Free Speech Deep Freeze: Democrats Want To Put “Anti [Islamic] Rhetoric” On Ice


Cover photo from

Attorney General Loretta Lynch and a trio of congresscritters call it “anti-muslim rhetoric,” the language used freely by Americans to discuss, okay criticize, Islam and all it stands for that just *might* incite someone, somewhere to violence.  Naturally, given that the speech in question would contain a hint of animosity in its assessment of the “religion” that has as a main tenet acceptance of violence and crime against non-believers, anything said deemed “anti-muslim” should be considered “hate speech” and therefore a “hate crime.”

Dizzy yet?  Really, this is the justification for abridging free speech rights in America.

On December 3, Lynch pressed the case that speech edging toward violence against Islam would be “aggressively prosecuted” by the Justice Department.  The very next day, three Democrats in the House of Representatives, Reps Don Beyer of Virginia, Keith Ellison of Minnesota, and Joe Crowley of New York, visited a mosque in the Greater Washington, D.C., area where a number of muslims famous for atrocities such as September 11, shooting up Fort Hood, etc., used to attend for prayer and worship.  In a familiar call for understanding and pushing the possibility of COEXIST in typical progressive fashion, Beyer later introduced H.R. 569 with 82 co-sponsors which calls for condemnation of “violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.”

Can we Catholics ask for the same?  Please?  Especially when main tenets of our Faith are attacked, and ridiculed, as are traditions and teachings?  How about some of our brethren in Christianity?  We may have our differences, but for the most part, said people live by roughly the same set of values and do not seek to take everything from those who disagree.  And then there are the white males whose crime of that condition was decided at conception.  Jews who are the victims in over half the “hate crimes” prosecuted by the FBI…what about these groups?

Amazingly enough, H.R. 569 contains this statement:

“Whereas the constitutional right to freedom of religious practice is a cherished United States value and violence or hate speech towards any United States community based on faith is in contravention of the Nation’s founding principles.”

Ahh, but as this resolution makes clear, some religions are more equal and worthy of protection than others.  In the larger scheme of things to the left, it will still be acceptable to try to force people who believe in the sanctity of life to violate their consciences.  It will still be just fine and dandy for muslims to claim discrimination over simple mistakes and conflate molehill incidents into mountains.  And it is just fine for the three congresscritters – one of whom professes Islam – to push aside and condemn in harsh terms (FrontPage and PJ Media refer to this as “smearing”) the plain language that describes the main tenets of Islam, how they differ from the western ideals of the Judeo-Christian societal rules, and the reality that Islam is not compatible with the west.

Oh, yeah, that’s fair.  Blame dissemination of legitimate knowledge on the topic of Islam that might put the “religion” in a bad light too the recipients’ ears, and call it inciteful hate speech if someone NOT following the mores of polite society goes off half cocked and does something violent and dumb.  The solution, then, from the progressives in Congress and the Justice Department, is not to condemn and prosecute the criminal, but to just ban the speech that is critical of the religion.

No, really, can we Catholics get this same treatment?  Even when it comes to Pope Francis who has a real foot in mouth problem which is driving us insane?

In American law, that “banning” or curtailment of our free speech is known as a “chilling effect.” By incentivizing free speech negatively with the threat of legal prosecution, the people wanting to speak the truth on Islam will keep their mouths shut, which is exactly how a deceptively packaged cult gains a foothold.  What the progressives want goes beyond just a “chilling effect.”  It’s an outright deep freeze on one of the most cherished rights we in the United States have: free speech.  It is never wrong or not desirable to speak the bald truth.  Yes, it may hurt people’s feelings, and challenge deeply held ideals and social mores. But the truth is never wrong.

The truth, in the United States, it is also not illegal to say aloud no matter how much the progressives want it to be.  Neither is reasoned criticism, or opinion that can go to the extreme of bigotry so long as no one else’s civil rights are violated.  That is something that Islam and Sharia Law does not allow.  And that is a truth that the people pushing for all Americans to COEXIST do not want known.

About the Author

Cultural Limits
A resident of Flyover Country, Cultural Limits is a rare creature in American Conservatism - committed to not just small government, Christianity and traditional social roles, but non-profits and high arts and culture. Watching politics, observing human behavior and writing are all long-time interests. In her other life, CL writes romance novels under her nom de plume, Patricia Holden (@PatriciaHoldenAuthor on Facebook), and crochets like a mad woman (designs can be found on Facebook @BohemianFlairCrochet and on Pinterest on the Bohemian Flair Crochet board). In religion, CL is Catholic; in work, the jill of all trades when it comes to fundraising software manipulation and event planning; in play, a classically trained soprano and proud citizen of Cardinal Nation, although, during hockey season, Bleeds Blue. She lives in the Mid-Mississippi River Valley with family and two cute and charming tyrants...make that toy dogs.