Skip to main content

Good for them

A group of non-Muslim Swedish women have taken to wearing traditional Islamic headscarves in protest of the beating of a Muslim woman so attired.

The "hijab outcry" movement says that they believe that discrimination against Muslim women is "reason enough in a country where the number of reported hate crimes against Muslims is on the rise - and where women tie their headscarves extra tight so that it won't get ripped off - for the prime minister and other politicians to take action to stop the march of fascism."

While I personally have considerable difficulty with the entire concept of "hate crimes-" actions, not thoughts, ought to be the concern of the law- I very much sympathize with these women. Islamophobia has long since passed the point of rational distrust of radical Islamists in much of the Western world, and has become nothing more or less than a form of religious bigotry.

I see the "hijab outcry" movement as very much in the tradition of the Lutheran Danes during World War II who chose to wear the Star of David as a sign of solidarity with their Jewish countrymen.

HT: Drudge

ADDENDUM: I keep getting responses from people expressing completely appropriate concern about the negative effects of radical Islam, specifically in Sweden- a nation which now leads the world in rapes, apparently due to the notion certain Muslim men seem to have that "immodestly dressed" Swedish women are legitimate targets.

This, and similar anti-social expressions of Islamic extremism, need to be dealt with not only firmly but ruthlessly. But that does not justify equating Islam itself with the slime balls and nutjobs who profess it. If it did, all of us Christians would be responsible for Fred Phelps and David Koresh.


Anonymous said…
Most Muslims are peace-loving, as are most Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists. Unfortunately, the Koran is the only religious book in the world that justifies killing people who "threaten" their faith--however anyone feels like loosely interpreting that, it's a ticket redeemable in the eyes of society for murder. Lets be honest, the fact is the majority of the Muslim world sees American wars in the Middle East as attacking Islam itself. Neither the Boston Marathon bomber's parents, John Walker Lindh, nor the Fort Hood Murderer are isolated cases; they were the ones discovered. Christian apologists are just putting their heads on the chopping block of White Guilt, self-loathing and "sorry about the Crusades" revisionism, and trying to drum up domestic support of their own offices by pledging support to yet another "suddenly-not-so minority". Muslims in the East have ALWAYS hated the West and Christianity (they tried for 800 years to conquer and subvert Jerusalem and Christian Europe and forced religious pledges of loyalty, long before the "evil" Crusades were even launched--as we know Christians in Europe suffered Islamic "holy wars" for almost 400 years before sending Crusaders to protect Jerusalem, the birthplace of Christ which had no importance to the Muslim faith). Recent American incursions on "Muslim" soil haven't exactly endeared us to them. Muslims are Fundamentalist, and value religious ties over political ones and routinely send eager warriors across country borders and oceans (and from the USA) to "defend their faith" by murdering others, all justifiably and unabashedly in the hearts of their own mothers. All the while their women physically conceal themselves not only to placate their jealous husbands but to ensure their own social anonymity, attracting a perfectly justified focus of suspicion in open, free societies like ours that they enjoy a foreign livelihood from, but do not truly belong to. This is not racist profiling, or religious persecution, or hate; this is "we know what you are, and that you'd rather see us dead." This is the Boston Marathon bombers' parents, and they are not an isolated case in any stretch of a hopeful imagination.
As a sometime Christian pastor, I am very far from wanting to denigrate the Bible. But there are passages in the Old Testament which also are problematic when taken in isolation from the rest of the Bible, and for the same reason. You're talking about one specific passage from the Koran which was written to deal with a specific situation. It's true that this passage is taken out of context and abused by some Muslims, but that does not justify your characterization of the Koran. Also, "fundamentalist-" a perfectly honorable word kidnapped by the secularist Left to mean "excessively and unreasonably conservative-" is a term that can be (mis)used to describe members of any religion. It is certainly not the case that all Muslims would be accurately described by that word even in its popular meaning. In its technical meaning, of course, no Muslim believes in the substitutionary atonement of Christ, His deity, or any of a number of the other "Fundamentals" which gave the original movement its name.

Popular posts from this blog

McMullin, Kasich, Hickenlooper, Huntsman, or somebody else sane in 2020!

I don't expect to be disenfranchised in 2020. I'm looking forward to Evan McMullin running against President Trump and whatever left-wing extremist the Democrats nominate. McMullin may or may not run for the Senate next year, and he may or may not run for president as an independent again next time around, but the nation can't afford to lose its most eloquent and intelligent critic of the populist takeover of the Republican party and the Executive Branch. We need the man in public life.

But interesting alternatives have developed. Ohio Gov. John Kasich has been mentioned as a potential primary challenger for Mr. Trump. I hope somebody continues the fight for the soul of my former party, even though I believe it to be a lost cause. Entrepreneur Mark Cuban is reportedly also considering a challenge to Mr. Trump. While I tend to see him at this point as somewhere to the left of where a candidate I would feel comfortable supporting might be, I would wish him well. Still, I see…

A modest proposal for a shocking innovation which is completely within the rules but which would, if adopted, revolutionize college football

I call it defense.

The idea- crazy as it may sound- is to supplement the scoring of points by your offense with an attempt to stop the other team from scoring them. Yeah, I know.  Really "out there," isn't it? But it has a history of winning not only games but championships. Modern college teams should try it more.

I'm a bit bummed about the Rose Bowl outcome but amused by the score. It seems that certain conferences aren't sure whether they're playing college football or high school basketball! I've noticed that in the scores of Sooner games. Last season the nation's college teams set a record by scoring an average of slightly more than 30 points each per game. That's a lot. Historically, that's a REAL lot.

The final score of the Rose Bowl was 54-48, though to be fair that was in double overtime. But to get there, the teams had to be tied 45-45 at the end of regulation! Last year was even worse. Southern Cal beat Penn State 52-49- in regulat…

A third party President in 2020?

I had the pleasure of meeting Joel Searsby, the campaign manager for Evan McMullin last year, at an event for Evan here in Des Moines during the campaign. Here's an interview with Joel by Jon Ward of Yahoo News on the ways in which centrist French President Emmanuel Marcon's out-of-nowhere landslide election last year may serve as an example for the inevitable bid to elect a rational, moderate third party candidate in 2020.

I have a feeling that it will be Evan McMullin again. But names like John Kasich, the Governor of Ohio, and Sen. Lindsey Graham also keep popping up. Word is that Kasich may challenge President Trump for the 2020 Republican nomination, an endeavor in which I'd wish him well but hold out very, very little hope for his success. I sadly expect that my conviction that the Republicans are dead as a vehicle for rationality and the reuniting of our fractured and divided country to be confirmed by the easy renomination of the most unfit and unqualified preside…