The Orlando Shooting: A Prediction of Liberal Response

As you’ve probably heard by now, a man named Omar Mir Seddique Mateen entered Pulse, a homosexual nightclub in Orlando, Florida, armed with several weapons, and shot and killed 49 people and wounded 53 others. He called 911 himself to explain his motives: his allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

It’s still fairly early, but I think it’s easy to predict exactly how the media and other liberals will analyze this:

The fact that guns were used in this crime proves once again how dangerous guns are and how we need more gun control. When violent extremists commit crimes, the rational response is to take guns away from peace-loving people.

The fact that the person who committed this crime was a Muslim who specifically said he was doing this to further the cause of Islam means absolutely nothing. The absolute worst thing that could happen is if right-wing bigots were able to use this isolated incident to foment discrimination against Muslims, such as passing laws to make it more difficult for Muslim terrorists to enter the country.

The fact that the victims were homosexuals demonstrates once again how criticism of homosexuality, especially when based on religious belief, inevitably leads to violence. Any religion that criticizes homosexuality must be harshly condemned and carefully watched for any hint of subversive action. Well, not Islam of course, because that would be bigoted, but other religions, like Christianity. The fact that a Muslim committed a crime reminds us once again how dangerous Christians are.

It is disappointing that the killer was quickly identified as a Muslim extremist. If there had been some delay in learning this, we could have spent weeks speculating that he was probably a Tea Party member and/or a supporter of Donald Trump. We could have then pointed out how our unsubstantiated speculations were proof of how dangerous such people are. We could have explained how even moderate conservatives, who do not call for violence against homosexuals, nevertheless are responsible for inciting violence in their less rational followers, and thus must share the blame. But now that it’s turned out he’s a Muslim, of course we can’t blame other Muslims for the actions of one isolated individual, and it would be premature to link his actions to other acts of violence alleged to have been committed by so-called Muslims.

Indeed, we must question whether Mr. Mateen is really a true Muslim. Islam is a religion of peace, and anyone who does not act in accordance with liberal American atheists’ concept of Islam is not a true Muslim. We should hasten to add, of course, that our questioning of the sincerity of the self-avowed faith of Mr Mateen should not be misunderstood to mean that it is appropriate for conservatives to question the sincerity of Mr Obama’s Christianity. Mr Obama calls himself a Christian, and any questioning of his self-identification is narrow-minded and bigoted. It’s a totally different thing from our questioning of the faith of someone who calls himself a Muslim.

I’ll be interested to see how accurate my predictions turn out to be.