More conservative Islam-bashing from the Daily Caller

The Syrian refugee crisis has become political cannon fodder for a supposed clash between Muslim and Western values.

Donald Trump and American conservative media like the Daily Caller have claimed that “political correctness” will let Islam impose its (immensely diverse) set of values on Europe and America.

But whenever they take offense at other religions, conservatives are showing that their idea of “religious freedom” and “political correctness” have been built upon rightwing lies and identity politics.

This past week, the Daily Caller’s Jacob Bojesson has gone so far as to cite a source that contradicts his Islamophobic point. His August 4th story had a headline which read, “Water Park In France Bans Non-Muslim Outfits,” referred to a waterpark in Marseille, France.

This “ban” will only occur on one day, September 10th, from 10 AM until 6 PM. Why? Because the pools’ owners had no involvement in the ban—Smile13, a private organization created to foster friendship among Muslim women, reserved the pool for a private event for its members. It asked its members to wear “burqinis”—a full-body, open-faced swimming suit—when attending.

Let’s be clear here: a one-day private event, that the public has no interest in attending, paid for by a private religious organization aimed at fostering friendship, whose members can withdraw at any point in time, is not a “ban.”


Women wearing hijabs, via Shutterstock.

The conservative media’s vilification of Islam is stretching into the presidential election, with Trump himself saying that he’d consider firing female TSA agents wearing hijabs (head coverings).

At the same time, Republicans in Florida and other states have employed the ruse of “religious freedom” to vote against protecting LGBTQ populations from workplace discrimination. When questioned, they continue to defend themselves against “politically incorrect anti-Christian bigots.”

There is no other way to describe Trump-era conservative principles on religious freedom and “political correctness” as anything other than patently hypocritical.

The Republican platform pledge “to defend religious beliefs” is intended to protect the right of Christians to discriminate against LGBTQ and Muslim Americans, without also protecting the rights of gay and trans people, or Muslims.

Trump-era conservatives are only interested in “defending” their own religious beliefs, with little regard to defending anyone else.

Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson would have called their shameless fight nothing less than a sloppy endeavor for a tyranny of the majority.

Anhvinh Doanvo is an MSPPM candidate at Carnegie Mellon University. He has written for numerous publications including The Hill, Georgetown Public Policy Review, and Baltimore Sun. He is one of forty 2016 finalists for the Thomas R. Pickering Foreign Affairs Fellowship, which funds twenty US citizens' graduate education annually and places them in the American Foreign Service of the Department of State. You can follow him on Twitter at or Facebook at

Share This Post

35 Responses to “More conservative Islam-bashing from the Daily Caller”

  1. ElJiffy says:

    Says the guy who claims “all the superstitious cults are dispicable (sic) and equally so”.
    Typical Perdue-think: attack the messenger, not the message.

  2. ElJiffy says:

    Would you care to be a gay or a trade unionist in the countries you mention?
    Of course I’ve heard of the Arab Spring movement, but it’s hardly the progressive front you make it out to be, and never will be until it throws off the shackles of religious tyranny. Would you care to be a gay or trade unionist in Yemen or Indonesia? You might as well sign your own death warrant.

  3. Bill_Perdue says:

    Islamophobia doesn’t describe a religion, it describes racism in the service of oil and energy combines.

    Here’s an example “but most are too lazy, or simply too busy with the all-consuming task of day-to-day subsistence (especially in the countries you cite) to think seriously and critically about what they’ve been taught.”

  4. Bill_Perdue says:

    My guess is that you’ve never heard of the Arab Spring and similar movements from Tunisia to Indonesia, most led the the Labor movement, students and the LGBTQ communities.

  5. ElJiffy says:

    Nothing better illustrates the human origin of religions than this demented micromanagement of what people should wear on their heads and bodies, what they should consume, how they should grow or not grow their hair, how they should relieve themselves, etc.
    Further, no better proof exists that religions have been concocted by men than their universal degradation of women, not merely as 2nd class citizens, but as chattel and objects, unclean and supernatural temptresses. No major religion that I’m aware of treats women as equal human beings worthy of respect and independence.

  6. ElJiffy says:

    This merely illustrates the evils of religious sectarianism and how it will, once given the chance, poison democratic government. But at least Israelis still have a chance to turn this lurch to state-funded religiosity around. People in Muslim countries have no such choice.

  7. ElJiffy says:

    Religion has nothing to do with race. One isn’t born a Muslim or Christian or whatever, it’s imposed on you as a child and further strengthened by family or cultural ties. A lucky few may manage to escape the relentless indoctrination, but most are too lazy, or simply too busy with the all-consuming task of day-to-day subsistence (especially in the countries you cite) to think seriously and critically about what they’ve been taught.
    It’s perfectly feasible to oppose thievery of lands and resources without supporting Islamic totalitarianism.

  8. ElJiffy says:

    Yes, when American right-wingers demand religious freedom, they are really demanding the freedom to impose their right-wing Christian prejudices upon everyone, whether Jewish or Hindu or non-believers.
    But what are the “immensely diverse” values you claim for Islam? Where are they to be found? In Iran, in Indonesia, in Saudi Arabia, in Somalia, where any disagreement with the religious authorities, any attempt to interpret Islam differently is likely to meet with denunciation, ostracism, and violence?
    This isn’t a rhetorical question, I’m sincerely interested in your opinion.

  9. Ilpalazzo says:

    So if ‘Islamophobia’, a word made up BY a muslim to shield from criticism, doesn’t that make Muslims equally as racist since they are Christophobes and Jewphobes and Zionophobes?

  10. Ilpalazzo says:

    And Islam is bigotry masqueraded as religion towards ALL non-Muslims.
    People around the world despise Muslims because they are expansionist and mass murderers. See? It makes no sense why you’re opposed to one, but sanctifying the more dangerous of the two.

  11. Bill_Perdue says:

    Zionism is racist bigotry directed against Africans, Arabs and muslims. Zionists are racists.

    People around the world despise zionists becasue they’re colonialists and mass murderers, and that’s especially people in other colonized nations and unions and workers groups around the world.

    Get used to it.

  12. Ilpalazzo says:

    So you’re accusing 50% of Israelis as being bigoted towards Muslims, yet you’re ok with 100% of Muslims being bigoted towards Jews?

  13. Bill_Perdue says:

    Islamophobia is racism.

    Islamophobic racism p for political and military attacks against muslim cultures and nations. They’re violently racist political attacks that are part of an effort to justify wars of aggression by the US, the EU and the zionist colony in Palestine. They’re meant to provide cover for us attempts to steal oil, other resources and sites for strategic military bases. In the case of Palestine the zionist goal is land theft on a massive scale enabled by ethnic cleansing, a goal zionist colonial settlers have perused since their first massacres in places like Deir Yassin in 1948.

    Islamophobia was the excuse for the genocide against muslims in Bosnia- Herzegovina that took roughly 100,000 lives from 1992 to 1995.

    Islamophobia and lies about WMDs were the excuse for Bill Clintons murder of roughly half a million Iraqi babies and young children. “Squeezed to death – Half a million children have died in Iraq since UN sanctions were imposed – most enthusiastically by Britain and the US. Three UN officials have resigned in despair.” …

    Islamophobia and lies about WMDs were the excuses for the invasion, occupation and further genocide in Iraq by Bush and the mass murder of thousands of civilians.

    Islamophobia is the excuse for the invasion, occupation and the mass murder of civilians in Afghanistan by Bush and Obama and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.

    Islamophobia was the excuse used by Obama to support the military dictatorship in Egypt and to attack Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Palestine, Bahrain, Syria and now to renew the attack on Iraq. These operations led to the deaths of thousands of civilians and are ongoing. “Rules on airstrikes have been relaxed in ISIS battle, White House confirms following reports that a dozen Syrian civilians were accidentally killed by Tomahawk missile – President Obama announced a new policy on drone strikes last year, saying they wouldn’t be carried out unless there was a ‘near certainty’ civilians wouldn’t be hurt A National Security Council spokesman said Tuesday that the ‘near certainty’ policy doesn’t apply to Syria and Iraq where the U.S. is fighting ISIS – last week, there were reports of more than a dozen women and children killed in a missile attack on the Syrian town of Kfar Daryan.”

    Islamophobia is not just racism, its genocidal racism.

  14. Bill_Perdue says:

    ” Polls show that Israeli youth are becoming less tolerant and more racist with each passing year. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Israeli teachers are now afraid to even bring up the topic of human rights, for fear of setting off a racist free-for-all in the classroom. And yet, the Education Ministers appointed by Netanyahu have consistently tinkered with the curriculum, hoping to create new generations of Jews even more sectarian than previous ones. This year, Israeli children began to learn about the Nazi Holocaust in kindergarten.

    As Religious Services Minister in the last Netanyahu government, Jewish Home party leader Naftali Bennett created a new bureaucratic body, the Jewish Identity Administration, to proselytize Orthodox Judaism to secular Israelis. Now that Bennett has been made Education Minister in the new Netanyahu government, he will not need to make use of a proxy organization in order to indoctrinate Israeli youth. Poll: Half of Israeli high schoolers oppose equal rights for Arabs… Nearly half of Israeli teens surveyed say they would refuse to evacuate West Bank settlements

  15. Ilpalazzo says:

    Right right, don’t worry about cancer spreading, you’ve got bills to pay!

  16. Ilpalazzo says:

    ‘Zionist’. Ah, there you go. So you’re the actual bigot simply projecting racism onto others. Islamophobia isn’t a real word. It was made by a Muslim to attach a connotation of bigotry to critics.

  17. Ilpalazzo says:

    Yet, it’s OK for their holy book to bash non-Muslims. Ah, hypocrisy from anglerfish.

  18. BrianWPB says:

    No. It’s not a “form of racism.” It doesn’t and will never meet the definition of “racism.” Anymore than you being “anti-Zionist” is “racist.”

    And the US has no beef with Islam. We saved the despicable Saudis from invasion from a largely secular dictator in Iraq, stopped genocide of Muslims in Kosovo, and have otherwise aligned ourselves with whomever we need to when expedient. Religion is not a consideration.

  19. Bill_Perdue says:

    All the superstitious cults are despicable and equally reactionary.

    And to be evenhanded Islamophonbes should demand that all priestly, ministerial, and rabbinical robes should be banned and members of convents and monasteries should be prosecuted for wearing habits because all these cults support and enable child sexual abuse and rape .

  20. Bill_Perdue says:

    Islamophobia is a form of racsim meant to provide for illegal US and zionist attacks on countries like Palestine, Libya, Egypt, HYemen, Syria, Bahrain, Iraq (again) Pakistan and as always,Afghanistan.
    Oppoisition to zionsi and US attacks on Arrab and musim nations to steal land and resourses is support for islamists, it’s opposition to imperialism and racism.
    All the superstitious cults are dispicable, and equally so.

  21. BrianWPB says:

    No. It’s not. You can’t be racist against an idea or a religion. This is basic.

    Islam is also not an ethno-religious designation, like Judaism – arguably – is, since people of all races and ethnicity can be and are Muslim. All you have to say is Shahada and you’re instantly a Muslim.

    If viewed objectively, religions such as Islam would be marked and treated as supremacist and exclusionary, and anti-progressive. We allow it because we must, because we value free speech and freedom of religion. But let’s call a spade a spade. It’s not a progressive ideology. It’s anti-progress and does not lead to progressive outcomes – empirically – based on examples we have of areas, countries and communities where it is ascendant or majority.

    I’m not sure if you can legitimately call yourself a progressive and support Islam as an ideology and think it’s something that should be promoted. (Again, however, this is different from believing someone SHOULD be allowed to practice their faith – any faith – which is basic first amendment stuff).

    Maybe you can be liberal and support some watered-down hippie Suffi version of Islam based on poetry and art. That’s probably OK. I think they were all into man on man love anyway. But they are marginalized by the mainstream sects.

    It is certainly not OK to celebrate and encourage any type or sect of Islam that embraces segregation of the sexes, violence for apostacy, hijab, etc. Muslims in America and Europe vote “liberal” because they support redistributive economic policies. Not a progressive social agenda.

    The absolute worst type of government and belief system is one that has a hand in your pocket and its eyes in your bedroom.

  22. Bill_Perdue says:

    Islamophobia is racism.

  23. Francesjelder says:

    <<e:o. ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::::!!bu215a:….,.

  24. Moderator4 says:

    We do not run Disqus. We suggest you contact Disqus itself to ask about your comment history. Go to:

  25. BrianWPB says:

    A fun thing to do is to look at attitudes of faithful Muslims in the western world. The Muslims of the United States appear to be much more progressive than those found in Europe. Maybe this is owing to their small numbers overall.

    But in France, the UK, etc., with sizeable populations, the prognosis for societal change and loss in progressive gains made in the 20th century is very likely. Lebanon should serve as a historical example of things to come with demographic ideological shifts on the horizon.

    The West’s free culture must be guarded jealously and vigilantly, or we risk losing it. Normalizing and tolerating the intolerable is not something that should be done. Maybe women shouldn’t be attacked for wearing hijab (again, often they have no choice). But it shouldn’t be celebrated, and the more it becomes common in a place it wasn’t common before, the more we should all be worried about the kind of world that will be left to our children and great-great grandchildren.

    [And btw, I don’t know why Disqus has me at just a handful of comments. I use it for commenting primarily on local news stories all the time.]

  26. BrianWPB says:

    To the extent that clothing is a reflection of culture and cultural values, it matters.

    “Choose” to wear is the ultimate dispute in these situations. Therein lies the great debate.

    They will be those who ALWAYS say hijab is chosen. That wearing of the burka and Niqab is chosen. What woman wouldn’t enjoy hiding her face? Maybe these are the same people who think that prairie skirts and full length shirts are a woman’s choice. That historically, bound feet and chastity belts were also chosen by women. That it’s a choice to never marry outside the religion (although the men of course are allowed to) or to leave the house without male accompaniment. Just another equally valid chosen lifestyle path in any other in the wonderful tapestry of diversity.

    One can believe that. I guess. I choose to listen to the voices of ex-Muslims. Others and the malign those individuals, however, as being Islamaphobic or “native informants,” and choose to listen to those who still adhere to that faith.

    As for the guy in the turban, if it doesn’t affect his job, then so be it. At least he’s a man and doesn’t have several millennia of ingrained misogyny resting on his head. The Sikh religion is also the opposite of Islam in terms of not really having any restrictions for women that do not apply to men. Prohibiting the veil is actually a virtue of the religion.

  27. emjayay says:

    Remember when some federal security analysis warned about the threat of certain Timothy McVeigh or other similar type far right people and groups? Like the guy who killed those people in church or the guy who shot the abortion provider, I guess. Maybe the Oregon and Nevada federal land grabber guys. Anyway, the wingnut crowd was in an uproar. Not us, only THEM!

  28. Hue-Man says:

    Do people have nothing better to do than worry about what clothes other people choose to wear?

    Having gone through this 25 years ago with the Royal Canadian Legion and the RCMP banning Sikh turbans, intolerance is the only explanation. In Quebec, the provincial government tried to ban government employees from wearing “ostentatious religious symbols” and was defeated before its legislation could be enacted.

    Here’s the official photo of the new Canadian cabinet which includes two Sikh men who wear turbans and a Muslim woman who chooses not to wear a hajib. Is the Minister of Defense less effective because he shows up for work with a turban?

  29. goulo says:

    (To clarify – I didn’t mean, and I don’t believe, that you are a Trump supporter. I just noticed the linguistic coincidence since I’d recently read an article about how Trump frequently makes references to unspecified “people say that…” and the coincidence seemed funny to me. Now I regret inserting that parenthetical aside, since it confused and derailed the discussion. Sorry for that.)

    Anyway, about Trump supporters, yes, I’m bothered that angry anti-Trump activists resorted to violence against people at Trump rallies.

    About minorities: sure, Islam is a large community in the world, and a majority in many countries, but in Western countries, they are obviously a minority, and suffer a lot of discrimination which Christians do not suffer in the West. (I’m surprised you seem to disagree. To give an obvious Trump-related example: when was the last time you saw a major presidential candidate talk about deporting Christians or forcing Christians to register themselves in a national database or not permitting Christians to enter the US, all to huge cheering crowds? Or simply consider the proportion of elected officials who are Christian vs those who are Muslims. The large number of rightwingers who think Obama is unqualified to even be president because they think he’s a secret Muslim. Every time an Islamic terrorist strikes, lots of people (falsely) state that they never hear Muslims speak out against it so they implicitly support terrorism, but when a Christian terrorist strikes, there’s not many analogous assertions that Christians all support terrorism and never speak out against it.)

    It’s certainly popular in the US for Christians to portray themselves as the poor down-trodden persecuted minority, but that’s absurd. They only perceive themselves as “persecuted” because they can’t force others to follow their narrow views e.g. about gay rights. From a point of view of suffering REAL discrimination, I’d MUCH rather enjoy the life of a Christian than the life of a Muslim in the US.

    And sure, similarly non-Muslims (including Christians) suffer a lot of discrimination in some Islamic countries – which is ALSO wrong! But I’m not a citizen of those countries, so I don’t have nearly as much influence to change or improve things there as I do in my own country. And in my own country, Christians enjoy way more power and privilege than Muslims, and very little discrimination in comparison.

  30. emjayay says:

    I tend to agree in some ways to your general point, even if I suspect I might not agree at all with other stuff you might say. However, your Disquis trail only has the three comments in it. Hmmmm.

    All that Middle Eastern Islamic women’s wear is in the ME and many other culture’s propensity toward misogyny and patriarchal societal structure. Something of an very extreme case often, and most of the rest of the world has gotten rather past it in recent centuries if not millennia. Women in Colonial America were far more liberated than many in the Muslim ME. Hasidic/Ultra-conservative Jews in the US exhibit a different expression of exactly the same stuff from the same roots.

    Along with the male supremacist subjugation of women goes hatred of gay people. And of course a lot of hypocracy – buttfucking may be overlooked, as long as you are the fucker and not the fuckee. Men only parties (the only kind) may feature dancing boys (boys, see, but not too masculine yet) who may be available for more private fun later.

    A large population of people following this stuff in the West may end of influencing politics through the vote and contributions etc. But there is also the sociological side: the attitudes of society as a whole are dependent on the attitudes of everyone all together. I don’t want to see any movement in this direction. People in religions featuring strict adherence to a Holy Book are rigidly stuck in those archaic attitudes. Christians too, but even the most fundamental today ignore all specifics about your daughter marrying her rapist and slaying everyone and all that, while they may pretend to hang on every word. And they are the right wing of a broad spectrum.

    I did notice that Mrs. Khan wore a veil. It was a sheer fabric you could see through, and worn loosely. It slipped off and she put it back up. This seems like more a cultural and religious reference, like a modern Christian wearing a small gold cross. Not the same as the more serious Islamic women’s wear.

  31. BrianWPB says:

    If you’re going to start insinuating I’m a Trump supporter because you can’t deal with the fact that a very large segment of the liberal-thinking populace doesn’t embrace stone age desert myths or think it’s a “good thing” to celebrate the backwards tenants of religion like hijab, you are barking up the wrong tree. I dislike him as much as the next guy.

    But if your general concern is that PEOPLE are being demonized by demagoguery on the basis of the BELIEFS, then are you equally as concerned when Trump voters are demonized? After all, I’m sure you’ll find doctors, scientists, religious leaders, your nice next door neighbor making up the ranks of Trump supporters. People who actually aren’t racist, or sexist, or xenophobic, but may support him for whatever reason.

    Yet the rhetoric is never tame when referring to them, is it? Or when referring to Trump…or the platform they are seeking to advance? Trump supporters have also been subjected to verbal abuse, physical abuse, attacks. Much of it can be traced to inflammatory rhetoric and demagoguery against Trump and his supporters.

    And why do we not see the same sort of articles when it comes to tampering the tone of political discourse? If you cared about INDIVIDUALS being demonized by demagoguery about their beliefs, then be morally consistent. Again: There is fundamentally nothing different between someone with a religion and someone with a particular political outlook. God(s) are the only extra factor separating the two.

    But it doesn’t even get that deep. I’ve read and seen plenty of demagoguery about “Christians” come from liberals, and have agreed with much of it. Never do I see the type of article posted here defending and warning against demagoguery against Christians. And before we begin to pretend that Muslims are an oppressed and powerless minority, do recall that it is the largest religion on the planet, the only one growing in size, and is backed by the power and money of billions in middle eastern money and support. It is NOT a powerless force, and it will only assert itself more and more as it grows in the face of secularism that doesn’t have the balls to treat it the way Christianity was whipped into submission.

    And by the way, there really isn’t a problem with Muslims in the west being attacked on the basis of their religion. It’s actually very rare. In fact, it’s the opposite, with instances of anti-semitism and other bias related crimes rising across Europe (and the perpetrators are not the secular or watered-down Christians “natives” of those lands).

  32. goulo says:

    If you’re trying to suggest that I am one of those vague unnamed “some people” (heh, that’s ironically a Trump way of speaking, now that I notice it) who supposedly think that all belief systems and philosophies are “equal”, well, I’m not at all, and that’s a straw man. I certainly agree that conventional Islam is sexist and homophobic (and so is conventional Christianity, for that matter). I (apparently like you) think organized religions are bogus, and that it’s ridiculous that so many people take ancient texts so literally and reject science and reason and a more general humanistic view of things. I certainly don’t think Trump’s political ideas are as equally valid as anyone else’s. Etc.

    The real “fundamental difference between people like you and people like me” is that I don’t see RELIGION’s general bogosity as a reason to justify not caring when large groups of real individual religious PEOPLE get intentionally demonized and idiot Trump/etc-inspired thugs start acting violently against those PEOPLE, fueled by that demagoguery, not to mention all kinds of less directly physically dangerous effects of that demagoguery (housing and job discrimination, unequal treatment by law enforcement, illegal spying on them, social harassment, etc).

  33. BrianWPB says:

    Tired cliches are tired. “They” are not coming for anyone, anymore than Democrats “come” for Republicans when they call them names and demonize Republican ideology. And I don’t see much calls for “tampering down the rhetoric” in that respect, either.

    The fundamental difference between people like you and people like me is that I see no fundamental difference between “faith” and “politics.” That’s because there IS no difference. Faith is politics with a god complex. I choose to criticize BOTH the religion AND the sexism and violence in the religion.

    Some people (liberals who have abandoned their roots) choose to believe that everyone and every belief system or philosophy is equal. A population that is majority or significantly influenced by Islam will be interchangeable with a Buddhist population, which is interchangeable with an Atheist or humanist population… when it comes to advancing or sustaining progressive outcomes.

    This of course is absolute nonsense and not borne by any empirical examples in the world today. The outcomes are even glaring in the US, where you can study the success of states which are the least religious conservatively, and those states which are most religious.

    While the conservatives are wrong in their approach and style of criticizing Islam and the growing influence of that supremacist, exclusionary, misogynistic and homophobic religion in our societies (and what it means for the future of Europe’s treasured humanism if Islam reaches parity or the majority religion) … at least they aren’t afraid to discuss whether it’s actually a good thing or not.

  34. goulo says:

    “Meh, who cares.”

    Anyone with a bit of humanity, who is able to criticize sexism in a religion while simultaneously criticizing demagogues who intentionally incite dangerous hatred against members of that religion.

    The world is not neatly divided into good guys who deserve rights, and bad guys who deserve no rights.

    Given that NOBODY is perfect, your way of thinking leads to the nihilistic conclusion that we shouldn’t care about or speak out against bigotry against anybody at all. “Meh, who cares about police assaulting black people – a lot of black rap music is sexist.” “Meh, who cares about what the Nazis did to the Jews – Judaism has sexism too.”

    Or to put it another way:

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

    Besides, if you really care about reducing sexism in a religion (as opposed to just wanting to criticize the religion), you’ll will hearts and minds a lot easier by not demonizing and alienating and supporting hate against members of that religion.

  35. BrianWPB says:

    Meh, who cares. Amongst the many tenants and cultural practices that attach to the practice of Islam, the practice of hijab and religious wardrobe prescription for women SHOULD be bashed. And honestly, liberals need to STOP normalizing hijabs, niqabs and burqas and treating criticism of that crap as “Islamaphobia.”

    Once upon a time liberal people and feminists stood up against this sort of nonsense. But, today’s regressive liberals defend these abhorrent cultural practices. I even had a feminist sociology professor in college defend female circumcision in Africa on the grounds of cultural relativism and female empowerment (since the practice is generally done by women, at the pressure of women and was one of the aspects of their society that they controlled).

    So, STOP. Really. Burqas, niqbs, etc. are awful things. Just like the FLDS women and their floor length prairie skirts (and never being allowed to cut their hair) are awful things. For some reason though I don’t see article after article defending or glorifying the stylish braids of the Warren Jeffs ladies. No Buzzfeed listcles on the ways FLDS can look fabulous in their conservative dress. Nobody defending the “choice” of the FLDS to enter into plural marriage and dress conservatively. And rightly so. Likewise, the only stories about hijab I want to hear are women who have the courage to take it off. In fact, these women should be bombarded non-stop with messages that it is OK to not wear hijab. That there are other ways of living, and that we will support them when they want to leave their religion. Specifically, that we will protect them from the violence that so often accompanies apostasy in Islam, even amongst people who have lived in the west for decades.

    THAT is where your outrage needs to be focused. Not another yawn-inducing article about conservatives “sewing hate against Islam.” Screw Islam. Screw religion. It’s a choice.

    And in the end, we don’t need to support the importation and normalization of MORE conservative religion on the altar of multicultralrelativism. Whether it’s Christians, Jews, Muslims or Zoroastrians.

    Just when the west is finally shaking off the shackles of Christianity, along comes a population that strictly adheres to yet another set of desert fairy tales that we need to fight against to ensure our basic human right to even EXIST (as opposed to “believe” in bullshit).

    Only we’re not allowed to fight against it anymore or say it might be bad to embrace and accept it, are we? Because THAT would be “Islamaphobic,” eh?

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS