Name-Calling - “Islamophobia”: the latest charge to try to stifle legitimate debate

City Journal ^ | 27 August 2010 | Andrew Klavan

[neverdem]

One of the cleverest tricks of the cultural Left is demonizing perfectly reasonable actions and opinions by giving them sinister names. It is the logical go-to technique for those whose ideas have failed in every practical application but who nonetheless still dominate the media by which ideas are spread.

A favorite example of mine is the old feminist declaration that men “objectify” women when they respond to female beauty as nature decrees. This particular reframing was not successful over the long term for the same reason that health scares involving coffee have never caught on: no one was willing to give up the stimulant. A more tenacious variation of the same approach is the accusation that law enforcement officers practice “racial profiling,” which sounds as though police center their suspicions on one race over another out of simple bigotry or meanness. In fact, if criminals of a certain type or in a certain neighborhood tend to be of a specific race, then the proper term for “racial profiling” would be “good police work.” And though, fortunately for liberals and conservatives alike, police continue to do that good work, the evil-sounding sobriquet has forced them to waste a lot of time, effort, and money pretending they don’t.

Recently, in defending an imam’s proposal to build a triumphalist “Muslim Cultural Center” near Manhattan’s Ground Zero—where, we may remember, so many innocents were slaughtered in the name of Allah—the Left has outdone itself. Rather than engage in serious debate with the vast majority of New Yorkers and Americans who oppose the project, the mosque’s defenders have simply dubbed the opposing viewpoint “Islamophobia.” As ever when this naming device is used, the left-wing media seem to rally as one. Within the space of a single week, Time put the word on its cover, Maureen Dowd accused the entire nation of it in her column, and CBS News trotted out the charge in reporting on mosque opposition.

For anyone born with the gift of laughter, the term is absurd to the point of hilarity. A phobia, after all, is an irrational fear. Given that Islam is cancerous with violence in virtually every corner of the globe, given the oppressive and exclusionary nature of many Islamic governments, given the insidious Islamist inroads against long-held freedoms in western Europe, and given those aspects of sharia that seem, to an outsider at least, to prohibit democracy, free speech, and the fair treatment of the female half of our species, those who love peace and liberty would, in fact, be irrational not to harbor at least a measure of concern.

A religion is only a system of beliefs, and to say that all beliefs deserve equal respect or acceptance is to say that ideas have no moral weight, a patent absurdity. Because the human soul thirsts so for God, the sacred principle of individual liberty demands that religion be given wide latitude when it comes to internal mind-states, modes of worship, and the description of the metaphysical. But when it comes to the practical affairs of humankind, humankind may judge—and Islam, as the world stands now, has a lot to answer for. Whether radical Islamic violence, sexism, religious bigotry, and triumphalism are the natural outgrowths of its dogma or a series of aberrations is a perfectly valid question. Likewise the question of Islamic intentions toward Western culture in general and, by extension, the intentions of those behind the Ground Zero Mosque proposal. By what outlandish moral logic does Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf call America an “accomplice to the crime” of 9/11? From whom will he acquire the $100 million required to build his center, and what will they receive in return? None of these questions will be answered by simply condemning as phobic those who bring them to the fore.

With a hostility toward Christianity second only to Dracula’s, the Left has no credibility on the subject of freedom of religion. In a representative moment in February 2006, liberalism’s flagship paper, the New York Times, refused to publish the controversial Danish cartoons of Mohammed in order to “refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols.” The next day, it famously illustrated a story on the cartoons with an offensive image of the Virgin Mary smeared with dung. One wonders, therefore: Does the Left really cherish the rights of Islam, or is theirs but a short-sighted alliance with the enemy of their enemies?

Which is to say that perhaps opponents of the mosque should question the motives of those who question their motives. In any case, they should greet the designation of Islamophobia with the derision that it deserves.

Andrew Klavan is a contributing editor to City Journal. His new thriller, The Identity Man, is due out in November from Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

[neverdem]

According to the poll results, only 22 percent of Americans surveyed think it’s appropriate to build the mosque and cultural center two blocks away, on Park Place.

On the other hand, 71 percent who responded said they think it’s not appropriate for the facility to go up so close to the World Trade Center site.

[cycle of discernment]

Yes, that’s how they shut us up...call us dreaded ‘names’ and apparantly we are so fragile we just can’t stand to be called names.

That is my point below about “Birthers”...we let the left define us and now we shrink back into our corner and shut up. Oh no, no, we can’t be associated with THAT word. Please. Lots of courage of conviction there.

As far as I’m concerned we should crow to the rooftops that we are BIRTHERS—UNTIL the dude shows his CREDS. Period.

[kevslisababy]

I’m afraid they have just overused all the name calling...means nothing to me anymore. In fact, I’m sort of proud of my stance that provokes the childish behavior on the lefts part any more.

[Eric]

Couldn't we start accusing all Dems and lefties of FACTOPHOBIA? After all, they have a real aversion to any semblance of truth.

[NoLibZone]

Mulsims are:

Sectophobic.

Homophobic.

Ameraphobic

Democraphobic

Genderphobic.

[fight_truth_decay]

“Islamophobia" was defined the other day as the fear Moderate Muslims have of Extremist Muslims..the fear of speaking out against those of their own Religion/State, of which there is no separation.

[combat_boots]

“Let them eat shrimp.”

[Radix]

I suffer from Islamaphobia....

I have reasons.

Do I get free government stuff now?

[neverdem]

Couldn't we start accusing all Dems and lefties of FACTOPHOBIA? After all, they have a real aversion to any semblance of truth.

Initially, I liked the idea of calling the left factophobes, but like the story said about Islamophobia, the left has a rational, not irrational, fear of facts. Virtually, all of their facts and predictions are false.

[Charlespg]

Liberals are Ameriaphobic

[Sun]

“Ameraphobic”

I was just about to use that word for the Arab countries who won’t allow NONMuslim churches to be built in their countries.

After all, if we are Islamicphobic, Arab countries are Ameraphobic.

[The_Reader_David]

Generally a good article, but I must take issue on behalf of all Orthodox Christians, Latin Christians, Orthodox and Conservative Jews, Buddhists of most sects, Sikhs, and, yes, Muslims, with the assertion that “A religion is only a system of beliefs.”

All serious religions involve praxis as well as doctrine—cycles of fasts and feasts, disciplines incumbent on the adherents, dietary restrictions, and the like. The report Hauerwas made of the professor of Judaica’s remark, “any religion that does not tell you what to do with your genitals and pots and pans cannot be interesting,” comes to mind. It’s a pity the author seems to be unfamiliar with any interesting religions.

[Rembrandt]

This was a great theme for an article when Charles Krauthammer wrote his the other day - this appears to be grabbing someone else’s idea and writing a new article about it. Plagiarism is the best praise.

[NurdlyPeon]

That is my point below about “Birthers”...we let the left define us

We let them pull us off topic, that's the problem. I've always maintained that we should have stuck with one simple theme: "Barak Obama has NOT released his long form". Instead, we got pulled off into "what's your motivation", and "what do you think will happen at step #37". We should have just hammered and hammered and hammered our simple theme over and over again: "Barak Obama has NOT released his long form".

[RobbyS]

One wonders, therefore: Does the Left really cherish the rights of Islam, or is theirs but a short-sighted alliance with the enemy of their enemies?

No doubt about it. But they underestimate the strength/misunderstand the intentions of their allies.

[cycle of discernment]

EXACTLY.

The Obot operatives knew exactly what they were doing—its been so effective, many inexplicably RUN from the birther designation even while they remain outraged that Obama has successfully stonewalled this.

We have been played like dumb violins. It irks me.

[RobbyS]

How many people know that the statement of live birth issues by the state of Hawaii does not in fact prove that he was born in the State? It only proves that the State says that he was born in Hawaii. Not quite the same thing. His long form may indeed shows that he was born there, but it may also shows things he doesn’t want us to know.

[GrannyAnn]

I used to be a boring, typical American wife, mother, grandmother, but no more!

I’m now a racist, homophobic, islamiphobic, hate mongering tea party ACTIVIST! You go to one rally and you’re an activist. Is there any money in that? Hubby’s small business is suffering bad.

I have really come up in this world.

[bigheadfred]

I just had to order a copy of my birth certificate for an application to a tech school. Seems my mom has misplaced my original.

As far as islamophobia. Ah, well, they can kiss my shiny metal a$$.

Everywhere I go I have to show some form of documentation to prove I am who I say I am.

The ATM took my card and then broke down. I had to show documentation in the bank to get it back.

I have to have a drivers license, proof of insurance, and registration in my car.

I lost my job in June. I am applying for some funding to get in some retraining. They want a lot of documents for those applications.

I don’t have a problem giving them what they want.

When people call me lefty, being left-handed, I don’t mind at all.

Lefties of the world unite! LEFT IS RIGHT!!! ;-)

[Pontiac]

With a hostility toward Christianity second only to Dracula’s

The real Dracula is considered a hero in his homeland in the fight against Islamic expansionism. Here is a brief explanation .

In 1462 Vlad moved against the Turks. He'd already refused to honor a prior agreement to pay tribute of money and young Wallachian boys for the sultan's army; now he launched full-scale attacks along the Danube river. Resistance was risky but, for Christian interests, imperative; the Turks had conquered Constantinople nine years earlier, and Bulgaria was now in Turkish hands. Only Translyvania stood between the forces of Islam and the rest of Christian Europe. How seriously Vlad Dracula took his role as a defender of Christianity is up for debate, but his hatred of the Turks is unquestioned.

Vlad's forces were greatly outnumbered, yet through guerilla tactics he managed to achieve several victories. Then Sultan Mehmed II decided to punish him for his rebellion, and invaded Wallachia. Drawing the Turks deep into Wallachian territory, Vlad poisoned wells and burned villages to leave nothing for the invaders. When the Sultan, exhausted, finally reached the capital city, he was met with the notoriously gruesome sight of what came to be known as the "Forest of the Impaled": 20,000 Turkish captives -- men, women, even children -- impaled on stakes over a field more than 2 miles long.

The sight so horrified the Sultan and his officers that he withdrew, unable, it was said, to conquer someone capable of such atrocities.