Get PJ Media on your Apple

Belmont Club

Dark Sacrament

April 26th, 2012 - 10:59 am

The Arab spring in Egypt has provided a glimpse into the workings of an Islamist mind. “Egyptian husbands will soon be legally allowed to have sex with their dead wives – for up to six hours after their death.” No gender discrimination is involved, however, since women will also be allowed to have sex with their dead husbands.

The controversial new law is part of a raft of measures being introduced by the Islamist-dominated parliament. It will also see the minimum age of marriage lowered to 14 and the ridding of women’s rights of getting education and employment. …

Egyptian journalist Amro Abdul Samea reported in the al-Ahram newspaper that Talawi complained about the legislations which are being introduced under ‘alleged religious interpretations’. The subject of a husband having sex with his dead wife arose in May 2011 when Moroccan cleric Zamzami Abdul Bari said marriage remains valid even after death. He also said that women have the right to have sex with her dead husband.

The romance of the dead — even the undead — has experienced a similar vogue in Western popular culture. The Twilight novels, for example, have taken the teenage world by storm. “Twilight is a series of four vampire-themed fantasy romance novels by American author Stephenie Meyer. It charts a period in the life of Isabella ‘Bella’ Swan, a teenage girl who moves to Forks, Washington, and falls in love with a 104-year-old vampire named Edward Cullen.”

But even though some people think it is cool to have an undead boyfriend, most people still understand that Twilight is just fiction. Discrimination against the dead — mortism — has not yet attained the earnest status of ageism or racism. There have been no serious proposals — so far — to extend equal rights protection to deceased Americans beyond those they already enjoy at the ballot box.

That does not mean that the War Against the Dead will forever be ignored. For modern Western Culture is beset by dozens of “isms” and”wars.” Here is a just a partial glossary.

  • Anti-Mormonism. Discriminating against Mormons.
  • Tobaccoism. The right to discriminate against smokers, as described by the New York Times.
  • Able bodism. Discriminating against the disabled because of their disability, as described by the British government.
  • Employism. Discriminating against the unemployed because of their previous inability to hold a job, as described by the New York Times.
  • Size Acceptance. A movement devoted to fighting bigotry against fat, obese, and overweight individuals.
  • Mentalism. Discrimination against crazy people as described by the Guardian.
  • Languagism. Discrimination against languages that people do not understand, as explained by Miami University.

This is merely a partial list. There are many, many more Wars, proto-Wars, and incipient Wars. The catalog will continue to grow, both in Islamic and politically correct societies, simply because societies falling under the domination of a single ideology have the tendency to regulate personal behavior ever more minutely.

One of the key moments in the march toward regulating every action occurred in 1969, when radical feminist Carol Hanisch coined the phrase “the personal is political.”  All of a sudden activists understood that nothing anyone did stood outside the purview of public policy or political debate.

What you ate, thought, wore, listened to, said, viewed, did — or did not do — was political and hence the fair object of regulation.

Consider that the word “niggardly” has an entire Wikipedia entry devoted to its appropriate use. Once a simple word which meant stinginess, its true sinister nature was revealed when David Howard, a white aide to Anthony A. Williams, the black mayor of Washington, D.C., used it in reference to a budget. Then all hell broke loose.  Soon there were calls for a “national debate” on the subject of whether the word niggardly could be licitly spoken at all. Words — especially words — are dangerous.

Shortly after the Washington incident, another controversy erupted over the use of the word at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. At a February 1999 meeting of the Faculty Senate, a junior English major and vice chairwoman of the Black Student Union told the group how a professor teaching Chaucer had used the word niggardly. She later said she was unaware of the related Washington, D.C. controversy that came to light just the week before. She said the professor continued to use the word even after she told him that she was offended. “I was in tears, shaking,” she told the faculty. “It’s not up to the rest of the class to decide whether my feelings are valid.”

The personal is political. In strict Islamic societies the personal is religious. There is a code to govern every situation.  There is a sunnah which governs the pious use of the toilet.  In ideologically dominated societies, the use of words — or the commode — becomes the subject of authoritative pronouncement.

“I don’t give a s**t” is a fundamentally lawless attitude.

Click here to view the 102 legacy comments

Comments are closed.