H.Res.569 - Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States


House Resolution 569
See text here:
H.Res.569 - Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.

I received an email today regarding this and asking me to contact my congressman to ask s/he vote against the resolution, along with reasons explaining why.

This type of specific resolution should not be necessary, as Muslims are already protected under the 1st Amendment, as are all people of faith.

A quote from the email:

This is well-known and intended by the Muslim community, the majority of whom admit to wanting Sharia law.

Is that true, I wonder? Do the majority of Muslims want Sharia?


Do the majority of Catholics want the Inquistion back in force ? Whenever people start saying ‘the majority’ of some group they are opposed to wants something like that it puts red flags up. Who sent the email? What’s their agenda in sending it?

Also anytime I see the following phrase I tend to be sceptical:-

‘This is well-known’

Well known to whom? Attested by whom? This is one of those phrases that should rank up there with ‘It stands to reason’ or ‘It’s only common sense’. It man down pub talking to other man down pub who heard it from a ‘reliable’ source type language.


Here is the original source of the email

About Dom the Conservative (1086 Articles)
Dom is a conservative Christian who specializes in Middle Eastern affairs and immigration, Christianity, Islam, and Sharia law. She hopes to expose Islam as a fundamentally violent, political and religious ideology that seeks to use freedom and democracy to destroy freedom and democracy.

Here is the whole email:

House Dems Moved To Implement First Sharia Law While You Weren’t Looking…

Posted on December 30, 2015 by Dom the Conservative

House Democrats have officially introduced the first resolution to recognize legislation that Sharia-governed countries have all implemented.

While we were busy celebrating the Christmas holiday, House Democrats introduced a dangerous resolution that threatens to strip us of basic rights in our nation’s first major step towards Sharia law.

On December 17, Democrat Congressmen quietly sponsored House Resolution 569, a resolution that asks lawmakers to condemn “violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.” The resolution specifically mentions Muslims, no other religious groups, and will serve as a test by which further criminalizing of “Islamophobia” may be introduced.

Democrats have shamelessly lumped together “hate speech” with “violence” in an effort to compare criticism of Islam to physically harming Muslims. H. Res. 569 threatens to restrict our right to even report facts that tarnish Islam’s reputation, a law that all Sharia-governed countries already have in place.

According to Congress.gov, the resolution reads:

“Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the House of Representatives denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim; urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes”

Muslims are slaughtering innocent people more than any other religious groups combined, all while refusing as a whole to condemn this barbaric Islamic terrorism, yet we are working to ensure these silent, consenting “moderates” have special protection — protection that they have never allowed religious minorities in their own countries.

In another passage, Democrats laughably purport that Muslims have contributed to the fabric of American society, but we’re assuming they don’t mean terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, countless frivolous CAIR lawsuits, whitewashed Islamic education in public schools, or whining about pork products and a lack of taxpayer-funded prayer rooms.

“Whereas this Muslim community is recognized as having made innumerable contributions to the cultural and economic fabric and well-being of United States society” (CAN YOU NAME SOME?)

Still, the bill is purposefully vague in that it mentions prosecuting the perpetrators of “hate speech,” yet gives no definition for what it considers hate speech. Of course, we who have spoken out about the intolerant fundamentals of Islam understand that this means uttering anything critical of Islam or its followers, regardless of facts or relevance to the Quran.

In conclusion, the bill ridiculously compares criticizing Islam as a violation of Muslims’ “civil rights,” as if disagreeing or even openly mocking someone’s beliefs is unconstitutional. Our forefathers had exactly political and religious mockery in mind when they penned our amendments, having experience the violation of limited speech and worship by their own King George III.

Indeed, free speech was never intended to defend inoffensive speech, because inoffensive speech needs no protection. Freedom of speech is solely for the offensive, meant to prevent those who would limit it because of their opposing beliefs.

We are witnessing the very implementation of Sharia law as it has always been established in every modern-day Islamic country. Of course they wouldn’t start by legalizing the execution of homosexuals or mandating the hijab for every woman, because we wouldn’t accept being forced to adopt full Sharia right off the bat. You can’t cook a frog by placing him in scalding water — he’ll jump out. However, you can slowly increase the temperature until he is boiling before he ever knew the water was uncomfortable.

Once we’ve lost our freedom of speech, all our other freedoms will follow suit. This is well-known and intended by the Muslim community, the majority of whom admit to wanting Sharia law. The only way to stop them from infringing upon our speech is to use it. Now more than ever, we must speak out against this stealth jihad and fascism that seeks to overthrow our Constitution for a religious and political legislature, lest we substitute one tyrant of old for new ones.




Muslims in general live under Sharia law, regardless of whether they live in Iraq or Iowa. They take it for granted the way we take for granted the basic principles of Western legal systems. They may not actively follow all of the precepts, but they all adhere to Sharia in general.


It looks like one party is pandering for votes. Our existing laws provide adequate protection.

Yes, it’s in Muslim doctrine that when they reach a majority, they should implement Sharia. Kareem explains in in below link
NBA’s Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: Sharia Must Rule Muslim States


I remember from Cold War days when “as is well known” was a staple of Soviet propaganda, usually preface to some outrageous claim.

As for sharia law no one anywhere is talking about legislating it into law for all Americans. It usually concerns business contracts & banking practices where the parties agree to arbitration by imams, not unlike the Orthodox Jews’ Beth Din. The other is marriage where there is a prenup specifying any divorce will be according to Islamic law. I will admit the latter is more problematic because the woman may be pressured into this by her family & community.

As for the fact that Muslim countries don’t allow freedom of religion, how is that relevant? India has a horrible record of persecuting Christians, should we retaliate against Hindus?

The GOP has shot itself in the foot with its anti-Muslim rhetoric (and and alienating non-Christian immigrants from South Asia). Many are entrepreneurial and have strong family values and would normally be ideal candidates for the Republicans. Instead they have been driven into the arms of the Dems playing the victim card.

Last, the immigrants themselves are not the problem, it is the second or third generation who are the ones who get radicalised plus some native born Americans who convert to Islam.


Here is the full text of HR 569: congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-resolution/569/text

It says that Congress CONDEMNS violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric against Muslims; nothing that anyone in good conscience would disagree with.

Nowhere in the bill does it actually make it a crime to express bigotry or hateful rhetoric against Muslims. Your Free Speech rights would remain intact. It just says Congress condemns the idea.

Violence against Muslims (or anyone else) is already illegal.


Violence against Muslims (or anyone else) is already illegal.

And Free Speech and Freedom of Religion is a fact. So why a specific resolution for muslims? So on the flip side what applies to muslims in the same regard as bigotry and hateful rhetoric applies to others? Or only them? I think Lynch, this be the case ought to prosecute Farrakhan. :shrug:

What about Farrakhan and his anti white hateful rhetoric?

Its another chipping away at the US Constitution in the name of the muslim brotherhood tolerance and islamophobia program. imho.


This. And a parallel perspective: I have never heard of or experienced any anti-Muslim radio programs, rhetoric, or similar expressions. On the other hand, every day - even here in New England - it’s possible to tune in “radio preachers” spouting anti-Catholic bigotry, conspiracy theories, gross misstatements of our beliefs, etc. Of course,no one would think of any resolution condemning that. It’s only Catholics, after all . . . . .


The part about the innumerable Muslim contributions to America is beyond ridiculous.


Whereas the constitutional right to freedom of religious practice is a cherished United States value and violence or hate speech towards any United States community based on faith is in contravention of the Nation’s founding principles;

Any community of faith? So if there was a pedophillia based faith no one should say they hate it and the government shouldn’t try to prevent the community from living their faith? This is nonsense. Not all religions are the same. Some are better than others and only one posses the fullness of truth. The US does not have a founding value of indifferentism. It was a Christian nation.


82 Democrats want this passed. It does make one wonder how anybody could bring themselves to vote for a Democrat this next go round. They are united in destroying the United States of America. Kill the babies, promote the sale of their body parts, and aid and comfort the enemy, are their goals for America. Don’t forget about revoking the 2nd Amendement in the hopes of denying citizens of their right to defend themselves.

Republicans in office need to deliver or go home.


Aid and comfort what enemy? I am not overly keen on hate speech laws, they exist in my own nation but I oppose them on the grounds that I think existing legislation detailing acceptable behaviour towards other citizens or subjects of a country is usually sufficient to avoid having speciic hate crime laws in place.


Founded by non-Catholics in the main however as I recall, many of whom were not overly big fans of our Church. Even those noted for their tolerance of us (such as your first president) were more unusual than usual in that era. Obviously a paedophilia based faith would be inferior but that runs the risk of a) reductio ab absurdum and b) Well if we threw that comparison into the public arena as Catholics I can just see the lovely slurs we’d get thrown back at us.

I don’t generally approve these sort of resolutions though. They are meaningless, I imagine sufficient laws already exist in the US to charge people if they insult Muslims, Catholics, Hindus etc. based on their faith or use it as a way to denigrate them.


What enemy? One who wishes Death to America! Everything that has been happening.


Yes and which enemy is this? If you mean groups like ISIL or Al-Queda I think all of us here are opposed to them but I am not opposed to Muslims in general as a result of that.


Likely, Saudi petro-dollars have a lot to do with this being on the agenda. This is according to the Muslim Brotherhood agenda and the goals of the 57 member OIC.


Are you opposed to Muslims who shout “Death to America”, or do you concur with that sentiment?


I don’t answer questions phrased in that style Darryl as I’ve made plain to you many times before. You can judge I think whether i would agree with such sentiments or not by this point after reading my posts for a long time.


The enemy that has the war cry of “Death to America” and “Allahu Akbar” as they slaughter innocents goes by many different names. Why do you bring up Muslims in general? I did not! The actions taken by organized killers indentify them as an enemy, it is known that they hope to confuse their victims by posing under various names and identities. Does that seem logical to consider?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.