Saturday, June 20, 2015

Women Against Islam

The very premise here is that there is something wrong with being against Islam.

What is inherently wrong about being against Islam?

What is so holy and virtuous about Islam that renders it above all criticism?

Again and again I am struck that by merely telling the truth, you are deemed "controversial" and somehow unacceptable.

Who is the Southern Poverty Law Center?  Heck, I don't know.  I've heard the name, but I know little of what they do.  So, I looked it up briefly and found this to be of interest:

Civil rights leader Julian Bond joined Dees and Levin and served as president of the board between 1971 and 1979.[9] The SPLC's litigating strategy involves filing civil suits for damages on behalf of the victims of hate group harassment, threats, and violence with the goal of financially depleting the responsible groups and individuals [ emphasis added]

Sounds like a concept called "lawfare", which is akin to warfare, but uses the law to subjugate their enemies.  That to me is an abuse of the law, and should be regulated.

As for Julian Bond, I remember watching him on a PBS show once upon a time.  He compared calling people "racist" with calling black people "niggers".  The comparison is how the use of the namecalling hurt the person being called the name.  Now, think about that for a moment.  People who merely disagree with them now are frequently being called "racists".  The principle here is not against the namecalling itself, but who is feeling the brunt of the abuse, and who is delivering the abuse.  If it is wrong to call anybody a bad name, then it is equally wrong to call somebody a "racist", for a "racist" is a bad name to call somebody.

If you are a postmodernist, you will never get the distinction I just made in that last paragraph.


Since these are bloggers and people who have a legal right to criticize Islam or anything else they choose, it makes me wonder whether or not they are signaling an intention to go on the lawfare warpath against these women.

If so, why would this not be a violation of these women's civil rights?

In other words, the formerly oppressed  are now becoming the oppressors.

No comments: