Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Rand,

I don't think anyone, except for the loony-left, "fears" christians more than muslims. Christians, despite their flaws, are a fundamentally civilized people. The same cannot be said for many muslims. Even as an athiest/agnostic, I actually have little problem with the christian right. There are two issues I disagree with them on: abortion and right to die (right to live as one wants). But I have no problem with them on anything else and do not view them as this great "threat" that the liberal-left makes them out to be.

Islam is another matter. I'm not sure that they are the threat equal to soviet communism that the neo-cons make them out to be. However, they certainly are a "problem" that have to be delt with. The questions is: what is the most cost-effective approach to "dealing" with them?

Posted by Kurt at July 6, 2006 04:02 PM

The guys on Free Republic are opposed to blue laws because they are primarily libertarians. (Not to denigrate any other libertarians by association, btw. :) The regulars there aren't necessarily fundamentalist Christians.

I've primarily encountered serious blue laws in overwhelmingly evangelical (and Mormon) territory. Not that correlation implies causation, but it is a hell of a coincidence.

I am glad the fundies don't make their women where hijabs, though. :)

Posted by at July 6, 2006 04:49 PM

Or murder them for living in sin (or just marrying the wrong man).

Posted by Big D at July 6, 2006 05:34 PM

The majority of Christins don't believe you can legislate morality. You either act morally or you don't. I've never been in a church or heard of a church trying to change the laws to be more strict. Pretty much everyone knows it can't be done to suit anyones "best" ideas anyway.

The problem comes in on this kind of issue when people's idea of a "Christian" is John Lithgow in Footloose. Mind you those guys are out there, but they just don't have the power to rule a town, or a state and certainly not the country.

Posted by Steve at July 6, 2006 05:58 PM

If one was to say that a majority at Freerepublic are libertarians it would be a lie. There is a very wide range of conservative opinion at Freerepublic and I say that as one who has posted there for years. There are plenty of big government, nanny state, theocratic, populist Bushbots there. Period. As a little "l" libertarian it is about all I can stand to read some of the comments there. Some libertarians, yes - majority, by no means.

Posted by RKV at July 6, 2006 06:04 PM

The term "legislating morality" to me is a complete misnomer. What else are we legislating *but* morality?

Why is murder illegal? Because it's wrong (and destabilizes society to boot).

The better question is, *whose* morality are we legislating? And are we as a society o.k. with that?

Posted by Big D at July 6, 2006 07:42 PM

Really, Kurt? Exactly what sort of "threat" do I pose to you? And how would you like to "deal" with me? Feel free to show up at a future space conference and tell me to my face, if you'd like.

Posted by shubber Ali at July 6, 2006 10:09 PM

Do blue laws still exist?

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at July 7, 2006 12:00 AM

The fundamentalist christians simply have more power and influence over here in my community than muslims.

Posted by mz at July 7, 2006 03:18 AM

Big D,
I am talking about laws CURRENTLY being legislated.

The basic laws against murder, rape, mathem in general are in fact based on morality. They for the most part ARE based on biblical concepts and were passed by governing bodies who were God fearing believers. Those laws have also been on the books since people landed on these shores, based on laws from European courts they brought with them.

For that matter laws against murder, rape and mayhem in general exist even in the tribes living in New Guinea, The Amazon or where ever. You may be able in those societies to kill someone from another tribe, but you can't just kill someone from your own tribe. It's based on their sense of morality.

What I am talking about is passing laws against buying liquor, beer, wine, Playboy, Hustler, lottery tickets, etc. I'm not sure that buying a lottery ticket or a bottle of Chablis is exactly on the same level of "evil", as murder, rape and mayhem in general. It's simply a law passed and put in place so I don't do something someone else thinks is immoral, illegal or fattening. And it's not something necesarily something I do that will be harmful to anyone. It's just too easy to circumvent to be honest.

Anyone who can't figure out that it's pretty easy to buy 5 cases of beer on Saturday, instead of 3 on Saturday and 2 on Sunday deserves to be beerless during the race, football game, or cookout. Here in NC we still have DRY counties. You just go into the next county to buy your beer, wine or liquor.

I can buy enough porn to get me from Saturday night at midnight to Monday morning at 12:01 A.M. It's just too easy to beat the blue laws.

We didn't have a state lottery here in NC untill this year. But many of us went to VA or SC to play. There was even a fine for having, owning, carrying a lottery ticket into the state, It didn't stop anyone, and several large lottery winners have come from here. They collected their winnings, then paid their taxes on the winnings. The state qued right up to get the taxes based on the winnings. So it was not only easy to beat this one, the state wanted their cut if you won!!

You can't legislate CURRENT morality, is what I should have said.

Posted by Steve at July 7, 2006 05:33 AM

Some people oppose state lotteries because they believe government shouldn't be in the business of promoting gambling. Gambling has caused a great deal of misery, especially among the lower income population. Lotteries have been accurately described as a self-inflicted "tax on people who are bad at math."

Posted by Larry J at July 7, 2006 06:35 AM

You can't legislate CURRENT morality, is what I should have said.

Steve, I'm sure that, upon reflection, you will see how bootlessly reductive that statement is. Sure, sure, I'll admit that all laws are based on morality but the laws I don't like are based on someone imposing their morals, albeit democratically, on me, whereas the laws I like are no imposition. ;-)

Tob

Posted by Toby928 at July 7, 2006 06:57 AM

Plenty of blue laws in the heart of Democratic controlled states. For example, almost all shops are closed in Bergen County, New Jersey on Sunday. (Paramus in Bergen County has some of the biggest malls in northern NJ, what a pain it used to be!) Or go see this: http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/11/23/got_the_puritan_blues/

Posted by Sam at July 7, 2006 08:55 AM

Hey shubber Ali,

That sounds like a threat or a challenge. I'd bring 3000 of my closest friends but they DIED in the WTC attack perpetrated by fanatical MUSLIMS who seem to be DRIVING the ISLAM train right now. I guess I could bring myself and stand in for Kurt.

Posted by Bill Maron at July 7, 2006 12:06 PM

Can't buy booze on Sunday in Massachusetts.

Posted by nobody important at July 7, 2006 01:02 PM

Plenty of blue laws in the heart of Democratic controlled states.

So if you don't like blue laws, come to the red state Bible Belt. Heh.

Of course, you will find a cousin of the blue laws down south - a number of dry and partially-dry counties and municipalities. My own Irving, Texas is one of those towns where alcohol sales are allowed in restaurants only.

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at July 7, 2006 02:55 PM

When Muslims like shubber Ali stop being defensive and start being ashamed, then we will know that Islam is starting to fix itself.

Posted by pst314 at July 7, 2006 09:18 PM

When Muslims like shubber Ali stop being defensive and start being ashamed, then we will know that Islam is starting to fix itself.

Two points - it's interesting that your parents chose to name you pst314... or is it that you are too ashamed to actually use your real name when posting chest-thumping messages on discussion boards (such a real man you are, lol).

Second, Islam is not a single entity, but (as with every other religion) made up of individuals - i have no reason to be ashamed of how ignorant people i am not related to in any way behave - because i am not my brother's keeper. You seem to relish that task, though.

Posted by shubber Ali at July 7, 2006 09:30 PM

shubber Ali,

Every religion, with the possible exception of Bhuddism, has had a death cult problem at one time or another. Some religions - all now, fortunately, defunct - were never anything but death cults. The religions of most of the pre-Columbian peoples of Meso- and South America come to mind. The Aztecs, especially.

On the other side of the pond, we had the Carthaginians. The Romans - generally tolerant folks where auslander religions were concerned - took seriously rude measures to extinguish that particular ecclesiastical tradition.

In more recent times, the Hindus had their Thugees and their custom of suttee (widow burning).

In the very recent past, the Japanese had that bunch of Aum Shinrikyo wingnuts who put sarin gas in the Tokyo subway. Christians have had goofballs like the late Rev. Jim Jones of Jonestown Massacre fame and the late David Koresh and the so-called Branch Davidians. Then there are the random bags of mixed nuts who crop up sui generis like the Heaven's Gate flying saucer cult a few years back.

Point is, the normative Japanese man-in-the-street wasn't - and isn't - throwing street parties to celebrate the latest exploits of Aum Shinrikyo. Nor did Christians do likewise back in 1978 or 1993 when The Rev. Jones (figuratively) and the Prophet Koresh (literally) crashed and burned.

I wish a comparable statement could be truthfully made about the normative Muslim, but it can't. An imprecisely known - but obviously statistically significant - fraction of your nominal co-religionists seem to have signed on to this latter-day Islam-as-death-cult weirditude that's going around.

I don't necessarily expect non-nutball Muslims to risk death by publicly opposing the currently fashionable Islamo-lunacy - and I have no illusions about that being very much the stakes at risk here. But it would be nice if non-Jihadis would at least refrain from making whiny, weaselly "yeah, but..." semi-demi-hemi-defenses of the obviously deranged among their co-religionists. If you can't say something bad about these guys, at least don't damn yourself by offering them faint praise. When you get pissy in print about people who express an entirely understandable skepticism about the "Religion of Peace," that's exactly what you're doing.

And, yeah, pst314 is kind of an odd moniker. Terribly ethnocentric of me, no doubt, but, in my neighborhood so is "shubber."

Posted by Dick Eagleson at July 7, 2006 11:39 PM

shubber Ali,

Perhaps pst314 uses a false name because he doesn't want your fellow followers of the "religion of peace" to blow him up?

Actually, maybe your religion is one of peace. Graveyards are quite peaceful.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at July 8, 2006 06:04 AM

"pst314 is kind of an odd moniker."

Yes. Nothing more inventive like "Fletcher Christian" occurred to me, so I just used my email address.

"Perhaps pst314 uses a false name because he doesn't want your fellow followers of the "religion of peace" to blow him up?"

Yes, avoiding harrassment was the motive. But of course I'm not completely anonymous. If I were to make threats or defamatory accusations my email address would be enough to track me down.

"When you get pissy in print about people who express an entirely understandable skepticism about the "Religion of Peace," that's exactly what you're doing."

What he said.

I have never personally known a Muslim who did not make gratuitous out-of-the-blue expressions of disrespect for other religions, while at the same time feeling rage at any criticism of Islam. It's enough to make a guy wonder where all those peaceful tolerant Muslims are. If the ones living in freedom in the West cannot bring themselves to speak out against intolerance, then it is reasonable to doubt how tolerant they really are.

Posted by pst314 at July 10, 2006 11:26 AM

"because i am not my brother's keeper"

Your choice of words is unintentionally appropriate:

And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
--Genesis 4:9

Posted by pst314 at July 10, 2006 05:10 PM

I have never personally known a Muslim who did not make gratuitous out-of-the-blue expressions of disrespect for other religions, while at the same time feeling rage at any criticism of Islam.

Then i would hazard to guess you don't personally know many muslims. Although i could make the same comment to you about the fundie christians i know who all are secretly waiting around for the Rapture to take them away.

Of course, the rest of us are secretly wishing for the same thing - for something to take them away.

Posted by shubber Ali at July 10, 2006 05:59 PM

shubber Ali:
The difference is that fundamentalist Christians, annoying as they are, don't generally blow people up. They don't generally brainwash their co-religionists' kids to blow themselves up. They don't generally threaten to firebomb the offices of newspapers that disagree with them.

They don't say repeatedly that an entire country's worth of people should be pushed into the sea. They don't fund global terrorism, either. Nor, generally, do they stone women to death for not draping themselves from head to foot in a blanket in 100-degree weather. Nor, generally, do they saw off the heads of foreigners with a dull knife on TV.

I could go on, but I think the point is made well enough, don't you?

"Of course, the rest of us are secretly wishing for the same thing - for something to take them away."

Likewise. Preferably all of you, fundamentalist Christians and jihadist Muslims alike. I also, if I was particularly religious, would pray for the Lord to give you another rock to worship - preferably straight down on top of the Kaaba (sp?) in the middle of one of your festivals, at escape velocity. A nice big one - say about the size of an apartment building?

Posted by Fletcher Christian at July 11, 2006 12:55 AM

Post a comment