The top Saudi clerics have found another person to execute for free speech. We have previously seen a number of people accused of blasphemy for brief tweets or Facebook entries or even reading a book or speaking insulting thoughts at prayer. There is now a campaign to execute 23-year-old journalist Hamza Kashgari for a tweet that he sent to Mohammad on his birthday about Kashgari’s faith. There is no evidence that Mohammad is actually one of his followers but Mohammad’s followers are pretty ticked and labelled Kashgari an “apostate” who must be killed for his offense to Islam.
You are probably thinking the tweet must be pretty darn bad to fit serious blasphemy into 140 characters or less. Yet, Kashgari is being charged over a fake conversation that he had with Mohammad, who is not even listed as one of his “followers” on Twitter. Kashgari (who has apologized) wrote “On your birthday I find you in front of me wherever I go. I love many things about you and hate others, and there are many things about you I don’t understand.” As also tweeted “No Saudi women will go to hell, because it’s impossible to go there twice.”
The faithful even created a festive Facebook page with nearly 10,000 members dedicated to executing the journalist — declaring “The Saudi people demand Hamza Kashgari’s execution” already has nearly 10,000 members.
The committee of top clerics confirmed that these people are only doing what is right and told Saudis that “Muslim scholars everywhere have agreed that those who insult Allah and his prophet or the (Muslim holy book) Koran or anything in religion are infidels and apostates.” They called on him to be “judge[d] based on sharia law,” which demands death for those who insult Mohammad or the religion.
Other clerics repeated prior warnings that good Muslims do not Tweet. Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah al-Sheikh announced that Twitter is “a great danger not suitable for Muslims… it is a platform for spreading lies and making accusations.”
Once again, these stories show the perils of the effort of the Obama Administration to establish standards for the criminalization of anti-religious speech with Muslim countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Source: Washington Post
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/10/omg-adih-top-saudi-clerics-calls-for-journalist-to-be-put-to-death-for-blasphemous-tweet/#comment-330839
an example of Gene H’s style of argumentation:
MM:
has he declared victory? It is always so, he says “I am smarter than you and I have won with logic and superior reasoning”.
I always tell him if your initial premise is wrong, you havent proved shit. Such that all dogs have three legs, Rover is a dog, therefore Rover has 3 legs. My logic is perfect but my my epistemology leaves something to be desired. As it is with Gene H, his logic may be correct but only for the “facts” he learned that were not so in the schools he attended.
His understanding of economics is abysmal as he comes at it from a Marxian perspective. His law isnt much better as he comes at that from a social justice perspective rather than an individual rights perspective. The law school he went to taught him liberation theology rather than legal theory.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste. You cannot reach his, the propagandists he had in school planted the ideas so deep and expertly gave him the ammunition to defend these ideas even against empirical evidence. They have taught him to disregard the evidence of his senses. His perception is receiving only through the color pink and all sensations are colored by these intellectual blinders.
He accuses us of this because he cannot believe other people have contrary ideas. Instead of questioning his own premises, he attacks us. It is far easier to attack and call names. Or he just misdirects the dialogue to something he can easily defeat.
Free markets and free people are what leads to human progress, all the other stuff is just bullshit.
“-You misread, the mechanism I was referring to is the power to regulate specific industries and skew the market i.e. farm subsidies of which 80% go to the corporate farms. Not to mention the federal government has no business giving any business of any kind any subsidies.”
And you still don’t understand that if you dislike how your tax dollars are spent, that’s just sour grapes. I don’t think government should subsidize anything other than manufacturing and then only in emergencies.
“Even more specious reasoning, a weak and misapplied attempt at reductio ad absurdum and a further appeal to emotion.”
– More gibberish from you in an attempt to deflect and actually provide a counterargument, i.e. one in which more severe penalties actually “reduce graft,” or drug abuse.”
Not in the slightest. You’re making a false equivalence between a crime problem not adequately addressed by existing penalty (graft) and a health problem currently being misaddressed as a legal problem (drug use). What you said was still specious reasoning, a weak and misapplied attempt at reductio ad absurdum and a further appeal to emotion
“They are crimes with victims just like theft or murder, not a health problem like drug use.”
– So then you might argue for more usage of the death penalty to discourage more murders as an example of more severe penalties to discourage crimes.”
Supposition on your part and incorrect at that. You binary thinkers are all alike. You want a silver bullet solution, but there is none to be had.
“All legal analysis of the Constitution begins with the plain language of the Constitution, but it doesn’t end there.”
-Gene Howington
““The most obvious place to start (and ideally end) constitutional analysis is with the text of the Constitution.”
-Jonathan Turley
Apparently you don’t understand what the word “ideally” means any more than you understand what the word “if” means. Ideally the language of the Constitution has plain meaning and requires no (or little) interpretation. That’s where precedent and amendment come into play. Sometime judgement refers back to the plain language and when that is possible that is the ideal solution. For example, it would be foolish to argue about the meaning of the words “common defence’. However, if that language has ambiguities, then interpretation must be had and new precedent is set based upon that interpretation. For example, “free exercise” in the 1st Amendment. It seems clear enough, but really it’s an ambiguous statement. What does this free exercise mean and what are its limits? Are you free to practice a religion that requires human sacrifice (even though that is against criminal statute)? Are you free to practice a religion that requires animal sacrifice? Where do your rights to free exercise end and the free exercise rights of other begin? This is where the body of jurisprudence surrounding the Constitution comes from. In the end, what free exercise is isn’t defined by the Constitution, but rather the case law that evolved around free exercise questions. All analysis of the Constitution ideally ends in the language of the Constitution, but the reality of it is that there are ambiguities in the language of the document and it is left to precedent and amendment to sort out those ambiguities. Thus the Constitution is a living document. Originalists reject this pragmatic reality. That Jon “[t]he most obvious place to start (and ideally end) constitutional analysis is with the text of the Constitution” does not make him an Originalist. It makes him a pragmatist with the goal of retaining plain meaning where possible. It does not mean he thinks that is always possible (the key Originalist mistake in reasoning).
““Frankly, I believe that our system would be far better off under the original meaning of the Clause, which would have avoided many of the controversies of modern times.”
-Jonathan
“However, if you mistake his statements regarding interpretation as making him an Orginalist, to my knowledge that would be a mistaken assumption on your part. ”
-Gene on Jonathan
Am I missing something here?”
Yes, you are and I already explained what it is you’re missing with your out of context quotes.
The rest of what you say isn’t worth addressing.
“-Well, I am sure Professor Turley certainly appreciates your encouragement for him to speak his own mind on *his own blog. Judging by his blog and article output, he surely needs encouragement to take strong positions and speak his mind, even when disagreeing with the great Gene Howington!”
“Frankly, I believe that our system would be far better off under the original meaning of the Clause, which would have avoided many of the controversies of modern times.”
-Jonathan
“However, if you mistake his statements regarding interpretation as making him an Orginalist, to my knowledge that would be a mistaken assumption on your part. ”
-Gene on Jonathan
Am I missing something here?
“Although I encourage him to speak his own mind”
-Gene on Jonathan
-Well, I am sure Professor Turley certainly appreciates your encouragement for him to speak his own mind on. Judging by his blog and article output, he surely needs encouragement to take strong positions and speak his mind, even when disagreeing with the great Gene Howington!
“That mechanism is not taxation. That mechanism is graft in the form of campaign finance. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you still can’t tell the difference between the topics of taxation and corruption. Taxation is necessary for any form of of government. Corruption isn’t.”
-You misread, the mechanism I was referring to is the power to regulate specific industries and skew the market i.e. farm subsidies of which 80% go to the corporate farms. Not to mention the federal government has no business giving any business of any kind any subsidies.
“Even more specious reasoning, a weak and misapplied attempt at reductio ad absurdum and a further appeal to emotion.”
– More gibberish from you in an attempt to deflect and actually provide a counterargument, i.e. one in which more severe penalties actually “reduce graft,” or drug abuse.
“They are crimes with victims just like theft or murder, not a health problem like drug use.”
– So then you might argue for more usage of the death penalty to discourage more murders as an example of more severe penalties to discourage crimes.
“All legal analysis of the Constitution begins with the plain language of the Constitution, but it doesn’t end there.”
-Gene Howington
““The most obvious place to start (and ideally end) constitutional analysis is with the text of the Constitution.”
-Jonathan Turley
Take your pick!
: D
“–Excuse me. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if your government misspends the money it collects, it hardly matters the reason why. The money is still being misspent by your government. I hate to break it to you, but they are the same thing. If my taxes are misspent because lobbyist of the most powerful corporations have the most influence, then my taxes are plainly misspent. The reason they are misspent is irrelevant. Either they are or they aren’t, and most of the time they are.
-And yes, the most powerful corporate lobbyist do have undue influence on the regulatory agencies in our government and yes they do write laws that subsidize themselves and hurt their competitors at the taxpayer expense. I would like to eliminate the mechanism that allows that to happen.”
That mechanism is not taxation. That mechanism is graft in the form of campaign finance. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you still can’t tell the difference between the topics of taxation and corruption. Taxation is necessary for any form of of government. Corruption isn’t.
“Me: -Just like mandatory minimums have worked so well to keep drugs off the streets. Should we move to beheadings? No, we strive for perfection, but it is hardly necessary. Being more free is always an improvement from being less.”
Even more specious reasoning, a weak and misapplied attempt at reductio ad absurdum and a further appeal to emotion.
“-You are right, you did not say anything about mandatory minimums. You said we need more severe penalties to prevent people from breaking rules, in this case graft. I cited mandatory minimums, a more severe penalty that was implemented to keep more people from doing drugs. It has failed. Then I asked if we should make the penalty even more “severe,” and gave an example of a more severe penalty. Then you “moved the goal posts,” by pretending mandatory minimums were an irrelevant example, when clearly they are nothing but an example of “a severe penalty.””
More specious reasoning and you responded with a situation (drug laws) where I’ve already said a legal solution will never mitigate the social damage of drug use. Graft is malfeasance of office combined with bribery; both problems very capable of redress by legal mechanisms if proper legal mechanisms were in place. They are crimes with victims just like theft or murder, not a health problem like drug use.
“As for ridiculing me for my original intent ideas…I am in good company with that “fallacious misunderstanding of the Constitution.””
Actually, if you’re an Originalist – which you apparently are, you’re not.
That you’ve pointed out that Professor Turley and I disagree about points of law is nothing new. We agree about quite a bit, but we do disagree on a few subjects. The language he was referring to in your quotes is not the same language you and I are talking about, ergo, your quotes are out of context.
However, if you mistake his statements regarding interpretation as making him an Orginalist, to my knowledge that would be a mistaken assumption on your part. Although I encourage him to speak his own mind, I know from past exchanges that he does recognize that the Constitution is a living document affected by precedent and amendment. All legal analysis of the Constitution begins with the plain language of the Constitution, but it doesn’t end there. Plus you are presenting again argument by non-sequtur. The Constitutional language about recess appointments he is referring to in that article hasn’t be modified by precedent set in court or by amendment but rather by Executive misuse over time much like the continued abuse of signing statements. Apples and oranges. Sorry, but yet another swing and a miss on your part.
“You apparently cannot tell the difference between the corrupting influence of political spending done by the lobbyists, corporations and the wealthy to distort laws and regulations in their favor and disagreeing with how your taxes are spent. ”
–Excuse me. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if your government misspends the money it collects, it hardly matters the reason why. The money is still being misspent by your government. I hate to break it to you, but they are the same thing. If my taxes are misspent because lobbyist of the most powerful corporations have the most influence, then my taxes are plainly misspent. The reason they are misspent is irrelevant. Either they are or they aren’t, and most of the time they are.
-And yes, the most powerful corporate lobbyist do have undue influence on the regulatory agencies in our government and yes they do write laws that subsidize themselves and hurt their competitors at the taxpayer expense. I would like to eliminate the mechanism that allows that to happen.
Me: “-I could also say, “You are never going to get regulations that aren’t influenced and controlled by the very same people you are trying to benefit, essentially writing legislation to their own benefit and expense of everyone else,” but that doesn’t stop you from trying. I would rather focus on freedom, which is beneficial to everyone, than trying to thread the impossible needle of perfect regulation.”
You: “Specious reasoning. If you make the penalty severe enough, you’ll remove the enough of the graft from the system to get better than nominal function. Again, perfection is your standard on this issue, not mine.”
Me: -Just like mandatory minimums have worked so well to keep drugs off the streets. Should we move to beheadings? No, we strive for perfection, but it is hardly necessary. Being more free is always an improvement from being less.
You: “Moving the goal posts. Again. And a false assumption again. I’ve never said anything about being for mandatory minimums. The rest is simply an appeal to emotion on your part.”
-You are right, you did not say anything about mandatory minimums. You said we need more severe penalties to prevent people from breaking rules, in this case graft. I cited mandatory minimums, a more severe penalty that was implemented to keep more people from doing drugs. It has failed. Then I asked if we should make the penalty even more “severe,” and gave an example of a more severe penalty. Then you “moved the goal posts,” by pretending mandatory minimums were an irrelevant example, when clearly they are nothing but an example of “a severe penalty.”
“As for being full of shit? If you think I am, I am cocksure I am not. Since you are right about so very little.”
-Ouch!
As for ridiculing me for my original intent ideas…I am in good company with that “fallacious misunderstanding of the Constitution.”
Frankly, I believe that our system would be far better off under the original meaning of the Clause, which would have avoided many of the controversies of modern times.”
-Jonathan Turley
“The most obvious place to start (and ideally end) constitutional analysis is with the text of the Constitution.”
-Jonathan Turley
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/15/turley-testimony-on-the-constitutionality-of-recess-appointments/
“Not at all, because I am not an intellectual nor do I pose as one.”
Actually you do whenever you try to prove your position is superior to that of another, successfully or not. Argument, debate and dialog about ideas and their nature is by definition an intellectual endeavor. Just because you’re no good at it doesn’t mean you don’t try to be an intellectual, just rather a reflection that you do so poorly.
Just like your Objectivist pseudo-philosophy isn’t really a philosophy but rather a false philosophy disguising a weak rationalization for greed and selfishness (which are pretty much universally regarded in the study of philosophy as intrinsically bad), your very participation here and poor performance to date show that you are a pseudo-intellectual at best. Because like many of your statements and knowledge, that sentence was only half right. You aren’t an intellectual, true enough, but you most certainly do pose as one.
So whatever you say, Green Eyed Monster.
Hoist upon your own petard once again.
Not at all, because I am not an intellectual nor do I pose as one.
As for being full of shit? If you think I am, I am cocksure I am not. Since you are right about so very little.
“But I do dislike people who are full of shit and are intellectual frauds.”
That must make it really tough for you to shave in the morning.
Monsr. Madaleine:
“-Your insights tell me otherwise. Though 100 arguments with libertarians does not mean you understand anything, in fact it probably means you have a ceiling to your understanding.”
Yes, there is a saying “progressives have been educated past their ability to comprehend.” The ones who do comprehend most always become true liberals in the 19th century meaning of the term: Liberty in all human spheres.
Gene H cannot or will not put the pieces together. At this point, I dont think he can. It is easier for him and others to think the Koch Brothers are funding this grand cabal of liberty than to actually understand what liberty represents and why it so important to human beings. But then that would conflict with their world view of what they were taught in school from the time they were 6 years old. It is pretty hard to unlearn bad habits.
Gene H:
I dont hate people smarter than I am, most of my friends are smarter than I am. You learn a lot by hanging out with people smarter than you are. But I do dislike people who are full of shit and are intellectual frauds.
You are such a simpleton. But I am glad you are able to make sense of your world by clinging to that thought. It is a pretty thin thread to hang your ego on though.
Bron,
MM is doing just fine without your assistance. He’s still not meeting the burden of persuasion or proof. However, he’s doing a damn sight better than you do on a regular basis.
Don’t hate me because I’m smarter than you even though I am. Hate me because that’s what small minded people do when they feel threatened. This blog attracts some very bright people. There are several regular posters here (including guest bloggers) every bit my intellectual equal and then some. That you’re simply not one of them is your failing. Really, Bron. Such insecurity about yourself is most unbecoming. You have two ears, two eyes and one mouth for a reason. Maybe you should figure out what that symmetry is trying to tell you.
Monsr. Madaleine:
Gene H is a didactic polymath by his own admission. He has read everything you have and more, his library has a minimum of 10,000 volumes some of them in french, german and latin all of which he is completely fluent in.
You dont know who you are messing with, he is literally the smartest man he will ever meet. You are a mere piece of gum on the bottom of his shoe to be played with when he is bored.
You have a didactic polymath by the tail. Dont poke the bear!
Gene H:
he is kicking your ass all over creation.
“-Just like mandatory minimums have worked so well to keep drugs off the streets. Should we move to beheadings? No, we strive for perfection, but it is hardly necessary. Being more free is always an improvement from being less.”
Moving the goal posts. Again. And a false assumption again. I’ve never said anything about being for mandatory minimums. The rest is simply an appeal to emotion on your part.
“-Two parties as in, government takes my money (1 party) and then wastes it (2 party)? Corruption by two parties as in the government (1 party) asks for more money than it needs to wage the drug war effectively? 2 parties as in government takes my money and then spends it on things I would never spend it on like bombing Iraq, Libya, and Somalia in a false name of defense?”
You apparently cannot tell the difference between the corrupting influence of political spending done by the lobbyists, corporations and the wealthy to distort laws and regulations in their favor and disagreeing with how your taxes are spent. The former is graft and corruption. The later is simply you having sour grapes.
“-Your insights tell me otherwise. Though 100 arguments with libertarians does not mean you understand anything, in fact it probably means you have a ceiling to your understanding.”
Not very meaningful given your demonstrated lack of understanding about just about every topic we’ve touched upon (but especially the nature of the Constitution, law in general, social compacts, history, psychology and sociology and how they interrelate) and repeated fallacious and malformed arguments.
“Specious reasoning. If you make the penalty severe enough, you’ll remove the enough of the graft from the system to get better than nominal function. Again, perfection is your standard on this issue, not mine.”
-Just like mandatory minimums have worked so well to keep drugs off the streets. Should we move to beheadings? No, we strive for perfection, but it is hardly necessary. Being more free is always an improvement from being less.
-“Government is notorious for its substandard quality and business practices. It is infamous for waste, corruption, bloated bureaucracies, and graft.”
“Specious reasoning. Government isn’t business. Also a false equivalence. of all the inefficiencies you named, only one – bloat, is not directly related to monied interests interferring with the proper function of government. Corruption and graft requires a minimum of two parties.”
-Two parties as in, government takes my money (1 party) and then wastes it (2 party)? Corruption by two parties as in the government (1 party) asks for more money than it needs to wage the drug war effectively? 2 parties as in government takes my money and then spends it on things I would never spend it on like bombing Iraq, Libya, and Somalia in a false name of defense?
“As to your suggested reading? You have no idea either what I’ve read or how many times I’ve had this exact same argument with Libertarians, so save your suggestions.”
-Your insights tell me otherwise. Though 100 arguments with libertarians does not mean you understand anything, in fact it probably means you have a ceiling to your understanding.