In December, a bill introduced by Democratic representative Ilhan Omar passed the House of Representatives along party lines.
The bill would require the U.S. Secretary of State to establish an office in the State Department to monitor and combat Islamophobia. That office would be responsible for assessing "acts of Islamophobia and Islamophobic incitement."
Omar said during her Dec. 1 floor speech the nation's leadership must recognize Islamophobia as a global problem in protecting religious freedom in America. She argued, "The truth is that anti-Muslim hate is on the rise both here at home and around the world."
Citing examples she saw as indications of Islamophobia, racism and White supremacy, she claimed, "We are in the midst of staggering anti-Muslim violence and discrimination around the world."
"But those atrocities are part of a deeper fabric of violence against Muslims and impunity for violence against Muslims at a global level," she remarked. "Until everyone is free to practice their religion, no one is."
In her defense, it is evident that, in terms of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, no one should be allowed to harass and do acts of violence against anybody, including Muslims.
But Omar does not define with precision the term Islamophobia. She uses the word as a propaganda tool to make people, especially Christians, afraid of being labeled "Islamophobic" for criticizing Islam.
So, we must define the word for her: What is a phobia? A phobia is "an exaggerated, usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects or situation."
But is everyone who disagrees with the violent aspects of Islam guilty of being illogical, and thus guilty of Islamophobia? No, of course not.
There are many people who object to Islam-related:
Would people who disagree with such violent practices be dubbed "Islamophobic"?
If anyone who opposes such acts of violence is an Islamophobe, then every American should be an Islamophobe! Those who oppose violence and injustice should not be negatively labeled. But Rep. Omar clearly disagrees, at least as far as violence and injustice under the banner of Islam are concerned.
I would like to ask Ilham Omar to be consistent — to put into practice her claim, "Until everyone is free to practice their religion, no one is."
Every American who believes and accepts the freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment must defend the right of every Muslim to leave Islam — to freely convert to Christianity (or any other religion) without any fear of harassment, coercion and death. Because the First Amendment does not exclude certain faiths from its guaranteed protection, those citing the Amendment must respect the right to practice whatever religion one chooses.
The right of religious conversion must be protected by the law and enforced by the authorities, who are called to punish those who force people to stay in any religion against their will. This is America, not Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Somalia, where conversion from Islam is called apostasy under Sharia law and is punishable by death.
If Ilhan Omar is to have any credibility at all, she must be consistent with her own words and clearly and publicly defend the right of every Muslim to leave Islam, especially to convert to Christianity, if they so wish.
If she remains silent on this flip side to her own professed mantra, her legislation against so-called Islamophobia is just a cheap sham, a sad joke, a political propaganda maneuver to intimidate all opposition, an attempt to silence critics to promote the spread of Islam in the United States and abroad.
Is there a member of Congress who has the courage to propose a bill defending Muslims' right to leave Islam, with severe punishment for anyone who harasses, coerces or threatens to kill a former Muslim who wants to convert? Or will the status quo of Islamic violence against converts be maintained?
Unless Ilhan Omar is called out for hypocrisy and the full force of the law protects converts, she'll continue to use "Islamophobia" to promote the Islamization of America, to the detriment of citizens.