Top Menu

The Reason Why Sebastian Gorka Won’t Answer A Simple Question About Islam

Sebastian Gorka, assistant to Trumpelstilskin, and self-styled “counterterrorism” expert is slated to have a ridiculously privileged role in influencing what Trump thinks about national security.  He swims in the same swamp as the other Islamophobes who are a part of the administration.

Recently, Gorka was unwilling to answer a basic question: “Does the president believe Islam is a religion?” Gorka’s non-answer:

Gorka spurned the question, telling Inskeep, “This is not a theological seminary. This is the White House. And we’re not going to get into theological debates.”

“If the president has a certain attitude to a certain religion, that’s something you can ask him,” Gorka said on the radio show. “But we’re talking about national security and the totalitarian ideologies that drive the groups that threaten America.”

The reason Gorka cannot answer the question is because the Islamophobes surrounding Trump, such as Bannon, Miller, and himself are ideological allies to the folks at hate blogs such as JihadWatch, FrontPage, etc. where the canard that “Islam is not a religion but a totalitarian political ideology” has been regularly propagated for years.

Loonwatch commenter, Mo, mentions the dangerous slippery slope intent that lies behind this view of Islam:

If Trumps people can convince Americans that Islam is not a religion, then they will be able to convince Americans that following Shariah is not protected by religious freedom – because it’s not religious law.

If they can ban us from following our religious law, they will eventually extend this to ban hijabs and even halal meat. Eventually they will extend this further to ban the congregation of any Muslims they deem to be “un-american”… whatever they decide that means.

They are attempting to roll back our freedoms one by one. This is how it begins.

In addition to this central point, Gorka’s allies, Spencer, Gaffney and the likes have advocated that the Sedition Act be used to charge Muslim Americans if they believe or proclaim to follow Shariah. That is the totalitarian intent behind the Islamophobic narratives they have pursued with such vigor over the years.

Edited 3/3 – Garibaldi

, , , , , , , , , ,

  • There are no benefits to female circumcision, and many possible detriments. It should be banned.

  • CowabungaCreeper
  • HSkol

    Funny, I just noticed that he’s following 666 Disqus accounts as of this particular moment.

  • HSkol

    He’s just a guy who thinks he’s doxxed another guy. He upvotes everyone simply to show that he’s watching, or reading along … or something.

  • More of a spelling Nazi, but either way, I don’t mind. When you have no substantive counter arguments to offer, petty corrections can be a small consolation.

    Take care, Johnny.

  • Alyeth

    “Islam is not a theocracy or a religion”. I actually giggled. People this stupid exist.

  • rookie

    Does anybody know who this hater is?

    He upvotes very often here.

  • Joey Sanders

    You are very selective about your child molestation bullshit. Where is your outrage when each year you are forced in America to celebrate Columbus day? This is straight from his writings:

    “A hundred castellanoes are as easily obtained for a woman as for a farm, and it is very general and there are plenty of dealers who go about looking for girls; those from nine to ten are now in demand.”

    What do you think they wanted those nine and ten year old slave girls for? I seriously doubt it was to play hopscotch with them. He wrote that around the year 1500. That is almost 500 years after the death of Prophet Muhammad.

    Here are some more facts for you douchbag:

    Professor of history Margaret Wade Labarge:

    “It needs to be remembered that many Medieval widows were not old, Important heiresses were often married between the ages of 5 and 10 and might find themselves widowed while still in their teens.”

    Professor Richard Wortley and Professor Stephen Smallbone, both of whom state that prior to the 1900s girls married very young,

    “In Medieval and early modern European societies, the age of marriage remained low, with documented cases of brides as young as seven years, although marriages were typically not consummated until the girl reached puberty (Bullough 2004). Shakespeare’s Juliet was just 13, and there is no hint in the play that this was considered to be exceptional. The situation was similar on the other side of the Atlantic; Bullough reports the case in 1689 of a nine-year-old bride in Virginia. At the start of the nineteenth century in England, it was legal to have sex with a 10 year-old girl.”

    In the book, ‘Sex and Society’,

    “Until the late 20th century U.S. age of consent laws specifically names males as perpetrators and females as victims. Following English law, in which the age was set at 12 in 1275 and lowered to 10 in 1576, ages of consent in the American colonies were generally set at 10 or 12. The laws protected female virginity, which at the time was considered a valuable commodity until marriage. The theft of a girl’s chastity was seen as a property crime against her father and future husband. If two people were married and had sex, no matter what their age, no crime was committed because a woman was her husband’s property. In practice, too, the consent laws only protected white females, as many non-white females were enslaved or otherwise discriminated against by the legal system.”

    Richard A. Posner is chief judge of the U.S court of appeals, Seventh Circuit Chicago. Katherine B. Silbaugh is associate Professor at Boston University School of Law, they say that before the 1900s age of consent was ten years old,

    “The law governing the age of consent has changed dramatically in the United States during this century. Most states codified a statutory age of consent during the nineteenth century, and the usual age was ten years.”

    I got that information from here:

    Learn about history more.

  • I’m not going to no in depth here. Just popping in when waiting for a train. I’m vacationing in a land far, far away. 🙂

  • What’s your point? Your civil rights are protected in the US is you’re openly Nazi. You aren’t going to curtail Muslim civil rights and the practice of Islam, unless foundational ideas are changed. At which point we can be relieved of hearing about America’s superior expressions of tolerance.

  • There is no need to equovocate regarding “little Aisha.” Her age us not known for certain, and by harping on it obsessively, you’re putting your ignorance on display. And even if she was nine 1400 years ago, you can save your faux concern.

    Today and in recent times, the Western Imperial powers are bombing, poisoning, crippling, starving, and rendering homeless millions of “little Aishas” and “little Muhammads.” Genuine concern would be focused on the colossal crimes committed by the hyper violent Western juggernaut.

  • Khizer

    Check his comment history….

  • CowabungaCreeper

    The sad thing is that this isn’t even the stupidest thing I ever heard a counterjihadclown say.

  • Khizer

    Communism and Fascism are political ideologies NOT religions.

    Nazism is an extreme version of fascism, not a religion.

  • Khizer

    So basically he said that,

    “Islam is not a religion. It’s a religion, and should be treated like the rest of them”.

    Oh, I guess he wants Muslims to retain their religious freedoms, seems like a swell guy. /s

  • No one is asking anyone to defend Islam. Learn the difference between defending civil rights and defending religion.

  • Count Beowulf

    Sure Islam is a religion. But so is communism, fascism, and Nazisim, in addition to others. Religion is often used as a shield to protect and condone otherwise reprehensible acts. So why should Gorka have to defned Islam, any more than he has to defend any other religion.

  • Khizer

    Isn’t theology related to religion?

  • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

    Yes, exactly. Hope you don’t mind us including this in the article.

  • AJ

    I am thinking designing Trump-like hairpieces must have turned into a million dollar-plus industry. Everyone seems to sporting one. Elvis-hairpiece is so yesterday.

Powered by Loon Watchers