Gary Johnson

EXCLUSIVE: Gary Johnson Talks ISIS, Refugees, Black Lives Matter and Marijuana Leglization

The former New Mexico governor and 2012 Libertarian Party presidential candidate makes first comments on recent turmoil, talks future.

|

Gary Johnson, the former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico who ran for

The once and future LP nominee?
Flickr/Gage Skidmore

 president in 2012 briefly as a member of the GOP and eventually as the nominee of the Libertarian Party, has made his first public remarks following last Friday's terror attacks in Paris, in the form of a press release and an exclusive interview with Reason.

Johnson opposes both boots on the ground and drones strikes on Syria, thinks sharia law is the root of Islamic terrorism, and believes the US should take in its "fair share" of refugees but declined to state an exact number. He also thinks we are at the tipping point toward marijuana legalization and indicated he intends to run for president again in 2016 on the Libertarian Party's ticket

In a statement to be released later today, Johnson writes:

"It is time that we have an open, honest dialogue about the politics of Sharia law. It is time that we face the reality that, while Islam is a faith that must be granted the same freedoms of religion as all others, Sharia is a political ideology that cannot coexist with the constitutional and basic human rights on which the United States is founded. We must face the fact that ISIS is a murderous, violent movement driven by Sharia ideology, not by the religion of Islam. We need not and should not be Islamophobic, but all who are free and wish to be free should be Shariaphobic.

Johnson stresses that he opposes military intervention to contain the threat of ISIS:

I opposed the Iraq War. I supported going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan after 9/11, but opposed—and continue to oppose—our failed attempt at Afghan nation building. And I opposed our involvement in overthrowing the government in Libya. The list goes on and on. Our ill-advised attempts to shape the outcomes of civil wars and replace bad guys with slightly less bad guys have not only failed, but have created vacuums that are today being filled by the politics of Sharia. The cost of those interventions has been tremendous, with too many of our young men and women of the military killed and wounded…and trillions of dollars spent ineffectively. 

(UPDATE: You can read the full statement here.)

I spoke with Gov. Johnson over the phone last night and asked him to go into greater detail about the threat of ISIS, the plight of Syrian refugees, the future of marijuana legalization, the Black Lives Matter movement, and what his plans are for running for president in 2016. 

Reason: The Wall Street Journal and Politico immediately pronounced that the attacks in Paris exposed why someone with libertarian policies should and could never be president. "The election should be a referendum on keeping America safe," said the Journal, implying that a libertarian could never protect the country because he would be too busy respecting civil liberties. How would a libertarian president keep the country safe?

Johnson: Libertarians are going to stand for liberties, you bet! The only way a libertarian will act military is by being attacked, and we've been attacked. I oppose boots on the ground, but you can't rule out military intervention categorically.

Reason: What does that mean? Drone strikes?

Johnson: When it comes to drones, I think it makes a bad situation even worse. We end up killing innocents and fueling hatred as opposed to containing it. It just hasn't worked. We need to educate ourselves on the root causes of this, which is Islamic terrorism and the ideology of sharia law. In this country, we've become so politically correct that in the name of freedom of religion we have allowed sharia law and its adherents to advance. We need to differentiate between freedom of religion and the politics of sharia law. Freedom of religion, absolutely. But if you're talking about allowing sharia law that runs contrary to the US Constitution, that is ideologically the war that we need to take on.

Reason: Are there any examples of sharia law being implemented, or even proposed to be implemented, in the United States that you can point to?

Johnson: There's been a movement in state legislatures to pass "American laws for American courts." I didn't get that, but now I do. In Great Britain, they tried to allow sharia law side by side with British law and found it to be unworkable. They said, "If from a religious freedom standpoint, you want to govern your life by sharia law then so be it." We can't allow that. Sharia law doesn't treat women equally. Iran, a country governed by sharia law, executes thirty homosexuals a month. It cannot be allowed to coexist in America. Just like we were right to put (Kentucky clerk) Kim Davis in jail for not adhering to the law, we can't allow sharia practice to exist in the name of religious freedom. It's not constitutional. 

Reason: Your former party, the Republicans, are dead set against allowing Syrian refugees to enter the country. Republican governors (and at least one Democrat) say the risk of ISIS terrorists slipping in through the process is simply too great. Chris Christie went even further than Ted Cruz by saying he wouldn't even admit Christian children. We have currently agreed to let in 10,000 by the end of 2017, but some Democrats want to raise that number to 65,000. What would your refugee policy toward Syrians be?

Johnson: We need to take our share, and I'm not sure what that share should be. I'd like to come up with a formula based on our coalition partners. I wouldn't say zero, but I don't know if 65,000 puts us in the category of "our fair share." 

Reason: Pivoting to domestic policy, marijuana legalization is likely to be in front of voters next year in states from Maine to California. Bernie Sanders has introduced legislation to end federal prohibition. What are your predictions about where the war on pot will be in November 2016?

Johnson: Currently, 24 states allow it medicinally, 4 and the District of Columbia allow it recreationally, and all but a handful of those happened at the ballot box. I predict that California will vote to legalize it recreationally, and that overnight 20 states will vote to legalize it and effectively the tipping point will have been passed. 

Reason: The Black Lives Matter movement has become a political force over the past two years. How would you convince a BLM crowd that their best solutions would be in the libertarian mold?

Johnson: Libertarians have led the charge with regard to drug legalization and I really believe that at the heart of the militarization of police has been the War on Drugs. A person of color has a much greater likelihood of going to jail for drugs than a white person. As governor of New Mexico, I supported the legalization of marijuana and was threatened with impeachment. Libertarians aren't coming up to speed on this, they've been at the tip of this from the beginning. I've maintained that the root of police abuse is the war on drugs. Drugs are a health issue, not a criminal justice issue. I watched a recruitment video for police in southern New Mexico that depicted young men in body armor with assault rifles and tanks knocking down doors. I just couldn't believe it. 

Reason: One last question, are you planning on running for president in 2016?

Johnson: Well, I hope to. I hope to be the Libertarian nominee. That's my intention barring famine or flood. 

Reason: When will you announce your candidacy?

Johnson: There's no advantage to making it official given what I'll call the clown-car. Given the attention that's being given to the Republican side. Let that stuff sort it self out and there's plenty of time for the general election. I thought we'd have done a lot better last election cycle, so I'm not under any delusions. We are suing the Presidential Debates Commission. Eighty percent of Americans say they want another choice and they have no idea why there isn't another choice. We think at the heart of that is the Commission and we're suing them on antitrust grounds, on the basis of the Sherman Act, that they collude with the two major parties, that they are a business, and we think the media has also signed similar documents when it comes to televising the debates.

Reason: Have you filed suit? Do you have co-litigants?

Johnson: We have filed the suit in Washington, DC along with the Green Party. Our contention is that if you're on the ballot in enough states to mathematically be elected president, shouldn't you be included in the presidential debates? 

Reason TV and Gary Johnson visited Zuccotti Park, the site of Occupy Wall Street, during the height of the movement in 2011. Watch below:

NEXT: Hillary Clinton's ISIS Strategy is a Warmed-Over Mess But at Least She Wants to *Declare* War...

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I think this is who I’m going to end up voting for. Especially if it’s Pantsuit vs Hairpiece.

    1. Seriously, though, thinking about this, what if it ends up being Commie vs Hairpiece in the duopoly, could Johnson attract enough disaffecteds to at least be a factor?

      1. Probably not, but he may get more attention and votes than ever before, which could bode well for 2020.

        1. I’m making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now.I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss.go to this site home tab for more detai….

          http://www.4cyberworks.com

      2. It’s best not to get your hopes up about good things happening in politics.

      3. Not at all. Both are authoritarians and `Mericuns like being told what to do so that they don’t have to think so much and can save their money for the next I-Phone. Of course, you pot smoking, ass fucking, Messican loving reprobates are excluded.

      4. No way! If I vote for the Johnson instead of Commie/Hairpiece, then it’s like stealing votes from Commie/Hairpiece and Hairpiece/Commie might win!

        1. What a race! Hairpiece/Hairpie/Johnson in a 3-way death match!

      5. No, but at least I can cast my vote for president and not feel like a contemptible piece of shit for the next four years.

    2. I voted for him 2012, and likely will again regardless of who the two TEAMS nominate. Unless Rand can pull off a miracle and get the Stupid Party’s nomination. Not because I prefer Rand per se, but because I’m a realist. Gary Johnson will not win the 2016 election, either the R or the D nominee will. Since Rand is libertarian leaning enough that I don’t throw up in my mouth at the thought of voting for him, I’ll vote for him if he pulls off the miracle. I doubt he will though, which means I’ll voting for Johnson again (or whoever the LP nominee is) or not voting for president at all. On the plus side, I’ve already got my decision made, which frees up a lot more time for me between now and election day to decide on the other candidates/ issues on the ballot.

      1. Same here. My only decision is do I vote for Rand Paul in the primary, or switch teams to vote for Bernie, just to throw a wrench in the gears.

          1. I’ve always thought you should be able to vote in as many primaries as you want. Each one is really a separate election.

            1. I thought that, in states that don’t restrict their primaries to those who have declared for that party, you could.

              1. No, as far as I know you can vote in any of the primaries, but only one.

      2. I live in Washington State, which is going Blue no matter what. So there’s no reason not to throw my support behind the LP.
        I voted for Gary in 2012 and got to feel smug about it.

        1. I did the same in MD, but not this year.

          1. Ditto.

          2. I’ll probably do that this year.

            (Also hey, remember that time we met at #freedomcocktails. Sup)

  2. More importantly, though, what is his position on woodchippers?

    1. Reverse Cowgirl?

        1. Sorry, that was uncalled for.

          1. Nothing is uncalled for around here.

            1. Nothing is uncalled for around here.

              But was it requested?

          2. Reverse cowgirl is always called for.

            1. With ladies, yeah. With woodchippers, not so much.

            2. Reverse cowgirl is always called for.

              It depends. If you are in….ahem…the drivers seat, it is one of the best positions. From a…er…well…a cinematography point of view, it is boring.

            3. Standing doggy is better.

          3. This whole blog is uncalled for!

            1. Your mom is uncalled for. Tell her to stop dropping by.

  3. He looks like Beck and Jon Stewart had a baby.

  4. Black Lives Matter, but BLM’s retarded political movement does not.

  5. Weed!! I can avoid Hillary’s pussy for a while. Also her cat.

    1. +1 Zsa Zsa

    2. +blue hair being served

  6. We must face the fact that ISIS is a murderous, violent movement driven by Sharia ideology, not by the religion of Islam.

    Because sharia has nothing to do with Islam. DERP

    1. Jeeze. Now I can’t even vote Libertarian.

    2. You can have Islam without Sharia, but you can’t have Sharia without Islam.

      1. ^ This.

    3. It’s a distinction we won’t hear any other candidate make. And it might even be realistic.

      1. It’s a very interesting distinction. I don’t know enough about either to know how separate they are / can be, but prior to this, I would have thought they went hand-in-hand. This bears looking up.

        1. Oooh, Wikipedia is not encouraging:

          Sharia or sharia law (Arabic: ?????? (IPA: [?a?ri??a]), is the basic Islamic legal system[1] derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly the Quran and the Hadith. The term sharia comes from the Arabic language term shar??ah, which means a body of moral and religious law derived from religious prophecy, as opposed to human legislation.[2][3][4]

          Sharia deals with many topics, including crime, politics, and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, everyday etiquette and fasting. Adherence to sharia has served as one of the distinguishing characteristics of the Muslim faith historically.[5] In its strictest and most historically coherent definition, sharia is considered in Islam as the infallible law of God.[6]

          Apparently not so distinct.

          1. Well, aside from that, I figure anybody who wants to base their own personal life on Sharia is free to contract with anybody they want to enforce it — spouse, children, parents, friends, angry police agencies … but only as to their actions, not in how they expect to treat others. If they want to sign a contract that upon conviction for theft, they lose a hand, that’s fine by me. And maybe they can treat burglars the same way, IFFF they make it extremely well-known that they intend to do so, such as posting signs all over their fence and door. But the burden of proof would be on them, and the crook could dodge it pretty much by simply insisting it was dark and he didn’t see the signs.

            1. This is actually how it works.

              Islam doesn’t have a central authority – Sharia is whatever the local authorities say it is, and the differences in how Sharia is interpreted is much of what makes for the variations in Islamic practice from community to community.

              In fact, the rules for interpreting Sharia are the main points of disagreement between Sunni (“traditionalists”) and Shi’a (“protestants”).

              Further, the rules only apply to Muslims. This was one of the big disconnects in the colonial period, that foreign Christian nations were able to set up trade factories that were cutouts from Sharia – i.e. the laws didn’t apply to them because they weren’t Muslim and thus they could, for example loan money at interest, purchase on credit, etc., etc.

              Islamism (a modern phenomenon) combines Sharia with nationalism to try to make Sharia government law. This is a very dangerous thing.

              1. Ah. So wood chippers are kosher!

              2. Sharia is what the teachings say it is, that’s why the local authorities keep coming to the same conclusions.

    4. MSimon, do try to see some nuance here.

      The Muslim religion does get treated abstractly by its own practitioners, just as Christianity does.

      What Islamic nations have are a large number of practitioners who follow the Koran literally which is where Sharia law comes from.

      They are definitely related, but I think it’s fair to talk about them as conceptually different.

      1. Yes, there are lots of secular muslims around who pose no threat, who are hard working, valuable members of society. If they want to immigrate here I am all for it.

        Bringing shiploads of military aged men who are devout muslims and about whom we know next to nothing isnt just stupid, it is suicidal.

      2. Yeah there’s a Venn diagram of Muslims and Sharia adherents, but they do not wholly overlap.

        1. Yep. We only want the apostates. Eating a BLT and loving it are requirement for entering America.

          1. Don’t forget the imbibing of IPAs.

              1. I’ll show myself out.

                I thought you’d only get huffy if people started drinking Merlot?

                1. Merlot is the red one, right?

              1. Lager? Why not just drink water?

                1. We have a nice brewery here that serves an IPL. Very nice compromise.
                  Of course, they chop off a hand if you get up to leave.

            1. Don’t forget the imbibing of IPAs.

              Since when is lacking taste buds a requirement for American citizenship?

            2. How about a green bottle of Dos Equis?

              1. There is NO good beer that comes in a green bottle.

                Although, the very worst beers come in clear bottles, there are some decent clear bottle beers.

                Dark glass or GTFO.

            3. That would be an interesting test: “Eat this BLT and drink this pint, right here, right now, then we’ll think about maybe letting you in.”

              1. Now i’m hungry for a BLT.

            4. What is IPA?

              Independent piss ale?

              Iridescent pubic ass-hair?

              Irresponsible public assholes?

              1. Iridescent pubic ass-hair?

                ….pics?

              2. What is IPA?

                Independent piss ale?

                Iridescent pubic ass-hair?

                Irresponsible public assholes?

                Basically, yeah.

            5. For that special muslim in your life:

              http://www.northernbrewer.com/…..recipe-kit

              1. OMFG! I gotta get me one of those!

    5. Are you guys aware of the theories that Islamic law influenced the development of English common law?

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_…..631388.stm

      Whether that is true or not, I think people have a very limited understanding of Islamic law. They just think Sharia law and picture bans on alcohol and forcing women to wear jihabs. But those are religious decrees. I have yet to see anyone explain how Sharia law differs from common law in how it handles torts and contracts. You know, things actually handled by courts? That would be a lot more interesting.

      1. Well sure, but you seem to conveneiently forget some problums such as the fact that the testimony of a woman or someone not of the faith counts as between 1/6 to 1/2 of that of an islamic man depending on where you are.

    6. This insane insistence on refusing to acknowledge that Islamist terrorism is, well, Islamist, just drives me fucking nuts.

      1. “This insane insistence on refusing to acknowledge that Islamist terrorism is, well, Islamist, just drives me fucking nuts.”

        But why do you focus on that one adjective? There are many categories into which we could put these terrorists. For example, we could focus on the fact that they are Middle Eastern, or brown-skinned, or male, or that they speak Levantine Arabic rather than Egyptian or Maghrebi Arabic, or that none of them have engineering or law degrees, or that none of them are in the 1%, etc.

        Should we fret that when people talk about racism, they don’t say “Southern racism,” since most instances of racism in the news are from the South? How would you feel if I said “I bet you are from the South”?

        1. Because Pakistanis, Nigerians, Afghanis, Somalis, Uighers, Chechens, etc aren’t Arabs. There are female terrorists out there, some terrorists have degrees some don’t. But the one thing terrorist groups like ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, the Taliban and a bunch of others have have in common is an Islamist ideology.

          1. Not all terrorists are Islamic:

            http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…..close.html

            OMG, he posted a link to Daily Beast! Stone him!!!

        2. Bin Laden had some kind of engineering degree. He was a well educated individual. It is a fallacy that all the terrorists are illiterate buffoons.

          1. Oh damn, you disproved my whole point with that one anomaly.

  7. “It is time that we have an open, honest dialogue about the politics of Sharia law. It is time that we face the reality that, while Islam is a faith that must be granted the same freedoms of religion as all others, Sharia is a political ideology that cannot coexist with the constitutional and basic human rights on which the United States is founded.

    Goddamn, if he runs I’m voting early and often for Gay Jay.

    1. Can you do it a few million times?

      1. Sure… it’s not like they’re checkin’ for ID.

  8. We must face the fact that ISIS is a murderous, violent movement driven by Sharia ideology, not by the religion of Islam.

    And no version of Islam doesn’t include sharia so it’s a stupid statement.

    I don’t get the attraction to this guy, he’s the epitome of an empty suit. Every answer is ” I’m for good things and against bad things.”

    1. How does that make him stand out? The only distinguishing factor for any of them is what their base defines as good or bad.

      1. Ohhhhh. I see what you are saying.

    2. Oh, there are plenty of Muslims that don’t follow Sharia. They can’t win an argument with those who do, but they haven’t taken up the practice. They’re getting closer to it, though. I spent a lot of time in Indonesia and Malaysia last decade, and there was a noticeable drop in places offering pork and alcohol.

    3. So, you are the arbiter of what constitutes versions of Islam?

      Plenty of Muslims peacefully exist in places where Sharia is not enforced, so I think you are full of shit.

      1. The arbiter is the Quran and the Hadith. All you guys are saying is that Muslims that don’t follow Islam are okay. No shit, that brings us back to square one. Don’t take it up with me, go scribble the parts of the Quran you don’t like out and convince Muslims.

    4. I will take that any day over the 90% of politicians who are enthusiastically in favor of bad things…

  9. It is time that we face the reality that, while Islam is a faith that must be granted the same freedoms of religion as all others, Sharia is a political ideology that cannot coexist with the constitutional and basic human rights on which the United States is founded.

    This is very good.

    We must face the fact that ISIS is a murderous, violent movement driven by Sharia ideology, not by the religion of Islam

    This is retarded.

    1. Everyone is tripping all over themselves to avoid saying the obvious.

      1. That your mom charges too much for someone with so many facial tics?

        1. Gees she charges at those kinda guys? I’m going to have to get some tics. Pussy is pussy. Well except for Hillary. I have my limits.

        2. The ticks aren’t on her face, thats how she gets away with it.

    2. It’s an attempt to split hairs. Fundamentalist Islam is a both religion and political movement. I think there’s a word out there for it that is antithetical to every classical liberal value and understanding of government: oh, that’s right, THEOCRACY. Sharia is simply the system of administration for this theocracy. You can’t divorce Sharia from fundamentalist Islam.

      Bring us your bacon-eaters and beer-drinkers who reject Sharia,sure. But they’re no more following Islam than I am Catholicism when I reject the role of the man in the funny hat as the voice of God here on earth.

  10. An LP candidate that wants government intervention to force private companies to include him in debates. WTF

    1. IMPURE! IMPURE! BURN THE HERETIC!!!11!!!111!!!!eleventy!!!1!!!!!!

  11. While all who follow Sharia practice Islam, not all who practice Islam follow Sharia. That would make Sharia the problem, not Islam. Interesting distinction.

    1. Damn sarc you’ve been on fire lately. Keep it up and I see a John in your future.

    2. It’s like trying to find Christians who don’t believe in Jesus. It’s a contradiction in terms. Sharia and Islam are inseparable in all but the most heretical interpretations.

      1. There are plenty of Christians who don’t take a literal view of the Bible and all its teachings. Why shouldn’t it be any different with Islam?

        1. Sharia says so. Apostates get death.

          1. Romans 1: 28-32

            And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

            Luckily it’s just a metaphor, God only strikes a few people (and a fig tree) down in the New Testament amirite?

            1. It’s not meant to be a metaphor at all. Everyone deserves death. It’s one of the basics of Christianity. It helps to read more than one little section of a book.

              1. It helps to read more than one little section of a book.

                Fuck you. I’ve read the whole thing including the interminable begets a few times. My point is that you can quote from any sacred text without context and come up with horrible results you silly little twat. So thanks for shoring up my point.

                1. If your reading led you to the conclusion that there’s a fucking metaphor there you have to be functionally retarded

                  1. Oh shit, you’re dumb and an asshole. Paul is not LITERALLY calling for murder for apostates. But taken out of context that is how that passage reads. He is saying that all are deserving of death where death is a metaphor for eternal separation from God, not LITERAL cessation of physical life.

                    DO YOU KNOW WHAT A METAPHOR IS?

                    1. It doesn’t say anything about “murder” in the passage you fucking twit. Read it again

                    2. No you’re absolutely right, it says deserving of death. Passive voice makes things ok like when a police officer’s weapon discharges…magically, on its own.

                  2. I really think you should go outside, spit into the dirt, form a nice mud ball in your hands, and smear it all over your eyes. Then come back and read what Jesse wrote.

            2. You are taking this out of context. The message is that all are deserving of death, but that God provided a way out.

              You do not have to be a believer to understand the Christian message.

          2. Deuteronomy 13:6-9

            If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying: Let us go and worship other gods (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other, or gods of other religions), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people.

            It’s a good thing the Jews ignore this and don’t just run around murdering everyone who doesn’t believe the same thing they do. It’s like people are capable of interpreting around the worst excesses of their beliefs.

            1. You mean I don’t have to listen to Rush?

              1. Either way, you have still made a choice.

              2. I kinda like the song about the trees, and Red Barchetta.

            2. Yes, but some people are more capable than others.

          3. So does the bible. And a huuuuuuuge portion of Christian thinking in previous years said it was a *moral duty* of Christians to spread the religion – forcibly if necessary.

        2. Good question. Are literal adherents of the Bible shooting up rock concerts and cafes?

          1. That has nothing to do with what sarc said.

            1. Some people are logically-challenged.

              1. I agreed with your point. So what? Give me an example of an application of this distinction between an adherent of Islam and one of Sharia law that prevents people from murdering random victims.

                1. The vast bulk of adherents in the West who abide by secular laws vs. parts of the world where Sharia law trumps secular law?

                2. The guys in my dorm freshman year who, a couple weeks into the first semester, took their prayer rugs off of the wall so they could replace them with framed Bob Marley posters?

        3. I think the huge distinction between Christianity and Islam on this particular issue is that the primary texts and/or messages from the respective prophets don’t treat the roles of religion in political administration the same. The New Testament and Jesus never attempt to lay out a system of politics and a legal framework to enforce it (quite the opposite, acknowledging a split between what commands the conscience and what belongs to secular authority). Islam makes no bones about being a political movement and basis for actual government.

          Quite a few “Christians” have attempted to do just what Islam calls for (thanks Rome, et al) but there’s no doctrinal basis for it in the New Testament that I’m aware of.

      2. Do you have any idea how many Catholics get divorced? Members of a religious frequently decline to follow or believe in many of its tenets.

        1. Sharia: Apostates get death.

          1. Do you have a point? Do you think every Muslim who doesn’t follow Sharia is executed as an apostate?

            1. Forget it. Logic is lost on Simple Simon.

              1. Well Muslims can be apostates in America (I know a few). They don’t do well in Syria or Saudi Arabia.

          2. How many apostates are getting death in the US? Kumail Nanjiani is still kicking. Why aren’t American Muslims tearing him to pieces?

            1. Dude, who’s got time to hunt apostates when Fallout is ready to download and play?!?

              1. I do prefer to hunt Super Mutants over apostates.

                TODAY.

            2. Yes. But the question is how many get death in Syria? Because that is where they are supposed to come from.

              1. Where who are supposed to come from? Are you turning this from a basic discussion of whether Sharia equals Islam into one about the refugees? And if so, you do realize why they are running away, right?

                1. Well Johnoson was talking about refugees. I thought that was the topic.

              2. Are you trying to imply that the Sharia adherent Muslims of Syria have managed to hunt down and murder all apostates? Because that would make them the most efficient killing force in human history.

        2. But the trend with Muslims has been the reverse, to get more into Sharia.

          1. Considering what the West has to offer, at least to judge by the progressive ethos predominating on campuses and in the media, it’s tough to blame them. I think we’re going to see a cultural backlash against Western neoliberalism coming out of a number of groups, Muslims being just one.

            1. ^ This.

              The fundamentalist Islamic attitude toward modern liberal western culture is basically exactly the same as the fundamentalist Christian attitude. Difference being in the perception caused by having it brought by foreigners with guns.

              Is it a good attitude? No. Is it a libertarian attitude? No. Is it totally alien and incomprehensible? No.

              1. But fundy Christians and Orthodox Jews aren’t blowing themselves up and beheading non-believers.

                  1. Don’t forget this mob that jumped an IDF soldier, tarran.

                    My buddy lived in Israel for a year and said that the orthodox Jews there are as insane as they come.

                    1. rats, SF’ed the link. Here: http://www.jpost.com/Israel-Ne…..lem-399094

                    2. You know, I think LD and Tarran do make a fair point. Chabadniks and other Orthodox Jews in the states (and perhaps like religious Muslims here) generally don’t do that nonsense. And yes, especially the ultra-Orthodox in Israel are fucking nuts (they are also generally anti-Zionist, but I don’t want to rile Tonio up).

                1. Because Fundy Christians and Jews don’t see the imposition of the liberal agenda as the being brought with fire and sword by foreign invaders.

            2. ^This. For example. take what SCOTUS has done with the Rule of Law. They took my lovely Constitution and trashed it ever so incrementally over the years in the name of legal reasoning and stari decisis. Why should any have faith in the rule of law when SCOTUS hands us downright contradictions like Raich, Kelo, and King v. Burwell?

              1. Legal reasoning. What a fucking stupid concept. Like there are legal physics, German physics, American physics, or a legal rule of non-contradiction for the 9th Circuit. What a scam.

        3. But then that would suggest that Islam is the problem, even if many of it’s nominal followers aren’t.

        4. It’s irrelevant, like saying not everyone in the KKK burns crosses. When you talk about Muslims that don’t believe in Sharia you’re talking about an exceptionally small group who the majority considers heretics. And Sharia tells how to deal with heretics.

          1. an exceptionally small group who the majority considers heretics.

            HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

            Now tell us how all blacks eat watermellon and fried chicken!

            1. Well as I said. We should only “import” heretics. Have you designed a vetting procedure for that?

              1. Already discussed above: hand them a BLT and a pint of beer and demand that they consume them right then and there before giving them asylum.

            2. Dude, watermelon and fried chicken are delicious.

            3. They don’t? All the ones I know do. All of the white people I know eat them too.

              That’s some good stuff, man.

          2. But members of the KKK that don’t burn crosses ARE NOT A PROBLEM.

            That’s the distinction.

            1. He seems to be arguing that just being a member of the KKK, and therefore a racist, is a problem. Regardless of whether the racist has actually hurt anyone or not, they’ve committed WrongThink. Just as a Muslim, even they don’t adhere strictly to Sharia Law, is likewise a problem. You’re dealing with a collectivist.

              1. “He seems to be arguing that just being a member of the KKK, and therefore a racist, is a problem. ”

                And he’s right. The KKK wasn’t just beaten by attacking the group, it was beaten by taking away friendly cultural territory. Ending non-KKK racism was key to rendering them a tiny, impotent group.

      3. Sharia and Islam are inseparable in all but the most heretical interpretations.

        As I said above, there are a lot of Muslims who aren’t being stoned to death who don’t really follow Sharia. Indonesia is a large country. The problem is, educating them about Islam makes them worse people, and they’re getting educated

      4. Sharia and Islam are inseparable in all but the most heretical interpretations.

        My goodness. *That’s* why there is no alcohol industry in Turkey, whatsoever!

        1. How was the alcohol industry in Syria?

          1. Oh I see, when you said, “Islam”, you meant “the sort of Islam practiced by Sunnis living in Syria”.

            I’m sorry, I thought you were actually talking about Islam the religion in general.

            1. The question is which Islamics can we reasonably (puff) allow into America. My answer is apostates.

              1. Except you don’t know what ‘apostate’ means. At a minimum it means someone who *rejects* the religion – meaning that an apostate Muslim, is not a Muslim anymore.

                And they’re *all* heretics – which is why there are so many different *flavors* of Islam. Sunni, Shiite, etc.

                Some sects are way into a literal interpretation of their holy texts and some aren’t. Even among those that are, how far to go in this is up for debate.

              2. The better answer is ‘none’.

                1. The more accurate answer, Suicidy, is ”you’re a war-mongoloiding crypto-republican nutbar.” But that’s a topic for another nine threads.

                  1. No, but you’re a fucking little hand-wringing pussy full of fear and delusion. When someone says in no uncertain terms they intend to come kill me and my family, I take it seriously. Especially when they back up that claim by having their associates murder a bunch of other people. I kill people like that before they get a clean shot at me.

                    In your case, I don’t know if you’re too weak, too delusional, or too cowardly. Maybe equally all three. In any event, I don’t care. Just stay out of the way of real men who do the heavy lifting. Feel free to sit in the corner and whine, jerk off, or whatever little beta male types like you are into.

                    Or maybe you could grow a pair. Probably not though.

      5. There is also a difference between following the rules of Sharia as a guide for personal morality and having it enforced as actual law. Or is every majority Muslim country that doesn’t enforce Sharia full of heretics?

    3. Would there be a Sharia without an Islam?

      1. Would there be Kahane Chai without Judaism?

        1. Or violent anabaptism without Christianity?

          1. Or Kali Ma without Hinduism?

            1. Or berserkers without Germanic Paganism?

              1. or a Joker without Batman?

              2. What about macaroni without cheese? [shudders]

                1. Or an IPA without just an undrinkably stupid amount of hops in it?

                  1. Careful, your philistine is showing.

                    1. Does “philistine” mean “someone who thinks beer should taste good”? If so, then yeah, i’m a philistine.

                  2. Or an IPA without just an undrinkably stupid amount of hops in it?

                    I’ve been making session ales lately with as little hops as I can get away with. I don’t know where people got this idea that beer must be so bitter than it turns your face inside out like a Keystone commercial. Just enough first addition hops to balance out the malt, with a little more at the end for aroma.

                    Or, to put it more bluntly: fuck IPAs.

                    1. I’ve been making session ales lately with as little hops as I can get away with.

                      Sacasmic, before I die, I want to go out with you and get pissed drunk and see who despises cops the most.

                    2. I’ve almost always got something on tap. Right now I’ve got a spiced pumpkin ale carbonating, and a session ale ready to be put into a keg. Need to start a new one. Maybe Saturday.

                    3. I’m convinced that IPAs are a joke some brewer decided to play on hipsters, which got way out of hand.

                    4. I am interested in your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletterbeer delivery service.

    4. I’m not completely averse to the distinction. I’d have to ask if there’s a particular strain of Islamic thinking that omits Sharia, or is it just the case that some Muslims are bad Muslims (i.e. not particularly religious)? I really don’t know which is true. But, I’m pretty sure it matters.

      1. I’d have to ask if there’s a particular strain of Islamic thinking that omits Sharia, or is it just the case that some Muslims are bad Muslims (i.e. not particularly religious)?

        The latter. To truly follow the faith one must follow Sharia. But how many religious people truly follow their faith?

        1. Well, that would suggest, again, that the problem is Islam, even if it’s not with Muslims.

          1. Islam is more than just a religion. It encompasses every aspect of life, including law and government. That’s the Sharia part. Thing is, not every Muslim wants to live that way. So they separate it out. That’s where the distinction comes in.

            1. How do you vet for that? Legally.

              1. It is called let them in and hope they behave.

                1. “Hope is not a plan.”

                  Would this be like, leaving your car unlocked and hoping its still there when you get back?

        2. That, but also Sharia is not always as extreme as its Wahhabist interpretations.

        3. Its not even that simple – what Sharia *requires* is not universally agreed upon. Some Imams believe it requires you to shave your ass-crack to maintain a sufficient level of purity, some are more permissive. Some believe it means that you must destroy by fire and sword any who who do not submit to God. Some believe that the Jews/Christian/Muslims all share the same God and so killing them is not necessary. Some believe that Jihad is reserved for the *enemies* of Islam – ie those actively opposing its practice. Some say the instruction to not be a dick overrides the instruction to put the infidel to the sword.

          The commands of Sharia law are as plain and simple and easy to understand as anything in Judaic law.

          1. And as binding as Leviticus is on Christians.

            1. Utterly incorrect. There is no analogue to Christ’s “new covenant” in Islam.

              1. Islam doesn’t accept that kind of bullshit.

      2. When I was a kid living in Turkey, most of the muslims in my parent’s circle thought Sharia was an embarrassing anachronism. Kind of the way most Christians view Leviticus.

        1. None of those people are real, tarran, because the vast majority of Real Muslims (TM) would have killed them.

          1. One BILLION Muslims, Nikki! And they’re all on no-fly lists and they all want to get our cheap American semiautomatic weapons.

        2. When I was a kid living in Turkey, most of the muslims in my parent’s circle thought Sharia was an embarrassing anachronism. Kind of the way most Christians view Leviticus

          Anecdotal evidence and mind reading all in the same post. Who could argue with that?

          1. Yeah, whom should I believe, my personal experiences living in a majority muslim country, or what is asserted by unhinged people who post “wet streets cause rain” type stories on the Internet!!!!!

            Gosh, this is such a hard decision!!!!

            1. Yeah, whom should I believe, my personal experiences living in a majority muslim country

              So, you’re saying that ” Kind of the way most Christians view Leviticus” came straight out of your ass? Okay then

              1. Actually, it came from my experiences in Roman Catholic Initiation for Adults. Maybe the priest running it was a heretic.

                1. Of course your “experiences” are better than all of ours…got it

            2. But you pick the one Muslim country near Europe/Near/Middle East whose modern founding was specifically to promote secularism and distance itself from a Sharia approach. And Erdogan and his ilk are trying to push Turkey more towards Sharia.

              1. Perhaps i should secular and western liberal.

              2. But you pick the one Muslim country near Europe/Near/Middle East whose modern founding was specifically to promote secularism and distance itself from a Sharia approach.

                Gosh! Maybe my parents should have moved to Pakistan before giving birth to me! What were they thinking!!!!!

              3. So…does the fact that Muslims founded a whole country specifically to promote secularism and distance itself from Sharia somehow not indicate that Islam != Sharia?

                1. No I certainly didn’t mean to imply that Islam cannot exist without Sharia. I think the point is that Turkey was going away from Islamic religion altogether.

                  I think other than Christmas and Easter, Christians don’t have the same feeling of difference between cultural Muslim (like cultural Jew) and religious Muslim and Orthadox Jew. So I really am not trying to be difficult. It is just that as Muslims move towards religiousity in general, then violence and/or Sharia itself become more common.

            3. Which part or parts of Turkey did you live in? Views on Sharia and fundamentalism vary by region.

          2. It is not that way in Turkey today. You can thank Ataturk for that feeling. Besides most Christians are not embarrassed about Leviticus, just that much of it does not apply today.

            1. Just like most Muslims are not embarrassed by Sharia, they just feel that much of it does not apply to day.

              1. Except for the little difference in the book adhered to by Christians teaching that Leviticus doesn’t apply today, you’d be right.

              2. That has not been the case in my experience. Granted my experience is largely among military officers and not the general populace.

              3. That has not been the case in my experience. Granted my experience is largely among military officers and not the general populace.

        3. There are theological reasons rooted in later chapters of the Bible for not following Leviticus. The food section was specifically nullified by a vision sent to Paul (or Peter can’t remember which) by God. The other parts were specific rules to be followed by God’s chosen people. Unless you are Jewish, you are not one of those people and are supposed to merely follow the rules laid out by Jesus for the gentiles.

          Due to Mohammad coming after Jesus his rules have not been nullified like Leviticus has.

          1. Only Christians literally interpret the Torah. The Jews haven’t done it that way for quite a long time.

            1. If Jews don’t have to be literalists about the Torah, why do Muslims have to be about Sharia?

              1. If Jews don’t have to be literalists about the Torah, why do Muslims have to be about Sharia?

                Because they’re mindless savages, not individual human beings. Duh.

              2. If Jews don’t have to be literalists about the Torah, why do Muslims have to be about Sharia?

                In some places that is a death sentence. We should be very careful about taking people from those places.

              3. Torah overtly speaks in parables a freaking lot. According to one friend there is a story in there about a Rabbi and his son breathing fire, becoming giants, and then eating the entire world. They have theological reasons to believe that their prophets tended to speak in parables and not literal truth. Hell, it’s technically possible to be an atheist Jew (though those guys are really stretching).

              4. They don’t. And aren’t.

              5. If Jews don’t have to be literalists about the Torah, why do Muslims have to be about Sharia?

                Because it’s all they have left.

                Mongols effectively destroyed the classical/Abbasid caliphate. Literacy is doing a number on oral Islam and its syncretic tendencies. The pace of modern-day life has greatly diminished Sufi-style devotionalism and mysticism. What’s left if the Qu’ran is just another book, or even just a book which “contains” truth or is “inspired”, a la Christian or Jewish scriptures? Islam cannot survive purely on praxis; it’s not a shamanistic religion, and its structures demand some explanation. The literal basis of the Qu’ran and the sanctity of the life of the prophet are the last bulwark available to the religion; else you can find the “good” things about Islam far more concisely and attractively packaged in Christianity, Judaism, Ba’hai, or any number of other Abrahamic faiths.

                1. The literal basis of the Qu’ran and the sanctity of the life of the prophet are the last bulwark available to the religion; else you can find the “good” things about Islam far more concisely and attractively packaged in Christianity, Judaism, Ba’hai, or any number of other Abrahamic faiths.

                  That’s not exactly an argument that Islam must be literal or it loses all adherents. I mean, the “good” things about Christianity are more concisely and attractively packaged elsewise also, but plenty of people who don’t believe in literal interpretations of the Bible are still Christians.

                  1. If one of the “good” things about Christianity is the death, incarnation and resurrection of god to unite us with Him, then not so much, Nikki.

                    If you’re talking about the self-denying ethical system, then you’re possibly correct — but most Christians don’t find this the solely attractive feature of Christianity.

                    Islam doesn’t have a similar moment in time or uniquity to recommend it over against the other Abrahamic faiths, if you’re going to relativize its scripture or its prophet.

                    1. And arguably, those people who don’t care about the Christ-event are already leaving the Christian faith in droves, at least in the West. Certainly I don’t see any growth in the churches which have stripped this event of its traditional significance to Christians. I’m pretty sure that most pious Muslims aren’t looking at that as a success.

                    2. I don’t know what % of Christians find which bits and pieces of their faith attractive, just like I don’t know what % of Muslims find which bits and pieces of theirs attractive. But it seems extremely unlikely that it’s Islam that is so unique it is the only major Abrahamic religion that would stop being practiced once people stopped believing in it literally.

                      I mean, I have no idea why people who don’t care, as you put it, about the Christ-event go to church, but they do. I know a bunch of them. And lack of growth in the churches themselves is irrelevant if they still call themselves Christian and think of themselves as Christian.

                    3. But it seems extremely unlikely that it’s Islam that is so unique it is the only major Abrahamic religion that would stop being practiced once people stopped believing in it literally.

                      Of course it’s not rational. But it’s a belief that comes from fear, so don’t expect it to be rational.

                    4. It’s important because it allows you to predict future trends. The churches which have embraced a relativization of Christ as a “good teacher” are doing terribly at attracting new members, and are seeing old members leave, particularly among the mainline denominations. Your friends who go to church may not care very much about Christ’s divinity and life, but there’s a very good chance that their kids or grandkids will — or will leave Christianity and just keep the ethics.

                      We can expect that, all else being equal, the same will be true for secular Muslims: if I’m right about Qu’ran and the prophet’s life being foundational, it’s likely that the kids and grandkids of secular Muslims will go to the good book and to the prophets life for pointers on how to live and how to improve the world, without seeking to relativize either one for the sake of a Western audience. Lo and behold, this is exactly what we see with many of the Islamic communities in Europe and in many countries where Islam’s traditions are transmitted orally (e.g., Chechnya).

                      I submit that this holds relevance for future immigration of Muslims and the prospects for reform within Islam.

                    5. I think you’re barking up the wrong tree.

                      After all, if your argument that the “Christ event” is the main attraction of Christianity, doesn’t that *really* just translate, for most believers, into “I get to go to Heaven?” In Islam, you get to go to Heaven just for following the law, and you don’t have to try to find a way to believe in virgin birth or the various logical difficulties with the Supreme Being having a kid.

                      What Islam has that Christianity doesn’t is that it’s written in a language that a significant percentage of its adherents still speak as their native language. The Arabic of modern newspapers is not significantly different than the Arabic of the Quran.

                      Spiritual texts in the original languages tend to be quite compelling. This is a huge advantage that Islam has over Christianity in Arabic still being a living language.

                    6. After all, if your argument that the “Christ event” is the main attraction of Christianity, doesn’t that *really* just translate, for most believers, into “I get to go to Heaven?”

                      Not particularly, especially not the more devout a believer gets. Getting to go to heaven is a promised *result* of Christianity, and not even one that’s unique to Christianity (Islam of course having plenty of material about Paradise, and plenty of other religions with same). You have your Fransiscans as an example of Christian phenomena — their main distinctions having nothing to do with heaven and everything to do with Christ’s example, and down the line it goes. Virtually every unique aspect of Christianity (praxis or otherwise) has to do with Jesus’ life and meaning (especially as interpreted by the evangelists). Without that, one reverts to “be a good person and go to heaven”, which does not require being a Christian to believe — unsurprisingly, one finds people who subscribe only to these beliefs far less likely to be Christian in any meaningful sense.

                      How you describe Islam isn’t particularly different from Judaism, broadly stated. There’s a little more to it than that, and it’s a disservice to the religion to suppose that it is simply an echo of the other Abrahamic faiths and nothing more.

            2. You need to spend some time among the Orthodox, and not the Reformed.

            3. If by literal you mean follow the 613 mitzvot as laid out in the Torah, then there are a bunch of Jews who take it literally. Doesn’t necessarily mean the whole “6 days” was 6 24 hour periods etc.

              Once again, I wasn’t always a pagan……

          2. Matthew 5:17-20

            “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

            1. Speaking to Jews not gentiles Jesse. The Laws laid down in the old testament never applied to us gentiles. They were laws to be followed by the chosen people.

              1. The “chosen” people have abrogated many of those laws by legalistic interpretation. Ever have a Jewish lawyer?

              2. What? Jesus explicitly says that’s not the case in the passage I quoted. That’s clarified in the early church after Paul and Peter have something of a falling out over the requirement of circumcision. Ultimately Christianity became a Hellenic religion that happened to have a Jewish backstory, but the law applies to everyone and everyone fails at it. Paul just lets us know that trying to follow the laws is unimportant when you can be forgiven for constant transgression against God. Peter’s vision was more about Jews and Gentiles being acceptable targets for God’s grace than about food laws, but I’m willing to roll with it so long as bacon is available in my local grocery store.

                1. I’m willing to roll with it so long as bacon is available in my local grocery store.

                  I could get into a religion who espouses that the entire universe was created for the sole purpose of coming up with bacon.

                2. What? Jesus explicitly says that’s not the case in the passage I quoted.

                  True as far as it goes, but Christ’s fulfillment of the law removes the obligations. That’s the point of the passage. Post-Christ, the law applies equally to both Jews and gentiles: it still exists as instruction, but the obligations are null. Few Christians seem to understand that; they mostly pick and choose parts of the old testament they like and then declare everything inconvenient to modern living abolished by Jesus, having no idea how that bit of theology is supposed to take place.

                  1. Paul tackles this in Corinthians:

                    ” Everything is permissible,” but not everything is helpful. ” Everything is permissible,” but not everything builds up… Eat everything that is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience ‘ sake, for the earth is the Lord’s, and all that is in it. If one of the unbelievers invites you over and you want to go, eat everything that is set before you, without raising questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, ” This is food offered to an idol,” do not eat it, out of consideration for the one who told you, and for conscience’ sake. I do not mean your own conscience, but the other person’s. For why is my freedom judged by another person’s conscience? If I partake with thanks, why am I slandered because of something I give thanks for? Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for God’s glory. Give no offense to the Jews or the Greeks or the church of God, just as I also try to please all people in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, so that they may be saved.

        4. Don’t see any Christians looking to strip the book of Leviticus out of the Bible. More importantly, there’s never been a Christian society which took Levitical law as its governing code, whereas even today most Muslim-majority countries are governed by Sharia-compliant codes.

          1. He grew up in a Muslim country. He knows exactly how Christians view Leviticus. Trust him.

            1. He grew up in a Muslim country. He knows exactly how Christians view Leviticus. Trust him.

              TIT and tarran said the exact same thing.

              1. Sharia was an embarrassing anachronism. Kind of the way most Christians view Leviticus

                No, they didn’t

        5. Well, apparently in today’s Turkey, they boo doing a moment of silence for the victims of Paris and chant Allahu Ackbar

          1. Soccer hooligans are soccer hooligans, Jeremy.

      3. Oral-based Islam as is found in the ‘Stans tends to be more flexible on Sharia. Unfortunately, the extent to which the individual can read and interpret the Qu’ran and the hadiths undermines this flexible approach in favor of a more conventional interpretation of Sharia and Islam.

        Obviously history bears out this idea, as much of early Islam was concerned with governance of Muslims and non-Muslims in a Muslim empire.

        1. And governance of non-Muslims in a Muslim empire would be *impossible*, according to some here, as strict compliance with Sharia requires either conversion or execution.

          But hey, we shouldn’t be bothered by little things like ‘shit ain’t as simple as a quick first reading’.

          1. AFAIK, submission rather than conversion is the requirement for people of the book. Conversion or execution is a requirement for “idol-worshippers”, and was the choice presented by the Ghazi invaders of the Indian subcontinent to indigenous Hindus, Buddhists and Jains (among others). Same category atheists fall under, matter of fact.

            Obviously after this period the institutional destruction of Indian religious traditions moderated to merely killing apostates or anyone who tried to expand the Dharmic faiths, and to subjecting these populations to harsh laws reinforcing their second-class status in society. The unbelievers were worth more alive as taxable subjects, though occasionally you would get a ruler who decided that the Qu’ran and hadiths meant what they said who’d go on a kill or convert rampage. (Usually they got put back in their place by the less pious members of court.)

            I’m not sure that “hope for Islam to ignore its tenets out of craven convenience” is much of a plan, myself. Sure as hell wasn’t for Buddhism, which is now nearly non-existent on the Indian subcontinent thanks to the epoch of Muslim invasion and rule.

            1. “Sure as hell wasn’t for Buddhism, which is now nearly non-existent on the Indian subcontinent thanks to the epoch of Muslim invasion and rule”

              Hinduism supplanted Buddhism, not Islam.

              The Ghazis talked tough, but realized very quickly that wiping out the native religions would result in their own eventual non-existence, so they starting learning tolerance very quickly, as did those later rulers who occasionally went on “purge the heretics” binges. cf. Aurungzeb and the Sikhs.

  12. We are suing the Presidential Debates Commission

    Suing a private organization started by Dems and Pubs because they only include Dems and Pubs in their show seems frivolous

    1. Besides frivolous it’s completely against libertarian principles of free association.

      1. But small change next to Ms. Too Much Profit in Legal Pot and Mr. Round Up Illegals in Boxcars.

  13. Just curious what will Gary Johnson do when the air campaign fails to contain or defeat ISIS? Will he put “boots on the ground then?”

    1. More Kurds is the way.

      1. and you know this from? I have spent time among the Kurds, and needless to say that I have the credentials on how to wage war. The Kurd’s even backed with NATO airpower can not do this mission alone. Not to mention that the Kurds are not as homogeneous as portrayed. Not to mention that by arming the Kurds, you may be inviting civil war in Turkey.

        1. None the less the Kurds fight ISIS effectively. Well at least the PKK. (see Soviets WW2)

          1. We will not arm the PKK, well at least intentionally. Besides the fact that the PKK does not have the same power as ISIS. ISIS, whether we care to admit it or not is a state. The PKK does not have the same resources available to them.

            1. we care to admit it or not is a state.

              They sure are trying to act like one. Issuing birth certificates and all. Just because Kerry doesn’t waive his magic legal wand and invokes the incantation of recognition spell, doesn’t mean they aren’t a state.

              1. That is why shutting down their international finance is only marginally effective. They are a taxing authority where they exist. They are in the last phase of successful guerrilla warfare; that is becoming like a nation state.

        2. Turkey is already having a civil war with the Kurds. America will have to tread carefully.

          But it is Byzantium. Byzantine politics.

          1. So the answer than is to do something that will drive Turkey into the arms of Russia?

      2. What will dropping cottage cheese on them accomplish? Oh wait, you said “Kurds” not “curds,” never mind.

        1. I hate cottage cheese, it would make me give up.

  14. Wow Gary Johnson, you seem absolutely clueless on BlackLivesMatter. It is not about drug legalization, it is about power.

    1. BLDM to Blacks. BLM is only for whites. Racist.

    2. He didn’t say their silly movement was about legalization, he said legalization will improve things for the Coloreds.

      1. If he thinks that is the case he is a fool. Was he not paying attention to Yale or Mizzou?

        1. So what you’re saying is, because a bunch of bratty college kids were acting like idiots somewhere, legalizing marijuana won’t help black folks?

          1. That is not what I said at all. I said he is a fool if he thinks that will placate BlackLivesMatter.

            1. I should add that the original question was about BLM and Gary Johnson breezed right past it.

            2. Who gives a fuck about *placating BLM*? I don’t. Johnson shouldn’t.

              1. I agree, however the editors at Reason may disagree.

                Reason: The Black Lives Matter movement has become a political force over the past two years. How would you convince a BLM crowd that their best solutions would be in the libertarian mold?

                1. The editors at Reason must think they are important enough to address. My problem is with Gary Johnson’s weasel like answer.

                2. Convincing and placating are quite different things.

                  Maybe convincing them is also impossible. But it happens to be true that BLM has become a political force. And how one might convince them on libertarian ideas is a legitimate question.

                  1. In light of the demands at Mizzou, Yale and elsewhere, it will be impossible for a Libertarian to placate them when eliminating freedom of speech is one of their goals.

                    1. Again, who the fuck said anything about placating them?

                3. I wouldn’t because you couldn’t. Because the ‘best interests’ of a *BLM crowd* lie with seizing more power, not doing anything that might actually alleviate the root causes of their complaints.

  15. GayJo has made a few pronouncements over the past year or two that I am not down with, but he is still miles better than any candidate running for Pres with the exception of Paul. If it’s the Hilldog versus The Hairpiece I gotta go Gary.

    1. I’m voting for him (again) unless Paul is in the race. But then I’d vote for any remotely sane candidate who was for legalizing pot.

        1. I think the “remotely sane” qualifier rules you out anyway.

          1. My sanity is extremely remote.

            Qualified.

            *drops microphone*

      1. I’d vote for any remotely sane candidate who was for legalizing pot.

        Then I hope you will join me in supporting Freddy and his biped!

  16. “Bitch, I voted for Gary Johnson” has now been downgraded to “I don’t know what you’re talking about, I voted for Gary Johnson”. And is that Alyona from RT interviewing him?

    1. Big Boi: “I’m a libertarian”.

      He should have walked out of the interview right then, because he’s a Pimp.

    2. By the way, thank you for that link.

      My respect for Luscious Leftfoot was at factor 11, it just broke the needle.

      1. Even aside from the music, he is a bad ass just for his fashion sense.

        1. Both those guys are my style Shamans.

          Every time I see those two, I just can’t figure out HOW they can show up in public wearing what they wear and look cool.

          If I showed up in public in their outfits, I’d get mercilessly laughed at.

    3. Thanks for reminding me to make a “Bitch, I Voted For Gary Johnson” bumper sticker.

      1. If I ever got a tattoo, that would be it.

  17. In other news, Rand is speaking at speaking at GW right now and, according to YikYak, the auditorium is packed.

    1. according to YikYak, the auditorium is packed

      I’m reliably informed that only racists use Yik Yak. Thus, Rand’s racism is confirmed!!!

      1. Also, Yik Yak’s.

        Someone at UNM routinely makes anti-#BLM posts that get voted into the ground immediately. So much for digital racist breeding ground.

        1. That’s interesting as I’m in a very liberal area yet the yaks critical of BLM generally get upvoted.

      2. You didn’t need to be past the fact that he’s from Kentucky to verify that.

  18. OT: Jared just got over 15 years.

    Let’s see, at one foot long and two 6″ers every day, that’s gonna be…

    1. That sentence is pretty insane. Wasn’t he trying to have sex with someone who, if he was 19, was the age of consent?

      1. I seem to recall he was requesting much younger. He hired prostitutes for the purpose of having them find kiddie age assuming they would not turn him in. They did.

        The guy is a menace.

    2. …a lot of dropped soap?

    3. Even his own lawyers called Fogle “pathetic.” “Nobody wants to be Jared Fogle,” defense lawyer Andrew Richard DeVooght conceded.

      Kay then. Good job Defense.

  19. Looks like it’s getting to the time when everyone* holds their nose and votes for the least bad candidate.

    *not everyone everyone

  20. Johnson, like a lot of Westerners, is bending over backwards to disconnect ISIS/terrorism/sharia law from Islam, but it’s a ridiculous task. They do not understand Islam.

    In order to be a Muslim, you must believe that the Koran is inerrant, that the master copy is in heaven with Allah. Similarly, Muhammad was the “perfect man.” He was a murderer, warlord, slaver, and (by modern standards) a pedophile, but that’s beside the point. Sharia law is the law of Allah, and it’s all in the Koran.

    The degree to which many Muslims do not follow sharia law is the degree to which they are not really Muslims. It’s the same as if a Christian broke all of the Commandments and didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ. He may call himself a Christian, but he isn’t. He’s not following the rules.

    It’s absurd to judge a religion by the people who don’t follow its rules, instead of by the people who do. The rules of Islam are clear: killing apostates, blasphemers, gays, Jews; oppressing women and non-believers, and having slaves. Islamic belief is directly contrary to many libertarian and Western beliefs: freedom of speech, separation of church and state, etc.

    The only Syrian refugees we should take are non-Muslims. Period. We have no “fair share” of Jew-haters. Taking “moderate Muslims” is equivalent to taking “moderate Nazis.”

    1. I am going to disagree.

      The majority of Christians today, though they believe in Christ, do not behave as if they really believe most of the tenants of their religion and by your premises are not true Christians. I judge the religion by the behavior of its adherents.

      Post enlightenment Christianity is a very different animal than its predecessor. There is no post enlightenment Islam. That is where the difference lies.

      1. The change began with the Reformation, and not the enlightenment. You can thank the Anabaptists for the idea of separating church and state in the modern Post-Westphalia world,

      2. I would suggest that the spread of Wahabism is at least partly a result of mass literacy and communication in the Islamic world.

        IMO, the problem with Islam today is that it lacks many of the institutions which kept it from becoming an insane mess in the Middle Ages (example: the Caliphate), and has added to that a number of religious believers who can now read the foundational religious texts without filter. In a sense, Islam is a religion for governors and soldiers, and a damn good one at that: and the things that made for great (enlightened, even) governors and soldiers in the Middle Ages, make for terrible citizens of a liberal democracy.

        1. !This! is an interesting point. I would suggest that the spread of Wahabism is at least partly a result of mass literacy and communication in the Islamic world.

          I am currently reading A World Lit Only by Fire. Martin Luther, IMHO had a lot of reasonable issues with the Cathloic church, i.e. the sell of indulgences. The Church was the defacto and dejure authority on the contents and interpretation of the bible. However…as fragmentary accounts of the Gospel began to circulate, the peasantry learned that the sypathies of Christ and his apostles had lain with the oppressed, not with the princes who had presume to speak in his name……” The Christianity of today is not crusading religion of the Dark ages or the Inquisition Church of the Middle ages. Once the Word began to be spread, the Christianity, IMHO, started to chill out. It ameliorated its excessess..

          Whereas, It seems Islam what is happening is the reverse. The more people learn to read and read those texts for themselves, the more likely they are to succumb to the authority of Sharia rules and outcomes.

          1. Except that Wahabbism arose exactly in one of the most isolated and least literate parts of the Islamic world: eastern Saudi Arabia pre-oil.

    2. The rules of Islam are clear: killing apostates, blasphemers, gays, Jews

      Man, the Ottoman caliphs were shitty Muslims.

      1. True, not every Jew was killed, but their civil rights were severely restricted:

        Jizya

        Dhimmi

        I guess in your view blacks in Mississippi in the 1950s should have had no complaints, because they weren’t actually enslaved and were rarely murdered.

        1. I’m not claiming that American law required killing blacks.

          Which is it? You said the rules are clear: Jews are to be killed. Now you’re saying they were taxed and afforded legal rights. That you mentioned Jew-hate twice makes it quite clear that you’re suggesting that Muslims are required to hate Jews.

          The Ottomans also decriminalized sodomy in the 19th century, and a blasphemer’s punishment was discretionary; it need not be death. These rules really don’t look to be so “clear.”

      2. Man, the Ottoman caliphs were shitty Muslims.

        The original Wahhabis declared war on the Ottoman Empire.

    3. The degree to which many Muslims do not follow sharia law is the degree to which they are not really Muslims. It’s the same as if a Christian broke all of the Commandments and didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ. He may call himself a Christian, but he isn’t. He’s not following the rules.

      If this is true, then I have never in my life met a Christian.

      1. Gnostics don’t believe in the divinity of Christ i believe.

        This kills me the lack of perspective here. For over a thousand years Christianity directly killed millions of people because their religion told them to. Jew (if their story is to be believed) exterminated dozens of societies down to every man woman and child. No religion I am aware of has clean hands in this regard. They ALL start rather extreme and then moderate. Muslims are no different, they are just younger. I don’t personally like the religion and I certainly don’t like sharia, nor how the religion treats women. But lest we forget a TRUE Christian beats his wife and brands adulterers. A TRUE Jew exiles any woman who touches a Rabbi. People moderate over time, it is unavoidable. I surmise the rigidity of religion is because they moderate over time and starting strong means you last longer. Who knows. But don’t tell me Christians didn’t murder in the name of their god.

        1. A TRUE Jew exiles any woman who touches a Rabbi.

          Except his wife of course.

          1. Most Jews in America are Reform. And they are barely Jewish. Chabad is making inroads though.

        2. I never said Christians and other religions never killed in the name of their God. But let’s focus on the present day, and recent history. Nearly all the religious violence of the last century has been instigated by Muslims, or happened in response to Muslim violence (e.g. Hindus in India and Buddhists in S.E. Asia). It’s just handwaving to say “everybody does it.” To some extent, sure, but one religion has been doing it a heck of a lot more than any of the others.

          As for “moderating over time,” Islam has been going in the opposite direction for decades now.

        3. You’re thinking of Arians, and they only “didn’t believe” in the divinity of Christ in the monotheistic sense (they would have called him a lesser god, and the semi-Arians were even less likely to consider him inherently outside of the godhead).

          Gnostics didn’t believe that Christ was human. Held out something akin to that Christ possessed Jesus of Nazareth Exorcist-style and therefore didn’t actually die on the cross — it’s complicated, heh.

          1. Speaking as a Gnostic, there are lots of differing beliefs. There were a lot of different sects and modern ones are no different.

            But generally speaking, Gnostics believe that all humans have a divine aspect. Jesus, just more so.

            So go as far as saying he was completely divine, others say he was human.

      2. You’ve never in your life met one person who claims to be a Christian and doesn’t murder, steal, curse his parents and God, lie, worship idols, break the Sabbath, covet AND commit adultery? What kind of a hell hole do you live in ?

        1. Every mortal man is a sinner.

          1. Yes, but very few do ALL of those things.

    4. taking “moderate Nazis.”

      Leave Hillary out of this.

    5. Yeah, and technically Christians have to believe the Bible is the true and accurate word of God.

      Unless you belong to one of the bajillion Christian sects that say that the Bible is mostly allegory.

      1. The Bible is different. All but the most ignorant know that it was written by dozens of different people “inspired by God” and who spoke many different languages. Plus, the more peaceful New Testament largely supersedes* the new. (*This is a complex issue I am summarizing, somewhat inaccurately.) There’s a lot of room for interpretation.

        The Koran, though, was (supposedly) transmitted to one person, in the language Allah speaks. And it gets more violent as it goes along. (When Muslim apologists quote peaceful verses, they’re always from the early parts.)

        Also: what country, ever, got better as it got more Islamic (in percentage of population)? I can’t think of one, but I can name lots of countries that got worse.

        1. All but the most ignorant

          … a surprisingly large number of people are “the most ignorant” then. Although they don’t go around killing anyone (by and large).

        2. The Bible is not different.

          1. Its the literal word of God according to Fundamentalist Christian – the whole ‘no evolution, world created in seven days’ thing? That’s because these people take it as a literal description.

          2. The Bible isn’t one book written by different authors. Its multiple books smooshed together – all written by authors who either spoke directly to God or were controlled by the Holy Spirit while writing.

          3. The later parts of the Bible *do not* invalidate the earlier. You don’t wash away Leviticus by saying that, later, God said you didn’t have to do that stuff anymore – and he didn’t.

          4. And when Christian apologists quote peaceful verses they’re always from the later parts – both sides are cherrypicking quotes to bolster their argument.

          1. . The later parts of the Bible *do not* invalidate the earlier. You don’t wash away Leviticus by saying that, later, God said you didn’t have to do that stuff anymore – and he didn’t.

            The law isn’t invalidated, but with its fulfillment there is no longer any obligation attached to it. Christ and later Paul are actually very specific that, contra your claim, you do not, in fact, “have to do that stuff anymore” with regard to the rituals and obligations of the old covenant. Piety was achieved through adherence to the law prior to Christ. It is achieved through redemption by Christ thereafter. For example, you’re still not supposed to commit adultery. But you are not obligated to stone adulterers.

            4. And when Christian apologists quote peaceful verses they’re always from the later parts – both sides are cherrypicking quotes to bolster their argument.

            The timeline in Christianity is less important. Passages placed later in the Koran are given more weight than earlier passages. If there is a conflict, you use the newest passage. This is because God was revealing things to and through his prophet Muhammad across time and in a particular order.

            1. Revelation is the last book in the Bible, and it’s pretty damn violent.

        3. Transmitted to one illiterate person and written down a few centuries later.

      2. Nope. Nowhere in Jewish or Christian scriptures is this idea stated — “inspired by God” is the standard, hence why all of the historical branches of Christianity (Orthodox, Coptic, Armenian Apostolic, Catholic, etc) favor historical-allegorical styles of interpretation along the style of the 4th-century Alexandrine school of exegesis.

    6. Telling other people what their religion really means is idiotic. Things change and evolve. What the fuck is the point of going around saying that Muslims who behave in a better, more civilized way are shitty Muslims? Why not try to encourage those who want to make it a more peaceful religion that can better coexist with the rest of the world?

  21. And, of course, the Muslim world is using Syria as an excuse. Why should the Saudis take a bunch of poor and uneducated immigrants, heavily sprinkled with ISIS sympathizers if not actual ISIS agents? Let the Europeans and Americans spend their welfare money on them. Spreading Islam is part of their faith, and refugees and migrants do that.

    1. Maybe the Saudis will promise to build a couple hundred mosques in the U.S.

    2. You keep on repeating this “the refugees want our welfare money” shit without an iota of proof. Is there a reason for this?

      1. It’s a basic tenet of xenophobia. No proof needed.

        1. See the proof below, smartass.

      2. You keep on repeating this “the refugees want our welfare money” shit without an iota of proof.

        Well, there are the refugees who complain about not getting enough welfare in Europe.

        And, there’s the way so many of them seem to be heading for the richest welfare packages they can get.

        Not to mention, any refugee who gets off the boat in the US is not going to have a job, or likely any resources, so I would expect them to be on welfare.

        Here’s the deal, though, fundamentally: most of these people aren’t refugees at all. They are economic migrants, moving to where they think they will get the best economic deal. Of course they are looking for welfare, at least initially.

      3. Here you go:

        According to Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) data highlighted by the immigration subcommittee staff of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) ? chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest ? in FY 2013, 91.4 percent of Middle Eastern refugees (accepted to the U.S. between 2008-2013) received food stamps, 73.1 percent were on Medicaid or Refugee Medical Assistance and 68.3 percent were on cash welfare.

        Middle Eastern refugees used a number of other assistance programs at slightly lower rates. For example, 36.7 percent received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), 32.1 percent received Supplemental Security Income (SSI), 19.7 percent lived in public housing, 17.3 percent were on General Assistance (GA), and 10.9 percent received Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA).

        1. bassjoe’s ignorance of reality is all the proof he needs!

  22. It is time that we face the reality that, while Islam is a faith that must be granted the same freedoms of religion as all others, Sharia is a political ideology that cannot coexist with the constitutional and basic human rights on which the United States is founded.

    This is why Johnson is not a commentator on Reason. Its hard to believe that *none* of the other candidates – not even Paul – could cut right to the heart of the issue.

  23. Econ OT: December rate hike a sure thing to slow the overheated economy down:

    Home sales usually slow in the fall, but they took a more “dramatic” turn down in October, according to Redfin, a national real estate brokerage.

    Monthly numbers from the National Association of Realtors will be released next week, but a count by Redfin shows sales in October were flat when compared to a year ago. This is a sharp change from the double-digit annual sales growth in September.

    What’s interesting to me is that Fed watchers are no longer saying that they need to raise rates because the economy is so super-duper awesome, but because it’s NOT and the Fed should raise rates as a purely symbolic move– to inject some confidence into the markets.

    Data-dependent my dick.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/19…..-turn.html

  24. America is for heretics.

    1. Your mom, on the other hand, accepts all comers.

      1. My Dad was even better.

  25. It’s not really fair to lump all of Sharia into one big mass of “political ideology”. Sharia, after all, is an ENORMOUS mass of canonical guidelines with some relation to the Koran that isn’t anywhere near universally agreed-upon.

    I don’t really see why you would have a problem with Muslims applying Sharia standards to the powers of their will testators, for example.

    1. There’s no question that bits of sharia, adopted on a purely voluntary basis, are unexceptional.

      The problem is that, once you get enough of the right kinds of Muslims, its stops being bits, and it stops being purely voluntary.

      We’re a very long way from that, but there’s millions of non-Muslims living under sharia law involuntarily, because they live under Muslim governments.

    1. 5 people involved in a criminal conspiracy to commit financial fraud and identity theft…

      Also known as, every other street corner in every major American city.

      1. They’re encroaching on business that used to the the exclusive domain of Italian Immigrants.

    2. Yes, because lots of people are claiming that absolutely no immigrants ever commit any crimes or do anything bad ever. That’s what pro-immigration people really believe.

      1. Are you familiar with the writings of Cytotoxic?

        1. Hell, have you read Shikha’s immigration articles?

        2. I know some people take that line. But very few. I bet even Cytotoxic and Dalmia don’t claim that no immigrants ever do anything bad.

  26. EXCLUSIVE: Extraordinary picture shows party-loving jihadi in the bath – as her brother reveals Europe’s first female suicide bomber had NO interest in religion and never read the Koran

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-hats.html
    But, but, but they’re all devout Muslims! This makes no sense!

    1. Chilling: The footage also shows the incredible luck of a young woman who would have died had the terrorist’s assault rifle not misfired as he held the weapon over her head (circled) as she cowered under a table outside the cafe. He gives up, allowing her to run to safety

      Everyone wants to turn this into an issue of Immigrants, and all I want to do is turn it into an issue of free people forced to cower under tables and hope for incredible luck when bad shit happens.

      Yeah, I’m worse than hitler.

    2. The people most susceptible to fundamentalism are those who have the least self-esteem.

      1. those who have the least self-esteem.

        If that were true I’d be rampaging through the SouthCenter mall screaming “Allahu Joseph Smith” while shooting people at random.

        1. Mormon fundamentalism seems to be more about having lots of wives than committing acts of violence against the nonbelievers.

          1. wrong
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
            Mountain_Meadows_massacre

          2. -1 Nauvoo Legion

          3. I’d respect the Mormons more if they hadn’t caved for statehood and weren’t fanatical prohibitionists. At least they are arguably a native phenomenon… albeit less convincing and less attractive than Native American shamanic traditions. It is worth a trip to Salt Lake City to see their real estate. The plural wives thing told the other initiation-of-force faiths (via mathematicians) that ungelded Mormons would soon outvote them and gain control of the Political State. Libertarians clearly pose no such threat just yet, so… maybe localized campaign literature ought to let on that we won’t criminalize plural marriage. It might draw some votes in Utah and Idaho, make the looter parties change laws much more quickly, and free us of the likes of Mitt.

    3. Huh, if you read the article, the evidence that she “blew herself up” is thin. If you read the article, there’s no explicit or direct evidence saying she did. Only that she had a vest on, and it blew up.

      I mean, I agree it’s likely she did, but it’s entirely possible she was fitted with the device and someone else detonated her.

      He said: ‘I heard a woman shouting ‘Help, help, help me!’ The police asked her to identify herself and to show herself. She showed her hands but she didn’t reveal her face. They shouted at her, ‘Keep your hands in the air!’ They told her, ‘We’re going to shoot’. The shooting resumed. Suddenly there was an enormous explosion. It was probably the woman who blew herself up.’

    4. First female suicide bomber? Russia’s ‘black widows’ don’t count anymore? Nor the female suicide bombers of the PKK?

      As to the non-Muslim adherent behavior, taqiya, though more associated with the Shia branch of the religion, explains some of it. Mostly though, Islamic suicide bombers are ‘traditionally’ weak-minded, brainwashed people, that have generally been required to live in an isolated environment until their use. Haaretz listed that the typical Palestinian suicide bomber was single, male, 21, and educated in a religious institution. Here’s an interesting paper from the US Army’s Strategic Studies Institute, looking at female suicide bombers. An interesting difference between female and male suicide bombers in the intifada was that females generally had a higher level of education than their male counterparts. This article in the International Journal of Conflict and Violence attempts to determine from open source media accounts, characteristics of suicide bombers in the Second Intifada.

      Anyway, it’s not surprising to me that as part of her environment, a slackening of Islamic moral codes was allowed, even as her motivation was to encourage Islam.

      1. Note her troubled childhood. It fits with my PTSD theory about suicide bombers.

        Does PTSD Cause Terrorism?

  27. I’m convinced.

    Islam has nothing to do with violence, anywhere.

    There’s no reason not to let anyone in who claims to be from Syria.

    Immigrants and refugees have never caused any problems for their new host countries.

    Mass immigration is everywhere and always a completely unalloyed benefit to the host country, no exceptions.

    Its very . . . relaxing to just stop worrying about all this.

    And, amazingly, it turns out that all the bad things ARE being done white people – the restrictions on freedom of movement, the police state “guarding” us against the imaginary threat of “Islamic” terrorism, all of it.

    1. With the possible exception of Cytotoxic, can you point to anyone who claims any of those things?

      Might be good to address the arguments that people actually make about immigration, which mostly come down to the idea that immigration is usually on balance good for a country and that even if it isn’t always so, it is still wrong to prevent people from free movement or to forbid people to hire or house anyone that they choose to using their own resources and property.

      I’m not going to worry about it a lot because no one is going to take my views into consideration in any case, and even if we take in 1 million Syrians, the odds that I will be harmed by a terrorist are still extremely low compared to many other risks I face daily.

      1. I know, I know, I’m being an ass.

        Hillary just said the first one. And I believe we were just having a robust debate about whether Islam proper has anything to do with terrorism, or whether its really Sharia, or perhaps even that the terrorists aren’t real Muslims. This one is actually quite common.

        Shikha believes the one about mass immigration (and presumably the one before).

        I don’t see how you can hold the position that we should let in people who claim to be from Syria after vetting them, when it is impossible to vet them in any real way. Since vetting is a nullity, I think this means you have to believe there’s no reason not to admit anyone from Syria.

  28. Jesus, Moses and Muhammad walk into a bar.
    The bartender says….

    1. … we don’t allow camel fuckers in here. So all three turn and walk out.

    2. …what is this some kind of joke?

  29. I spoke with Gov. Johnson over the phone last night

    And here I thought Gary Johnson was no longer a governor. I must have missed this election.

    Which state is he Governor for these day, anyway?

    1. I think it’s like the South calling old retired military guys ‘Colonel’ out of respect. But yeah, good catch.

      Ironically, I can see the current Governor of New Mexico, Susana Martinez, getting the nod to higher office (as a VP), a lot more likely than I can see Mr. Johnson going anywhere as a third-party candidate.

  30. Gary Johnson? Wasn’t he the actor in that broadway show? Hey, it is him. Hey, Gary, do that scene where everyone gets AIDS!

    That said, if he actually makes it to a televised debate and gives the “pussies, dicks, and assholes” speech in relation to campus PC (in the kegels sense, apparently) dipshits, American foreign policy, and ISIS, then he’ll probably win the election.

  31. I love you Gary, I do. But, it Muslim adherents don’t feel obligated to distinguish between Islam and Sharia, I’m not about to either.

  32. GayJay also doesn’t believe in freedom of association. Not sure how much I trust him to balance freedom of religion against security with that in mind.

  33. So sad to see Johnson fall for the hysteria about Sharia Law. In England (and elsewhere) it was only accepted for arbitration — when all parties agree, Judaism (Mosaic Law) has enjoyed the same status, even in this country. Arbitration obviously is not used as a substitute for civil law, despite the hysteria on the wacko right.,

    Why does fucking government have to “accept” ANY form of voluntary arbitration, if both parties agree voluntarily? I’m an atheist, but it’s no surprise if the more devoted followers of any religion would prefer to be “judged” by their own deeply held values. Indeed, the First Amendment should guarantee anyone’s right to follow their faith in such a way, especially when all parties agree.

    I still laugh at the manipulated puppets who believe Sharia Law can be imposed, anywhere in America, without amending the Constitution!

    1. Yeah,

      The laws on how and with what you can beat your wife are total hysteria.

      1. Got one! An example of what I properly described as “hysteria on the wacko right”

        The laws on how and with what you can beat your wife are total hysteria.

        Another reason to be glad it can’t happen here!
        One more time for the mentally disabled::
        “I still laugh at the manipulated puppets who believe Sharia Law can be imposed, anywhere in America, without amending the Constitution!”

        The “manipulated puppet” also needs this:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteria

        And might learn how this works.

        http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

        While you’re here, I hope you choose to learn about libertarianism.

        1. Hihn,

          Nice of you to admit the “beating your wife stuff” is not hysteria. Just unlikely to get implemented in America.

          OTOH bringing people with those kids of beliefs to America…. Well I don’t think it is a good idea.

          1. That’s what I get for being kind about your screwup.,

            Nice of you to admit the “beating your wife stuff” is not hysteria.

            Ummm, I never said it was. Pay attention this time. I’ll TRY to dumb it down..

            So sad to see Johnson fall for the hysteria about Sharia Law. …. I still laugh at the manipulated puppets who believe Sharia Law can be imposed, anywhere in America, without amending the Constitution!

            Ummm the hysteria is believing that Sharia Law can be … ummmm…. imposed in America without amending the Constitution.

            Sorry, I can’t dumb it down any further. But for this country, have somebody explain religious liberty. Here’s how Gary screwed up England. From the BBC

            http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-16522447

            Sharia has been operating in the UK, managed by locally-appointed councils, in parallel to the British legal system since 1982.

            But the informal councils have no legal powers and they cannot impose any penalties. They deal with civil cases alone, but many Muslims are choosing to voluntarily accept rulings made by the scholars.

            Which parts of that do you find objectionable? Be specific.

            How can it be worthwhile for a prominent libertarian like Gary to sound like one of those rightwing wacko homophobes?

  34. On a related note, I wonder how many Americans have been brainwashed out of knowing that France had been bombing Syria for over a month. (gasp)

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/27/…..index.html

  35. Exclusive: an interview with someone of no influence whatsoever.

    1. Exclusive: an interview with someone of no influence whatsoever.

      Exclusive: the judgement of someone with no influence whatever.

  36. I voted Libertarian even when the party borrowed antichoice Republican Ron Paul, whatzisname Badnarik and limp-wristed Republican Johnson. Fielding these impostors was perhaps an experiment, but it failed. Voters can smell insincerity, so no surprise Ed Clark has AFAIK gotten the largest percentage so far in the unverifiable secret vote counts both looter parties hide behind. Johnson said nothing about the LP platform or positions on issues in glossy crap sent to my address during the campaign, and his showing reflected these errors. I like him and Rand Paul, as Republicans go, but they are Republicans and do not represent the LP platform.

    We’ve tried recycling Republican hand-me-downs and castoffs, it failed. Best to move on with our own platform and slate of candidates. The Nixon campaign law already subsidizes entrenched looter parties. Surely that’s disadvantage enough without our becoming sandwich-men for their mediocre decoys.

  37. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.buzznews99.com

  38. After 9/11 my idea was, instead of the TSA, hold a cocktail party at the boarding gate, and if you felt uncomfortable with any of the party guests, you could take a later flight. I have to imagine that it would be very difficult for terrorists to brave such scrutiny.

    Refugees should be the same. They can have U.S. citizens offer to sponsor them, and there would be some kind of agreement that their sponsor has some responsibility to see that they get settled in and have some social guidance and support. There should be plenty of willing sponsors, and they could use a matchmaking service (e.g., restaurant owners could sponsor restaurant operators, farmers sponsor farmers, families with children could sponsor similar families). This process would be far more thorough and difficult to fool than one handled by bureaucrats.

  39. Still waiting for Gary to answer the questions posed to him. Sure skirted around them. Give me the answers so I can make a decision on whether you are even worth looking into.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.