The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the tag “hate crimes”

Arianna Nation’s (HuffPost) Pathetic And Hypocritical Pseudo-Concern For The Death Of Shaima Alawadi

Shaima Alawadi, an Iraqi woman living in California is dead from a severe beating by the hands of a yet unknown assailant(s).  A note was found at her side which read, “go back to your own country”.  If but for that note Shaima’s death would have gone unnoticed, uncared for by The Arianna Nation, or anyone in the liberal media.  The reason?  By all accounts Shaima’s death was in no way related to an “honor killing”.  Had it been, the liberal media would have ignored it.  The thought of a white racist on the loose somewhere in California is of high interest and journalistic value to the liberal media, like The Arianna Nation.  The thought of using Shaima, her death, as journo-political fodder against conservatives, against the War on Terror, against the so-called, but non-existent, xenophobia the Left accuses the Right of engaging in is just too much for the likes of liberal media outlets to resist salivating over.

Hanif Mohebi, the director of the San Diego chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said he met with Shaima Alawadi’s family members in the morning and was told that she was taken off life support around 3 p.m.

The family is in shock at the moment. They’re still trying to deal with what happened,” Mohebi said.”

Indeed.  Why is CAIR  never in “shock” when it is an honor killing?  And why does CAIR not do more to protect American Muslims from honor killings?  And if this had been an honor killing, would CAIR have been in “shock”?  Would Shaima’s family be in “shock”?  Would The Arianna Nation be in “shock”?  Absolutely not!

“A hate crime is one of the possibilities, and we will be looking at that,” Lt. Mark Coit said. “We don’t want to focus on only one issue and miss something else.”

Why is it that honor killings are never classified as “hate crimes”?  Isn’t there an extreme level of “hate” involved in honor killings as well?

Shaima’s death is tragic for at least two reasons.  First of all, it is a murder of an innocent woman by the hands of a despicable assailant, who we all hope is soon caught and punished.  Secondly, her death illustrates the blatant hypocrisy and double standard the liberal media have with regards to reporting on the murders of specific individuals.  Very rarely do liberal Media outlets pay any attention to murders that are black on white crimes.  Take the Trayvon Martin murder, for example.  When the liberal media heard the name of the killer, George Zimmerman, they pounced on the story as fast as they could, because they thought it was a white man killing a black boy in an act of racism, and that was just too irresistible for them.  We have since found out that Zimmerman is a white Hispanic, not a white Anglo-Saxon.

A family friend, Sura Alzaidy, told UT San Diego () that the attack apparently occurred after the father took the younger children to school. Alzaidy told the newspaper the family is from Iraq, and that Alawadi is a “respectful modest muhajiba,” meaning she wears the traditional hijab, a head scarf.

It is of particular interest to note that The Arianna Nation has invested a paragraph to let its readers know that Shaima was a “respectful modest muhajiba”.  What does it matter if she was or wasn’t?  Especially considering that liberals have absolutely no respect at all for how conservative Christians, Jews, Mormons, etc. dress, and often ridicule their conservative dress attire, which is still too liberal for most Muslims to accept – and if a Muslim woman were to dress as “conservatively” as conservative women do, they would still be beaten, tortured and/or killed, because American conservative women, while they dress modestly, don’t cover themselves up head to toe or wear a hijab.  In other words, conservative women dress too liberally from the Muslim point of view.

That Shaima was a muhajiba matters intensely to The Arianna Nation because there is a great and growing debate in America about the effects of a growing Muslim population, its cultural and religious influences and the push by some American Muslims who want to replace American law with Sharia law within their own religious circles and for their own judicial benefits.  The Arianna Nation knows the opposition, mainly conservatives, are pushing back to stop this from happening.

CAIR, the anti-American Muslim organization which fights on behalf of Muslims in America, is pushing hard for Sharia law.  CAIR, which is no respecter of Christianity, and The Arianna Nation, along with every other liberal media establishment, none of whom are respecters of conservatives or of conservative Christianity or its values, have joined forces to combat conservatism.  And thus, the reason why The Arianna Nation is so giddy over Shaima’s death, and overjoyed by the prospect that it very well could be a “hate’ crime.  (Keeping in mind that honor killings do not quality as hate crimes by the standards of The Arianna nation, all liberal media outlets, CAIR and all Muslims who support Sharia law.)  And also why it has been emphasized that Shaima was a muhajiba.

Shaima’s death has sparked a bitter outrage.  But is there really “outrage”?  Or is it merely “opportunity”?  That being the opportunity for The Arianna Nation and all MSM outlets to go on the attack against conservatives and of conservatism, which they will blame for Shaima’s death just as they have blamed for Trayvon Martin’s death.  And – what would the liberal media do if it was discovered that Shaima’s death actually was an honor killing?  What will they do, and how will they report it when, the next American Muslim becomes the victim of an honor killing, and not the murder of a white racist?  Will they even report on it?

About these ads

Discrimination Is Both American And Constitutional (And We Ought To Appreciate It)

So a woman walks into a local bakery, turns to the owner and casually says, “Can you bake a cake for my wedding?  Oh by the way, it’s a lesbian wedding.  I’m gay.”  The owner takes a deep breath and she replies, “I’m sorry, I can’t make that kind of cake.  I’m Christian.”

This is not a joke.  There is no punchline and nobody is laughing.  Not the lesbian couple who wanted the cake made, nor the owner of the Des Moines, Iowa bakery who declined to make the cake and is now threatened with a possible lawsuit.

The two lesbians, Trina Vodraska and Janelle Sievers claim they were shocked when owner, Victoria Childress, told them she could not, in good faith, and because of her Christian faith, prepare such a wedding cake as was being asked of her.  Said Childress:

I didn’t do the cake because of my convictions for their lifestyle. It is my right as a business owner.  It is my right, and it’s not to discriminate against them.  It’s not so much to do with them, as it’s to do with me, and my walk with God and what I will answer (to) him for.”

What is most troubling about this is not what you might expect.  It isn’t the fact that a lesbian couple was denied service by a Christian business owner.  Nor is it the fact that this lesbian couple would contemplate filing a lawsuit for discrimination.  That is to be expected, in this day and age in our country.  What is most troubling about this is if this lesbian couple does file a lawsuit, it is tremendously probable, virtually 100% likely, they will win.  In other words, a win for this lesbian couple would compel and force, by law, every single business owner – at least in Iowa (for the time being) – to check their own personal beliefs and convictions at the door of their own business.  This is extremely unsettling.  It is un-American and it is unconstitutional.

Business owners in America have, and must retain, a right to discriminate, to refuse service to whomever they choose.  Whether we agree with that premise or not, as private business owners, it must be their right to make whatever moral decisions for their business as they see fit, rather than the right of government to make legal decisions in substitution of those moral and private decisions.  And whatever decisions a private business owner ultimately makes will, and ought to reflect, and to take into consideration, the community around them.  In other words, how will the community – the people they would hope to do business with, and make a profit from, react?  If the community itself rejects a business owner’s moral decision to not do business with a lesbian couple because that business owner opposes homosexuality on religious grounds, then let the community be the deciding factor, not government, not the law – and not by adding another dubious law to the books.

The lesbian couple added a statement to a lesbian web site stating:

Awareness of equality was our only goal in bringing this to light, it is not about cake or someone’s right to refuse service to a customer.”

“Equality”.  Sounds grand, doesn’t it?  But in that quest for “equality” someone always loses, don’t they?  In other words, the lesbian couple, in their pursuit of “equality” might win.  Should this happen, the business owner, Victoria Childress loses, doesn’t she?  And what does she lose?  She loses her right as a private business owner to make her own decisions about her own business.

Put aside, for a moment, America’s long history of discrimination against blacks, Jews, the Chinese, the Irish, the Italians, the Japanese and just about every group and class of people that ever existed.  This is a separate issue.  This is a case of whether or not a private business owner has the right to refuse business to someone, anyone, for any reason, in their own business.  And it is a case of just how much (more) power we are willing to grant government, and how much (more) freedom we the people are willing to relinquish in our endless endeavor for “equality”.  But as we ought to know, by now, the more we push for “equality” the more we push, and squeeze out, personal freedom.

It has never been the role of government to interfere with private business or with whom private business conducts its business.  One hundred years of segregation against blacks changed that.  The government stepped in and ended Jim Crow and segregation.  In doing so, our government unwittingly, perhaps, opened up a legal Pandora’s box.  It paved the way for legally forcing an end to any type of discrimination, both in the public square and private, thus forcing private businesses owners, upon penalty of a hefty fine, losing their business license and their right to own and operate a business to acquiesce to their clientele, whomever that clientele might be.

So – a woman walks into a local bakery, turns to the owner and casually says, “Can you bake a cake for my wedding?  Oh by the way, it’s a lesbian wedding.  I’m gay.”  The owner takes a deep breath and she replies, “I’m sorry, I can’t make that kind of cake.  I’m Christian.”

Was this an innocent encounter, or was there something more going on?  In other words, why did these lesbians go into this particular bakery?  Did they know ahead of time the owner was a Christian who would ultimately turn their request down because of her religious convictions?  Was this a set up?  And why can’t these lesbians simply accept the fact that this particular business owner is a Christian and go find another bakery to make their cake?  If these lesbians want to be accepted for who they are, why can’t they accept this Christian business owner for who she is?

Whatever this was, an innocent mistake or a devious trap, it has become something deeper and more provocative.  With a potential lawsuit, win or lose, either scenario will be challenged, ultimately winding up in the Supreme court; nine justices who will have to decide whether or not all business owners in America have the right to choose to do business with whom they want, and decline to do business with those they don’t.  The Supreme court will have to decide if in the name of “equality”, in our plight to end discrimination everywhere in America it exists, it is right, it is legal, it is Constitutional to hold business owners as “unequal” and thus lawful to discriminate against them.  All in the name of “equality”.

Is that the kind of  “equality” we ought to accept and to appreciate?

“Homosexuality Is Wrong” Is The Newest Swear Word

Texas School Punishes Boy For Opposing Homosexuality | Fox News.

Ever since the brutal and despicable murder of Matthew Sheppard in1998, a gay college student from the University of Wyoming, there has been a push in America to ban any speech that might offend, be offensive, or might be construed as anti-gay, in the work place, in the public square and in public schools.

Young Dakota Ary learned this lesson the hardest way possible one day when he uttered that phrase at school in his German class.  His teacher happened to overhear the statement.  For Dakota’s lack of understanding and compassion toward what has essentially come to be a government protected, and coddled, class of people, he was sent to the principal’s office where justice was done upon him, much to the horror and disbelief of his mother, in the form of a one day in school suspension, plus two days of full suspension.  (That was later dropped after an attorney with Liberty Counsel intervened on Dakota’s behalf.)

Dakota is not alone.  Many other students have endured such a fate as he, and this type of over reactionary measure awaits anyone, nowadays, who would dare to have an opinion that seeks to upend the liberally controlled public school system.  Even within the work place and the public square itself – the epitome of free speech, hate crimes advocates and lawyers are closing in and narrowing the definition of free speech.

Naturally it is one thing entirely for a public school, and a teacher in that public school, to want to enforce rules and standards, and to be actively monitoring what children are saying in his/her classroom, looking out for inappropriate speech or speech that might lead to the physical injury of another person.

But let’s be realistic.  If Dakota had been learning about Christianity, say that of the 16th or 17th century, how religious dissension in that era had plunged Europe into many wars and struggles, and after hearing about all the blood shed and death of so many people, had he formed an opinion from that lecture, turned to his class mate and said, “Christianity is wrong”,  does anyone really believe that, in today’s public school, Dakota would be punished with school suspension, or punished at all, for his lack of sensitivity toward Christianity?

Check out the “Bong hits for Jesus” t-shirt controversy.  Denigrating Christianity in public schools is far more protected, far more commonplace (and more common coming from teachers themselves rather than the students) and upheld by judges as free speech, than a simple, albeit, perhaps unintentionally hurtful remark, as “I think homosexuality is wrong”.  It was a private thought Dakota made to a classmate not in any way meant to be hurtful or to promote an agenda.  Rather, it was an aside that his teacher overheard and took way out of context.

In this same article it is stated how this very teacher of Dakota’s had once put up a picture of two men kissing on his classroom wall.  Very clearly, then, it is Dakota’s teacher, not Dakota himself, who is pushing an agenda.  But if it is a pro homosexual agenda then that is protected.

We have seen the vitriol, controversy and the double standard every time a proposal is brought forth to put up the Ten Commandments in a public school.  The people who cry bigotry for what they perceive to be anti-gay rhetoric are the same people who are quick to oppose the Ten Commandments in any public school out of a manufactured fear of insensitivity to the other students who might not be Christian and therefore offended or belittled by having to walk past such a religious placard.

But this is just more of the same anti-religious runaround that has wedged itself into the public school system for the passed fifty years.

Public schools should not be places where children are made to feel ashamed of who they are, whether they are gay or Christian.  Nor should they be places where children are indoctrinated by their teachers who have ulterior agendas and motives counter to the purpose of public education and to that of their community at large.

Rather, school should be a place where children are properly instructed in facts; historical, scientific, mathematical, grammar, etc.  They should also be a place where students are free to form opinions and ideas on their own, even if they might be uncomfortable to others, including homosexuality and religion, so long as these opinions and ideas are of a constructive, not a destructive, nature.

Just as a public school would never demand a student check their homosexuality at the door before they enter, neither should they demand a student check his or her religion at the door.

Right now, in America, as is evidenced in this latest anti-religious fervor involving Dakota Ary, we have a long way yet to go in ensuring that all students have the same rights, not just a select few.  And until local communities are better able to take back their own public schools from errant school boards and rogue teachers, gain more control and secure more of a say in these institutions which their property taxes are funding, it will continue to remain an uphill battle.

A Tale Of Two Executions; One White, One Black

Two convicted murders were put to death in the past day.  One, Troy Davis, a black man from Georgia who was convicted of murdering an off duty police officer, Mark MacPhail, back on Aug.19, 1989.  The other, a Texas white supremacist, and obviously white, Lawrence Russell Brewer who was convicted of killing James Byrd Jr. in the infamous Texas dragging incident that outraged a nation back on June 7, 1998.

What is striking about both executions is that while there was a torrent of outcry to stop the Davis execution from people such as Pope Benedict XVI, Jimmy carter, Al Sharpton, thousands of Americans and numerous anti death penalty groups, nobody seemed to be the least bit outraged over the Brewer execution.  At least, the mainstream news media outlets were silent, or derelict of duty in reporting any such protests to stop his, Brewer’s, execution.  Maybe it was only because Brewer was a white supremacist.  But then again, where is the consistency in outrage among liberals?

Granted, within the Troy Davis story there is a greater amount of intrigue.  No evidence had ever linked him to the murder of MacPhail, (the murder weapon was never recovered) and he had always maintained his innocence up until the end.  His only mistake was being at the wrong place at the wrong time, and therefore the most logical of suspects.

With Brewer it was a clear and cut case.  He actually murdered James Byrd Jr., along with accomplice. John William King (also on death row and awaiting his own execution in Texas), and another man, Shawn Berry, (he received a life sentence) by dragging Byrd to his death behind their truck.  The evidence was overwhelming and Brewer never denied killing Byrd.  So again, maybe the lack of outrage over his execution was both his being a white supremacist and clearly guilty.  Certainly not the fact that Brewer is white.

And yet, interestingly, there is this fundamental difference, this 180 degree turn, in the level of outrage when it comes to just who is executed in America; in particular, black men, Hispanics and women of any color vs. any white man.  Specifically, while liberals decry the death penalty in of itself, they never seem to be present during the execution of a white man.  Like wise, liberal news outlets never carry any news about the execution of a white man until after he is executed, and then it is just a side bar.   There are, of course, exceptions, especially when a white man is a serial killer or involved in the horrific murder of a black man or woman, because then the race card is always brought up as well as the issue of racism, hate crimes, racial prejudices, etc, as in the case of Brewer.  But you still never see Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson outside the prison during the execution of a white man protesting an horrific injustice is being made.

In other words, liberals who say they oppose the death penalty do so on what they deem to be their own version of morality; that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime; that many people who commit murder, or are accused of committing murder are low income blacks and Hispanics who are themselves victims of a system created and controlled by white men; that many of them are falsely accused (scapegoats) or never received a fair trial due to a lack of money.  But when do liberals ever apply this same “logic” to white men on death row?  There is a clear and troubling double standard.

When a black man is sentenced to death, and executed, in the minds of liberals, even if the black man is clearly guilty and has admitted guilt (another contentious issue as liberals will always make the case there was some kind of coercion or torture involved to obtain confession) the murder was a result of life long white prejudice playing in the background.  It’s become a cash cow for all types of race baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

With conservatives it is simple.  By in large we support the death penalty and have no qualms with seeing any convicted murderer, black or white, man or woman, put to death.  That is not to say we are so cold as to dismiss any new evidence that might prove innocence, or provide some doubt as to guilt.  Indeed, we, as conservatives, are just as disgusted with finding out an innocent person was put to death as are liberals, and just as vehemently demand there be an investigation to find out why this happened so that it does not occur again.  The only difference is that conservatives don’t use the wrongful execution as an excuse to abolish the death penalty entirely.  We see the human value, the real morality, in ascribing the ultimate sentence against another human being who has committed offenses beyond redemption, i.e., the murder of another human being.

Maybe Davis was innocent, in which case a gross injustice was made and an investigation ought to be conducted.  But if Davis had been white, and accused of killing a black police officer, a black person in general, would there ever have been this outcry from the likes of Al Sharpton or the NAACP, and liberals everywhere, in trying to stay his execution and get a new trial?  Would any of them have been on the news protesting and demanding a retrial for Davis if he was white?  Or would they keep their mouths shut and be content in letting the execution take place?

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: