer appears to be ‘no’. I think I'll give up on bringing you out of your shell. (You seriously underestimate the power of the Christian right in American politics, however; must be because so much of Europe has abandoned all religion, and you see so little of it welding power. Of course, this makes you sort of blind to the draw of radical Islam--you see it but do not understand it.)
Public Outrage over the jailing of Clerk Kim Davis
This is simply a PC whitewash of islamic extremism using a few dumbass christians who have no real power anywhere as a readymade opposite to an Islam that DOES have political backing.
Ahhh...this is what you see, Marcus? Seriously?
No, this post is not about Islam, radical or otherwise, at all. It is a warning about what can happen when someone tries to put their idea of religion, any religion, before other people's individual rights, as written in law.
I do not want to see my country turn into some sort of fundamentalist theocratic state, christian or otherwise.
The judge gave Kim Davis options, which she chose to ignore in some half-assed attempt to become some sort of martyr. She could simply have stepped aside and not interfered with her deputies issuing of the licenses. She said she would not promise to not interfere. She is, in effect, trying to force her brand of religion down everyone's throat. As for not having political backing, Lee is right, you don't have an understanding of people like Mike Huckabee, who is running for President. Last I heard he was heading down to visit Ms. Davis.
Take down the post?! But, Marcus, we haven't had this good a debate for ages!
Besides, I am very serious about this warning...sometimes the Republican right scares me a great deal. And right now they have too much power to muck up the works, IMHO.
While Kim Davis is a Democrat, it is the religious right that are her supporters. They look at it as a freedom of religion issue. I don't see that. She is free to believe as she chooses to. She is not free to interfere with a Supreme Court ruling. She should resign or stand aside.
"They look at it as a freedom of religion issue."
Totally bogus characterization. They remain free to believe as they please; they remain free to practice their religion just as they did the day before the Supreme Court tossed out the laws forbidding gay marriage. Nothing has changed except that they lost the ability to impose their beliefs on others.
The Clerkship is not a religious office. It does not perform religious functions; it is charge of no religious decisions.
Her job is merely to confirm that the applicants have complied with state's legal requirements for a legal marriage. It is not her job to agree or disagree with, to approve or disapprove of, what those legal requirements ought to be. She is not granted discretion here.
Freedom of religion does not encompass the freedom to impose your religion on others against their will.
"… as a readymade opposite to an Islam that DOES have political
backing."
Here's a thought: Whatcha reckon is the likelihood that Sweden's Swedish Democrats Party is trying to make common cause with the Protestant churches in Sweden in opposition to the invading Muslim horde? And Marcus is feelin’ little bit defensive ‘bout that?
"The UN high commissioner for refugees has called on the European
Union to admit up to 200,000 [additional] refugees as part of a mass
relocation programme that would be binding on EU states."
Guardian
Lee at 10:27 & 10:30. Very well said.
What I see happening here is an attempt to erode the Supreme Court ruling regarding gay marriage. A bit like they are trying to do with abortion. I also see this as opening up a precedent for others who would use the same argument to flout other laws.
Whatcha reckon is the likelihood that Sweden's Swedish Democrats Party is trying to make common cause with the Protestant churches in Sweden in opposition to the invading Muslim horde?
The "invading Muslim horde" would not be an issue from a religious point of view if the umbrella of laws put in place protect the rights of all.
There may be some difficulty from a social and economic point of view in absorbing and integrating so many newcomers all at once. It will depend on how strong Sweden's economy is. During the Great Recession we actually had a net outflow of illegal immigrants due to the poor economic conditions at the time.
I am not overly impressed with Hungary's handling of the immigrants who wish to pass through their country.
After seeing this I'm going to have to rethink my views of some of today's teenagers! :) There are some pretty decent ones out there.
We have a fella here who's been analyzing the Turkish electorate as a function of ‘consumer confidence’, and he says all Erdoğan's efforts to rearrange alliances and who's afraid of whom are likely to be fruitless, and Erdoğan gone and outsmarted himself and is now in serious trouble with the Turkish voters.
We shall see, I suppose.
"Here is what no one wants to say: This is, in essence, a security
crisis. For years now, Europeans have chosen to pretend that wars
taking place in Syria and Libya were somebody else’s problem. It’s
also a foreign policy crisis: At different times and for different
reasons, all of the large European states — Britain, France, Italy,
Germany — have blocked attempts to create a common foreign and
defense policy, and as a result they have no diplomatic or political
clout.
"They haven’t wanted European leadership, and most of them
wouldn’t have wanted U.S. leadership either, even if any had been on
offer. The richest economy in the world [the combined EU] has a
power vacuum at its heart and no army. Now the consequences are
literally washing up on Europe’s shores."
Hypocrisy, Anne Applebaum on the the EU
We have a fella here who's been analyzing the Turkish electorate as a function of ‘consumer confidence’,
I guess that old saying of "it's the economy, stupid" is universal.
But the question then arises of what would Turkey look like without Erdogan at the head?
"In Iowa, where the first GOP contest is held, the percentage of likely
Republican caucus-goers who say they could never vote for Trump
has fallen from 58% in May to 29%, according to a Des Moines
Register-Bloomberg News poll."
Doyle McManus ― L.A. Times
And Dr. Ben Carson is running in second place.
"But the question then arises of what would Turkey look like without
Erdogan at the head?"
That's really hard to say, but we could at least hope for an improvement.
For years now, Europeans have chosen to pretend that wars
taking place in Syria and Libya were somebody else’s problem.
Europe was always on the front lines in this. They apparently chose not to see.
"In Iowa, where the first GOP contest is held, the percentage of likely
Republican caucus-goers who say they could never vote for Trump
has fallen from 58% in May to 29%, according to a Des Moines
Register-Bloomberg News poll."
It just shows how weak the Republican field is. I can only hope the Democrats get their act together by election time.
"I can only hope the Democrats get their act together by election time."
Hillary is scheduled to testify, in public session, before the House Select Committee come 22 October 2015 (assuming the Republican Committeemen show up). I expect that'll bring a lot of the Democratic "act together", one way or the other.
Lee: "Here's a thought: Whatcha reckon is the likelihood that Sweden's Swedish Democrats Party is trying to make common cause with the Protestant churches in Sweden in opposition to the invading Muslim horde? And Marcus is feelin’ little bit defensive ‘bout that?"
0. Zero. Nil. Nada.
When SD were first elected into parliament in 2010 they walked out of the traditional opening ceremony in after the arch bishop had insulted them. Well they felt insulted in any case. There's no love lost between the church in Sweden (which arguably isn't very religous anymore anyway but which includes some of the most outspoken refugee huggers around) and the Sweden Democrats.
I have no agenda. I just mean it when I say it that I see a huge difference between these two cases and I think it's problematic to present them in the same context without at least attempting to explain the difference in degrees of severity. Just like I said all along. What is it you fail to understand about this?
"I think it's problematic to present them in the same context without at
least attempting to explain the difference in degrees of severity. ***
What is it you fail to understand about this?"
I suppose fail to understand the part where you accused Lynnette of ‘whitewashing of muslim intolerance’ and of trying to suggest that ‘(…they [ISIS] are really good) but look at us we are worse still because, because , because)’. And I can't see that she was ‘ equating these two scenanarios’ [sic]. Granted she was fairly explicitly equating the two situations in terms of motivation; i.e. "they believe they have the right to impose their beliefs on others". But I don't see anything she wrote that seems even remotely to equate them in terms of severity. I rather think the the differences in severity are clear enough to need no explanation; they're self-segregating in that regard, or so they appear to me.
I think your initial misunderstanding, i.e. your belief that the County Clerk was some sort of priest, lead you into very public error, which you refuse to back off of, preferring to imagine up a bunch of other stuff that's not true either, i.e. the supposed ‘whitewashing of Muslim intolerance’ and the supposed ‘equating’ of rape to the imaginary priest's imaginary refusal to perform a gay marriage.
...the church in Sweden (which arguably isn't very religous anymore anyway ...
You were right, Lee, he simply doesn't get it because he doesn't realize that this is not the case in the US.
*sigh*
I will try to explain one more time. Although it is almost time for me to think up a new post...
Marcus,
It was the very severity of the ISIL case that I wanted for this post. Because I was trying to make people understand what others in the US may think the actions of the religious right could lead to here, if not checked.
The intolerance of people towards others of different beliefs is exactly the same.
"It just shows how weak the Republican field is."
Do I not recall correctly how the Republicans were recently crowing about the strength (and depth, but specifically on the strength) of the Republican field of contenders? I'm certain I remember that correctly and can probably go back just a few months to find headline after headline from Republican op-eds on that very subject.
"Top Republican lawmakers are planning a wide-ranging offensive —
including outreach to foreign officials by Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell's office — to undermine President Barack Obama's hopes
of reaching an international climate change agreement that would
cement his environmental legacy.
"The GOP strategy, emerging after months of quiet discussions,
includes sowing doubts about Obama's climate policies at home and
abroad, trying to block key environmental regulations in Congress,
and challenging the legitimacy of the president's attempts to craft a
global agreement without submitting a treaty to the Senate.
"A top policy aide to McConnell (R-Ky.) has had conversations with a
select group of representatives from foreign embassies to make it
clear that Republicans intend to fight Obama's climate agenda at
every turn, sources familiar with the efforts say."
Politico
Do I not recall correctly how the Republicans were recently crowing about the strength (and depth, but specifically on the strength) of the Republican field of contenders?
I have not been overly impressed with the acuity of Republicans lately.
"Top Republican lawmakers are planning a wide-ranging offensive —
including outreach to foreign officials by Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell's office — to undermine President Barack Obama's hopes
of reaching an international climate change agreement that would
cement his environmental legacy.
I rest my case.
*sigh*
Only now I can add that they will be the death of us yet.
Lynnette:
"It was the very severity of the ISIL case that I wanted for this post. Because I was trying to make people understand what others in the US may think the actions of the religious right could lead to here, if not checked."
I know. And I recognize that tactics well from other places.
For one thing that's pretty precisely how a religous zealot would use the case of a child molesting paedophile or some sicko who's into beastiality as examples of sexual deviation to "warn" about the dangers of homosexuality.
You take something you disagree with. Then you use something else entirely but still possible to connect on some level to raise the alarm against that.
I think it's a dishonest way to make an argument.
"Then you use something else entirely…"
Ah… So, you are arguing that Islamic fanaticism is special, different in kind from other religious fanaticism.
I am arguing that raping and selling women as sex-slaves is a sort of intolerance very different from refusing to sign a document to marry gays. Those covers the "something else eltirely"-part of my comment.
It's the "still possible to connect"-part of my comment that covers the linked religous intolerance.
I would have thought that was obvious.
Except, the line was drawn, the analogy was made, between the County Clerk's belief that she was entitled to force her religious beliefs on others and the jihadi's similar beliefs. Degrees of tolerance, or rather the lack thereof, was not the subject.
However, the relative differences in the severity of the offenses committed based on this mistaken belief of some sort of ‘right to impose on others’ are indeed noted (have, in fact, been front and center all along).
Homosexuals, by the way, have virtually nothing in common with necrophiliacs that the rest of us don't share in similar percentages. Pedophiles likewise; they are usually either interested in little girls or little boys (little girls more commonly; they're morel likely straight than gay), very rarely they don't discriminate and will go for either, but they're certainly not more likely to be gay than straight.
Oops. I see that you mentioned bestiality, not necrophilia--well, same thing applies, no evidence it occurs at a higher level among homosexuals than heterosexuals.
Fairly long, probably overly optimistic, but generally worthwhile piece on the American drag on international action regarding climate change. New York Magazine
FoxNews Radio just did their ‘top of the hour’ summary. Obama's got the 41 votes he needs to block Senate action against his nuclear deal with Iran.
I'm hearing that the County Clerk has now decided to not interfere with her deputy clerks issuing licenses to gay couples and she will be getting out of jail today.
I think it's a dishonest way to make an argument.
Could you expand on that?
Is it that you think that religious zealotry here in the US could never reach the level of what we see in ISIL's Caliphate?
I saw another judge ordered her released immediately. But I didn't see where she had agreed not to interfere with her deputy clerks. I will wait a bit before I update the post.
I will have to check out the article later...
Hmmm...looks like the judge is releasing her but is barring her from interfering with her deputy clerks issuing marriage licenses.
"Hmmm...looks like the judge is releasing her but is barring her
from interfering with her deputy clerks issuing marriage licenses."
Yeah, that was discussed earlier, and she made it clear she wouldn't agree to abide by any such ‘bar’. I guess she's more flexible on that notion now that she's spent some time in jail.
Looks like the judge was being optimistic about her being more flexible on the subject now that she's done a brief stint in jail over it. Apparently she's already gotten herself crosswise with the court's orders.
Brief update to that 3:50 p.m. posting just above: It appears that the Clerk's lawyers (an outfit known as Liberty Counsel) were rather more eager to announce her intention to violate the Court Order under which she was released than she was eager to get around to committing the promised violation. It further appears that they (Liberty Counsel that is) were perhaps more favorable to her appearing with Mike Huckabee than in having her also share the stage with Ted Cruz, who was also eager to be seen with her, but proved to be a little less quick on the draw. (NYT)
The Turks have sent ground troops into Syria today for the first time in four years. They were after Kurds.
That was a long article on climate change, but worth the read. It does present a little more encouragement, except for this last sentence:
The limits agreed to at Paris will not be enough to spare the world mass devastation.
I was feeling all warm and fuzzy until I got to that. *sigh*
Anyway, as he said there is some hope. I am, as usual, disappointed in the total blindness of the Republican party, however. Their attitude is such sour grapes it makes me ashamed to think they are American. I can only hope my fellow citizens make some intelligent choices in 2016.
The Turks have sent ground troops into Syria today for the first time in four years. They were after Kurds.
Hmmm...I guess other countries have their problem children too.
European drought
Lynnette: "Could you expand on that?"
Nah, I think I have been pretty clear. You might not agree with me but my point is clear enough I think. I have already said just about the same thing in several different ways so I'm kinda tapped out here. I'll be waiting instead for that new blog post you hinted at and start anew on another topic.
Okay, fair enough.
I think we have both tried to make clear our position in various comments.
I was going to think up a post last night, but my nap turned out to be longer than planned and I ran out of time. :)
It might be worth one more stab at it; maybe he'll get it…
"…raping and selling women as sex-slaves is a sort of intolerance very
different from…"
Enslavement and rape are not intolerance; they're enslavement and rape. Religious intolerance is the justification given for the enslavement and rape. If I were to say that ‘raping and selling women as sex-slaves is different sort of excuse than…’, it would be immediately apparent that I's talkin’ bullshit. (Perhaps your usually excellant grasp of English is letting you down here.)
Perhaps this will help.
Merriam-Webster
"intolerance: noun
a quality or state of being"
rape: verb
enslavement: verb
"…it would be immediately apparent that I's talkin’ bullshit."
I maybe should have said ‘babblin’ nonsense’ instead of ‘talkin’ bullshit’. That latter one reads rather more accusatory than I had in mind. So, let's go with ‘babblin’ nonsense’ instead.
Be sort of like saying that ‘running and jumping (verbs) is a sort of sheep (noun) very different than is swimming’.
Saudi Arabia and 5 other rich Gulf states have taken in exactly zero of their arab brethren fleeing Syria.
But it's not like Saudi Arabia isn't intent on helping out. They do have a grand plan to assist - by financing 200 new mosques in Germany:
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/fluechtlingskrise/die-golfstaaten-schotten-sich-gegenueber-fluechtlingen-ab-13789932.html
Stealth invasion, anyone?
I see nothing remotely stealthy about it.
I'm given to understand that Norway prohibits Saudi financing of mosques on the stated ground that there is no freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia, and as long as that's the case there's to be no Saudi financed mosques in Norway.
I kinda like that idea, although it'd never pass Constitutional muster here, given the historical interpretations of our Freedom of Religion Clause.
I've never heard about that Lee and we're quite close to Norway and I myself have a brother living there, and norwegian inlaws (fact is Norway is my first safe haven should Sweden collapse). And although I know they are not as insanely masochistic as Sweden is (nor are the danes, they are tougher still) I have never heard about such legislation in Norway, which I think I would have if it was true. So if you could back that up it'd be helpful.
backup
Wiki
Right-Wingers
"The Oath Keepers, the anti-government ‘Patriot’group that mounted
an armed standoff with the Bureau of Land Management at the Bundy
Ranch, stationed armed guards outside of military recruitment centers
after the Chattanooga shooting, and unsettled Ferguson protestors
when they showed up carrying assault rifles, is now offering anti-gay
Kentucky clerk Kim Davis a ‘security detail’ to protect her from further
arrest if she continues to defy the Supreme Court’s marriage equality
ruling."
As far as we’re concerned, this is not over,” he said, “and this judge needs to be put on notice that his behavior is not going to be accepted and we’ll be there to stop it and intercede ourselves if we have to.
I think he is confused as to who is breaking a law.
Post a Comment