Decision point at Orlando: Moving the discussion forward

I hope one of our commenters will not reprove me too harshly for quoting much of his comment here:

The blame on Republicans and 2nd Amendment supporters has never stopped before. Here’s what’s going to happen:

1) The religion the perpetrator is unlikely to be mentioned, and the media is likely to blame the massacre on “Fiercely Conservative” thinking.

) If the religion is forced into the media, everybody in the MSM will be chanting, “Islam is a Religion of Peace”. No mention of the traditional punishment for gays in Islam. Imams of any mosque attended by the perpetrator, in the unlikely event they are interviewed, will claim either that they barely knew the man even if he regularly attended the mosque five times a day, or that he seemed agitated by Trump’s rhetoric.

3) Just as violence against Trump supporters was labelled ‘Trump-inspired violence”, then this massacre will be labelled as “Following traditional Republican anti-gay rhetoric”, or “”Following traditional right wing anti-gay rhetoric”

4) Trump will be blamed for “the climate of intolerance, following demonstrations against Trump for racism across the country”. By implication, this is Trump’s fault for stirring up strong emotions.

Reality check: All true. But what follows?

The question we should be asking is, why don’t gay people want to live? Only people who do not care whether they stay alive can afford the delusions noted above:

Especially: That “religion” is a problem irrespective of what the religion teaches. Which religions in the world are associated with countries or current practices that stone, behead, or shoot gay people? Or throw them off buildings?

Why are we not allowed to name those religions or itemize the teachings? Or ask adherents where they stand on those teachings?

More important: Why do gay people vote for politicians who won’t talk about any of this and sponsor policies or legislation that make talking about it difficult?

Of course, gay people, or anyone, can go pull down the local storefront Jesus Holler or the Jehovah’s Witness Kingdom Hall. You know, Fight Hate! and all that.

How will that make them, or anyone, safer?

Donald Trump, we hear, faces a “backlash” for referring to radical Islamic terror.

Not nice of him. Just so not nice.

Truth costs, but falsehood costs more.

See also: Donald Trump, downtown, n’ me Part I

Donald Trump, downtown, n’ me, Part II

Could there be a Canadian Donald Trump? Part III

  • FivePointSpurgeon

    Canadian Trump? No, not yet. Too many candlelight vigils, too much Trudeau worship, too much belief in commu, er, socialism here.

    That includes AB, too.

    • No Trump in sight here, the political class are all treasonous bastards.

      • FivePointSpurgeon

        Indeed and totally agree. The best PM in Canada’s recent history ran as an incumbent and got killed by Queen Selfie. This wasn’t Kim Campbell redux.

        The left runs this country now in all fashions and not just the bureaucracy. Going Galt is the only avenue left since the alleged Conservative Party is now fully converged.

        • dance…dancetotheradio

          Harper went down with the ship and for that he must be respected.
          Can you imagine if Rona Ambrose got to call herself Prime Minister for even a day?

          • FivePointSpurgeon

            I’m trying to figure out exactly what might be different from Queen Selfie’s reign currently.

  • tom_billesley

    Writer and commentator Owen Jones walked out of a live news discussion panel on the Orlando shooting. His fellow presenters had discussed whether the attack was not a just a homophobic hate crime. “I’m sorry, you don’t understand this because you’re not gay,” Jones told the host.

  • Linda1000

    Trump made a good start with naming “radical Islamic terror” as the problem but it really isn’t “radical” if you consider the multiple ongoing attacks to date. Given the current denial problem in the West about everyday, mainstream islam and muslims being incompatible though, what else could Trump say. At least he stated “islamic”.

    • Alain

      You are right, it is about devout Muslims adhering to all the tenets of Islam, NOT “radical Islamic terror”.

      • B__2

        The meaning of the word “radical” has changed over time, evolving into two opposite meanings. One meaning refers to a departure from the original nature of a thought, the other is a return to the original thought. Thus ‘radical Islam’ can be correctly interpreted in two opposite ways: the departure from the original Islam, and the return to the original Islam. The origin of the word ‘radical’ is the latin word ‘radix’ meaning ‘root’ or ‘origin’. Most commentators use the word ‘radical’ to mean that the ‘radical Islamicists’ depart from some original religion of Islam, but the other meaning is more correct, that ‘radical Islamicists’ are reverting to the original form of Medina Islam as practiced by the religion’s prophet, Mohammed.

        The understanding is important, since many uninformed commentators (this excludes you, Alain and Linda1000) claim that just as Christianity had its Reformation, all the problems of Islam will be resolved by its own Reformation. There is an assumption that since Christianity is 600 years older than Islam, then Islam will inevitably follow a similar arc: mature in time, experience its own Reformation and become more benign like Christianity did. This is not true.

        Islam has had its Reformation: Wahhabism is the result of that.

        The return to the original texts and the emulation of the behaviour of Jesus was the Christian Reformation and led to the kinder, gentler Christianity. The return to the original texts and the emulation of Mohammed’s behaviour leads to a crueler, warlike Islam. The peaceful passages in Islam, being revealed earlier, are made invalid by later revealed passages by the principle of ‘abrogation’, which is key to understanding the Qur’an and the myriad contradictions contained therein.

        So, ‘radical Islam’ is correct in both its uses: it is a departure from the powerless, less-aggressive Islam of the early 20th Century, and it is a return to the original highly aggressive Islam as practiced by Mohammed himself. Good luck on changing people’s usage though.

        • Jim Horne

          IMHO you correctly point out that Islam has already had its reformation.

          There are two quotes by Recep Tayyip Erdogan that IMHO affirm your position.

          The first quote was taken from Necmettin Erbakan, Turkey’s first Islamic leader “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers…”

          The second quote was made when Recep Tayyip Erdogan was confronted with the phrase “moderate Islam”, he responded: “These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

        • dance…dancetotheradio

          I like what you say but I have to disagree with your assessment of their Reformation.
          They didn’t ever have one.

  • tom_billesley

    Orlando shooting was purely homophobic hate, nothing to do with islam?
    Omar Mateen had scouted Walt Disney World as a potential target, People Magazine said on Monday, citing an unnamed federal law enforcement source.

  • No, the discussion will not move forward. Ever.

    Since the Seventies and the Iran hostage crisis in the Eighties (thanks, Jimmy Carter), no one has really taken any serious measures to dispel Islam or destroy its influence, let alone reduce Saudi Arabia to glass.

    Now, people not only ignore Islamism and its deadly effects, they attack everything to defend it. That’s a conditioned response. If people didn’t have it up to their eyebrows after the September 11th attacks, the death of the director Van Gogh, Israeli bus bombings, the July 7th attacks, the Danish cartoon riots, the Charlie Hebdo murders, the rampages in Paris (pick one), the cafe attack in Australia and the attacks in Belgium but still had their hashtags and candlelight vigils, then they will never get it. There will be no discussion.

    So f— the world. It doesn’t deserve to move forward. It doesn’t want to.

    • B__2

      The Western world was too dependent on Saudi and Iranian oil by the late 1970s.

      Three weeks after the Iranian Revolution of 1979 took hostages in the US Embassy in Tehran, Wahhabi militants took over the Grand Mosque in Mecca in an attempt to overthrow the Saudi monarchy. Despite many rebuffed assaults, the Saudi army eventually recaptured the mosque and later executed the ringleaders. However, the damage had been done as the threat of oil being shut off from the world’s two largest oil producers meant that the US and Europe could not afford both to fall to militant islamic regimes.

      The USA and Europe were forced to support the Saudi monarchy to guarantee their oil supplies. One of the concessions wrung from the Europeans was the opening up of their borders to Middle East migration, a programme that continues to this day. Every US President has had to publicly and privately accomodate the wishes of the Saudis. But to maintain the Saudi monarchy’s control over their country, the Saudis have had to make their own concessions to those Wahhabis who bankrolled and supported the attempted coup: in return for the continued leadership of Saudi Arabia, the Wahhabis gained control over the religion of Saudi Arabia and the right to export this Wahhabism all over the world.

      In essence, we are where we are because of our dependence on oil and the deals with the devil to ensure continued supplies. If a portable clean fusion power source was suddenly invented that could replace oil as a fuel, then you would expect to see a dramatic drop in our tolerance to radical islam and the countries that are its sources.

      • And we had time to move away from that dependence.

        (SEE: reap, sow)

  • Hard Little Machine

    Muslims and the far left gays who love them deserve one another.