17 thoughts on “Gavin Boby Live on You Tube”

1. 13 F? Yesterday it was -29.4 outside my back door.

   (My car actually did start)

   • Kid stuff. When I lived in Bragg Creek, Alberta, we recorded -48C down at our gate, while further down near the Elbow river on the same morning, neighbours recorded below -50C.

     • On January 21, 1971, the temperature hit -70F on Fort Wainwright,AK. (That would be -56 and change in Celsius-speak.)
       The temperature at Prospect Creek, AK hit -80F, which has only recently been broken. That was the only day work was ever canceled, and much of the work done for the rest of the week involved thawing out frozen vehicles.
       I think every American should go to Alaska at least once in their life, but go in the Summer. And yes, they really have a Summer, from May to August, and sometimes longer.

       • For real cold, go to Verkhoyansk and Oymyakon, the two coldest inhabited places on Earth–they bring the kindergarten kids inside when it gets below -52C, which it does every winter. Both settlements have gone the entire month of January below -60C.

         • I’ve seen pictures from Oymyakon, and all I can think is “Why??!”

2. Stay warm!

   Since it is a quiet day here, I thought I’d ask a newbie question. I thought that, like every religion, Islam has a violent fringe. Like Christianity. But after watching a debate on “is Islam a religion of peace” last night I came away thinking that something is fishy here.

   It seems that in Islam, there is instead a peaceful fringe that acts as apologists for the rest, while the worst go largely uncensored. If criticism, ridicule, censure of violence, or leaving the group is liable to get you killed… that puts a damper on things. So it would seem that Islam is somewhat like Catholicism in the days of Voltaire who had to hide for his mischief lest he be killed. Or perhaps, going further back, it is like the days when the Anabaptists were hounded and drowned or burned for just, um, you know, wanting to baptize people when adult.

   On the other hand, though, the values of post-Westphalia enlightenment dictate that we do not go after each other on behalf of religion, and so the occasional call I hear for banning Islam makes no sense (even if it were possible).

   I would love to hear your thoughts.

   • The analogy with Catholicism doesn’t hold, because killing people for violating this or that doctrinal violation goes against the core doctrines of Christianity, as laid down by its founder.

     Islam, on the other hand, sanctions violence and killing as part of its core doctrines, and justifies this with its sacred texts.

     That’s the fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity (or any other religion that I’m familiar with).

     To summarize the difference, one might say:

     Fringe elements among Christians are violent in the name of their religion, but those who adhere closely to its core scriptures (the “fundamentalists”) are non-violent.

     Fringe elements among Muslims are non-violent in the name of their religion, but those who adhere closely to its core scriptures (the “fundamentalists”) are violent.

     • Thank you, Baron. And what about banning Islam? Is it like Nazism which was banned in much of Europe, or is it more like Stalinism which cannot be banned but must be grown out of?

       • The key to banning it is to remove its status as a religion. It is mostly a political ideology, with some religious elements. Bill Warner has done research into how much of Islamic scripture (Koran and hadith) applies to simple religious matters, and how much to legal doctrines (all those rules!). I don’t remember the exact proportion, but it’s more than 50%. Kind of like a Bible with nothing but Leviticus in it.

         To recognize Islam as primarily a political ideology, and a seditious one at that, would go a long way towards being able to ban it. It advocates the violent overthrow of the existing political order and its replacement with a sharia-based regime. That’s outright sedition, which is still illegal, at least in the USA.

         Muslims could be subject to certain restrictions. If they removed all the violent and politically-oriented verses from their scripture, then they might be granted the status of a religious organization. The thing is, that would turn the Koran into something roughly the same size and thickness as a church bulletin!

         Those who refused could be tried for sedition when appropriate. Mosques could legally be monitored, and those that continue to include traditional Koran and hadith in their literature could be shut down. Imams who preach such material could be arrested.

         This is very unlikely to happen, at least not until after some sort of societal collapse. But it would be a way to handle the problem without abandoning the rule of law or violating anyone’s “human rights”. No one has a human right to advocate the violent overthrow of a constitutional republic.

         • The legal system has already encountered this sort of issue with violent revolutionary Marxism and similar that were never considered to be religions.

           http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Clear+and+Present+Danger

           Doing the kinds of things you mention would require overturning (if that is the right term) the current standard for Clear and Present Danger. It’s possible but it would require an act of the Supreme Court and I seriously doubt that Islam would be the only thing affected. The latter part is the biggest problem.

         • It’s possible for an organization to have its status as an officially-recognized religion revoked, or not granted in the first place. Unless I am much mistaken, it has happened before with fringe-y nut-case “religions” that longed to get themselves a piece of the tax-exempt action. No Constitutional exertions were required to deny this to them.

         • Pretty shrewd then, to turn an ideology of domination and conquest into religion. The west seems hamstrung against it now… and I am only realizing how arduous and incomplete was the win against Islam in centuries past, and how many previously Christian areas they took over.

           On the other hand, if the rule of law was applied, then all those blatant and public death threats, or harassing or groping, the pedophilia, child and spouse abuse, and inroad into western law would not be happening with impunity. Which takes us into the political arena. Who has sponsored this takeover? The French and Arabs, over oil and imperial pretensions? The useful idiots of PC? I remain unconvinced… it seems bigger than that.

         • It is possible to have religious status revoked for tax purposes (the Mormons have been threatened with this at least once).

           The issue is that simply declassifying an ideology as a religion doesn’t stop its followers from legally advocating for the violent overthrow of the government if the clear and present danger standard hasn’t been met.

           In other words, status as a religion isn’t a prerequisite for protected speech.

           But if the leftists applied their own rules to mosques, a large number of them would have already lost their tax exempt status.

         • So, Nimrod, is it PC that is preventing the rule of law to be applied, or does it go to the highest circles, who use the PC crowd for their purposes?

   • If Islam is a religion, so’s the Mafia, they are very similar.

3. Extremely succint and very well put! Congrats, Baron.

4. Islam is the ultimate expression of Collectivism followed closely by Marxism and Fascism

Comments are closed.