Trump picks Amy Coney Barrett.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

Judge (not Justice yet ) Barrett is much closer to orthodox than Omar, I'll wager.

If that's true, I bet it has more to do with what we consider "orthodox" when it comes to various forms of Christianity than to Islam.

I mean there's hardly a Christian to be found (outside the Vatican) that insists on wearing a particular hat for all public appearances, but that kind of thing is common in lots of religions. With Christian denominations, if you pray regularly, lots of people are already willing to describe you as orthodox; if you do it five times a day as a Muslim you might not be particularly devout.

I'm a-religious and not particularly interested in the subject but my wife's parents would be considered fairly orthodox Mennonites by most people...but the amount that the church is involved in their lives is slightly less than the involvement a good friend of mine who considers himself a lapsed Muslim has with his mosque. And I agree, he's pretty lapsed compared to when we met. But still, Islam plays a huge role in his life, larger even than the role of the church in the lives of a couple of people I generally think of as cult members.

There's a really pronounced double standard when it comes to Christianity vs other religions, I think.

[feudist]

Omar could hardly be described as an orthodox Muslim.

Why not?

She's a brotherfucker.

[blues]

Why not?

She's a brotherfucker.

You make that sound so wrong.





("Get off me Cletus, you're crushing my Marlboros". Just because a girl sleeps with her brother doesn't mean she's easy. No offense to the inbred. )

[Joe S]

Trigger warning: extended thread drift about religion.

I've never heard anyone in the greater Muslim community use the word "orthodox" to describe another Muslim's faith or adherence to law or lack thereof. Probably partially because there are specialized in-group terms that apply, but also because I think Judaism and Islam are better defined as orthopractic (what you practice) religions, vs. Christianity, which tends to be more orthodoxic (what you believe). Lest anyone think I'm talking out of my rear, I've put forward this thesis to multiple rabbis, imams, priests and pastors on multiple occasions, and never met strong disagreement.

For what's generally considered a practicing Muslim, they adhere to the 5 pillars:

1. Shahada (declaration or witnessing of faith): that they testify that there are no gods but God and Muhammad is Its messenger. There can be technicalities about this based on your sincerity and the presence of adult male witnesses. If you've made communal prayers at least 3 times, ever, you've checked this off.

2. Salat (daily prayer): 5X a day (with some exceptions). There's a set form, with some flexibility built in, up to the judgement of the person praying or the person leading the prayer.

3. Zakat (charity): giving to the needy. Again, there's a set protocal and societal institutions that make it easy, but also wiggle room for individuals.

4. Sawm (fasting): usually during Ramadan, dawn to dusk, but with some variation depending on individual circumstances.

5. Hajj (pilgrimage): IF you can, you're supposed to go at least once in your life. In practice throughout much of the world, this translates to "want to go", because of limited means.

That's it. My experience has been that individual interpretation of this varies a lot, with a lot of folks believing if you've made the Shahada and meant it, BOOM, you're in, here's your secret decoder ring, can we help you find a wife? For most, even ones not particularly devout/believing, Ramadan followed by daily prayer is the deciding factor.

IMO, if you're thinking of Orthodox Jews generally, they are most comparable to Salafists, the folks very concerned with doing things in the spirit and sometimes the letter of how Muhammad and his buddies did it. Some do short pants and thobes (long tunics) and beards with Reeboks every day, some are dressed in modern Western garb, and you would never know, but they definitely hold the bacon.

What we call ultra-Orthodox Jews in the US and Israel (Haredi and Hassidim) are comparable to Wahhabists. They want everything to be as close as possible to the way it was done in the past, with strict interpretation of the letter of the law. They seem to share a love of minivans.

My experiences with devout Orthodox Christians of various stripes is that they are usually somewhere between Salafists and Wahhabists. I think Catholics are generally closer to Shia, because of the belief in an authoritative institution that can modify and interpret laws for everyone.

There's a lot of wiggle room due to cultural interpretations and the finer points of personal belief. Islam is certainly not monolithic, just like the other Abrahamic Religions.

By these standards, Ilhan Omar is a Muslim, and that's it, I would say. Devout/"good" is up to debate, and if you asked a religious Muslim, they would be highly likely to tell you Allahu Alam, or "Only God knows/God knows best."

Thank you for attending my TED talk. Please join us in the lobby for socially distanced coffee and halal/kosher donuts.

[0ddl0t]

A look at ACB's record on Qualified Immunity: https://reason.com/2020/10/15/these-...fied-immunity/


She seems pretty rational to me, but I suspect her record won't thrill most LEOs. She upheld QI for police pulling over 3 black men in a grey car hours after 3 separate black men in a different gray car committed a nearby drive-by shooting. But she rejected QI for:

1) a detective who lied on his probable cause affidavit
2) a prison guard who retaliated against a complaint-filing prisoner by falsely claiming he was a snitch to other inmates
3) a prison guard who pressed "a non‐resisting detainee's neck against the concrete in a manner that prevented him from breathing, carr(ied) him hog‐tied to his cell, and severely twiste(ed) his wrist"

...even though no exact-match "clearly established precedent" existed for those examples.

[HCM]

A look at ACB's record on Qualified Immunity: https://reason.com/2020/10/15/these-...fied-immunity/


She seems pretty rational to me, but I suspect her record won't thrill most LEOs. She upheld QI for police pulling over 3 black men in a grey car hours after 3 separate black men in a different gray car committed a nearby drive-by shooting. But she rejected QI for:

1) a detective who lied on his probable cause affidavit
2) a prison guard who retaliated against a complaint-filing prisoner by falsely claiming he was a snitch to other inmates
3) a prison guard who pressed "a non‐resisting detainee's neck against the concrete in a manner that prevented him from breathing, carr(ied) him hog‐tied to his cell, and severely twiste(ed) his wrist"

...even though no exact-match "clearly established precedent" existed for those examples.

So she upheld qualified immunity for officers making a reasonable “good faith” effort to do their job properly, which is what qualified immunity is intended for and she denied qualified immunity to officers engaging in misconduct?

If I have that right this LEO is just fine with her take on qualified immunity and I suspect most LEOs will be.

[ssb]

A look at ACB's record on Qualified Immunity: https://reason.com/2020/10/15/these-...fied-immunity/


She seems pretty rational to me, but I suspect her record won't thrill most LEOs. She upheld QI for police pulling over 3 black men in a grey car hours after 3 separate black men in a different gray car committed a nearby drive-by shooting. But she rejected QI for:

1) a detective who lied on his probable cause affidavit
2) a prison guard who retaliated against a complaint-filing prisoner by falsely claiming he was a snitch to other inmates
3) a prison guard who pressed "a non‐resisting detainee's neck against the concrete in a manner that prevented him from breathing, carr(ied) him hog‐tied to his cell, and severely twiste(ed) his wrist"

...even though no exact-match "clearly established precedent" existed for those examples.

I don't think "most LEOs" are down with perjury, assault, and retaliatory dishonesty. Most LEOs I know take their integrity quite seriously.

[TC215]

A look at ACB's record on Qualified Immunity: https://reason.com/2020/10/15/these-...fied-immunity/


She seems pretty rational to me, but I suspect her record won't thrill most LEOs. She upheld QI for police pulling over 3 black men in a grey car hours after 3 separate black men in a different gray car committed a nearby drive-by shooting. But she rejected QI for:

1) a detective who lied on his probable cause affidavit
2) a prison guard who retaliated against a complaint-filing prisoner by falsely claiming he was a snitch to other inmates
3) a prison guard who pressed "a non‐resisting detainee's neck against the concrete in a manner that prevented him from breathing, carr(ied) him hog‐tied to his cell, and severely twiste(ed) his wrist"

...even though no exact-match "clearly established precedent" existed for those examples.

If you think that “won’t thrill most LEO’s”, I suspect that you, like most outside of LE, don’t have a very good understanding of what QI actually is.

[scw2]

A look at ACB's record on Qualified Immunity: https://reason.com/2020/10/15/these-...fied-immunity/


She seems pretty rational to me, but I suspect her record won't thrill most LEOs. She upheld QI for police pulling over 3 black men in a grey car hours after 3 separate black men in a different gray car committed a nearby drive-by shooting. But she rejected QI for:

1) a detective who lied on his probable cause affidavit
2) a prison guard who retaliated against a complaint-filing prisoner by falsely claiming he was a snitch to other inmates
3) a prison guard who pressed "a non‐resisting detainee's neck against the concrete in a manner that prevented him from breathing, carr(ied) him hog‐tied to his cell, and severely twiste(ed) his wrist"

...even though no exact-match "clearly established precedent" existed for those examples.

I'm not LEO but after having listened to some LE and doing some basic googling, I believe most people like you and I have been misled in bad faith by activists into believing that QI provides absolute immunity for officers, when that is far from the case. If I recall correctly the percentage of cases where officers are granted QI is fairly low and somewhere near 10% - hopefully someone can hop in and correct me if I'm misspeaking.

Furthermore, if you are worried of the potential of QI to help some officers dodge a charge, you should be up on arms against the absolute immunity granted to DAs and Judges. That could quickly help put the kibosh on politically motivated charges like we've seen in the past year, or someone like Harris hiding exonerating evidence.

[TCB]

Uhhhh...so she thinks QI means what QI means and applies it that way? Yea, I’m good with that.