Bitter Academics, Torture, Tom Friedman, and Political Discourse

I particularly enjoyed this Bloggingheads diavlog with Dan Drezner, and Megan McArdle, in which they discuss topics such as the bitterness of academics, whether John Yoo should lose his tenure, the torture debate, the wisdom of throwing pies at Tom Friedman, and the nature of our current political discourse. It's too good all around to excerpt, but I'll say that I agree with Dan that the best way to undermine Yoo is not to take away his tenure, but to undermine his ideas, which is a good rule in general, as it's also not a good idea to throw pies at people either.

I aslo agree with Megan and Dan about the complexities of the torture debate, and that we've really had less of a debate on these issues, then we've had a shouting match. THat really applies to our discourse in general. All good stuff, and worth a look.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Says Sharia Law Not So Bad

Yeah, it seems he's gone insane. Read on:

The Archbishop of Canterbury has today said that the adoption of Islamic Sharia law in the UK is "unavoidable" and that it would help maintain social cohesion.

Rowan Williams told BBC Radio 4's World At One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

He says that Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court. He added Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty"
.
Dr Williams said there was a place for finding a "constructive accommodation" in areas such as marriage - allowing Muslim women to avoid Western divorce proceedings.

Other religions enjoyed such tolerance of their own laws, he pointed out, but stressed that it could never be allowed to take precedence over an individual's rights as a citizen.

This is pure insanity. Sharia law is openly hostile to democratic society, so I fail to see how sharia can be made to fit in, and maintain social cohesion. This is a move that leads straightway to madness, and the legitimization of extremism. This is an outrage.

Fortunately, there are others who agree that this is bad:

But his views were condemned today by senior Tory MP Peter Luff, who said: "This is a very dangerous route which we should not go down. You can't be a little bit pregnant. You can't have a little bit of sharia law.

"We should not start introducing new different legal systems alongside ours."

True dat.

Read the rest.

HT: Simon

UPDATE: Christopher Hitchens goes even deeper in explaining why this is bad:

Picture the life of a young Urdu-speaking woman brought to Yorkshire from Pakistan to marry a man—quite possibly a close cousin—whom she has never met. He takes her dowry, beats her, and abuses the children he forces her to bear. She is not allowed to leave the house unless in the company of a male relative and unless she is submissively covered from head to toe. Suppose that she is able to contact one of the few support groups that now exist for the many women in Britain who share her plight. What she ought to be able to say is, "I need the police, and I need the law to be enforced." But what she will often be told is, "Your problem is better handled within the community." And those words, almost a death sentence, have now been endorsed and underwritten—and even advocated—by the country's official spiritual authority.

It's real bad, folks.

Happy Birthday, Constitution!

Our Constitution is 220 years old today, and despite the opinions of a few, is still as strong and functional as it ever was. To explain further, I'll leave you with this, from back in the day(HT: Stubborn Facts):

The Massachusetts Bar Exam Is Anti-Christian?

This man thinks so. From Law.com:

A Massachusetts bar examination applicant who claims he failed the test because he didn't answer a question about homosexual marriage and parenting is suing the test administration agency, the state Supreme Judicial Court and four individual justices for constitutional violations

The story continues:

Dunne claims his score of 268.866 on the November 2006 bar exam just missed the passing score of 270 points because he didn't follow the prescribed format for an unlawful question about gay marriage. Dunne said the question required applicants to "affirmatively accept, support and promote homosexual marriage and homosexual parenting." Dunne claims the defendants violated his First Amendment right to exercise his religion and violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. He also claims their actions impose illegal state regulations on interstate commerce.

Interesting. I certainly respect Dunne's right to morally oppose same-sex marriage being the law, but I'm wondering if he has a case here. Whether he likes it or not, same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts. If the question did actually require him to support a policy he disagrees with, then there's a big problem, but you'd have to prove that (and farnkly, I find that kind of dubious, considering this is the Bar exam). Also, what of the fact that he must have certainly gotten other questions wrong? Can you argue that you failed because of that question, when there are clearly others you got wrong as well?

Of course, as I said, if the Bar exam does actually force applicants to potentially compromise their beliefs (as opposed to simply applying laws), then he has a case. I'd really like to see that question, in order to determine whether we have a case of authentic anti-Christian bias, or someone with a political axe to grind, who cannot pass the bar. Who knows?

HT: Pam's House Blend

Well, It's A Start, I Guess

Although this has the appearance of being a drop in the bucket. A really big bucket