Friday, November 6, 2009

Ft. Hood

Ross Kaminsky has a post on the topic over at Rossputin on the topic. What struck me is that the shootewr was a doctor of psychaietry, which suggest no more than a $0.50 taxi ride to the booby hatch anyway. He also is taking a survey which should bring in some interesting commentary.

1. Of course. I notice that when I hear about a mass murder or bomb plot, it's almost never a Methodist. I also understand that the Koran and the Hadith place a religious obligation on their followers to perform such acts.
1a. Thursdays acts merely confirm my observations.

2. Devout followers of any religion have a tendency to think of Gods law as being superior to any secular law. History is full of examples. When religious law comes into conflict with secular law regarding killing people or paying taxes, the outcome is generally not happy.

3. Legally surveilling Muslims would be extremely difficult at best, from a legal standpoint. Should we? Interesting question. Everyone has the right to practice the religion of their choice, however some restrictions apply. Satanists are prohibited from practicing human sacrifice, for example. Don't know if the prohibition extends to advocating it, but if so then such a prohibition should logically extend to the advocacy of murder against practitioners of other religions.
Can an ordinary citizen be sanctioned for advocating violence against other citizens, for whatever reason? (Big discussion of this, re: "Fighting words" at Volokh)
Can a "holy man" be sanctioned for advocating violence against practitioners of other religions? Can a religion be sanctioned for including the same in its basic dogma?
If Boulder passes a strong "hate speech" law, can I demand that Islam be banned in Boulder under it?

I've commented on Islam before here at casa Billll, and called it like I saw it, which will probably keep me from getting elected to high public office, at least as a Democrat, or in Boulder county, should that ever happen.

No comments: