A weird dilemma for Obama...

On 3-Jun-2008, wrote:

A man with whom I finally certainly agree
Why doesn't rdean take his fat ass and his political BS somewhere else or
shove them up rectum!

Fred

In case I am misunderstood

"shove them up HIS OWN rectum!"

Joe McIntosh wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message --plus many others about
Obama's dilemma--I have tried to follow and understand the questions,
opinions, answers discussed without much understanding and a real lack of
knowledge about the opinions offered. Puts me in a bad position to form an
opinion about the said dilemma and even worse to GUESS what is going to
happen to our world in the future.
I guess like many Americans we blame Bush for getting us in the current war,
and don"t see any of the current presidential hopefuls with a plan to get us
out. I have had a good nation to live in for 77 years and am afraid my two
grandsons will not have the same.
So I went up to this lady standing behind me in the check out lane at the
library today--she had dark skin and a towel thing wrapped around her head.
She did not look dangerous and I was not armed so I said hi and ask her what
she was reading.In a slightly accented voice she offered that her current
interest was our future national shortage of water and the ensuring water
rights wars we could expect in our country. Both books she way s checking
out were by Wallace Stegner. I offered that I'm very concerned about the
Artic area where last summer a Russian mini-sub dropped a flag on the sea
bottom and stated "The Artic is Ours"! She said a U.N commission of
scientists has started to analyze Artic claims.The Arctic's wealth
may include 25% 0f the earth's oil and gas reserves---but a group of our
senators have blocked our joining into a U.N. treaty . Sen. David Vitter
( R,La ) says it would "hand a portion of our national security matters to
the U.N.
The lady at the desk said next, so I hurried forward to check out my
selection--"55-LOVE-DOUBLES STRATEGY FOR SENIORS."


as cogent, insightful, and brilliant a comment as i've read in a while.
thanks. g

jeff (of course, i'm currently listening to the cryptkeeper a/k/a mccain
deliver a phony, lame, and flat speech in louisiana, utilizing the
creepiest of grins i've ever seen on national teevee.)

On 3-Jun-2008, jeff miller wrote:

eff (of course, i'm currently listening to the cryptkeeper a/k/a mccain
deliver a phony, lame, and flat speech in louisiana, utilizing the
creepiest of grins i've ever seen on national teevee.)



McCain has been dead for at least 15 years now
What you see is just a sad and pathetic shadow of the ass he always was.
Yet he is still dangerous and as a Prez candidate a sad joke on the US
public.

Fred

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:20:31 -0400, Jeff wrote:

wrote:


the age of and reasons for the renunciation seem to be considered, and,
if being an apostate is not to have any temporal punishment or
consequence, then it seems a meaningless issue in the context of
diplomatic relations...no?

No. Age is a consideration in the application of "earthly" punishment
(obviously, for that minority who interpret that there should be no
earthly punishment, age isn't a consideration in a non-existent earthly
punishment). A minor who apostates is held until majority and then
punished as an adult - similar to various jurisdictions that incarcerate
as a minor and transfer to "adult" prison for the remander of the
sentence. But he didn't apostate (only) as a minor, so age is no longer
material.

my point is the "flexibility" of interpretation involved in the whole
apostasy dynamic and within the context of an obama presidency.
Apparently Egypt doesn't have an apostasy law, instead having laws about
"insulting" Islam. Why is that?

Probably Bush's fault...seriously, though, I can think of no reason that
this or that nation must have a particular law, be it based on Islam,
English common law, the Napoleonic Code, or whatever. I'd offer that
Egyptians are entitled to have whatever internal laws they might wish,
or, in the alternative, individuals can address those laws as they see
fit.

If obama is an apostate, as you contend he must be, then what do you
contend is the mandatory response governments of the islamic countries
must have in dealing with him and the country he leads?

None whatsoever - I make no contention that any government _must_ have
any response to anything the POTUS might do. It's a rare thing that
people find themselves as head of government (as opposed to head of
state) by accidental means and against their will and desire. IOW, they
got there because they are politicians desirous of power. Therefore,
the great likelihood is that they are inclined to be, um, politically
realistic, at least on a personal level, insofar as understanding that a
US leader's religious history is probably not an area into which good
politics would lead. OTOH, given the seriousness of apostasy for many
Muslims - individuals "civilians," clerics, and the public face of the
internally-realistic leaders - I can at least see the possibility that
it could become an issue.

You seem to
argue the label alone demands a specific temporal response by all true
muslim governments.

Again, I don't "demand" or even "expect" any government, secular, "true
Muslim," or weekend-casual Muslim, to have a particular response. I
would offer, however, that the response of those governed will play into
the response of the government...you know, sorta like when a relative
minority get the US Congress to do something stupid to appease them...

I acknowledge radical muslims will act, uh, in a
radical manner. From my brief reading, it appears most of the apostasy
issues and problems arise in non-government contexts - generally invoked
by those most muslims consider fanatics. there are some exceptions, as
you noted.

Hmmm...exceptium firmat regulam... or, quod si exceptio facit ne liceat
ibi necesse est licere...interestingly, involving a political mess
involving, well, politics and at least as an aside, religion...


i suppose you can construct a socratic
example that will require admissions from your audience, and if you
simply want a possibility acknowledged...no problem. but, in reality, i
still think it highly improbable that "obama the apostate" will deter a
more normal diplomacy with muslim governments, including our so-called
enemies.

Now this is a different matter - "highly improbable" isn't "impossible"
and it certainly doesn't speak to potential. I readily acknowledge that
I don't, right here, right now, with current information, see it as some
inevitable major aspect of a potential Obama Presidency. But it would
appear that I think it has "more legs" than you do, but any potential
for it becoming an issue is based on what a President Obama might or
does do with regard to Islamic governments, what governments either
become Islamic or secular, and what ordinary Muslims do or are inspired
to do by their various leaders. Potential and probability are not
inextricably linked nor is one calculable from the value of the other.
IOW, if you throw a lit match into a bucket of gasoline, the probability
is low that it'll explode, but the energy potential of the gasoline is
still pretty high.

i concede all apostasy possibilities you choose to suggest... I just
don't agree they are likely g.

what about the whole rabid
"infidel" thing?

What about it?

what does islamic law say about defining and dealing with infidels?

It depends on who is doing the interpreting, but I'd suggest Rachel not
wear her "I'm with the infidel" t-shirt on your next Middle Eastern
vacation...

My suggestion would be to do a brief scan of what a
Google search pulls up with regard to apostates prior to, say, 2005 to
avoid any possible, er, "Obamatization" from any front (but look into
the Afghan thing with the guy who had to be declared incompetent to
avoid execution - I don't recall the exact date, but it has been
recently). Again, this issue isn't something that just popped up
because of Obama.

i didn't say it did. I merely disagreed that it was a valid concern for
an obama presidency in dealing diplomatically with the muslim world and
governments.

Ah, well, see, it's all about who is doing the interpreting...

i'm not "imposing" any particular view. i acknowledge my limits as a
western world non-muslim with little experience or education regarding
the muslim world. i do recognize how some use their own notions of
religious mandates to justify, criticize, and avoid - but that isn't
limited to islam...nor does it seem to propel or control current
international diplomacy. still, i don't think my opinion is a stretch
(that your obama-the-apostate issue won't impact relations between our
country and a muslim country as much as a hawkish, non-muslim, mccain
presidency), while your position demands a radical islam rule akin to
the taliban. i don't think iran or egypt or iraq will be radicalized by
apostasy views in the conduct of their diplomatic and international
relations. while i have no doubt there could be resort to any bizarre
interpretation that advances an agenda (viz. the whole "torture" issue
in this country), i doubt the interpretations of apostasy will serve to
affect obama's effectiveness in his diplomatic efforts in dealing with
the muslim world.

...and, to answer your question directly, i think the taliban would have
killed him, and would have killed you, me, my wife, and billy graham.

Well, I can't and won't speak for you, your wife, or Billy, but I have
not apostated Islam (and would not do so) and I can think of nothing
I've done to warrant a death sentence under Islamic law as it is
generally interpreted by the majority of Islamic scholars, including
those in the Taliban. I mean, I wouldn't imagine being a favored member
of the populace or anything, but OTOH, I wouldn't imagine a great deal
of individually-focused trouble, either.

oh c'mon richard ... of the outspoken infidels named above, you'd be the
first killed. g the point is...taliban ain't healthy for any
loud-mouthed or principled non-muslim living under taliban domination.
of course, it doesn't appear american is healthy for muslims living
under american domination either.

Principled and loud-mouthed is one thing, apostation and/or insulting
Islam is another. I have no reason to insult Islam because I respect
the right of Muslims to their faith. I feel they are absolutely correct
in their beliefs insofar as for themselves, but I also feel that Jews,
Catholics, Hindi, Buddhists, Hare Krishnas, etc. are, too. I don't have
the slightest desire to control or denigrate the faith of other people
regardless of my feelings about those people controlling their actions
toward still other people. IAC, while Islamic law and the Taliban are
related, a government based upon a general term of "Islamic law" is not
automatically the Taliban, radical, or otherwise negative in any
objective sense I can see. There are plenty of people who can choose
and have chosen to live under such a government and are not, even in a
"western-centric"/common law/secular/whatever sense, "radicals."

i thought we were talking the taliban interpretation of islam...at least
that was the context of your original "what if" question and my answer.
my answer assumes we are all infidels (non-believers). ...and, given
your persona as i have experienced it here, i doubt you would accept the
human rights violations and discrimination mandated by the
taliban...thus, i expect you'd be quickly identified and executed. If
Islam is interpreted to require the death of infidels and apostates, and
if Islam is interpreted to require the stoning death of an adulterous
woman, as you suggest in your apostasy argument about obama, do you
still say you have "no reason to insult Islam"...do you then still
respect the right to commit such acts in the name of Islam?

Yes, insofar as with regard to those who knew what they were getting
into when they went into it with their eyes open. And no, I don't
understand Catholics who wish to make the Catholic church into the
Episcopal Church, either - if you don't want to live under Islamic rule,
do what most in a similar situation do - save up your fares and buy a
U-Rob'em from an Asian in a nice Mexican or black neighborhood in the US
city of your choice...

also don't think that lends support to your claim. if we have to deal
with taliban as the governing authority in any country, there won't be
effective diplomatic negotiations for innumerable reasons - apostasy the
least of them, imo. you may call that a secular, western-centric,
law-view ... i think it's a view shared by many muslims. lunatics can't
be reasoned with...we have experience with our own as well. i don't
accept the notion that the majority of muslims or their governments are
WTT-bombing lunatics and religious zealots when it comes to dealing with
the world community.

Hmmm...I have not and do not suggest that those who see apostation of
Islam is a severe crime are lunatics or zealots. You're a legal scholar
- read some of the controlling language in the Quran from a couple of
translations and see what your objective interpretation might be. But I
think you may be underestimating and/or misunderstanding exactly how
serious, rigid, and controlling Islamic laws are to Muslims (not all, of
course, but the majority). Islam ain't Joel Osteen's
Roll-Yer-Own-Feelgood-Religion, with a little "Shout to the Lord"
playing in the background...say what you will, the large percentage of
Muslims take their religion, um, religiously...
i'm not a scholar of any kind. in fact, i think i'm quite dim on this
and many other subjects. however,i think i understand the concept of
merging religious didactics with government, and the concept of an
islamic state, i.e., the problem with separation of powers, rule of law,
and governing principles. however, the reality of international
relations and pressures seem to munge the "religiously religious" with
what's practical and necessary.

Um, what does the source of the law have to do with one being faithful
to it?

Um...indeed. If the source is founded on religious principles and
interpretations mandating the subjugation and/or denial of fundamental
human rights...i'd say it has a lot to do with it. but, i do understand
your blind devotion theory.

IOW, you want them ragheaded sumbitches to do things your way...the
western way...the good old-fashioned American way...you say
"subjugation," others say the way of God. I respect your right to see
it your way, but I also respect their right to see it their way.

Heck, one doesn't need to compare Islamic law to whatever
secular law to understand that those who believe in a particular system
take it to heart - for example, how strongly do you feel about the US
and NC Constitutions? How'd you feel about some Islamic cleric being
allowed to interpret things under them as he felt they ought to be? Too
radical a thought? You want an Irish solicitor telling NC lawyers about
how libel laws ought to be? Still too far, pardon the pun, abroad? How
about Louisiana notaries public doing civil law work in NC? The
principle of law and the source thereof aren't the same thing. Another
example - Erie with regard to state law in federal court.

i thought we were talking about obama's apostasy and its likely effect
on his ability to engage and deal with islamic countries and
governments. We were acknowledging, or attempting to acknowledge, in
our discussion our respective perceptions and opinions about the
realities of the islamic-controlled government's conduct in exercising
diplomatic relations with obama should he be elected prez. i've not
suggested Iran or Egypt would or should follow or apply US principles or
laws. I have suggested they will not be constrained by apostasy or
other similar narrow (and, I believe, radical) interpretations of
religious doctrine in their participation in diplomatic relations with a
US government under an Obama presidency.

And again, I'd agree that the gist of what you say is true - that the
"likelihood" is that politicians will be politicians, and if the other
guy likes to screw goats while ****ting on sacred religious texts, but
if the reward is large enough, a deal will be done...OTOH...

In fact, I suspect we will have
more successful diplomatic relations under Obama than under McBush.

I suspect we would have diplomatic relations with all the important
players if David Duke were Prez - politicians come and go, but civil
servants are forever...


hell richard, i've been in the realm of pentecostal snake-handlers and
southern baptists most of my life. g

And yet, you think highly improbable that religion might enter into
things...?!?!


never said that...religion enters into things all too often and in some
of the phoniest and craziest ways. my statement acknowledged the
insanity exhibited in the name of religion. what i said and meant to
say if i didn't make it clear - it's highly improbable the
islam/apostasy thingy will pose a problem for Obama in dealing with the
government officials of islamic countries if he is our president. i
know there is probably an ibn-al-sadr who believes it his religious duty
to kill obama, just as i suspect there is some white john smith in a
barbed wire compound in Northern Idaho who believes the same. i just
don't think either represents religion or law or the diplomatic
philosophy of any country.

Well, hey, as a really far-out dude once said: religion sucks (yeah,
yeah, yeah...but no...I take artistic license...)...unless it's
yours....

jeff (whose spouse just revealed she dreamed last night that she was a
stick of butter...)

Um, you didn't pretend you were Marlon Brando, did you...? HEY! WAIT!
I got it - butter is oily, cars can be "sticks" and need oil, and
gasoline is made from oil...QUICK! Check the gas gauge and the oil
level!


G yeah, i was looking for that "favorable" erotic psychoanalytical
interpretation and application too.

Er...perhaps some Anais Nin, a particularly nice Bordeaux, and some
Astroglide...application optional...

TC,
R

And on a related note - apostate or otherwise, it's a damned fine night
for "America" (yeah, **** it, I'll be a bit America-centric) - whatever
else happens, the US has come a long way, baby...a guy with a black
African father and a white mom from Kansas has gotten a damned decent
share of support from a big chunk of US voters, and thus far, not a
dumbass with a firehose, dog, or cut-up bedsheet in sight...now, if he
can just live up to his hype...

jeff

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:42:22 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
Ah...I'd offer the problem is what definition of "threat" one is using.
I'd further offer that "threat" isn't limited to a personal physical
threat against Obama, but rather, the "threat" posed against the US in
general from possible complications resulting from Muslims "seeing" (or
admittedly, being steered toward such a conclusion by vested Muslim
interests) the "great Satan" US having elected an apostate as leader and
then, "insulting Islam" by having him (Obama as leader and him
personally) make demands of Islamic governments that are arguably
"anti-Islamic."

several thoughts at once occurred while digesting this short bit of prose
above:
1. How much more of a 'great Satan' can the US become
in the eyes of those who would be readily led in that
direction?

OK, I'll play...how much more...?

2. Why is it inherently necessary that the US president be
making 'demands' of any sort on Islamic or any
government, under most circumstances?

Shirley...you jest - you somehow figure the US isn't gonna be making
demands, um, right, left, and, well, center...? And I'm pretty sure
that no one making the demand is gonna be overly concerned about the
religion of any of the demandees...at least not internally, anyway...

In fact, the collective attitude that we have the right to demand of
others in such a fashion has probably contributed much
to some of the problems which the US has, notably in
the Middle East.

Oh, ****...not you, too...what the hell is it with the weatisms...maybe
some weoplasty or a weectomy is in order...either that, or a usisism or
some theyacilin - something....

IAC, if you mean "we" to include all of the folks that tend to feel
secure in their right to demand that all others conform to whatever it
is they happen to think is the think others need to conform to at any
given time, then, yes. If you mean something else, maybe...or not...

IOW, everyone wants their own Godamned way...

3. This statement, as a part of this whole thread suggests
that none of us really has much of a clue how the Muslim
world will react to the topic at hand,

Wells sure...we're talking about, what, 1.5 billion ****in' people
spread out over, what, the planet or something...how the hell is anyone
gonna speak for all of them...? And that's a big part of my argument:
nobody - repeat - nobody has any special insight into how so many people
might react to anything. The potential very large subsets of groups
that large is simply outside accurate prediction. Would you bet much on
a race of a billion horses when you knew little or nothing about over
999 million of them...?

or much of
anything within that culture. Perhaps this illustrates why,
to as great an extent as possible, we, as a nation, might
do well to avoid interjecting ourselves into that culture.
It hasn't worked well to date, and I see no reason to
expect great change anytime soon......

Interjection is one thing, consideration is another.

TC,
R

Tom

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 01:02:16 GMT, wrote:


On 3-Jun-2008, wrote:

A man with whom I finally certainly agree
Why doesn't rdean take his fat ass and his political BS somewhere else or
shove them up rectum!

Fred

In case I am misunderstood

"shove them up HIS OWN rectum!"

You being misunderstood? Perish the thought. You're way to concise for
that to happen... Of all your posts, this is the one you choose to
correct? Odd.

Don

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 07:52:35 -0400, jeff miller
wrote:

forgotten a lot, but not that... or similar images of radical conduct at
a high school in little rock, arkansas... not sure it's pertinent to
the point though. why do you think they hate us dave?

Our support (rightfully so!) of Israel sure doesn't help our cause.
The fact that we are not a muslim nation also doesn't help. And, of
course, we are the rich guy on the block; everyone hates rich people.
d;o)


good to hear tales of the rapid and your times there. do you go down to
the place where the old dam building was removed?

Fished it the other day. Not too much happening. A few small
brookies (12 inchers) and some nice salmon. The currents at the
island are fishing very well, as is the wing dam pool.

I took a "worth-the-trip" brookie at the dam late yesterday in pouring
rain on a modified PT. The flow is at 400 (you can wade just about
anywhere) and at that flow I can get to water that is not normally
fished with a good presentation/drift. Cast over a rock and pulled
the fly up and over it until it dropped in front of the rock into a
nice little hole. BAM! A 4 - 5 pound female brookie took the size 18
nymph and I netted her about 4 minutes later. She was not a happy
camper. Some very big salmon are also being hooked. I lost several
yesterday fishing dries in the rain. Harry's "Killer Caddis" is now
my go-to fly.

i have a special
memory of a large brook trout i caught on a streamer just below the dam
and in view of that old house perched up on the bluff. the streamer
looked like part of the fender from a buick, created and loaned to me by
our canadian friend peter. he also showed me how to fish streamers in
that current.

I miss Peter, especially up here. His knowledge of streamer fishing
is unmatched. I bought some wet flies and was swinging them in the
currents yesterday. Took some nice salmon with them. Of course I
thought of Peter while doing it.

i miss those pleasant times at that place. but...i've
been fishing for puppy drum and enjoying a renewed experience with the
sal****er scene. haven't seen any reports of your friend ken's redfish
adventure in louisiana, but you should give that kind of fishing a go.
if you think a big brookie or salmon in the river currents can pull,
wait until you get one of those swimming anvils on your line.

I just can't get into the salt thingy. I have tried and caught some
nice stipers, but my love is wading in a stream and catching trout. or
salmon. Pull? Try a Russian 32 inch rainbow. d;o)

Jenny has discovered water, including mud puddles. She loves it up
here almost as much as we do.

Dave

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 17:39:11 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:

On Jun 3, 5:22*am, wrote:

IAC, a whole lot of Yankees aren't all that bright, anyway...



No argument from me on that one. And it extends both south and west.
And to the right and left.

But as far as the apostate thing; it seems to have a high degree of
swiftboating in it. And as for the rest of Islam, there is already a
precedent with a supposedly apostate leader (who even denounced Islam
after he was an adult), and there were no problems with his
denoucement of Islam.

From http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5286

"But would Muslims seeing Obama as a murtadd significantly affect an
Obama presidency? The only precedent to judge by is that of Carlos
Saúl Menem, the president of Argentina from 1989 to 1999. The son of
two Muslim Syrian immigrants and husband of another Syrian-Argentine,
Zulema Fátima Yoma, Menem converted to Roman Catholicism. His wife
said publicly that Menem left Islam for political reasons—because
Argentinean law until 1994 required the president of the country to be
a member of the Church. From a Muslim point of view, Menem's
conversion is worse than Obama's, having been done as an adult.
Nonetheless, Menem was not threatened or otherwise made to pay a price
for his change of religion, even during his trips to majority-Muslim
countries, Syria in particular."

Er, OK...are you suggesting Obama's "conversion" to Christianity was
just a bunch of politically-motivated bull**** and that he intends to
lean toward Muslim/Arab interests, be anti-Semitic, and be generally
corrupt...?

IAC, Menem was a pal of Bush 41 and we all know that the Bushes and the
Saudi royal family are in total cahoots on everything from oil to
apostasy...IOW, Menem didn't really "convert" - they got some ex-Nazis
in on it and the Pope was in on it, too...he's a Freemason Bones and
Skuller. Anyways, for those in the inner circle, "religion" doesn't
really matter, anyway...

Are you serious? The guy who was president of Argentina in the 80s?
What's next - the Grand Duke of Luxembourg is Hindu...?

Oh, and whoever wrote the quote above might have been served by doing a
little research into the whole matter...


Again, I'm not stating uncategorically that whether or not Obama is an
apostate, or whether or not that will be something to address is a non-
issue, but I'm quite comfortable that it IS a non-issue. And until I
hear even the slightest breath about it from the mouth of an actual
Muslim leader, I'm going to assume its just hypothetical mutterings
from a segment of American society with a ulterior motives.

What segment would that be and what do you imagine those "ulterior
motives" to be?

TC,
R

--riverman

wrote:
interpretation and application too.


Er...perhaps some Anais Nin, a particularly nice Bordeaux, and some
Astroglide...application optional...

TC,
R

And on a related note - apostate or otherwise, it's a damned fine night
for "America" (yeah, **** it, I'll be a bit America-centric) - whatever
else happens, the US has come a long way, baby...a guy with a black
African father and a white mom from Kansas has gotten a damned decent
share of support from a big chunk of US voters, and thus far, not a
dumbass with a firehose, dog, or cut-up bedsheet in sight...now, if he
can just live up to his hype...


i knew we'd find common ground somewhere in all of this! g

jeff

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 08:06:20 -0400, jeff miller
wrote:

wrote:
interpretation and application too.


Er...perhaps some Anais Nin, a particularly nice Bordeaux, and some
Astroglide...application optional...

TC,
R

And on a related note - apostate or otherwise, it's a damned fine night
for "America" (yeah, **** it, I'll be a bit America-centric) - whatever
else happens, the US has come a long way, baby...a guy with a black
African father and a white mom from Kansas has gotten a damned decent
share of support from a big chunk of US voters, and thus far, not a
dumbass with a firehose, dog, or cut-up bedsheet in sight...now, if he
can just live up to his hype...


i knew we'd find common ground somewhere in all of this! g

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/op...ewanted=2&_r=1

I particularly liked the part about how Islamic law doesn't apply to "an
American"...maybe that's how Menem beat a date with the sword of
justice...

Seriously, though, read the above with a critical, objective eye - a
couple of things I noted were that none of the scholars quoted seemed to
willing to come right out and say, "Obama's not an apostate and even if
he were, it doesn't matter because Islam doesn't address it and Muslims
don't care about such things..." and that the "it doesn't matter" crowd
(of non-Muslims) in the US suggest that no one in the Middle East cares
because it hasn't been reported by the news there...

TC,
R



jeff