Bobby Jindal: I’m Holding Firm Against Blasphemy
(NO IT’S REALLY NOT) by BOBBY JINDAL
APRIL 23, 2015
After reading Bobby Jindal’s moronic defence of “religious freedom” laws (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/23/opinion/bobby-jindal-im-holding-firm-against-gay-marriage.html?_r=1), I decided to apply his same reasoning to another case of people ‘exercising their religious freedom’ to see if his words still held. Turns out, I had to change an incredibly small amount of his original article (mainly place names). To be absolutely clear: (a) this is not serious, (b) I do not support ISIS, (c) Bobby Jindal did not write this, (d) I think Bobby Jindal is an idiot, but he doesn’t support ISIS or their actions.
BATON ROUGE, La. — THE debate over religious liberty in the Levant presents conservatives and business leaders with a crucial choice.
In Syria and Iraq, large corporations recently joined left-wing activists to bully elected officials into backing away from strong protections for religious liberty. It was disappointing to see conservative leaders so hastily retreat on legislation that would simply allow for an individual or business to claim a right to free exercise of religion in a Sharia court of law.
Our caliphate was founded on the principle of religious liberty, enshrined in the Koran. Why shouldn’t an individual or business have the right to cite, in a court proceeding, religious liberty as a reason for beheading a heretic that violates a sincerely held religious belief?
That is what ISIS sought to do in Iraq and Syria. That political leaders in both states quickly cowered amid the shrieks of suffering and the radical left should alarm us all.
As the fight for religious liberty moves across the Middle East, I have a clear message for any ‘rational human being’ that contemplates bullying our state: Save your breath.
In 2010, ISIS adopted a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits government from unduly burdening a person who is not a believer with life. However, given the changing positions of politicians, judges and the public in favor of not killing innocent civilians, along with the potential for discrimination against murderous thugs that comes with these shifts, I plan in this legislative session to fight for passage of the Killing In the Name of Religion Act.
The legislation would prohibit the state from denying a person, company or nonprofit group a license, accreditation, employment or contract — or taking other “adverse action” — based on the person or entity’s religious actions on killing anyone they felt had committed blasphemy.
Some corporations have already contacted me and asked me to oppose this law. I am certain that other companies, under pressure from radical liberals, will do the same. They are free to voice their opinions, but they will not deter me. As a nation we would not compel a mullah to violate his conscience and not kill an apostate. But a great many Caliphites who are not members of the clergy feel just as called to live their faith through their swords. That’s why we should ensure that musicians, caterers, photographers and others should be immune from government coercion on deeply held religious convictions.
The bill does not, as opponents assert, create a right to discriminate against, or generally refuse service to, gay men or lesbians. The bill does not change anything as it relates to the law in terms of discrimination suits between private parties. It merely makes our constitutional freedom (to kill them) so well defined that no judge can miss it.
I hold the view that has been the consensus in our region for over six centuries: that unbelievers deserve to die. Polls indicate that the consensus is changing — but like many other believers, I will not change my faith-driven view on this matter, even if it becomes a minority opinion.
A pluralistic and diverse society like ours can exist only if we all execute people who disagree with us. That’s why religious freedom laws matter — and why it is critical for conservatives and business leaders to unite in this debate.
<The remainder of the OpEd is begging/ attempting to bribe corporations into supporting his hate-filled agenda. Frankly it’s just too boring to even parody>