IN the Ancient Orient, all religion was more or less a mystery and there was no divorce from it of philosophy.
Another astonishing column from Michael Medved: Record, and the St. Part of this is doubtless the American focus on American news, but still -- wouldn't it have been worthwhile for the New York Times or the Washington Post, both papers with cosmopolitan aspirations, to say something about this?
Especially since both had heavily covered the American protests which did not involve religious groups announcing death sentences against the play the year before?
To be fair to the Shari'ah court, Medved points out that: This declaration accompanied a cautionary word to British Muslims: McNally travels to an Islamic state, however, he certainly risks arrest and execution.
McNally repented of his blasphemy he would still be killed, but his family would receive care and protection from the Islamic state. The only way that the condemned playwright himself could escape the fatal fatwa would be to undergo an immediate conversion to Islam.
A reader points out that Salon mentioned the McNally fatwa, though in one short paragraph at the end of its "People" column. Another reader points out that Best of the Web beat Michael Medved to this story, publishing something about this on Sept.
A couple of quick thoughts on the posts dealing with the Michael Kelly and Dahlia Lithwick articles. First, why do we fetishize life and death to the point of virtually excluding -- or grossly minimizing -- all other values?
Given that everybody dies eventually, what is really at stake is longevity, and we routinely sacrifice potential longevity for other interests.
Easy examples include driving small cars or motorcycles, drinking, smoking, skydiving, mountain climbing, and volunteering for the armed services. But in many public policy debates I am noticing a tendency to treat the loss or shortening of life as an overarching value that trumps virtually all others, especially liberty.
Once upon a time "Live Free or Die" might have seemed a perfectly natural motto for a state. Today it is hard to imagine any government seriously espousing that view. Rather, any slight threat to health or safety is routinely touted as a reason for government to compel, command, restrict, or tax in order to combat the threat.
Second, if war is viewed as the expenditure of lives -- our own and those of our opponents and third parties -- in pursuit of other values, then the jaw-jaw vs. Perhaps there ought to be a Nobel War Prize for the most valuable use of force with the greatest net-positive impact on the human condition.
No nominations for events more recent that 25 to 50 years old in order to allow time for consequences to manifest themselves.
Is that Oslo on line two? A converse prize for the most catastrophic failure to use force, leading to the greatest net detriment to the human condition, would also be interesting.
Third, while not a gun nut -- though perhaps a pecan or cashew -- I can certainly appreciate the value of the freedom to own guns and operate a business involving guns, and of not having that freedom arbitrarily denied. I also appreciate the value of Mr. Miller-El's longevity, though I am not sure that is actually the most significant value in that case.
Over-focusing on the death-penalty there undervalues the discrimination issues at stake, which would have significance regardless of whether Miller-El was facing the death penalty or life in prison.
While there may well be a difference between death and freedom, it may not be the difference Ms. Lithwick had in mind. Fourth, no matter how crass it may seem, we eventually need some means of valuing lives or more likely, life-years and of comparing that value to other disparate values.
We do this in any event, and at some point it would aid clear thinking to bring it out into the open a bit more.
Society will "spend" lives on lots of things, and it would be nice if we did so with some amount of introspection rather than just by bumbling along. For those of you -- on the right and left; you know who you are -- who balk at placing a value on life and would rather it remain a supervening value, try this quick test: What does it cost to feed a starving child in the third world?
How much have you given to such endangered persons? Why not give more?Gaius Julius Caesar, one of the world’s greatest military leaders, was born into a senatorial, patrician family and was the nephew of another famous Roman general, Marius. After the death of Marius and the rise of Sulla, Caesar’s life was for a time in jeopardy, but in the early 60s b.c.
he launched his own successful political and military career. Download-Theses Mercredi 10 juin As a follow-up to Tuesday’s post about the majority-minority public schools in Oslo, the following brief account reports the latest statistics on the cultural enrichment of schools in Austria.
Vienna is the most fully enriched location, and seems to be in roughly the same situation as Oslo. Many thanks to Hermes for the translation from leslutinsduphoenix.com Part of the agreement was to appoint (in 59 BC) Julius Caesar as consul, the highest political office in the Roman Republic.
#2 He was the most powerful man in the Roman Republic The First Triumvirate ended with the death of Crassus in 53 BC, following which Pompey realigned himself with the Roman senate and opposed Caesar. This final civil war, culminating in the latter's defeat at Actium in 31 BC and suicide in Egypt in 30 BC, resulted in the permanent ascendancy of Octavian, who became the first Roman emperor, under the name Caesar Augustus, a name conveying religious, rather than political, authority.
Julius Caesar had been preparing to invade Parthia, the Caucasus, and Scythia, and then march back to Germania . The effectiveness of a cast member is often determined by his distance from the median age of the leslutinsduphoenix.comions up or down will always be coupled with a lack of effectiveness.