Surprisingly enough, the NYT allowed Hirsi Ali and Nomani to tell how three female Democrat senators ignored their account of the dangers of giving Islam a free pass into politics (including how dangerous it is for women).
So now, Hemant Mehta at Friendly Atheist decided they did it with good reason (!) and accounts for the motives of Kamala Harris, Maggie Hassan and Claire McCaskill:
Is there any defense for the Democrats’ silence on the matter? Sure, and the women don’t mention this at all in their article.
It’s not that Harris and McCaskill and Hassan don’t care about issues like honor killings and FGM. But this hearing was ostensibly a way for Republicans to boost support for their unconstitutional Muslim travel ban. The Democrats wanted no part in lending any credibility to it. Any hint that they agreed with Hirsi Ali and Nomani on the destruction political Islam can cause could theoretically be used to justify further encroachment on the civil rights of all Muslims. Hirsi Ali and Nomani were essentially being used by Republicans to justify policies that were far removed from fighting back against anti-women ideologies.
That makes a lot of sense, even if the Democrats didn’t say it out loud.
If and when Democrats ever regain power in the Senate, it would be wise for leaders like Harris and McCaskill to call for a real discussion on how religion hurts women and what policies can be implemented to minimize extremism.
They’re reading minds again at Friendly Atheist, huh? It’s actually funny, because there’s no evidence whatsoever of anything Mehta is saying (he even drank the Regressive kool-aid that portrays Ayaan as right-wing!). The only links in his post are to Ayaan’s and Nomani’s words.
There’s no evidence Harris, McCaskill and Hassan care about issues like honor killings and FGM. And what can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
For the sake of the argument, let’s forget for a second that there’s nothing to back up what Mehta said and pretend it is actually true, and that Harris et al were trying to avoid giving ammo to the Republicans. Well, that’s a shitty argument! There’s not a single alternative that could do more to improve Muslims lives and civil-rights guarantees than challenging Islamism, for the majority of its victims are Muslims.
lie claim is just a false dilemma —and even if it turns out to be true, it was still the wrong call—. You can oppose anti-Muslim bigotry and challenge political Islam at the very same time. They’re not mutually exclusive. And if the Senators are putting partisanship before the rights of half the population, then they have a serious priorities problem and I’m not sure they’re even fit to hold public office. I fail to see how what Mehta is claiming could be an acceptable excuse to any self-respecting human being.
To sum up: Mehta failed epically to hold accountable three public servants who are hindering the efforts to fight Muslim terrorism, and made up a shitty excuse for their behavior (with no supporting evidence whatsoever), throwing two fellow secularists under the bus in the process.
The Friendly Atheist: an atheist so friendly, he will make shit up to excuse elected senators when they choose to keep on giving religious privilege to the religion of special needs!