No, Christians Are Not Behind Orlando

Another person who would rather beat up on his fellow Americans than ISIS is ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio.
"You know what is gross — your thoughts and prayers and Islamophobia after you created this anti-queer climate," ACLU staff attorney Chase Strangio tweeted on Sunday morning....

"The Christian Right has introduced 200 anti-LGBT bills in the last six months and people blaming Islam for this," Strangio tweeted. "No."

Another ACLU attorney who specializes in religious liberty issues scolded Republican lawmakers who tweeted out their condolences. "Remember when you co-sponsored extreme, anti-LGBT First Amendment Defense Act?" the ACLU's Eunice Rho tweeted at Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and other Republicans,
This is really irritating stuff. How can you even say the phrase "extreme, anti-LGBT First Amendment Defense Act" in the same context as the Orlando killings? Doesn't that context wash the extremism right out of the 'hey, maybe the government shouldn't force people to bake cakes' bill?

Donald Trump sounds sane today compared to these people. He at least is capable of pointing a finger at the actually responsible party. What caused this terrorist act? "Toxic Masculinity!" "Christians!" "Republicans!" "The NRA!"

Stop it. Get a grip on yourselves. I myself strongly support religious freedom legislation, not just for Christians but for Sikhs or Hindus or Native Americans and, yes, even Muslims. All I ask is what Locke asked, which is that their religion remains wholly voluntary. As long as they are doing it because they want to do it, or not doing it because they don't want to do it, that's all fine. I just draw the line at anyone being made to do, or refrain from doing, something for religious reasons they do not share. It makes sense to let religious bakers elect not to bake a cake. It doesn't make sense to kill people for failing to conform to a religion they aren't even part of.

Furthermore, I don't consider myself to be an "extreme, anti-LGBT" person for believing that this is a reasonable principle for sorting out religious differences. In fact, I'm not even thinking of LGBTs when I arrive at the principle. I'm thinking about political philosophy and the rights of man. This is one of those rights. Our country's entire purpose is to guarantee these rights. I don't care if you don't like it.

Nevertheless I will kill or die to prevent any American from being killed by a terrorist. That's another principle I have, and it's another one that I didn't come to while thinking about LGBTs. I came to it for other reasons, but it likewise applies to them just the same. If our enemies come for you, I will fight for you. That you may be gay doesn't matter at all to the operation of this principle. As much as the ACLU (and Amanda Marcotte) seem to have forgotten it, our real enemies are not other Americans.  Remember the rattlesnake.


douglas said...

Yeah, this has spawned some rather peculiar (in normal world- not so peculiar in the bizarre world we're living nowadays) response to this from the left. There was a guy at Salon who seemed to be mostly concerned that the victimhood status of the LGBTQ community not be minimized. You point out the not isolated response of 'it's the right/Republicans fault!'. I mean, people want to kill you, but they're not the problem, your peaceful political/ideological opponents are? If that's the case, you've got real problems, seek help.

Ymar Sakar said...

That's interesting. Reminds me of this one from PJM.

I just thought this Anon author was pretty weak for trying to grab some security after kicking in Christians and what not.

The Christians have been fighting Muslims for almost 1400 years.

Weakening the Christians, was one of the more fatal mistakes homosexuals made. You are still just as weak now as you were before, even with Trump on top of you. (To the Anon author, afraid to out himself because the Left would crucify him)

Ymar Sakar said...

Nevertheless I will kill or die to prevent any American from being killed by a terrorist.

Could be problematic to make that promise. Since you or other patriots might only get the option to 1: Save your loved ones and sacrifice the Left's cannonfodder or 2. Save strangers at your own expense and sacrifice, thus forfeiting the ability to carry out your duty elsewhere.

As before, the best and easiest way to counter terrorism of this sort is hardening all soft targets. Arming and training children and women, first, would be a start. But if Leftists and Demoncrats refuse to use arms, refuse to be trained, refuse to help the police train... trying to save them would be risky and often times counter productive. There are a lot of other Americans that could be saved, using the same effort. There are, after all, 330 million of these people around somewhere...

As with COIN's ink blot strategy, the search and destroy option should be sustained by a number of other logistical and recruitment drives. The cadre itself should be prized and reserved for instructing more and more people. If they go to their deaths too soon, they will end up like the Marianas Turkey Shoot. Japan refused to pull their experienced combat pilots back to school, to teach the new gen. With expected results.

Anonymous said...

Here's something better:

After the Pulse Club Massacre, It’s Time for Gays to Come Home to Republican Party

Jim Hoft, Catholic and Conservative blogger, outs himself in response to Islamist murders.


Eric Blair said...


Tom said...

For the right, the enemy is foreign. For the left, the enemy is always domestic.