The words “religious equality” tickle the ears of many and in theory, it sounds great. The problem is that many of those who harp on it publicly, represent Islamic groups or nations like the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), who really don’t want religious equality at all. They want everyone to agree on a set of standards and then only hold non-Muslims accountable to those standards.
To put it simply, using a commonly heard phrase these days, it’s the Islamic fundamentalist’s brand of ‘prosecutorial discretion’. In truth, it’s known as a double standard rooted in a desire for religious superiority that uses deceit and lies with terms like “religious equality” to achieve that superiority; in essence, achieving religious inequality by claiming to stand for fairness.
One way to demonstrate is to start with the case of Dr. Avijit Roy, an anti-Islamic U.S. blogger who traveled to Bangladesh for a book fair with his wife. While standing outside or near a mosque, Roy was hacked to death and his wife was seriously injured. Islamic terrorists claimed responsibility for the murder while calling Roy’s writings ‘a crime against Islam’.
It doesn’t get more cut and dry than that, right? Applying the standards established by the likes of the utopian-styled leftists, the murder should constitute a hate crime; someone was targeted for their beliefs.
Yet, one day after those murderers openly confessed to why they murdered Roy, U.S. State Department spokesman Jen Psaki said there was no evidence of motive:
Last month, there was another clear example as Shoebat.com reported; it happened in Detroit. Two men were stabbed at a bus stop when a Muslim asked them if they were Muslims. When they said ‘no’, the Muslim man stabbed them.
Hate crime (based on the left’s standards)?
Uh, yeah. Yet, the sound of crickets can be heard coming from the left.
Conversely, when Islamic terrorists targeted cartoonists and later a Kosher deli in Paris, the Obama administration twisted itself into pretzels to avoid a hate crimes narrative, despite the attacks fitting every criterion established by the left.
Consider… An Islamic terrorist goes into a Kosher deli with a a GoPro camera affixed to his chest. It records seven minutes and three of his murders. In one instance, he asks a soon-to-be murdered victim what religion he is. When the man says he’s Jewish, Amedy Coulibaly shoots him and says:
“So you know why I am here then. Allahu Akbar.”
Yet, Obama said the shootings inside that deli were “random” acts committed by “violent, vicious zealots” (without naming the source of that zealotry):
Another example can be found in Chapel Hill, NC in a case where a pro-gay marriage, lunatic liberal atheist murdered three Muslim students over a parking space. Despite overwhelming evidence that the shooter – Craig Hicks – was motivated solely by the desire to claim the parking spot occupied by someone else, the hate crimes narrative was pushed.
Additional irony is provided by the overlooked fact that at least one of the shooting victims expressed anti-Semitic views via twitter.
Despite there being no evidence whatsoever that Hicks committed murder for any reason other than that parking space – without regard to the profile of anyone who occupied it – the liberals and Muslims told us it was a hate crime. Even far left-wing New York City mayor Bill de Blasio poured political gasoline on the fire with a statement that implied the shootings were based on anti-Islamic sentiment, writing that:
“Violence and intolerance directed against any faith community is an affront to humanity. New York City is home to large and vibrant Muslim communities who help make our city great, and anti-Muslim bigotry has no place in our city – or anywhere.”
Aside from that being an irresponsible implication that the Chapel Hill shootings were hate crimes, de Blasio isn’t compelled to issue similar statements when Christians are targeted by Muslims for the same reason. Ever heard de Blasio talk about rejecting anti-Christian bigotry?
Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a Muslim fundamentalist, wanted Obama to condemn the shootings based on a faulty premise that they were hate crimes:
“If you stay silent when faced with an incident like this and don’t make a statement, the world will stay silent toward you,” Erdogan said, condemning Craig Stephen Hicks, 46, who was arrested for the crimes. “I ask Mr. Obama, where are you, Mr. President?
Obama appeared to have heard Erdogan and responded:
“No one in the United States of America should ever be targeted because of who they are, what they look like, or how they worship.”
There are reasons Obama didn’t go all the way and call the shootings hate crimes. Chief among them is that they were obviously not. So what did he do? He did the next worse thing; he implied that they were.
Compare the reaction to those non-hate crimes against three Muslims with the brazen, barbaric murders of 21 Coptic Christians on a Mediterranean beach by 21 Islamic terrorists. If ever there was an opportunity for Obama to contrast religious persecution and genocide with religious equality and freedom, that was it.
Yet, instead of identifying the victims as Christians, Obama said that they were simply Egyptian citizens who were murdered by what, “violent, vicious zealots” about whose zealotry we don’t know enough about?
When it comes to Turkey, it’s worth noting that shortly after the march in Paris to ostensibly show solidarity against terrorism, Turkey’s Prime Minister and Erdogan’s number two Ahmet Davutoglu, called for a similar march against Islamophobia.
Such a march would be about one thing and one thing only – religious superiority.
UK Daily Mail