For some reason, the search function on the Slate fray only sends me to comments I made last year or before,* but did find this old post concerning "dignity" and how we determine the meaning of various constitutional provisions. This is appropriate as well since I just received my hard copy of It Is a Constitution We Are Expounding: Collected Writings on Interpreting Our Founding Document, though it is also available free online (I obtained it via Amazon; ACS doesn't provide a means to purchase it).
A interesting article on squirrels. And, one on Justice Sotomayor's first term. Again, I liked the choice and overall I was not disappointed. I hope Kagan makes my doubts about her look mistaken, but it is not that I think she will be bad. I just fear that we could have done better. Not alone -- repeatedly, people have noted she would have made a great third choice. But, so be it.
The British Muslim lawyer is back over at Balkanization,** slumming by debating with the resident Tea Party provocateur (the main reason many participants don't allow comments), adding this eloquent discussion of charity:
Islam has one of the earliest versions of capital redistribution of wealth. It is called Zakaat and it is compulsory for every Muslim.
The tax is levied as 1/40th per annum of one’s capital, excluding such items as one’s primary home, car and professional tools. In Islamic states, Zaakat is paid to a Zaakat Authority which uses it for charitable purposes.
Individual charity is, of course, also encouraged, preferably in secret. Among relevant hadith (sayings of the Prophet):-
"Charity is a necessity for every Muslim." He was asked: "What if a person has nothing?" The Prophet replied: "He should work with his own hands for his benefit and then give something out of such earnings in charity." The Companions of the Prophet asked: "What if he is not able to work?" The Prophet said: "He should help the poor and needy." The Companions further asked: "What if he cannot do even that?" The Prophet said: "He should urge others to do good." The Companions said: "What if he lacks that also?" The Prophet said: "He should check himself from doing evil. That is also an act of charity."
Further, pious Muslims have since the earliest times endowed hospitals and institutions of learning by the establishment of waqfs or trusts. In Islamic jurisprudence waqf is the detention of specific thing in the ownership of waqif and the devoting of its profit or products "in charity of for the relief of the poor or other good objects"
By the 11th century, every Islamic city had hospitals supported by waqf trusts as well as schools and higher educational institutes. Many such trusts exist today.
Bart should remember that an important principle of Islamic theology is that everything belongs to God, and that wealth is therefore held by human beings in trust.
Love that summary on charity. Islam is a sadly misunderstood religion, one with a fascinating rich history, including in the area of social welfare. As with Christianity, there are various aspects that -- especially if taken literally -- are problematic. But, again, that is the case for Christianity and most religions. And, the practices often are more cultural than mandated by religion. This is so by full length covering of women, which is clearly not required.
I have read some about Islam, but as with various other things, it is a subject that warrants further reading. For instance, one of these days, I need to read a good summary of the Koran. I read one of those "little" books that summarize various topics, and it was somewhat helpful, but it covered so much ground. I was more interested in the Koran itself, like various books analyze the Bible. Oh well. I have a book on reserve about Mormons and polygamy, so there's that too.
[One comment after posting this ... to reference a reply to the quoted comment, religion was deemed essential by many Framers to a good public policy because it is a way the public to be motivated to be good citizens. Personal morality overall can serve as a means toward good public policy without unreasonable mixture of church and state being the result.]
On the t.v. front, I caught some of Secret Diary of a Call Girl last night on Showtime. Seems okay -- not a bad time passer, not too deep really. Saw an ad for Weeds -- that show bored me. I wanted to like it, since I like the lead, but didn't care for its style. I guess I only like her when she plays more troubled characters, like two plays I watched her in some time back. My new Fios connection does provide more chance for such adult entertainment, like the soft porn with plot Co-Ed Confidential. Still find television more dreary than in the past ... I think it's partially since so many shows these days try to be 'deep' in some way.
Or, maybe it's just that with the Internet, I'm done after watching a different type of "small" screen. OTOH, that too provides another route to watch t.v. programs.
---
* Back in the day, I also received email alerts to responses of my posts, something that can be done in respect to various blogs, IMDB comments and so forth. It seems this still is done for many people and there is a box to check off. All the same, for some reason, I do not get alerts. It's annoying, since I feel an urge to constantly check to see if I get responses (and notice the view count, which is a mixed blessing), which would not be as necessary if the old system was in place.
** Prof. Levinson is one of the few who do provide comments. Levinson seems like a sad soul -- clearly gentle and polite, but quite honestly horrified and disgusted at the state of things. And, it's fine that he has a place to put forth his cries from the heart, but as many tell him, he must realize they are at times exaggerated and misguided. This includes he dream of a major upheaval of the Constitution, which people try to tell him is of the "watch what you wish for" variety.
As to comments in general, Prof. Balkin's posts alone show the problem with not allowing them. He puts forth quite open to criticize material, at times with some sarcasm, which is okay, but blogging is valuable in part because people like him can get feedback. A blog like TPM can limit comments since it has a large news component; a blog mainly for opinion is less ideal in that respect.
I basically talk to myself here, but I'm not a law professor who writes for a broad audience, someone who should welcome feedback, even if it requires a bit of regulation of a troll or two.