TELL
him you are a Muslim, tell him you are a Muslim,” Nancy Pelosi
instructed Congressman Andre Carson at an anti-Trump rally on Monday,
moments after she had just introduced him as a “Muslim member of
Congress.” She apparently felt that the crowd hadn’t sufficiently
gotten the point.
Pelosi normally rattles on about the dangers of “religion in politics,”
but on Monday night she very much wanted religion in it — and not just
any religion, but the most patriarchal of them. To see feminists
hawking Islam so feverishly is an amusing spectacle, especially since a
day or so later Pelosi had recovered her fear of religion in the public
square and creeping Christian patriarchy. She cast Trump’s nomination
of Neil Gorsuch as a gift to the religious right — one that imperils
all women, not to mention those Americans who “breathe air, drink
water, eat food, take medicine, or in any way interact with the courts.”
The
story also informs readers that the Muslim Brotherhood is “largely
nonviolent”
Pelosi’s comment, in sheer battiness, exceeds even Ted Kennedy’s
histrionics over “Robert Bork’s America.” Kennedy envisioned Bork
busting down bedroom doors, re-segregating lunch counters, forcing
women into back alleys, and confiscating Darwin’s books, but he stopped
short of accusing Bork of threatening to cut off people’s access to air.
At the very moment Pelosi and company forbid any criticism of Sharia
law, they rip into Gorsuch as a “religious liberty zealot.” They mock
those who worry about encroaching jihadists, then freak out over an
Episcopalian judge.
[Full]
The media is forever demanding that Christians take a “serious look” at
their religion’s lack of modern enlightenment, then declare any
criticism of the Koran “Islamophobia.”
“A Sinister Perception of Islam Now Steers the White House,” blared a
Thursday headline on the front page of the New York Times. Could anyone
imagine it running an equivalent headline about Obama’s White House and
Christianity — “A Sinister Perception of Catholicism Now Steers the
White House”? Later, the paper changed “sinister perception” to “dark
view of Islam.”
Whether or not leading imams hold a “sinister perception” of the West
never figures into the story.
Not a
single one of their open declarations of jihad is quoted in the
article. How
Muslims define their own religion is of no interest to the Times. That
would complicate the story too much. Readers might discover that Trump
and Stephen Bannon are simply taking the authoritative definers of
Islam at their word.
[...]The story contains such laughable paragraphs as:
[Critics of Islam] warn
about the
danger to American freedoms supposedly posed by Islamic law, and have
persuaded several state legislators to prohibit Shariah’s use. It is a
claim that draws eye rolls from most Muslims and scholars of Islam,
since Muslims make up about 1 percent of the United States population
and are hardly in a position to dictate to the other 99 percent.
How would the Times know that “most Muslims” roll their eyes at talk of
Islamic influence in America? What omniscience the paper possesses. How
convenient that “most Muslims” share the exact same sensibility as the
reporters on the story. ....
[FULL
DELICIOUSNESS]
