So we by all accounts had a terrorist attack of our own in San Bernadino here in the USA. Of course, two Muslim people with a lot of guns and bombs (which apparently didn’t work) did try to kill a bunch of people (and succeeded with some of them) after having spent time in the middle east so…yeah. If anyone wants to know why I’m hoping to get a gladius for Yule, this is why. If attacked, I will probably still die, but I refuse to die unarmed if I can help it, son of Helheim or no.
But I am not actually going to talk about Islamic Terrorism and attempted jobs of not talking about it. Nope, I am instead going to talk today about a lady. A lady who insists that her Justice Department is going to use it’s full might to…go after people who talk about Islam in a negative way that “might inspire violence against Muslims.”
Yes folks, you read that right. The United States Department of Justice is not going to use it’s vast resources to fight terrorism, especially Islamic terrorism. Oh no, it is going to use those resources to go after the people who protest Islamic beliefs and violent actions in such a way that “might edge towards violence.” Because protesting a religion is of course worse than actually killing people because of your religion.
Ignoring of course the ambiguity of what might be “violence” in this situation…
So let’s look at the article and what she says.
The day after a horrific shooting spree by a “radicalized” Muslim man and his partner in San Bernardino, California, Attorney General Loretta Lynch pledged to a group of Muslim activists that she would take aggressive action against anyone who used “anti-Muslim rhetoric” that “edges toward violence.”
Speaking to the audience at the Muslim Advocate’s 10th anniversary dinner Thursday, Lynch said her “greatest fear” is the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric” in America and vowed to prosecute any guilty of what she deemed violence-inspiring speech. She said:
The fear that you have just mentioned is in fact my greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all of the American people, which is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence. My message to not just the Muslim community but to the entire American community is: we cannot give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on.
There is just so much stupid in this statement.
Okay, so we cannot give into the fear (of violence inspired by a supremacist form of an ideological religion) which these backlashes (protests against said violent ideology) are based on.
Now, if I was a prosecutor, my biggest fear would be of ideologically inspired mass shooters killing lots of people. It would not be about the people who speak out against the motives of said mass shooters. It wouldn’t even really be about the people who might retaliate in response to a mass shooting (prevent/punish the shooting, no need for retaliation). Then again, this may be part of why I am not a prosecutor. I do not have my head apparently far enough up my own ass to be one.
But let’s think about this in other terms. What she is basically saying is analogous to “gang violence is not my fear as a prosecutor, my fear is the reaction of the citizenry against gang violence.”
Now, is there a lot of “anti-Muslim rhetoric” rising up in America? Absolutely. There has been since 2001 as people who have witnessed a lot of islamic violence have seen both the acts and studied Islamic scriptures and religious thought protested against it. Just the same way there was a lot of Anti-Christian rhetoric during the Enlightenment, and we all saw how well that worked out. I mean, we’re all hating not having those heretic and witch burning anymore right? Just so hard to build our tight knit communities without killing the infidel.
Assuring the pro-Muslim group that “we stand with you,” Lynch said she would use her Justice Department to protect Muslims from “violence” and discrimination.
Claiming that violence against Muslims is on the rise and citing France’s clamp down on potentially radicalized mosques, Lynch suggested the Constitution does not protect “actions predicated on violent talk” and pledged to prosecute those responsible for such actions.
Okay, just how much double think is going on here. I swear I’m picking up levels of triple think. Lynch is speaking to a pro-Muslim group (in the wake of what is a Muslim Terrorist Attack) and promising not to help them clear out the violent ideologues intent on murdering people (the sane option) who are “perverting their religion (or so they claim), but to help them stamp down on their detractors (the not sane option) who point out the very real bigotry and physical harm Islam supports in its current forms. And basically saying that those protesting Islam are worse than those Killing for Islam.
Welp, ladies and gentlemen, it is official. I am worse than a terrorist. Maybe I should make some t-shirts for that.
And yes, France is going to clamp down on “potentially” radicalized mosques. Which is clearly the wrong option. And horrible to boot. Worse than being nazis, shutting down supremacist mosques advocating the murder and rape of the infidel. Shouldn’t do it.
And yet here she’s also saying that “the constitution doesn’t protect ‘actions predicated on violent talk'” and is insisting that she will protect muslims (and their mosques) at least some of whom will be encouraging actions based on violent islamist talk…by going after those whose “violent talk” is against Islam.
“When we talk about the First Amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American,” said Lynch. “They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.”
“My message not just to the Muslim community but to all Americans is ‘We cannot give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on,'” said Lynch.
“No taxation without legal representation.”
“The tree of liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of tyrants.”
“Give me liberty or give me death.”
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation…”
I’m sorry, but did you just say that actions predicated on violent talk are not American? Did you just say that actions predicated on violent talk are not American? America has long defined itself by the actions taken predicated by violent talk against tyrannical, ideological, and violent supremacist beliefs! We fought wars to escape these things, we fought and killed each other to prevent them from arising in our own nation, we’ve fought wars against them in other nations, and now, when once more unto the breach we are faced with an ideology which violently and systematically wishes to enforce infringements upon the liberties of all people…you want to claim that America is not defined by actions predicated by violent talk!
Now look, I am not going to claim America is perfect as a nation by any means. But I would seriously ask Lynch if it is so much worse than an ideology which proclaims women are automatically worth less than men, that Christians and Jews are second class people, and that Pagans, Gays, and others should automatically be put to death, even in its moderate forms (much less its extremes) is inherently better and worthy of protection.
See, I’ve been on the internet for a while. I know what gets classified as violence these days. Disagreement, debate, pointing out the flaws in an ideology. These are all considered harassment and violence (and sometimes even racism). So sure, Lynch might be saying “if a bunch of Americans go out and start attacking Muslims, they’ll be prosecuted.”
But I would point out that thousands, even millions of muslims have protested that a cartoon depiction of their prophet is an act of violence against them. Anytime anyone questions anything about Islam, they’re an “Islamophobic bigot.” And that the term “violence” is so loosely defined these days as to be meaningless.
Think women shouldn’t be forced to wear burkas? Think gays shouldn’t be put to death? Think a girl shouldn’t be murdered because she turned down a marriage proposal? Think people should be able to worship whatever god they please? Think something should be done to change these practices and bring Islam into the 21st century with the rest of us? Think extremist Islamic ideology must be stopped by shutting down the people who teach it and punishing those who break the law to enforce it?
Well, you’re a Islamophobic bigot who preaches violence against Islam. You should be ashamed of yourself. And you can expect Lynch’s people to be at your door soon. After all, someone might decide to do something about all this Islamist violence, and that would be bad.
Of course, if you’re someone like me (and I hate to play Identity Politics, but here it is), under Islam there’s at least three reasons for me to be killed instantaneously. My religion (Pagan), my sexual orientation (Pansexual), and my blasphemy for daring to question holy Islam. And that’s just the three I can think of off the top of my head. I’m sure there’s plenty of others out there.
But oh no, my desire to live my life freely might end up leading me to engage in violence against a Muslim or Islam (which wants me dead), quick, put me in cuffs, I’m the real monster!