March 30, 2015, - 12:00 pm

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.

mileycyrusashtonkutcher

Miley Virus and Ashton Kutcher: “Legal Scholars” Who Don’t Understand RFRA

gregoryholtislamiccrescent.jpg

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.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly, PDF & Email




Tags: , , ,


26 Responses

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

Still wouldn’t matter. Good little progs would understand that violence against them was and always will be the result of (evil) white intolerance and oppression.

DS_ROCKS! on March 30, 2015 at 12:19 pm

I support the principle behind the law.

The Left is opposed to religious freedom because they think it would help Jews and Christians, which they hate.

Debbie is right though that they don’t see the irony that the law they’re now up in arms against would help Islam, which they do love.

So in a way, their hatred of Judaism and Christianity is helping to block further jihad.

More evidence, if one needed it, that G-d works in strange ways, indeed.

NormanF on March 30, 2015 at 1:15 pm

RFRA isn’t a bad law; the fly in the ointment is the courts are interpreting it to expand the rights of a group opposed to religious freedom – Islam – which surely isn’t the intent of people pushing for the law, like Orthodox Jews and Catholics who appeared with Indiana Gov. Pence when he signed the law.

It has nothing to do with discriminating against gays. If we actually should need to clarify the law for the courts, it should be to make sure it actually lessens the burden on the free exercise of religion, not giving a license to elevate Islamic Sharia over all the rest.

But people hostile to Judeo-Christian values won’t be persuaded – and they won’t figure out their mutual embrace of gay rights and Islam to extinguish the former happen to be at cross purposes. Maybe someday, they’ll figure out that religious freedom, like the rest of our First Amendment freedoms, isn’t expendable.

Here’s to betting that won’t happen given the hysterical lather they’ve worked themselves over into. Its been entertaining to watch.

NormanF on March 30, 2015 at 1:53 pm

I don’t know much about this law but I’m inclined to agree with Debbie. Religious freedom for Muslims means less freedom for everybody else in the long run.
In principle that might not be the case but in practice which is all that really counts this is probably going to benefit jihad happy Muslims more than anybody else.

D4ku4N on March 30, 2015 at 2:20 pm

The jailbird Muslim beard is a big deal because Muslim gangs take over prisons. This has already happened in many prisons in Europe and the UK. Islam needs its inmates to take over the asylum.

D4ku4N on March 30, 2015 at 2:25 pm

Next will be stones to wipe their rear ends and foot baths in every cell.

D4ku4N on March 30, 2015 at 2:27 pm

I’ve read other sources about this law, and I’m extremely cynical of it and don’t support as well, as DS has stated. In the past, whenever such legislation has passed, it’s benefited for not only Jews and Christians alike, but also those from the Islamic faith.

And it’s debatable whether or not that this law discriminates against the LGBT community or not, bottom line is that, if you view yourself as a “Constitutionalist” you ought to be VERY consistent on were you’re exactly coming from and not parrot other viewpoints that’s antithetical to being a constitutionalist. I’m not only a “Darwinian-Conservative”, but I’m also a constitutionalist as well, and there shouldn’t be any discrimination against any community groups of folks in this country (the 14th Amendment where there’s a document called the “Equal Protection Clause”).

And “IVN” (a centrist source that’s very dependable with NO agendas to it) wrote a terrific article of this RFRA law that was enacted into Indiana late last week:

http://ivn.us/2015/03/27/religious-freedom-laws-the-new-jim-crow-law/

Sean R. on March 30, 2015 at 4:18 pm

I know to OPPOSE EVERYTHING A MUSLIM SUPPORTS

Lee Rodgers. RIP on March 30, 2015 at 5:16 pm

I find what happened to the bakery in Oregon highly offensive. Christians do not believe in discrimination but they do believe in discernment. The Bible calls on us to distance ourselves from sin and sinners. Marriage cannot be between two people of the same sex. If homosexuals want a wedding cake, they should buy them at homosexual friendly bakeries and leave people trying to follow their faith alone. Where is the outrage about Sharia law in America? HYPOCRITES!

Conservative Mark on March 30, 2015 at 5:22 pm

In an appropriate hypothetical case, I’d like some one to explain why :

The recognition of islamic so-called law would not be in violation of the ” establishment ” clause of the first amendment of the USA constitution.

JayPee on March 30, 2015 at 7:14 pm

Viley Virus should be looking into laws to help her skanky arse get some recompense for whoever molested her in such a heinous way when she was a pre-pube. That’s prolly why she is acting out in a totally more disgusting and undignified way than Courtney Love ever did. And I LOLOL when I hear narcissists like her (ala Madonna) crap on about being in high dudgeon over such things. Those poseurs have never given a frog’s fat one about anyone else in their sleaze-grinder lives! Puh-leeze! The self-serving whinges from such self-obsessed bogans makes me wanna non-stop projectile vomit right down their gullets.

And I know I am REALLY getting it when I was thinking (earlier) just about what DS pointed out in her column today. Instead of thinking it would help those like me who value their religious freedoms I got the sick feeling in my gut that this law will only help the Mooooooslims win more quickly than they already are. I got sick to my stomach. The silver lining is that I knew that my education HERE is working because I never would have seen it that way if I didn’t read DS regularly. That’s a fact!

Scary times. Islam is gaining ground in double-time. I’m not liking that but at least I see it so very clearly while others don’t.

Skunky on March 30, 2015 at 7:19 pm

Agree with Debbie that in today’s cultural climate, this will help the onslaught of the Muslimization of “this once great republic.” The theoretical intent of the law will be warped, as everything is in today’s Amerika, in favor of those who wish to bring this nation down.

And Debbie did it to me again with the picture she chose. I have NO idea what Billie Jean Cyrus’ daughter and Ashtray Butcher have to do with this subject, but uggggghhhhhh!!! Miley Cyrus, another halfway good looking teenager, who grew up ugly inside, and is now trying her best to look ugly on the outside.

As for Skunky, she’s already a local treasure, but hopefully well on her way to becoming a national one. What a post!!! ROTFLMAO!!!

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on March 30, 2015 at 8:08 pm

Technically islam isn’t a religion and is just a giant ponzi scheme just like scientology it’s merely been around longer. If people would quit treating it as a religion that would solve plenty of problems. But people in general are stupid so whatever.

fyi on March 30, 2015 at 9:30 pm

    @fyi

    At best, islam is irreligion, the satanic counterfeit of religion.

    JayPee on March 30, 2015 at 11:36 pm

Exactly, fyi. I’ve been saying that for a while. It isn’t a religion, it’s the world’s largest gang.

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on March 30, 2015 at 9:55 pm

So true Alfredo. I remember someone here once pointing out the similarities between Islam and the Sicilian Mafia.

theShadow on March 30, 2015 at 10:06 pm

While I agree on what the effects of this law are likely to be, it is disturbing to watch the liberal and not-so-liberal hysteria that has resulted. It has spread throughout the liberal community, and business has caved in completely.

It is similar to the uproar over Donald Sterling and the SAE fraternity in Oklahoma, not to mention Ferguson.

Another advance in the liberal, near-totalitarian campaign to squelch free speech and expression. If you dare say or do anything that is remotely offensive to one of the victimized groups, in this case the LGTB, — oops, I always get these initials mixed up — community, the liberals create a mass uproar that extends throughout the victim groups, and their ‘elite’ supporters. Business always caves in.

While I agree that the courts are very unlikely to rule against Muslims, using this law as a basis, I am also concerned about the whining and bleating about this law, as this is becoming virtually a form of mob rule.

While the mob reaction here has not descended to the implementation of beheadings, reminiscent of the Muslims, and of the French Revolution, the exercise of a similar mob mentality can be seen in the response to this law. The mob mentality overrides the traditional safeguards of our society preserving free speech and dissenting views, and, unchecked, will only increase in strength and severity. The emotion of the response makes it difficult to respond intellectually.

While I agree that the mob is overlooking the pro-Muslim aspect of this law, I am still very concerned over this whole response, and all the other recent exercises of mob mentality on behalf of the victimized, and seemingly-victimized.

All sense of proportion is thrown out the window. Front page editorials, statements by businesses that typically avoid all but the most saccharine comments on social issues? One step closer to mob rule.

There were harbingers of this in the 80s and 90s, e.g. the criticism of John Tower as Secretary of Defense, and then Anita Hill’s ‘revelations’. But it has really picked up force in the last year or two.

Little Al on March 31, 2015 at 1:29 am

The First Amendment to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, protects Muslims and the free exercise of Islam.

bobguzzardi on March 31, 2015 at 8:07 am

Yes, they are free to behead and honor-kill anyone they want. Guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Little Al on March 31, 2015 at 9:28 am

The political left is opposed to religion for the same reason it is opposed to the family: it is an obstacle to full state control of people’s lives. Therefore, it much be crushed.

Gary in Big D on March 31, 2015 at 1:16 pm

It is unfortunate that the Islamic crowd would use such legislation to further their own ends. Religious liberties are dissolving away at an increasing rate.

Worry on March 31, 2015 at 8:01 pm

One thing I think you left out was this law enabling Muslimahs to wear their black klans-hoods. Funny how ACLU and other Leftists have nothing against burqas being allowed into US society.

As for Republicans, too many of them are in bed w/ the Muzzies under the charade of religious freedom

Infidel on March 31, 2015 at 8:03 pm

    Islamic Society speaks out against RFRA:

    http://www.wthr.com/story/28697330/islamic-society-speaks-out-against-rfra

    No surprise – Muslims side with the Left against religious freedom.

    Both leftists and Muslims want Jews and Christians to be put in their place.

    They’d have no problem with Islamic Sharia; but freedom of religious exercise? Perish the thought.

    NormanF on April 1, 2015 at 6:03 pm

    Yes, the same crowd that has problems with third-world sweat shops but no problem with persecution of Jew, Christians or the porn industry.

    G P on April 2, 2015 at 1:05 pm

So much hypocrisy in the article and in these comments. Too much churchianity, not enough jesus. Why don’t Christians follow what Jesus said instead of following the hate the the church breeds? Do you not realize all effects have their causes?

Kevin on April 3, 2015 at 6:34 pm

I am all in support of religious freedom, I consider myself a Christian. I believe that only God can judge and I will have to answer for my sins. I believe that there is a code of morals to live by and I consider myself to be a tolerant and loving person. I obey man’s law and don’t believe in anything that harms another person. So here is my question, if the RFRA is to expand religious freedoms, then does that mean that mans law no longer applies, (murder, spouse abuse, statutory rape) provided ones religion makes it alright? It sure seems that way since we already have laws which says businesses can refuse service to certain people, and religious people can say whatever they feel, so how is this revised law necessary unless it really is for more sinister purposes.

Duckie_W on April 3, 2015 at 7:48 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field