Thursday, April 2, 2015

Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act really helps Muslim Extremists, NOT you-Debbie Schlussel

3/30/15, "What the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act Really Does; Helps Muslim Extremists, NOT You," By Debbie Schlussel
"The Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act does NONE of what legislative scholars Ashton Kutcher and Miley Cyrus are whining about. Ditto for the geniuses at the NCAA. The law has, however, been used on the national level to help further Muslim extremism and intolerance, and that’s why I don’t support it.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act Helps Muslims Like Gregory Holt a/k/a Abdul Maalik Muhammad, NOT Christians Who Don’t Want to be Forced to Bake Gay Wedding Cakes
Back in the early ’90s, when my then-U.S. Senator Carl Levin opposed the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), I wrote a published letter to the editor in my local Jewish (In Name Only) newspaper, as it championed his opposition to the law. As I pointed out then, the law’s intent was to give churches and synagogues protection against unfair zoning laws and other statutes of that nature that allowed political bodies to squeeze people of faith and their institutions. And, at the time, I supported the legislation, which Bill Clinton signed into law. Nineteen or thirty states–depending upon which of several news reports are accurate–have laws that mirror it, including, now, the State of Indiana.

But I no longer support RFRA and its versions on the state level. That’s because, as I pointed out last year when the Supreme Court allowed the Hobby Lobby to avoid paying for abortion under ObamaCare, the law mostly hasn’t been used to help Christians, and won’t help Christian bakers avoid making wedding cakes for gay marriages (even though it should and they shouldn’t be forced to make such confections). It will only help Muslims in their jihad on American soil, and it already has in recent Supreme Court rulings (see below). Funny I didn’t see Miley Virus or Demi Moore’s ex-husband/son screaming about that. They clearly don’t get that this law won’t be used to expand the ever-more-limited religious freedom of Christians. It will be used to expand the rights of Muslims to further use our system against us. And it already has.

As I reported on this site, the U.S. Supreme Court used RFRA to allow Muslim prisoners to grow beards in federal prison, even though we know the beards can be used to hide and transport razor blades, cell phone SIM cards, and other contraband, all of which can be used for violence against prison guards and to further jihadist plans inside the joint. In a case filed by Gregory Holt a/k/a Abdul Maalik Muhammad, a convicted criminal and prisoner, the Supreme Court Justices, including Samuel Alito, told prisons that if they were worried, they should have their guards comb through prisoners beards. That’s ridiculous. But that’s exactly what’s objectionable about this law, NOT that bakers and florists should be allowed their freedom of speech and religion rights not to promote sexual arrangements to which they object. The law has never been expanded to protect those rights, ONLY the rights of Muslims.

In fact, as I noted last year when the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the Hobby Lobby case, the Court was careful to very narrowly draw its holding to apply basically just to that case. Not so with the Muslim beards case. The Supreme Court opened wide religious “freedoms” for Muslims in prisons and elsewhere to wage jihad.

And the same would happen with the Indiana law, which is the same thing on a state level.

Miley Virus and Ashton Kutcher aren’t worried about the jihad that RFRA laws will help–and have helped–enable, even though it poses a much bigger risk to them than a baker refusing to bake a cake with two grooms at the top.

But, here, I’m implying that the culture elite actually know what the heck they are talking about when they wade into politics and social issues.

And they don’t and won’t...until Miley Cyrus tries to ride her plastic penis concert tour accoutrement on-stage in Sanaa, Mosul, Tikrit, Riyadh, or Tehran.

Then, maybe she’ll understand First Amendment freedoms RFRA is supposed to protect. But maybe not before the gang rape and beheading."


No comments: