“Reliance of the Traveller is a one-volume manual of Sharia. (The title implies that this is a handy compendium of Islamic law so that when you’re on the road, you know how to behave in unfamiliar situations.) It is a product of the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence, which is one of the four Sunni schools of Islamic law. It is all the more valuable because it often notes how the other schools, the Maliki, Hanbali and Hanafi, differ from Shafi’i rulings where there is a difference. And on apostasy they all agree: those who leave Islam must be killed.” From the American Thinker
Time is long overdue for all enlightened people to reject killing innocent people as a solution for religious disagreements. That is the sort of thinking that once permeated the 10th century and quite frankly that barbarism doesn’t belong in our world.
For any so-called good persons of faith to advocate killing anyone for merely seeking to change their religion brings discredit, shame and scorn upon whatever religion they think they are defending by their inhuman act of violence. That much should be a given for any rational thinking person.
Murder is murder and there’s no excuse for it. Its a crime against humanity . This fanatical belief is so dangerous that it should be a legitimate reason to deny entry to our country or deportation to those who subscribe to it.
“Time is long overdue for all enlightened people to reject killing innocent people as a solution for religious disagreements.”
The key word here is “enlightened.”
Enlightened people have already rejected killing innocent people.
Alas, you are talking about EXTREME CONSERVATIVES.
Extreme conservatives are simply not enlightened. Their minds are welded shut.
It doesn’t matter what the issue is, extreme conservative don’t listen.
For example, I recently read some head-in-the-sand commentary from an extreme conservative that detailed how Rush Limbaugh was ‘family,’ and for that reason was always to be believed–no matter what he said!
What do you think happen when the unthinking are led by the unprincipled?
The problem ISN’T religion.
The problem is stupid extremist conservatives being led around by the nose
Always has been!
Those who ASSume makes ASSES of themselves…repeatedly!
Well look who’s back! With yet another example of the Colgan Doctrine. *Snore*
I am starting to suspect that Quentin Colgan posts are a Post Scripts invention, but you kids could not possibly be quite that Machiavellian (or pathetic), right?
Quentin Colgan
March 21, 2011 6:45 PM
“Dumb” is not an insult.
“Bitch,” is.
The 2 do go together, though. Like dumb and ass.
…
I am done with civility.
Gee whiz Quentin, we were all aware that you had thrown civility to the wayside long ago. Heck, your pre-political criminal record attests to that.
Queries:
Has Mr. Colgan ever put up a post in the comments section of this blog that was actually civil, resembled civility, or even approximated it?
Does Mr. Colgan really think anyone needs further example of his incivility?
Ah, I see Quentin! Thanks for that heads up.
At the next tea party meeting I’ll ask for all Taliban and Al Qaeda folks to please raise their hands so I’ll at least know who they are.
Tina: “This fanatical belief is so dangerous that it should be a legitimate reason to deny entry to our country or deportation to those who subscribe to it.”
As far as I’m aware, no belief, no matter how fanatical, is against the law in America. A person can believe that all men named Frank should be killed. As long as they do not act on this belief, or advocate that others do so, there’s really nothing we can do about it. Suggesting that we regulate beliefs smacks of the very type of Big Government/Thought Police/Orwellian oppression that the Tea Party is supposedly against.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Chris, but this wasn’t my post. You and Jack will have to duke it out on this one.
Not so Chris! Plenty of visas have been denied for this very reason. Sorry my friend but you are way off base this time. Fanatics need not apply for entry, thats INS policy…where have you been?
And when the INS discovers fanatics among us they deport them, hopefully before they can stir up trouble. For example, remember the blind Sheik? We kicked his butt out of the country. Sorry Chris, but trying to shift this one to the tea party won’t fly.
Chris, there are also many more people who have been denied entry into the military or government jobs because of their beliefs. They may never have acted on say KKK activity or radical Islamic beliefs, but it sure will get them the boot if this is known. I can’t believe you were not aware of this??? Thought police??? lol C’mon, don’t be silly, there’s no nexus for saying that…this is about common sense.
Quentin do you have specific people in mind? “Extreme Conservatives” does not really tell us much. I am concerned that we may have some of “them” here, please tell us what to look for.
They’re easy to spot, my friend.
All you have to do is ask someone if they think Reagan was a conservative.
If they answer, “yes,” they are extreme, i.e., unthinking, conservatives.
Q, you could have saved some time by just saying anyone who truly believes they are a conservative is by your definition extreme. I can live with that, as a matter of fact I am proud to be!
Sorry about the mix-up.
Jack, perhaps I am mistaken. But I have to ask, were these people denied visas simply because they held fanatical beliefs, or because they actually advocated violence, to a point that would be considered incitement? There is a difference, and it’s an important one in terms of how we treat free thought and free speech in this country.
Chris to the best of my knowledge INS has a form they all must sign under penalty of perjury and if they check the wrong box, they will not be getting entry. Basically it is guilt by association which may not seem fair, but what’s the alternative? Being a citizen and holding ignorant fanatical ideas is one thing, but visitors better be nice because we don’t have to allow them entry.
Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly does that part of the form ask?
Chris, I do not have access to the INS forms with the questions, but I do recall reading them and it was essentially asking people things like, “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the following organizations…. ”
If they mark yes on any one of them they would not be granted entry.
Interesting. I suppose that can be valid, provided that the organizations listed constitute a legitimate danger to the country, in a very concrete way. Obviously, a member of Al Qaeda should not be allowed in. But if it asks something like, “Are you now and have you ever been a member of the Communist party,” then I don’t think that’s exactly kosher. Thanks for the info.