[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2017-May-10, 20:19, said:

Zelandakh, on 2017-May-10, 10:17, said:

Do you have a problem with national holidays being lined up with religious festivals such as Easter and Christmas? That is a form of the government imposing religion on the people.

Nonsense.

Why do you consider this nonsense?

I think Christian holidays, mandated by the government, are nonsense.

And this is not just some theoretical, principled issue. I live in The Netherlands, which has relatively few religious holidays. My wife is working there and my kids are going to school there. But I work in Germany. I can't work on the religious holidays over there. It means that I have less vacation days that I can choose freely and it means I have less time to spend with my family.

Since the State of Northrhine-Westphalia has declared days such as the the last day before fasting (6 weeks before Easter) a mandatory religious holiday, I am sitting home alone, and when I want to have a holiday (since my family has holiday) I have to work because I have already had my share of holidays.

And all that because some people believe, without a shred of evidence, that there once was a guy who was conceived with the involvement of a man, died for the sins of mankind and stood up to live again before he took of to a place called "Heaven". So we need to have days off on the day that
Christians remember that he was born (Christmas)
Christians remember that he was crucified (Good Friday)
Christians remember that he resurrected from death (Easter Monday)
Christians remember that he went to "heaven" (Ascuncion)
Christians remember that his mother went to heaven (Assumption of Mary)
Christians remember that his followers got inspired to tell the rest of the world this nonsense (Pentecostal Monday)
Christians remember that this guy was conceived (Immaculate conception)
Christians start the fasting period (Two days before Ash Wednesday)
Christians celebrate the "Greatest Christiansd in history" (All Saints-day)

And I probably forgot a couple.

These days are mandatory vacation days and they take away free vacation days.

Why do I have to give up the liberty to choose my vacation days and spend time with my family because someone else believes something utterly irrational?!?

Rik

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2017-May-10, 14:44, said:

If nobody is making such a proposal then why should I take an interest in a matter that has no legal force? If a Catholic couple hopes that their eldest son will become a priest, this would not be my hope but it is also none of my business.

Would you also take no interest if a politician came along and decided to put all Jews and homosexuals in work camps? Just because an issue does not affect you directly does not mean that it is of no interest, particularly when the purpose of the rhetoric or policy is to stir up feeling against a minority group or a group that has little influence within the corridors of power. The point is not to be fearful of sharia becoming law in the United States but rather to be aware that such things can be used to stoke up opposition amongst the gullible who are only too willing to believe that this is a likely outcome. If you should see such sentiment amongst your social group, you are probably better positioned to show it up for what it is after this discussion, which strikes me as a positive outcome.

[billw55]

Trinidad, on 2017-May-11, 00:04, said:

So we need to have days off on the day that

Christians remember that he was born (Christmas)
Christians remember that he was crucified (Good Friday)
Christians remember that he resurrected from death (Easter Monday)
Christians remember that he went to "heaven" (Ascuncion)
Christians remember that his mother went to heaven (Assumption of Mary)
Christians remember that his followers got inspired to tell the rest of the world this nonsense (Pentecostal Monday)
Christians remember that this guy was conceived (Immaculate conception)
Christians start the fasting period (Two days before Ash Wednesday)
Christians celebrate the "Greatest Christiansd in history" (All Saints-day)

And I probably forgot a couple.

Yes, that does sound excessive. At my job in the USA, we have 6 holidays per year total, and only one of them (Christmas) is religious. Although it is widely celebrated by the nonreligious as well.

[kenberg]

Zelandakh, on 2017-May-11, 02:14, said:

Would you also take no interest if a politician came along and decided to put all Jews and homosexuals in work camps? Just because an issue does not affect you directly does not mean that it is of no interest, particularly when the purpose of the rhetoric or policy is to stir up feeling against a minority group or a group that has little influence within the corridors of power. The point is not to be fearful of sharia becoming law in the United States but rather to be aware that such things can be used to stoke up opposition amongst the gullible who are only too willing to believe that this is a likely outcome. If you should see such sentiment amongst your social group, you are probably better positioned to show it up for what it is after this discussion, which strikes me as a positive outcome.

I think you are greatly misreading what I said. Putting Jews and homosexuals into work camps would require a change in the law. Or an over-riding of the law. What I was saying, and I thought I was saying it clearly, was that some sub-cultures, through religion or otherwise, might follow practices that I would not follow but are not in conflict with the law. A friend was recently in Sinai hospital in Baltimore. They have a Sabbath door. As I understand it,on Sabbath, after sunset on Friday until sunset on Saturday, an observant Jew should not use motor driven things. Or something like that. Actually, the "or something like that' displays my thinking. Not being part of that culture. I do not exactly know the rule. I have no need to know the rule.

Growing up in Minnesota in the 1950s. it was expected that white people would marry white people, black people would marry black people Jews would marry Jews, Catholics would marry Catholics, Protestants would marry Protestants. Interestingly (well perhaps it is interesting) the fact that I gave up religion did not change things. My first girlfriend was Jewish, that was fine, we were 14, but if we were say 23 and wanted to get married i expect that both her parents and mine would have had something to say about that. Marrying a Protestant was still ok, despite what was perhaps seen as a philosophical quirk in my non-belief. Racial oddity: For some reason my mother got the idea that my second girlfriend was black. They never met, but she was convinced. She could be stubborn. I always figured that if they did meet my mother would have said "She has really light complexion for a black girl". Anyway, customs exist.

So people have customs. I have little or no interest in changing their customs. And they can keep their hands off of my choices.

Of course "Law" means different things in different settings. Nobody goes to jail for not obeying the LOTT. And some customs can be oppressive, very oppressive. It does not require miscegenation laws to make a mixed race couple feel uncomfortable. But my point was that if Sharia Law is simply a way of describing Muslim culture, with rules followed by some Muslims, ignored by others, and if nobody is advocating that its provisions should be given the force of civil law, then I have no more reason to be interested in this than I have to be interested in exactly what is required for a Sabbath door.

[jogs]

Zelandakh, on 2017-May-10, 09:00, said:

Statements such as this one just do not survive the most basic inspection. Is the true Christianity that of the Crusades? Of the Inquisition? Institutions adapt over time if they want to stay relevant in the world. Islam has adapted just as Christianity has. There is no reason to think of modern muslims as being any less "true" in relation to the 7th century than of modern Christians being any less "true" compared to their Middle Age equivalents.

The West isn't living under Constantine' Council of Nicaea(315 AD) dictates. The West has evolved into 21th century thinking.

Look at the current treatment of gays in Muslim countries. Look at the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia.

[jogs]

http://www.nbcnews.c...-report-n741896

Hundreds of men suspected of homosexuality arrested. At least three have been killed.

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2017-May-10, 20:19, said:

Nonsense.

So why is it that Ramadan, Hanukkah and Diwali are not public holidays?

blackshoe, on 2017-May-10, 20:19, said:

If organized Scientology harasses people who have left that group, that is first a violation of the NAP and second, illegal under US laws.

Take a look at the BBC Panorama documentaries "Scientology and Me" and "The Secrets of Scientology" by John Sweeney and come back and tell me that no harassment takes place. There is plenty of addiitonal material available online too if you care to do some research of your own.

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2017-May-11, 06:43, said:

I think you are greatly misreading what I said. Putting Jews and homosexuals into work camps would require a change in the law.

Well yes...but so would bringing in aspects of sharia law into American legislation. And, for that matter, does it really require such a change? America put lots of people into Guantanamo Bay. Is it such a stretch for a similar process to be used for Jews and homosexuals if they are portrayed as enemies of the State? Or is it ok to lock up muslims but not Jews?

[Zelandakh]

jogs, on 2017-May-11, 07:25, said:

The West isn't living under Constantine' Council of Nicaea(315 AD) dictates. The West has evolved into 21th century thinking.

Look at the current treatment of gays in Muslim countries. Look at the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia.

Look at the treatment of African Americans in half of America. Women and LGBTs are certainly discriminated against there too. Not to the same extent perhaps but we are talking about a change over 2000 years or so. Christianity has changed over that time and Islam too. There are fanatics from both religions as well as moderates. For some reason, people such as you concentrate only on the fanatics and ignore the moderates, who are every bit as much true muslims in the 21st century, probably much more.

[Winstonm]

Jogs has done an admirable job of Trump impersonation by turning the thread away from the obvious problems of Russia and corruption to a debate about irrelevancy.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2017-May-10, 14:44, said:

Maybe there is nothing at all to discuss here about Sharia law. That would suit me fine.

That's exactly the point. There's no movement trying to impose Sharia Law on the general public, or change our laws to conform to Sharia. It's just something racists trot out as a way to justify their positions. But it's no more true than the feeling that the entire Muslim community is out to destroy us.

[Winstonm]

Although from a progressive point of view, it is probably better to have an incompetent and distractable Donal Trump for his entire term than the succession order: Pence, Ryan, Hatch, but it is still too damaging to the country to allow this amount of corruption, nepotism, and disregard for American democracy to continue to have his way and too risky to attempt to corner him and control his power.

Russia must be dancing in the aisles.

By Steve Benen

Quote

At face value, it looked ridiculous. The day after Donald Trump fired the FBI director overseeing the investigation into the Russia scandal, the president welcomed Russian officials into the Oval Office for a chat. Soon after, the world was treated to photographs from the Russian Foreign Ministry – not the White House or U.S. news organizations – of Trump shaking hands with Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

It wasn’t long before many started wondering why American journalists were barred from the event, but Russia’s official news agency was allowed in.

The Washington Post took this a step further, highlighting the possibility of a security breach.
A photographer for a Russian state-owned news agency was allowed into the Oval Office on Wednesday during President Trump’s meeting with Russian diplomats, a level of access that was criticized by former U.S. intelligence officials as a potential security breach.

The officials cited the danger that a listening device or other surveillance equipment could have been brought into the Oval Office while hidden in cameras or other electronics. Former U.S. intelligence officials raised questions after photos of Trump’s meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov were posted online by the Tass news agency…. Other former intelligence officials also described the access granted to the photographer as a potential security lapse, noting that standard screening for White House visitors would not necessarily detect a sophisticated espionage device.
Former deputy CIA director David S. Cohen was asked on Twitter yesterday whether it was wise to allow a Russian government photographer and his equipment into the Oval Office.

“No,” Cohen replied, “it was not.”

So why in the world did Team Trump let this happen?

Apparently, the White House was told that the photographer worked with Lavrov, not that he also worked for Russia’s state-owned news agency.

A White House official told CNN, in reference to the Russians, “They tricked us.”

If this explanation is intended to inspire confidence, it’s not working.

Postscript: Incidentally, why did the president agree to host this meeting? “He chose to receive him because Putin asked him to,” a White House spokesman said of Trump’s Lavrov meeting.

[Winstonm]

The Economist then rightly asks him(Donald Trump) how something like eliminating the estate tax could fail to benefit the rich, and Trump appears to enter a fugue state:

The President's answer:

Quote

I get more deductions, I mean I can tell you this, I get more deductions, they have deductions for birds flying across America, they have deductions for everything. There are more deductions … now you’re going to get an interest deduction, and a charitable deduction. But we’re not going to have all this nonsense that they have right now that complicates things and makes it … you know when we put out that one page, I said, we should really put out a, you know, a big thing, and then I looked at the one page, honestly it’s pretty well covered. Hard to believe.

Ignorance on parade.

Then, concerning the phrase: prime the pump, Trump said this to The Economist reporter:

Quote

Have you heard that expression used before? Because I haven’t heard it. I mean, I just … I came up with it a couple of days ago and I thought it was good. It’s what you have to do.

And this guy wants us to believe - because he says so - that the Russian investigation is hooey and we need to move on?

That is so wrong on so many levels.

[Winstonm]

From The Atlantic:

Quote

So what finally worried one of Washington, D.C.’s most consistent critics of civil libertarians?

Here’s what:

Let me be blunt: The soft spot is not NSA and it's not the drone program. The soft spot, the least tyrant-proof part of the government, is the U.S. Department of Justice and the larger law enforcement and regulatory apparatus of the United States government. The first reason you should fear a Donald Trump presidency is what he would do to the ordinary enforcement functions of the federal government, not the most extraordinary ones…

A prosecutor—and by extention, a tyrant president who directs that prosecutor—can harass or target almost anyone, and he can often do so without violating any law. He doesn't actually need to indict the person, though that can be fun. He needs only open an investigation; that alone can be ruinous. The standards for doing so, criminal predication, are not high. And the fabric of American federal law—criminal and civil law alike—is so vast that a huge number of people and institutions of consequence are ripe for some sort of meddling from authorities. A template here is how former Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli was able to harass climate scientists he didn't like. This stuff is not hard to do, and you don't even need to win to succeed.

The Justice Department has some institutional defenses against this sort of thing, but they are far weaker than the intelligence community's institutional defenses against abuses. They mostly do not reside in statute or in the sort of complex oversight structures that Granick complains in the case of NSA are not restrictive enough. They reside in the Levi Guidelines, in certain normative rules about contacts between the Justice Department and the White House, in norms that have developed over the years in the FBI. And they reside in the hearts of a lot of replaceable people. Ultimately, they reside in an institutional culture at the Justice Department, and that is precisely the sort of thing a tyrant leader can change.
Wittes went on to sketch what a would-be tyrant would need to do to effect that sort of change. “He would need to appoint and get confirmed by the Senate the right attorney general,” he wrote. “That's very doable.” Indeed, we now know his name: Jeff Sessions. Wittes added, “Certainly, a bunch of pesky, scrupulous AUSAs might have to go.” And like past presidents, Trump got mass resignations of Assistant U.S. Attorneys.

Finally, Wittes wrote, “Trump might develop a problem with our redoubtable FBI director, who doesn't leave with the outgoing administration and has stared down a president before. But so what? Bill Clinton didn't get along with his FBI director either. Comey will not be there forever anyway.” Here we are mere months into Trump’s term.

And Comey is already gone.

[jogs]

Trinidad, on 2017-May-11, 00:04, said:

I think Christian holidays, mandated by the government, are nonsense.

The US constitution was written in 1787. Every European nation was a monarchy. Our forefathers didn't want the government run by any church. 8 of the original 13 states had an official religion. Each was a Christian denomination. There were no Muslim states. It was separation of church and state. Still the US(unofficially) is a Christian nation. The money says "under God". The Pledge of Allegiance of the United States added "under God" in 1954.

[ArtK78]

jogs, on 2017-May-12, 09:39, said:

The US constitution was written in 1787. Every European nation was a monarchy. Our forefathers didn't want the government run by any church. 8 of the original 13 states had an official religion. Each was a Christian denomination. There were no Muslim states. It was separation of church and state. Still the US(unofficially) is a Christian nation. The money says "under God". The Pledge of Allegiance of the United States added "under God" in 1954.

"In God We Trust" became the official motto of the United States in 1956, which prompted its appearance on currency starting in 1957. "In God We Trust" was added to coins during the Civil War, but has at times vanished and reappeared on some coins.

[Winstonm]

I notice the usual gang of Trump supporters has been notoriously quiet about the Russia investigation and the Comey firing.

[nige1]

Winstonm, on 2017-May-12, 10:10, said:

I notice the usual gang of Trump supporters has been notoriously quiet about the Russia investigation and the Comey firing.

Not a Trump-supporter but an advocate of world-peace: Improved dialogue with Russia might frustrate the weapons-lobby but seems a tentative first step in the right direction. What else has the "Russian investigation" revealed?

[diana_eva]

nige1, on 2017-May-12, 10:41, said:

Not a Trump-supporter but an advocate of world-peace: Improved dialogue with Russia might frustrate the weapons-lobby but seems a tentative first step in the right direction. What else has the "Russian investigation" revealed?

Russia isn't interested in world peace.

[ldrews]

diana_eva, on 2017-May-12, 10:48, said:

Russia isn't interested in world peace.

And you know this how?

Apparently the US is not interested in world peace either. Who has the most foreign military installations in the world? Who has the most troops deployed to foreign countries? Who has been engaged in the most wars/police actions during the last 30 years?