Say there's an odd Jewish sect that does something bizarre. How would global Judaism respond? American Judaism? — Tate

There are many examples of diversions by insular groups that have been criticized within, and the chasm between Hasidic orthodoxy and liberal reform Jews is deep and wide. These things aren't interesting outside the religion because most don't really care if some in the Lubavitcher sect held the late Menacham Schneerson the messiah and others rejected it.

But despite these differences, there is an unbending view that a Jew of any stripe is a Jew. As they say, Hitler saw no distinctions.

But, Jewish terrorist groups need to be condemned, and if they aren't, the leaders need to explain why. I'm not trying to assert perfection here, just trying to decipher meaning from silence so I can figure out where they stand.

What is the view of Sunnis towards Shias? Do they reject entirely Shia Imam authority, or do they find them persuasive but just not binding?

My curiosity arises from the silence of Muslim condemnation, and the answers I've gotten here are: (1) it's a radical Shia thing that the Sunnis are so divorced from they see no reason to respond, and (2) the Sunni structure is so localized and non-hierarchical that they lack the means to present an official comprehensive response.

As to #1, I leave the PR to them, but that seems a dangerous reaction because they must obviously know they are being grouped with the Shias, The bright line clarification regarding this issue of their distinction is made perfectly clear here, but, like I said, it's been terribly hard to find this argument you've made researching the web.

#2, again, limited personal knowledge here, but my wife works for the school system here and has had interaction with what seems fairly progressive Muslim community centers that offer social service outreach to recent immigrants, offering direction for schooling, housing, healthcare, etc. My point being that there is a high level of education, sophistication, and organization at some level, which points to leadership that has not spoken out.

I'm not trying to poke holes in the argument that Muslims share in non-Muslim horror over the event, but I'm trying to get this. There is a tendency among beleaguered minorities to never criticize one another publicly. It's an ill fated strategy based upon strength in numbers, but it predictably destroys credibility to the entire group. Looking for the generous read, maybe that?

That is an important feature. Theological interpretation is apparently quite decentralized and local. There's no pope, no Vatican, no infrastructure of command and control. — Bitter Crank

It's the same really of every religion, with the Baptists having their authority, the Catholics theirs, the Mormons, and then the unaffiliated churches with no hierarchy at all. Each Hadidic sect has their own head rabbi, etc.

But clearly some listen to the Ayatollah. Not sure of his scope of influence, but he's a Godfather enough that if he puts a hit on you, you lay low..

you polled 10,000 Moslems from various countries, my guess is that a majority would not be in favor of executions for book writing. There would be a minority (10%? 20%? 30%?) who would approve, and they would approve for various reasons. — Bitter Crank

I hope so. Those objectors get little press. And by press, I mean throughout, not just FoxNews.

I personally don't see the point in looking at theology. — Jamal

That's fair to the extent we see Muslims as a political group, which can be done with any religion, but there are underlying belief systems that do hold things together generally within these groups.

The article I located condemning the act referenced the theology, but, again, I realize that too could be a political move.

There could be, and I expect somewhere there is, a well schooled Muslim who could break the I'm sure many sects of Islam to where I could follow this.

If the answer is simply that Islam does not permit such fatwas but through corrupt leadership the ignorant masses were led to believe such in order to take a swipe at the West, that have done well to respond, but I'm still sorting out the politics from the theology..

Thanks for that post.

If you guys need me to stand from a mountain top and proclaim my ignorance of Islam outside a very limited academic context I will. but do read my posts from that perspective, that I'm looking for relief from the narrative that a dude gets his eye stabbed out and there is large spread acceptance of the act.

I've changed my mind. I think you are engaging in religious bigotry. Also hypocrisy. If you were talking about black people, women, or gay people, I don't think your abusive diatribe would be allowed on the forum. I don't think you would allow a discussion like that on the forum yourself. — T Clark

Except I'm not. A religious leader specifically decreed that Rushdie be murdered, a man went out to carry out his plan, the Guardian (not exactly a conservative bastion) reports celebratory and mited reaction, and I ask how widespread this ideology is and how attached to the ideology it is because I truly don't know.

Read all my posts. I'm looking for clear answers on what the ideology actually is. By exampke, the Old Testament talks about stoning. It's a legitimate question to ask (and it has been) whether Jews permit stoning.

The answer is they don't, but it's a reasonable question based upon the text and the fact that the OT is held as Truth.

the the OP had read "mainstream Shia Muslim theology" I would have laughed. — Noble Dust

You emoji affirmed @Tate's distinction between the ideologies of the Sunni and Shia, so now you laugh at it, as if implying the Shia mainstream position isn't decipherable, or whatever I'm to decipher from your laughter.

I'm really just asking a question here is all regardless of whatever you're trying to read in. A man stabs someone in the eye for disrespecting his religion, based upon his leadership's stance, and I want to know if his behavior is acceptable within his community, which is a subset of Muslims but still a large number.

What prompted this discussion from me was this article from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/aug/13/salman-rushdie-attack-prompts-muted-reaction-in-india-and-pakistan

And this too from the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/aug/13/salman-rushdie-attack-iranians-react-with-mixture-of-praise-and-concern

Sunni's are the vast majority, so the answer to question of whether the attack was consistent with mainstream Islam is no. — Noble Dust

Well I think that's clear from what I said, with a disambiguation needed for the term "Muslim" needed by me.

Should the OP have read "mainstream Shia Muslim theology," is your response "yes" to those 154 to 200 million adherents?

My question:

Was the attack on Salman Rushdie consistent with mainstream Muslim theology? — Hanover

Is the final answer: Yes to Shia Muslims, no to Sunni Muslims?

Or is there another distinction I've missed with my Western eyes?

you say, for most people the events were not performed for religious reasons, but some white nationalists I have read about participated with explicitly religious motivation. — T Clark

There are always radicals, but my concern is official group doctrine. It does seem the Sunnis may separate themselves from the Shia here, leaving their problem not a moral one, but a PR one in that the distinction in position is not known by many.

Regardless, there are between 154 to 200 million Shia in the world.

"An overwhelming majority of Muslims are Sunnis, while an estimated 10-13% are Shias. This report estimates that there are between 154 million and 200 million Shia Muslims in the world today." https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/10/07/mapping-the-global-muslim-population/#:~:text=or%20more%20Muslim.-,Sunni%20and%20Shia%20Populations,Muslims%20in%20the%20world%20today.

I do find great comfort in this. I didn't cease looking for an answer to my question.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/islam-does-not-permit-violence-aimplb-member-8088729/lite/

A clear Sunni response.

was not my intention to imply your post is bigoted any more than yours implied that Islam is a violent religion. I was implying that your example is misguided. Yours is generally a voice for moderation but I think you were immoderate here. — T Clark

And I think you're wrong. My voice is moderate. A man was stabbed in the eye for a work of fiction, carrying out his wishes in the name of religion, and I want to know the official position of the Muslim community. Point me in the direction of the article you rely upon for that position.

The Catholic Church engaged in horrible, systemic sexual abuse, but their official position, for what it's worth, is condemnation.

I can deal with failing to meet a standard far better than having a failed standard. I'm just asking what that standard is.

don't know if Sunnis would feel the need to address a Shia issue. Sunni leaders don't have any authority over Shias. — Tate

You've drawn a distinction here between the reactions of the Sunni and Shia but I can't find support for that anywhere. Do you have cites?

I do know that the fatwa was issued well after general Muslim outrage began, but I can't find support that the Sunnis disagreed with it. What I did find was that the Ayatollah presented the fatwa in a manner to gain support from the Sunni population:

"To win back the interest in and support for the Islamic Revolution among the 90% of the population of the Muslim world that was Sunni, rather than Shia like Khomeini. The Iran–Iraq War had also alienated Sunni, who not only were offended by its bloodshed, but tended to favour Iran's Sunni-led opponent, Iraq. At least one observer speculated that Khomeini's choice of the issue of disrespect for the Prophet Muhammad was a particularly shrewd tactic, as Sunni were inclined to suspect Shia of being more interested in the Imams Ali and Husayn ibn Ali than in the Prophet.[58]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_controversy#:~:text=On%2014%20February%201989%2C%20Ayatollah,that%20persisted%20for%20many%20years.

Was participation by white Christian nationalists in the events on January 6 in Washington DC consistent with mainstream Christian theology?

As is common in situations like this, the question asked is more telling than the answer. — T Clark

No, you just try to divert by chastising me for covert bigotry, but at best you've presented a tu quoque fallacy. If i treat Christians with kid gloves but am critical of Muslims, I'm a hypocrite at worst, but my statements are not deemed wrong

Regardless, the 1/6 events were not carried out in the name of religion, but were the result of a political ideology. I do condemn those in the Republican party who have either supported those acts or claimed them part of their ideology. .

I place this in the religion category for the purpose of posing this as a theology question, less so a political one, but obviously of political consequence. .

I Googled looking for the Muslim reaction to the attack and found nothing in the way of Muslim leadership condemning it. The response from Iran and radicalized Muslim governments was celebratory, with India remaining quiet.

I am aware of two critical factors at play here in the Muslim world: (1) the official fatwa from the Ayatollah Khomeini that serves as a decree to kill Rushdie, and (2) fear of reprisal throughout the Muslim world should they condem the attack.

I candidly do not know what the primary driver of the silence from Imams in the West is. Are they in agreement with the attack as justified per their leadership, or do they hold their tongues in painful silence at this injustice? While the latter would be my hope, it's hardly befitting leadership from what ought be a person of integrity over self-preservation.

If it's the former (i.e #1), what restraint in civilized society should one have in discussing the virtue of Islam if its official contemporary 2022 doctrine is the murder of those who write books critical of its historical figures?

My views tend toward the progressive in acceptance of diversity, with a particular openess toward religious diversity, but I can't align in any way with an organization that officially advocates and celebrates the murder of simple detractors.

But back to the theological question, anyone find sources of mainstream. Imam condemnation of the attack or fatwa?

The Chinese are building lots of nuclear power plants, which everyone should be doing. If Europe actually does wean itself off Russian oil and gas, that would help. — Tate

The solution remains more political than scientific. Most of Europe is aligned, but not so much the US, and surely not beyond the West.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/shelling-ukraine-nuclear-plant-raising-144759494.html

Sad though to see how clear it was 37 odd years ago, and how very little has been done in that time. — unenlightened

What he says needs to be done can happen only through universal cooperation, which is the panacea that will cure far more imminent threats than global warming.

Given that we'll not get China to allow Taiwan self determination, much less get it to abandon thoughts of mining and using its own coal, perhaps we should reconsider our paltry efforts of trying to do the right thing. Having the moral higher-ground is of what value if our efforts don't ultimately matter?

I found this a helpful broad summary of many of the issues in this thread. Carl Sagan from 1985 when things were slightly less political.

The cause of global warming is the sun obviously, with the input into the atmosphere being part of the equation and the amount unable to exit as the result of it being trapped in gasses caused by fossil fuel burning another.

So, of course, if sun input changes, we could see another ice age, and equally of course, if we increase heat capturing gasses into the environment, we'll increase global temperatures.

He acknowledges humans have been impacting global temperatures for thousands of years. My assumption is that all plant life does to some extent as well.

Pay attention to his solution, which I find interesting as it acknowledges an almost impossibility of universal political agreement. That is, it's not clear that complete elimination of green house gasses from the West will do anything without the same by China and Russia. You can't dam half a river.

If you're already of the opinion that science fully constrains our theories about minds then you're not in a position to answer my enquiry. — Isaac

I'm not of that opinion.

In any event, I disagree that you can't debate varying epistemological theories just because you already have one you rely upon. That is, the fact that I use science to answer certain questions doesn't mean I'm closed minded to considering other epistemological methods.

So, make your argument for why you believe in mind reading and establish how your method of knowing that is consistent with how you know other things, and if it's not, why such is a special class deserving of special rules.

The person suggesting minds can do something (mind-read) which is denied by college science is a crackpot. A lunatic, not to be taken seriously. A woo-merchant. — Isaac

This just isn't accurate, as if my denial of mind reading is the result of indoctrination I've been unable to rise above as you have. I deny it because I've never seen it done nor seen a study of it being done nor been made aware of a reliable account of when it's been done.

If you're going to argue in support of the paranormal, bigfoot, or the elusive white penguin, you need evidence. Your psychological evaluation that I'm just stubbornly committed to the status quo isn't evidence of anything, even if it were true.

And it's not like there isn't extensive literature attempting to prove the paranormal that I'm unaware of. I am very much aware of it, and it's extremely unpersuasive.

The thing I'll most remember about MAYAEL is that I would never have heard of him had he not been banned.

I did mean that, I was just wondering why not. — Isaac

We have five senses, and unless you reduce your communication to where it can be sensed by one of my senses, I won't be able to perceive it. Unless your behavior is visible, audible, tangible, tasteable, or smellable, how am I supposed to know it happened? If you were hungry and that emitted electrical activity from your brain into my brain, then I could read your mind, but that would require my having the sense to read electrical brain activity, which, alas, I don't.

I was told once (although I don't feel like looking it up), that they determined that pigeons were able to find their way back home due to magnetic material they found in their brain that acted as a compass. By putting a magnet on the pigeons head, they could disorient the pigeon. So, it is possible that other organisms have all sorts of unusual ways of sensing external activity, but that still comes down to following the laws of physics.

But you know this, so what is the real question here? Are you asking why we're confined to the laws of physics? That sounds like a question of why is the world like it is. I guess it just got made that way. If you are denying it actually has been made that way, then you'll need to show some evidence that you can read minds. So, let us begin. What am I thinking about?

Wrong. I was thinking about twice baked potatoes with cheese.

I do share your sentiment though that I too can read my wife's mind. She wants me to take out the garbage. I can just feel it.

The lyric that most changed my life was "Did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?" As stupid as it sounds, that lyric would go through my mind every day when I worked a job I had mastered and was successful at, but there was no challenge. I had a leading role in a cage, but needed the war.

Don't we? When I feel I know what someone else is thinking, maybe I'm reading their mind. Why not? — Isaac

Sure, we know what people are thinking based upon their behaviors, and one such behavior is when they tell us. They may also use gestures, or they may reveal it from expressions. You may also know that someone is thinking about eating by watching them make a sandwich or perhaps they grab their car keys right at lunch time and make their way out of the house. All of that is basic behaviorism, but we don't equate the communicative behavior with the internal state.

That is, their mind experienced a desire to want to eat. That wanting to eat was a state of being and you didn't experience their state of being. Their mind remains to you a black box accessible to you only to the extent they manifest it in some sort of behavior. A person can mute or fake their behaviors, but just because I remain stoical doesn't mean I'm not suffering. The suffering is one thing, the exhibition of that suffering another.

So, when you say "mind reading" in normal discourse, people generally think of the paranormal or some sort of telepathy, as if the internal state streams from them to you. If you mean that, then no, I don't think you can mind read.

I assume you're comfortable with the fact that we have empirical observations demonstrating space and time? — Isaac

So humor me. Demonstrate time for me. It seems I must start with the presumption that there is time or else I won't be able to understand anything you're talking about.

Not asserting. Asking. If a thing is constrained by some physical laws, why not all of them? — Isaac

Because I don't think time and space are simply physical laws, but they are part of a most fundamental conceptual framework that nothing can be understood without their presumption. Existence is not a property of something and time and space are fundamental components of existence. If you have a dog without hair, you have a hairless dog. If you have a dog outside space and outside time, it exists no where at no time, meaning you don't have dog at all.

And this is part of the bigger question about objects generally in terms of how much is the physical object and how much is imposed by our perceptions and conceptual framework.

So, the reason you can't have an existing mind that does not occur in space or time is because such a mind is by definition not in existence.

Do you not find it at all odd that the physical restrictions people tend to think the mind shares are all the easy ones they learnt in school (it's in a body, we can't read other people's, it stops when you're unconscious...) and the ones they reject are all the hard ones that only neuroscientists and cognitive scientists tend to understand? — Isaac

I don't think it odd at all. I see the things near my eyes and hear what is near my ears. Everywhere I experience a perception occurs right where my body is. And we don't read other people's minds. We hear what they tell us, watch how they gesture, and we notice all sorts of behavioral manifestations that often tell us what they might be thinking, but we don't see directly into their mind, as if to see a head is the same as to see a mind.

The point is that if you want 'minds', then have at them, but if they're this spooky stuff which cannot be seen, touched or otherwise amenable to empirical investigation, then they're not constrained by the world of objects (bodies, skulls, space-time). If they are that way constrained, then they're constrained by all of the empirical world, not just the biology you learned in college. — Isaac

If the distinguishing characteristic of spooky stuff is that which cannot be seen or touched, then your worldly examples of space and time would actually be spooky stuff.

You assert without explanation why a thing that is constrained by some physical forces must be constrained by all physical forces. That is, just because minds cannot be seen but brains can does not mean that minds cannot share other properties of brains, like that both exist in space and time.

And that is the bigger problem. Space and time are not properties at all but are required elements for comprehension. A dog that exists in neither space nor time does not exist, so it's hard to call it "a dog that exists." By the same token, for a mind to exist, it must exist in space and time, but because it shares the requirement with brains that it exist in space and time doesn't mean it is subject to all the same scientific descriptions.

And speaking of what is needed for comprehension speaks to yet another thing that we cannot see or touch, which is comprehension itself. Comprehension does, however, exist somewhere (between my hat and bow tie) and at some time (like right now) because if it didn't, it wouldn't exist.

That said you two might wanna look into the statistics of anal sex; someone in another thread claimed that it's more common among heterosexuals than homosexuals. — Agent Smith

Not sure what the stats show. I'd think hetero anal sex would occur more often in established relationships (and possibly monogamous) as that seems a bit adventurous for a casual hook up, but what does a middle aged suburbanite like me truly know of such things?

What I do know is that HIV and now monkeypox spread among gays at the fastest rate, but I do know heteros got HIV at higher rates in Sub-Saharan Africa. I'd imagine Sub-Saharan sexual activity has it's idiosyncrasies as well, so not sure why their experience was so different than Peoria.

There's always a way out. And I'm sure we don't mean death, which defeats the point. — L'éléphant

Right, I was talking about finding a way out of despair, not of life.

I shall name this village Melancholia, which sits in a flood prone depression next to the River Angst. The dark clouds are confined in the valley by the heights of Mount Despair and Mount Regret, where a true rain never falls, just an eternal cold drizzle.

Only one small path leads out, but its trailhead can only be seen by casting one's gaze above shoulder height, and none have yet looked that high up. They've heard of this Path of Hope, but never having seen it, they scoff and shrug, looking at the ground, firmly denying it.

And to add to this, the pox are typically located in and around the genitalia, anus, and into the rectum. https://www.yahoo.com/news/er-doctor-says-hes-sick-120000516.html

Since we know that the male gay community contracts monkeypox at rates greatly exceeding the straight community, and you reject the hypothesis that it has to do with the differing ways the two groups have sex, what do you propose the cause is? Is it that monkeypoxes prefer gay bars or just find the company of gay men more fulfilling?

You sound like a lot of fun!

I didn't read the article as being a political statement one way or the other about gay people, but just a statement of what the data shows and a proposed remedy.

And what follows from this? — Fooloso4

What follows from this is that abortion, if a right, is an unenumerated right, and that unless you believe the Court has the power to enumerate the unenumerated rights, you cannot hold abortion to be Constitutionally protected right under the 9th Amendment.

Now you're just making stuff up.
— Hanover

Nope: — Fooloso4

You argued that the basis for the Texas anti-abortion law was to provide the fetus with 14th Amendment protections. I said you were making that up. You responded by telling me that that the lawyers argued there was a legitimate state interest in protecting fetuses, as if the two have something to do with each other.

If there were an argument that fetuses have 14th Amendment rights, the remedy wouldn't be to pass duplicative anti-abortion statutory law reaffirming that right, but it would be to bring a claim on behalf of a murdered fetus pursuant to his rights being violated when he was aborted.

It is not quite so simple. Abortion was legal and protected. It did not become illegal simply because of state legislatures, but because the Supreme Court overturned its long-standing precedent. It removed that protection. And it is this than enabled states to implement "trigger laws" banning abortions. — Fooloso4

A quick history:

Abortion was statutorily prohibited in some states. The Court struck down those statutes and the statutes became void. The Court reversed its ruling and those statutes became valid. The Court illegalize abortion. The legislatures did. If the Court illegalized abortion, no legislature could legalize it.

Roe was not based on an unenumerated right to an abortion. It was based on a right to privacy. — Fooloso4

It's hard to make progress here because you're too focused on trying to contradict me than in listening to what I'm saying and you're not even paying attention to what you're saying.

The right to privacy was found to encompass the right to an abortion, and the right to privacy is NOT an enumerated right. That means that abortion, under Roe, was found to be based upon an unenumerated right.

From Roe:

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

The discussion of the 9th Amendment related more specifically to our discussion about Scalia's views on Constitutional interpretation, limiting the Court's power from enumerating the unenumerated rights.

The Texas law at issue in Roe was based on the theory that a fetus is a "person" protected by the 14th Amendment. Where in the Constitution do we find that a fetus is a person? — Fooloso4

Now you're just making stuff up. You've not actually looked up the Texas criminal code articles 4512.1 through 4512.6 as it pertained to abortion in the early 1970s and found within that code section a statement of intent of the legislature where they announced that they were passing a law based upon their understanding of a term within a post-civil war amendment to the US Constitution.

You've not found that because it does not exist. That's not how statutes are written. The legislature doesn't have to explain its basis when it passes laws.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about fetuses. That fact is entirely irrelevant. You have apparently begun to think that the amendments to the federal constitution have some bearing upon what laws a state can pass. Not only is that false due to the distinction between the state and federal authorities, but it's also not the case that the amendments empower Congress to pass laws.

What the legislature would not do was done by other means through the court. — Fooloso4

This makes absolutely no sense. It is the legislature and the legislature alone that has illegalized abortion. No Court has ever declared a fetus a person. If it had, then the Court would be striking down laws permitting abortion. It has never done that. Never. What the Court has clearly said is that the right to abort does not exist, which means the states are free to decide whether to legalize it or not.

Scalia's originalist interpretation continues to be influential in Supreme Court decisions. It is, however, problematic. It does not support the overturning of Roe. — Fooloso4

Of course it supports the overturning of Roe. He indicated that the Court lacks the authority to declare the unenumerated rights implicit in the 9th Amendment, and since abortion is most certainly not an enumerated right in the Constitution, it cannot be used to strike down state laws related to abortion.

That decision was a religious one masquerading as a Constitutional issue. — Fooloso4

The validity of the legal justifications has to be addressed even if you think you've uncovered some pretextual basis for the position. I do think there is an absurdity in the position that it is absurd to think the Constitution does not speak to abortion. That is, I can accept those arguments that extrapolate the right to abortion from the general theme of the document and I can even buy into the idea of substantive due process as being within the realm of reasonable analysis. What I cannot accept is the opposite, which is that any argument to the contrary is patently irrational. It's simply not the case that the Constitution clearly and unequivocally protects the right to abortion, meaning there is plenty of room of reasonable argument for either side. Assuming we don't care about outcome, we can at least admit that the question of whether abortion is a matter of Constitutional right or not really isn't all that clear.

The question is whether a fetus counts as a person. — Fooloso4

That might be your question, but that has nothing to do with the over-turning of Roe v. Wade. Dobbs was based upon there being no Constitutional right to abortion, not upon a finding that fetuses were people fully endowed with Constitutional rights and therefore worthy of protection.

And yet strike down laws is what the court did, even with all its empty talk of stare decisis. — Fooloso4

You're conflating case law with statutory law. In a common law system, a court will always have the power to rule on the meaning of a law and they will always have the power to reconsider their own precedent. How the courts rule when interpreting law is called "case law" No one has ever challenged the courts' power to create and later reverse its own case law. The question of whether a court is authorized to strike down a statute is a different matter. "Statutory law" references a law that has been democratically passed law through the legislative process. If a court can declare a law is unconstitutional, then that court will be considered a Constitutional Court. Not all Supreme Courts in all countries have that power.

So, my point was that the US Constitution does not state the Supreme Court is a Constitutional Court. That is a power the Court conferred upon itself. I am not challenging that decision, but I am pointing out that it is well within reason for the Court to limit the authority it conferred upon itself, which was the point of Scalia's comment when he said he would not expand the Court's authority to declaring what the unenumerated rights of the 9th Amendment are.

What the Court did in Dobbs was to refuse to strike down the Mississippi statute on the basis of unconstitutionality. Reversing Roe is not the striking down of a law. It's a reversal of precedent.

Is this compatible with the claim that a fetus has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or, for that matter, that children have these rights? According to this a child does not have right to determine the course of life, liberty, or happiness. More so, an early stage fetus, which does not and cannot exist except as part of the mother, does not have these rights. — Fooloso4

Your questions aren't pertinent to the issue being discussed. Specifically, Scalia was simply acknowledging that people have rights and that the Declaration says as much. He then explains that the Declaration is not a legal document that can be relied upon as authority for the protection of rights. He then states that the 9th Amendment similarly supports the notion that there are rights, and that it is a legal authority, but he clarifies that he does not believe the Constitution empowers the Court to declare what those rights are. Keep in mind that no where in the Constitution does it say the Supreme Court has the power to strike down laws or to declare what rights exist, especially not those that are unenumerated. Scalia suggests that the legislature can decipher what those rights are and can then decide how best to protect them, but he denies that power is within the purview of the Court.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ...

The consent of the governed does not include the consent of fetuses, or children, or, at the time it was written, women. — Fooloso4

Again, this is not a legally binding document, but to the extent you're arguing laws have been passed that don't comport with the ideology of the Declaration, that's true, but it really has nothing to do with what we we're talking about.

Again, fetuses, children, and women were not includes among the People who had this Right. Further, "the People" is not the same thing as an individual person. An individual person does not have the right to alter or abolish or institute new Government. — Fooloso4

The Declaration is stating very clearly that there are rights that exist independent of the government and that the government is required to protect those rights, and if it doesn't, the government is unjust and should justly be abolished. Under this reasoning, any single person who abolished an unjust government would be just.

If one is to interpret the Constitution as an originalist then one needs to take a look at abortion practice and prohibitions at that time. It was legal and practiced without prohibitions. This changed in the mid-1800s. — Fooloso4

No, that's not what an originalist position would hold. No one suggests that you should interpret the Constitution by looking at what the various laws of the states held at the time.

There is no way they would have thought you were French; that was them publicly humiliating you for having the temerity to be in France and not speak French. Next time go to Spain. It is of course sacrilege to bend a bagutte, or put it in a bag, but since it sounds like some supermarket and not a proper boulangerie, it wouldn't have been a real baguette anyway, and carrying a folded baguette about town would be a further humiliation akin to having the scarlet letter 'A' embroidered on your dress. — unenlightened

How did you know what my dress looked like? Were you the old man lecturing me?
.

Reminds me of a story. I'll try to make it link back to the OP, but more so I want to tell my story.

So I was in France, speaking broken French, trying to buy a baguette, and the cashier asked me something that was far beyond the standard exchange one would expect in such a purchase, so I just nodded agreeably, having no idea what she was saying, but she kept insisting upon a better answer, so I apologized, telling her I didn't understand her, that I spoke English. The lady behind me told me I was being asked if it would be ok if the cashier bent the baguette in half to fit it in the bag, and then I agreed, although I thought that was an odd thing to do and I would likely have been confused had I been asked that same thing in English in America. An old man behind me then lectured me on the requirement that I speak only French when in France.

That's a story about bread, baguettes, and context, where "I don't understand" means "I don't care about your culture." I mean, how was I supposed to decipher "can I bend your bread in half" from the few words I understood in the context I described?

Next time I'll communicate better by wearing my bright white tennis shoes, my baseball cap, and my cargo shorts so they won't confuse me for being French.

Aristotle wrote about metaphor, and you only have to read the Odyssey to see lots of them. On top of that, it seems that they're deeply ingrained in all languages, hence are not modern. — Jamal

From my reading of George Lakoff's Metaphors We Live By, I'm not really sure where literalism end and metaphor begins.

Even speaking of beginnings and endings of linguistic concepts presents them as physical objects with starting and ending orientation, so that was arguably a metaphorical statement by me.

It's all very blurred to me, which it is, but, again, it's not literally blurry.