On 4/20, even stoners would rouse themselves and find enticing the marvelous collection of political posters at today’s illustrated edition.
This illustrated edition has nothing to do with today being the 112th anniversary of the Great San Francisco Earthquake. I just wanted to acknowledge it.
The University of British Columbia apologizes for the fact that its online application is so old-fashioned it contemplates only two sexes: male and female.
The college application process can be an eye-opening experience. Yesterday I blogged about the fact that the University of Oregon gives applicants two options when it comes to admission essays: (1) identify yourself as a victim or an oppressor or (2) explain how you will add to the school’s endless lust for diversity.
Today, it’s my proud duty to inform you that the University of British Columbia is terribly sorry that its currently constructed online application is so primitive that it contemplates only two sexes. No, I’m not kidding:
Currently only two gender designation options are available within the UBC Student Information System. Access and Diversity works with the University to create an inclusive living and learning environment in which all students can thrive and is currently exploring how to better accommodate students with non-binary gender identities within this database. For more information about available supports and services, please contact Access and Diversity.
My Little Bookworm was baffled that I would care about objective facts — in this case, objective facts being the scientifically irrefutable fact that, barring an infinitesimally small number of anomalies, human sex is binary: male and female. While he (thankfully) doesn’t believe in more than two genders, Little Bookworm doesn’t understand why it’s a problem to allow people to claim that there are more than two sexes. I explained to him that, once objective facts are devalued, one is only left with subjective emotions — and the person with the loudest hollering or the biggest gun always wins that argument. I’m not sure that this world view resonated with my 21st century youngster, though.
Here are two more thoughts about the application process, not just at the University of British Columbia, but at all of these colleges and universities: [Read more…]
Steven Crowder politely asks passers-by to change his mind that there are more than two genders. Armed only with feelings, the youngsters struggle and fail.
One of my favorite sayings of all times is Dennis Prager’s maxim that he prefers clarity to agreement. When his show used to air on local radio here (and I was constantly in the car ferrying children about), I’d see his invariably respectful questions cause his guests either to collapse in an incoherent heap, get terribly defensive, or surprise themselves by discovering that they don’t agree with their own stated principles but, instead, agree with Prager’s.
Steven Crowder takes this approach to college campuses in his “change my mind” video series. Acting through the campus Republican organizations, he obtains permission to sit at a little table and ask passers-by to change his mind about hot topics. To date, he’s done these videos on guns, hate-speech, abortion, and the number of available genders. It’s this last one that caught my eye.
I’ve blogged frequently here about transgender madness. If you’d like a sense of my position on the number of available genders, you can check out this post,this one, or this one. In brief, I think there are two, aside from a very small number of genetically intersex people. I recognize that there are feminine men and masculine women — and people who wish they were a member of the opposite sex — but that does not mean that they are, in fact, members of the opposite sex or no sex whatsoever. I was therefore interested in Crowder’s experience. [Read more…]
Progressives again show their retreat from reality, this time with a t-shirt claiming MAGA supporters, whose candidate and agenda won, are “losers.”
During the 2016 Presidential campaign, Donald Trump had promised “We will have so much winning if I get elected that you may get bored with the winning.” The MAGA team believed him and he turned the electoral map red everywhere except in coastal areas and large urban enclaves.
True to Trump’s promise, while his administration has made some errors (President Trump should have fired Comey and indicted Hillary on January 22), there’s also been a whole lot of winning. Here’s a partial list:
- Justice Gorsuch is a win.
- The roster of conservative judges President Trump is nominating to the federal court system is an ongoing win.
- Withdrawing from the Paris Accord was a win.
- The speech President Trump made at the UN, defining and defending American sovereignty was a win.
- The ongoing effort to shrink the administrative state is a win.
- Ben Carson, Betsy DeVos, and Ryan Zinke are wins.
- The booming stock market is a win.
- The slowly expanding economy is a win.
- The Trump administration’s ability to block terror exporting nations from sending people to America is a win.
- ICE’s stepped-up actions and the diminution in the flow of illegal aliens to the US are ongoing wins.
I don’t think any of the MAGA crowd are bored yet with this winning. They’re counting on more. The reality is that, with Trump slowly but steadily dismantling the Obama state, his MAGA supporters are very pleased. Moreover, as the guys at Power Line show (especially Paul Mirengoff), even those who did not vote for Trump, and are not true MAGA-ites, are pleased. It’s been a delight to watch the more reasonable NeverTrumpers come around.
It’s also been pretty darn pleasing watching the new converts talk to those who have walled themselves off in NeverTrump Land (a cold, dank, hopeless, ugly place). What they’re saying is that the obdurate NeverTrumpers have become intellectually dishonest and are making themselves pariahs to all thinking conservatives.
With all this MAGA winning in mind, how in the world does one explain this t-shirt? [Read more…]
This illustrated edition celebrates the fact that, even when the country goes insane, it’s still possible to be clever, wise, informative, and funny.
My friend Lulu weighs in on the fact that the Marie Claire review of the Dunkirk movie suffers from fatal hetero-normative gender identity assumptions.
I must take issue with Mehera Bonner of Marie Claire and her review of the World War II film Dunkirk in which she states,
. . . my main issue with Dunkirk is that it’s so clearly designed for men to man-out over. And look, it’s not like I need every movie to have “strong female leads.” Wonder Woman can probably tide me over for at least a year, and I understand that this war was dominated by brave male soldiers. I get that. But the packaging of the film, the general vibe, and the tenor of the people applauding it just screams “men-only” — and specifically seems to cater to a certain type of very pretentious man who would love nothing more than to explain to me why I’m wrong about not liking it. . . .
Honestly, how dare she? As Bonner should well know, gender is determined by a personal identification based on an internal awareness. It is what we feel inside, what we know ourselves to be. Our external parts do not always conform. How could she not know that some of those soldiers had to have been non-binary. Some were undoubtedly queer or transgender on the inside. In fact, some of those soldiers were no doubt women — despite their penises.
I would advise Bonner to remember that when she assumes that the movie is men-only and caters to pretentious man-splaining men. How wrong she is. I did not see a toxically masculine film as she did. On the contrary, I envisioned brave transgender women soldiers fighting alongside male, hetero-normative, cis-gender soldiers and proving the historicity of the struggle against restrictive gender roles. Those were our brave sisters out there too and they deserve Bonner’s respect.
For 150 years, Democrats used the Big Lie about race to justify slavery and Jim Crow, and now they’re using the Big Lie technique to challenge gender norms.
I want to share a thought with you that starts with slavery and ends with transsexuals. To get from one to the other, I have to start with one of the few decent classes I had when I was at UC Berkeley. That senior seminar looked at the history of race relations in America versus those in Brazil.
When I took the class, I had no interest whatsoever in the history of race relations. I was an English history major — the English isle, to be precise — and everything else was a distant second. Still, it became apparent to me very quickly that I was not alone and that I would not get into my preferred seminar. You see, back in the day, when it came time for enrollment in senior seminars, the history teachers would seat themselves at random intervals in the big lecture room at Dwinelle Hall. Students would then approach the teachers as supplicants, begging to get into this or that seminar.
As soon as I walked in the room, I saw that the professors teaching the seminars in which I was interested were besieged. I had no desire to hurl myself into that scrum. Instead, I checked out the teachers who were not surrounded by adoring students.
Only one of the other teachers caught my interest because he was so darn handsome. After I ascertained that he had openings in his seminar and that it worked for my schedule, I signed up, not even caring what he was teaching. And so it was that I ended up learning about the history race relations in the US and Brazil.
Fortunately, for me, that handsome young graduate student was an excellent teacher. It made up for the fact that he was happily married, had a baby, and would in any event not have been interested in me. It also made up for the fact that the reading materials were deadly dull.
Thirty years later, the only takeaway I had from the class is that America was rather unique in its “one drop of blood” approach to racism. In Brazil, there’s a great deal of racism, but it’s on a graduated scale. The darker you are, the more racism you face and the lower your status in society.
Meanwhile, in America, it doesn’t matter what you look like. If you’re known to have even a drop of black blood in you, you’re black. Nor is that a racial view that’s changed since both slavery and Jim Crow ended. After all, Barack Obama, half-black and half-white genetically, was our “first black president.” He wasn’t really, of course. He was our “first half-black president” — but that’s not the way things roll in America.
The stigma against that single drop of blood has been so strong in America that it made for a great subplot in Edna Ferber’s Showboat, which started as a book, made it to Broadway as a groundbreaking musical, and then got made into two Hollywood movie musicals. (The 1936 version of the movie is the one to see.)
If you’re familiar with Showboat’s plot, you know that, when the showboat passes through Mississippi, a vengeful man, furious that the beautiful Julie LaVerne has rebuffed him, reports to the authorities that she is, in fact, a black woman. Given that her husband, Steve, is a white man, they have violated Mississippi’s miscegenation laws and he demands their arrest. The couple avoids arrest when Steve cuts Julie and licks her blood, enabling his friends on the boat to state honestly that he has that “one drop of black blood” in him. [Read more…]
This Bookworm Beat has all shades of Progressive insanity (fake data, attacks on free speech, Chelseamania), complete with links and my trenchant comments.
Keep circling that drain. Before I get into the meat of this post detailing the worst emanations from the Democrats and their fellow travelers on their Left, I want to lead off with Kurt Schlichter’s article begging the Democrats not to change their current trajectory and tactics:
Look, Democrats, speaking sincerely as your friend, understand that everyone who says you need to take a deep look at yourselves is a racist, sexist, homophobe who won’t even ask about your preferred pronoun. Whatever you do, don’t you ever change.
The problem isn’t you. It’s those stupid idiots who won’t obey you because they’re stupid idiots. How can those idiots be so stupid?
Who knows? But what’s clear is that it’s not your fault. It’s theirs. So when the going gets tough, and you aren’t making progress – in fact, when you’re moving backwards – what’s the smart play? Double down!
Hey, the dealer’s showing an ace in a face-heavy deck and you’ve got a six, what do you do? Double down!
Can I boast? I had the pleasure of meeting Kurt a couple of weeks ago and he’s every bit as smart, funny, and personable as his writing. Lord, but I do envy a brain like that.
Statistically illiterate accusation that Trump voters are racist. You know all about American colleges and universities by now. They’re the places in which self-regard exceeds accomplishments, feelings trump rational thought, antisemitism is great than that found anywhere else in America (except, probably in Dearborn and the DNC), and the First Amendment is subordinate to students’ feelings (provided, of course, that those feelings are consistent with the Democrat Party platform).
Thomas Wood, an assistant professor at Ohio State University, has emerged from this sewer to announce that Trump voters are racists. He thought perhaps they were mere Nazi-style authoritarians but it’s worse — they’re racists. He knows this because he’s got charts.
Why are Trump voters racist? Because Wood specifically defined racism in such a way as to apply to Trump voters. That’s how they do it at universities nowadays:
To test this, I use what is called the “symbolic racism scale” to compare whites who voted for the Democratic presidential candidate with those who voted for the Republican. This scale measures racial attitudes among respondents who know that it’s socially unacceptable to say things perceived as racially prejudiced. Rather than asking overtly prejudiced questions — “do you believe blacks are lazy” — we ask whether racial inequalities today are a result of social bias or personal lack of effort and irresponsibility.
In other words, if you believe that only government can save perpetually hapless and helpless minorities, you’re not a racist. However, if you believe that minorities are rational, sentient beings who respond to incentives and disincentives in the same way as everyone else, and that they therefore deserve to be respected as our equals and not demeaned as perpetual wards of state, you’re racist!
You always win the game if you get to write the rules after the play is already run. Woods is a perfect example of why I keep saying that the best way to get America back on a track dedicated to individual liberty, free enterprise, and constitutional governance is to take every bit of federal money out of American “higher” education.
Here’s a down-and-dirty Bookworm Beat that’s still replete with things to entertain and inform.
I’d meant to blog more today, as well as to clean my office, but I had a sick dog and that took both my time and my attention. All is well with the dog — it’s a long term problem and we’re doing maintenance care.
And now for some quick links:
Gadzooks! It’s Gorsuch: Last week, when Neil Gorsuch was confirmed, Myron Magnet wrote a much-read article about the revolution his ascension to the Supreme Court represents:
Suppose, now that Gorsuch has been confirmed and sworn in, it understood and intended to overturn the administrative state’s usurpation of the Constitution. Suppose, moreover, that it understood the promiscuous lawlessness with which the justices have been making laws out of thin air for half a century and more—claiming some vague basis in the Bill of Rights or the Fourteenth Amendment—and resolved to end that abuse, exercising only judgment, not will. Suppose President Trump got to appoint one more justice in the Gorsuch and Scalia mold, creating an irresistible majority that upheld Madison’s original Constitution instead of Wilson’s “living” one.
Magnet’s dream may well be in the process of being realized. How do I know? Because of the manic, fevered emanations from the Left after Gorsuch’s first official appearance on the bench, all stating that Gorsuch is a mentally-disabled moron wrongfully occupying Merrick Garland’s seat. They’re terrified:
After his startlingly humiliating performance during his first day on the bench yesterday, it’s possible his earlier reticence to answer the Senators’ questions was because he didn’t understand them. As it turns out, Gorsuch is a simpleton with almost childlike understanding of the law – and the existing Justices on both sides of the spectrum already seem to have concluded he’s an idiot.
In fact, Gorsuch was pointing out that the answer lies in actually reading the statutory language — and he was embarrassing those attorneys who were trying to make things complicated in hopes of getting a ruling that allows agencies to make their own laws. (I’ve lost my link for this, but I’ll fill it in as soon as I find it.)
If Dennis Prager is happy, I’m happy. Everything Dennis Prager says about the political and moral clarity of the last two weeks . . . I agree:
2. The terrible presidency of Barack Obama is beginning to be acknowledged.
Following President Trump’s order to attack Syria about 63 hours after the Syrian regime seemingly used chemical weapons, even many in the mainstream media couldn’t help but contrast his prompt response with Obama’s nonresponse to Assad’s use of chemical weapons in 2013. And almost every report further noted that Obama failed to do anything after having promised that he would regard the use of chemical weapons by Assad as crossing a “red line.”
Likewise, Obama’s do-nothing policies vis-a-vis North Korea are being contrasted with Trump’s warnings to leader Kim Jung Un about further testing of intercontinental ballistic missiles and pressure on China’s leaders to rein in the North Korean regime.
These contrasts are important for a number of reasons, not the least of which being there is now hope that Obama’s star will dim as time goes on.
This will come as somewhat of a surprise to those on the left, but many of us who are not on the left believe that Obama did more damage to America than any previous president — economically, militarily and socially.
Teen Vogue turns against Israel with a gauzy, one-sided view of Palestinians. This sewage-like flow of Leftist ideology traces back to American academia.
For those naive enough to think that Teen Vogue is a fashion magazine, please disabuse yourself of that notion as quickly as possible. It is, in fact, a hard Left propaganda vehicle that slips into people’s homes under the guise of fashion. It came into my house, for example, when my daughter got a free subscription automatically delivered to her after ordering clothes from an online site that caters to teenagers.
I’ve documented several times that the magazine’s primary purpose is to sell Leftism on every subject under the sun including, but not limited to, campus rape, Woodie Guthrie-esque communism; the entire spectrum of the LGBT social and political push against traditional Western value’, misanthropic “feminism”; and abortion. (You can see these earlier posts here, here, and here.) I was going to say of Teen Vogue that “any resemblance to an actual fashion magazine is pure coincidental,” but that’s not true. Teen Vogue’s deliberately takes on the protective coloring of a fashion magazine, but don’t be fooled: its purpose is Leftist indoctrination, pure and simple.
Just a couple of weeks ago, the magazine amped up the Leftist propaganda by advocating for the Palestinians without any recognition of Israel’s historic and legal rights to the land, or the virtue of her conduct:
[Teen Vogue’s] February 27 piece entitled “The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: What You Need to Know” suggests that shift also entails publishing factually shoddy commentary.
Despite the ambitious title and long length, the one-sided account omits many things that teens trying to learn about current events ought to know and instead reads like a fact sheet from the Palestinian side of the issue.
Author Emma Sarran Webster has no apparent knowledge or background on the complex issues involved, billing herself as an expert on health and beauty with a “deep love for social media and cat videos.” She relies heavily in the article on a single “expert,” University of Wisconsin professor Nadav Shelef. Shelef’s writing, which has been praised by far-left professors, focuses heavily on settlements, and as a result, Webster’s article also focuses overwhelmingly on “controversial” settlements as the central issue. This, while completely ignoring
Palestinian incitement and incentivizing of violence, as well as Palestinian intransigence. In fact, Webster includes an entire four-paragraph section subtitled, “What are settlements, and why are they so controversial?”
Yet, there is no section on Palestinian cash payments to convicted terrorists or to the families of terrorists who were killed, and there is no section that discusses the glorification of violence in the Palestinian government and society.
The article also omits discussion of historical Jewish ties to Israel and, unconscionably, the repeated Palestinian rejection of extensive Israeli peace offers. Where was the section on Arafat and Abbas walking away from the creation of a Palestinian state?
In addition, the article contains several misrepresentations: it references “Palestinians” who lived a century ago, and says that in 1948 Arab nations “began fighting on behalf of Palestine.” It misrepresents UN Resolution 242 and the Fourth Geneva Convention, and fails to put UN statements in the context of that body’s well-documented bias.
CAMERA is polite in its comments and imputes the myriad omissions and errors to ignorance. I would not be so polite. I’ve been following the magazine long enough to understand that it is selling the current Progressive point of view, which is a long way from the centrism people remember from the pre-1990s Democrat party.
One of the hallmarks of the new Democrat party — a party that used to be part of America’s overall support for beleaguered Israel, a liberal democracy surrounded by genocidal tyrannies — is its hostility to Israel. You need look no further than the race for DNC chair, when Keith Ellison, a long-time purveyor of antisemitic canards and a friend of famed antisemites, came within a hairbreadth of winning.
I’m about to get on my particular monomania train here, so feel free to turn away from the article about now. My monomania is about American colleges and universities. It’s easy for conservatives (including friends of Israel) to point to the media and Hollywood as the culture infecting America’s traditional commitment to liberty at home and abroad. That’s not where the problem started, though, and that’s not where the canker of Leftism is most strong. All of America’s problems are tied to its colleges.
To stay ahead of the Left’s gnawing away at every underpinning of Western civilization, we need to stay updated about the culture wars. This post helps.
Modern wars are never fought on one front. They are fought on all fronts. Obama’s minions in government are trying to bring President Trump down from the inside. And Progressives’ minions on the streets are trying to destroy America through culture wars fought in the media, in schools, and even in bathrooms. This post collects updates from the myriad fronts in the culture wars phase of the Leftist attack on Western civilization.
Stop buying their line. One of the things Progressives do well is to create fact-free tropes that quickly become conventional wisdom. One of these tropes, going back to the 1980s, is that if we’re nice to gays, they won’t need to act out their pain and rage by engaging in unsafe sex. A trio of writers from the culturally conservative Family Research Institute argue that the data shows the opposite — unbridled gay sexuality increases the rate of sexually transmitted diseases. They make this argument, moreover, with data from an unexpected place: China, a country that was once too sexually conservative even to admit that homosexuality existed. I’m neither endorsing nor denouncing the data in this article (I don’t know enough to have an opinion), but I sure thought it was interesting.
Faith should be about faith. Many people who have hit rock bottom (especially, it seems former rock stars) turn their lives around with help from a return to traditional religion. True faith builds people up. Too many millennials, however, don’t understand that first you find God and then, with God’s help, you find the strength to lift yourself out of the abyss. That’s why you find a lot of these millennials wandering into churches and synagogues looking for religion to be just another branch of the Social Justice tree under which they shelter. Rachel Lu explains that faith is not one more step in the Leftist self-help, Gaia reclamation project.
Encouraging, rather than bullying, on bathrooms. Yelp has a good idea, which is to crowd-source the location of gender neutral bathrooms so that people in need can easily find them. This is how the free market should work. Rather than using government’s overwhelming power to bully companies and schools into allowing any guy dressed as a gal into a women’s bathroom, use the marketplace to enable the minute portion of people who want gender neutral bathrooms to find them easily.
College is expensive because of Leftism. Despite college costs increasing at an exponential rate much higher than the inflation rate (and this has been true for the last thirty years), the student-teacher ratio at most colleges hasn’t changed over the decades. Students in liberal arts programs also emerge less educated, although this is due to Leftist lunacy, rather than too few teachers for too many students. The reason colleges are so expensive is because of the vast social justice infrastructure that colleges have built, all of which taxpayers and parents have to fund. God, but I loath modern academia. (And if you’re wondering, academia is the sole reason America Jews and Asians are Leftists when their interests do not lie in that direction. It’s because they are the group most likely to send their children to college, something that’s been true for decades now.)
Progressives pretend that their transgender politics are based on science but they’re not; it’s fantasy all the way, which is a disservice to children.
The other day, NPR had a fascinating article. Because it is fascinating, allow me to quote some of the more interesting points:
Why Caitlyn Jenner can never be a woman
The man formerly known as Bruce is still a guy with a dick, testes, and a male skeleton, trying to be one of the girls.
Being female is a bright and shiny diamond, and here in America in the age of Hillary and Women’s Marches, everyone wants to wear it like a pussy hat on their head. The attitude, the language, the humor, the makeup, the style, all of it is covetable, and everyone from Elizabeth Warren to Madonna to Ashley Judd is trying to get high — and rich — off it.
But, like diamonds, a woman is created under extreme pressure and high temperature, deep down in the recesses of her core. It is sitting on the toilet when you’re thirteen, alternately fascinated and disgusted by the blood flowing from you for the first time. It’s watching your body going through the changes of pregnancy, everything from morning sickness, to suddenly sprouting Pamela Anderson boobs, to your blooming belly that’s periodically warped out of shape by the infant’s movements, to the pain and triumph of labor, to having your breasts go from being sex objects to being a baby’s private juice bar.
Being a woman is pre-menstrual syndrome, and menstruation, and post-menstrual syndrome. It’s hanging with your girlfriends when you’re all ugly ducklings, desperately jealous of the early bloomers, unaware that early bloom often fades quickly. It’s listening to your girlfriends’ lament, knowing that they’ll listen to you too and, even better, knowing that this is a sharing experience and that none of you will try to tell the others what to do. It’s keeping an eye on your friend who’s drinking too much, even though she promised not to, and making sure to get her safely home rather than running the risk that she’ll hook up with someone who makes her feel bad or, worse, find herself roofied and raped.
Being a women is up in the bones, the fragile bones, with their broad hips and their shoulder construction that means girls’ softball has that weird underhand pitch, instead of the overhand throw guys use. It’s in the muscles which, even if women try to beef them up with testosterone, will never be as strong as a man’s. It’s in the uterus and the ovaries that help create and then grow an entirely new human being, and in the breasts that produce the perfect food to sustain that human life.
And it is the ultimate in male privilege, really, for a man to see that diamond, all shiny and hard and unbreakable, and pluck it for his own, like it’s a gift from Tiffany’s, with seemingly zero regard for the pressure, the heat, the pain it went through — that we went through — to earn that shine.
That’s an amazing essay, isn’t it? Moreover, it’s one that I bet you never thought you’d read at NPR. And if you want the truth, you never will read it at NPR.
Mack Beggs, the transgender wrestler, should not wrestle as either a boy or a girl. She made a choice, so she, not society, should accept the consequences.
Mack Beggs is a 17-year-old genetic female with a serious body dysmorphia problem that has never been addressed: She believes that she was meant to be male, not female. Rather than treating this psychological problem, Beggs’ parents allowed her to take heavy doses of testosterone so that she can present to the world as a boy.
Aside from the fact that testosterone is very damaging, taking it does not make Beggs male. She has two X chromosomes, two ovaries, a uterus, milk-producing mammary glands (which she’ll eventually amputate), and a female skeletal system. What the testosterone has done, however, is given her a reasonable simulacrum of a male’s musculature.
Beggs has trained as a high school wrestler in Texas. Texas has a rule that students who compete in the state championships must compete in accordance with their biological gender, not their fantasy gender. Those with XY chromosomes, penises, testes, and the male’s heavier bone structure and musculature compete in the “Boys” category. Those who are equipped, as Beggs is, with two X chromosomes, ovaries, a uterus, milk-producing mammary glands, and a female’s lighter musculoskeletal system compete in the “Girls” category.
Texas refused to waive the rules for Beggs, so her biology trumped her delusional fantasy — she ended up competing as a girl, albeit a girl who was taking steroids, something that would have been illegal in any competition that did not intersect with the Left’s gender madness. By gender madness, of course, I mean the “pro-science” Left’s insistence that gender is not a biological construct but is, instead, a matter of wishing makes it so: Gender-wise, you are what you want to be.
Needless to say, bulked up by steroids, Beggs swept the Girls’ class in the Texas state wrestling championships:
The Left cuddles up to antisemitic Muslims like Linda Sarsour, but absolves itself of sin by accusing Republicans of practicing sharia law.
When you and I think of sharia law, we probably think of women lacking any legal rights, including the right to leave their homes without a male escort or the right to wear clothes that reveal more than their eyes. We might think of the fact that, if a woman is accused of adultery, she’ll be executed. Or perhaps we think of blood-thirsty, sharia-advocating Linda Sarsour, the new darling of the feminist anti-Trump movement, threatening women with whom she disagrees, with “a$$” whippings and having their vaginas removed.
Our thoughts might wander to men and boys being hanged from cranes or thrown off of buildings, only to be finished off with rocks thrown by a watching crowd, for the crime of being gay. Or we might think about people getting lashed and imprisoned for speaking freely. Perhaps we remember that the complete prohibition upon lending money for a reasonable profit means that Muslim economies, unless they’re powered by oil, cannot grow.
Some of us might have unpleasant mental images of thieves having their right hands cut off. This last is an even more heinous punishment than first appears because it means that these thieves must eat and wipe their butts with the same hand, making them social outcasts. In that regard, do keep in mind that, for the devout, sharia law mandates that the butt wiper use a hand unmediated by leaves, paper, or — Heaven forfend! — toilet paper.
We might also think of the mandates to kill Jews and enslave all non-Muslims — or, if they cannot be enslaved, to make them second class citizens subject to a high tax for the privilege of living amongst Muslims. We might think of genocidal attacks against Christians taking place all over the Muslim world today.
Regarding slaves, those same sharia mandates make it clear that female slaves are to be used for sex. Heck, any female who is not a devout Muslim (which, in the modern era, means one completely covered), can be used for sex against her will.
Other things we might think of are the mandate to expand Islam throughout the world, not through example and peaceful proselytizing, but through fire and sword. We’d certainly remember that forcibly converted people can’t back out. After all, sharia law mandates that anyone who leaves Islam has automatically subjected himself (or herself) to the death penalty. And of course, there’s the fact the government dictates every aspect of people’s lives and faith.
Well, those are some of the things I think of when I think of sharia law. This is what Progressives think of: