You know how you can recognize the people who know nothing about the subject on which they speak? they are the one who make content free comments. You are 3 for 3 so far. If you actually can point out something wrong in what I said, please do. Do you think Sovietology was not about understanding how the actual government in the USSR functioned? Do you think that religious Shiite and Sunni radicals are part of the same conspiracy? Or can you just offer "I don't want you to be right so I will call you wrong?"

By the end, the discussion of shariah is so facile that it would include the great majority of Muslims, even though the great majority of Muslims are not part of anything related to al Qaeda. It is to Brennan's credit that he is trying to protect us from May's band of ignorance even in an article from May.

It is good that haters of Muslims like May now feel the need to deny that that is what they are. The next step would be to make arguments which don't turn around and make that clear. Kremlinology (more common than Sovietology) was an attempt to understand what a particular secretive government was doing. May begins by pretending he is only after a small group of Muslims waging war against us, but throughout the article this expands so that diverse groups not all of whom are doing anything against us all wind up falling under the banner. To compare studying all of these groups to Sovietology requires a complete misunderstanding of what Sovietology was, or what the Muslim threat is, or both.

It is good that haters of Muslims like May now feel the need to deny that that is what they are. The next step would be to make arguments which don't turn around and make that clear. Kremlinology (more common than Sovietology) was an attempt to understand what a particular secretive government was doing. May begins by pretending he is only after a small group of Muslims waging war against us, but throughout the article this expands so that diverse groups not all of whom are doing anything against us all wind up falling under the banner. To compare studying all of these groups to Sovietology requires a complete misunderstanding of what Sovietology was, or what the Muslim threat is, or both.

I would be impressed if that was his actual point, but I doubt it. Do you really think he is advocating letting parents to choose euthanasia if they think that is best for a dying child? I find that unlikely. My impression is that his problem is with anyone making the choice he doesn't want them to make. But if he has a system for maximizing the ability of parents to make these calls I would be all for it. Oddly he does not seem bothered by the current system in which insurance companies play the role that government panels play in Britain.

You mean you want him to stop the unprecedented military cooperation with Israel? What do you have against Israel?

Conservatives write an oddly large number of columns abut this subject if Brown thinks it is a yawn. Somehow I doubt that she would be as bored by learning that schools are taking children to plays whose message is the irrelevance of God for moral matters. But then I admit I have trouble getting worked up by a Charlie Brown Christmas because its message is strong despite that last quote. And it is nice to see Brown arguing that Churches should not get tax exempt status since Christianity is not a religion. Or was that not a claim that she would make consistently?

Here is a list of the figures on the Supreme Court Building as important lawgivers, "Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius, and Augustus." and "Justinian, Muhammad, Charlemagne, John of England, Louis IX of France, Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, John Marshall, and Napoleon" They don't seem to fit your pattern.

The best way to understand this is probably to think about your own ways of doing this. If one reads the Bible one finds rules of the proper ways to run a system of slavery. I assume that you do not actually think that slavery is moral. But clearly that judgment cannot come from accepting the laws in the old testament as allowing one to read right and wrong off of them, because if you did you would have to decide that slavery is acceptable, and that seems unlikely. So the same kinds of moral reasoning that you use to decide that slavery is wrong despite what the Bible says, atheists use to determine what is right and wrong, without thinking the Bible is the starting point.

The best way to understand this is probably to think about your own ways of doing this. If one reads the Bible one finds rules of the proper ways to run a system of slavery. I assume that you do not actually think that slavery is moral. But clearly that judgment cannot come from accepting the laws in the old testament as allowing one to read right and wrong off of them, because if you did you would have to decide that slavery is acceptable, and that seems unlikely. So the same kinds of moral reasoning that you use to decide that slavery is wrong despite what the Bible says, atheists use to determine what is right and wrong, without thinking the Bible is the starting point.