Honestly, the thin-skinnedness of many Muslims is getting awfully tiresome. How on earth are we ever supposed to be able to have a dialogue if the non-Muslim side has to walk on eggshells to avoid offending the wounded sensibilities of Muslim leaders, who seem very eager to take the gross offense at anything critical (that said, a Catholic theologian friend who loved the Pope's speech said that Benedict probably should have chosen a less stark quote to make his point, and my friend is probably right). Still, in my dealings with Muslim leaders in Dallas who have been offended by my critical writing, they rarely if ever have dealt with the substance of what I've written; they've gone apoplectic over the fact that I wrote anything critical at all. As if the only reason anyone could have anything critical to say about Islam is out of malicious or bigoted motive.
I'll soon be having a formal meeting with my superiors here at the paper and representatives of area Muslims who were outraged by my recent essay on the meaning of the life and teaching of the Islamist fanatic Sayyid Qutb, whose work was presented to teenagers at a large local mosque. My piece explained what Qutb thought and why he thought it, and that we in the West are never going to win the battle of ideas with the forces of extremism until and unless we take Qutb serious and answer his challenges. This essay was described by the Muslim leader who requested the meeting as an example of "hateful paranoia."
I'm seriously looking forward to engaging my critics in this meeting, but I'm under no illusion that the point of this kind of complaining is to argue the merits of my criticism, or Pope Benedict's, or anybody else's. It's to attempt to silence critical discussion entirely. This is why CAIR, et alia, scream "Islamophobia!" constantly -- to intimidate those who have legitimate questions and comments from expressing them, under pain of being denounced as a hater. Ian Buruma has recently written to say that leaders of various minority groups are harming democracy and the free and fruitful exchange of ideas by trying to set the terms of the debate. One cannot expect all Muslims to be pleased by Benedict's speech, but good grief, it's way past time to get over the adolescent idea that criticism of one's ideas or behavior is always and everywhere evidence of "hate."
As I say to intemperate gay-rights advocates all the time, "You hate me! You hate me!" is only a valid argument, or an argument at all, in the minds of 13-year-old schoolgirls.
Oh, get over it already
Thursday September 14, 2006
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Joey,
"How do we define what words are "hateful?" If John is gay, and I say homosexuality is a sin, does that mean I hate John? What constitutes "hateful speech," exactly?"
Good question and thanks for asking.
If yuo think the state of another being is "sinful", keep it to your self.
For example, I think the anti-gay crowd's constant bearing of false witness against God's gay and lesbian children is "sinful". Do I go around and suggest THEY not be allowed to get married? Do I go around and compare their marriages to beastiality? Necrophilia? Adultery? Rape? Child molestation? Polygamy? Pronography? Cannabalism? Incest? Do I go around saying they shouldn't be allowed to adopt? To be hired? To not be fired? To be denied the right to visit their other half in the hospital? To attend their spouse's funeral?
The answer to your question is, If it is demeaning, diminishing, debasing of another human, meant to cause that human to be seen as LESSer, then imnsho, it is hateful. If it is untrue (which all of my examples above, which are used frequently by the anti-gay side), it is hateful.
And, if it calls for harm to that human (not that all of the above doesn't cause spiritual harm), it is not only hateful, it should be illegal.>
C & C,
Freedom of speech is in the Constitution.
Gay rights aren't mentioned.
Nuff said.>
The only way to have any kind of free speech, or even open and honest dialog, is to set this ground rule: if what I truly believe, and forthrightly say, is offensive to you, your right is to forthrightly say what YOU believe, even if it offends me. None of us have a right not to be offended by each other's speech. I AM getting tired of those among the Muslim believers of the world who scream at every criticism of their faith -- just as I am tired of Christians who go to court to suppress production of any play or movie that offends them. As a Christian, I have many biting criticisms of the history of my own faith. We have tried to root out certain "fighting words" that are simply offensive and demeaning without any content: ethnic slurs, etc. Along the same line, I do object to Franklin Graham calling Islam an evil and wicked religion.>
Siarlys,
If you are a Christian than you must believe that "no one comes to the father but through Christ". There is only ONE way to heaven and only ONE savior. Right? So it means that all other beliefs are false, lies, deceptions, not a way to heaven but in the end leading to where????? wouldn't that be considered evil? What is the meaning of evil? Absence of God, so it becomes a pretty black and white issue, cold or hot there is no luke warm. Who would want to upset God's plan that none should parish but have everlasting life? Who hates mankind so much that he would lead them away from God? Unless your Christianity allows for multiple god's and many ways to get to heaven you have to face the reality that all other "religions" are satan's way of stealing people whom God loves away from Him.>
I would refer you to C.S. Lewis's The Last Battle, which I doubt Hollywood will get to in its Narnia movies. A Calormene prince who has deeply and sincerely worshipped a very evil idol (and Islam prohibit idols), is told by Aslan that Tash is so evil that any evil done in my name is really done for him, whereas anything good done in his name is really done for me. Jesus said much the same: "inasmuch as you did it to the least of these my brethren, you did it unto me." The Gospel teaches that many Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, maybe even a few atheists, will indeed be welcomed into heaven because of what they did for "the least of these my brethren," which was done "unto me," i.e. they come "through me." No, these religions are not Satan's way of stealing peopole whom God loves away from him. Don't you remember what Khomeini's name for America is? He may be wrong about that, but he clearly considers "Satan" to be evil.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.