Liberals (currently often reactionaries) love to accuse the right of “Islamphobia” – an irrational fear of Islam. This is another case of projection. The liberals are the true Islamophobes and a perfect example is the spiking by the Washington Post’s “On Faith” blog of Willis Elliott’s article on Muslim-Christian relations, which is published today by we supposed Islamophobes here at PJ Media.
The WaPo’s blog’s motives in censoring Dr. Elliott – such as they were – can probably be ascribed to what is popularly known as “political correctness.” In actuality PC is the public face of “cultural relativism,” the crypto-totalitarian philosophy that caused French intellectual Michel Foucault, a homosexual, to embrace the regime of Ayatollah Khomeini where homosexuals were – and still are – routinely murdered for their sexuality. Go figure. (Don’t look for dots like this to be connected at “On Faith,” I’m afraid. They think they’re good guys.)
When we were offered this article, I had the great pleasure of speaking with Dr. Elliott. Though a nonagenarian with a quavering voice, in his nineties this man, a former dean of NY Theological, definitely has all his marbles. We should all be so lucky. He is also of tremendous courage for fighting the WaPo and insisting that his work be published. I salute him.
Interesting insight. Indeed, the Islamophobes are the ones, literally and directly, who fear Islam. Those who wanted to censor the Mohammed cartoons did it not out of deference, but out of fear. They are fine with blaspheming Christianity and Judaism, because they have no fear, because they have no reason to fear. They are the true Islamophobes.
Funny how that works.
Snork is on the mark: the acceptance by the media and politicians of Islamic intolerance and intransigence is cowardice, fear of reprisal. In the case of the Christian Social Activists who revile Christian evangelists but embrace the proponents of the World Center mosque, however, it is dodo bird stupidity.
Salute him if you must. Then go to Jim Hoft’s Gateway blog and read about how Islamics are stoning to death new born babies because those babies are “illegitimate”.
Then come back and tell me that what we have here is just a case of “comparative religions”.
It’s not. This is a valid, honest and righteous religious war with a barbaric cult that should be eradicated from the face of the Earth.
+1 Mr Snork.
Do we describe those new born babies being stoned to death under Islam as “Islamophobes”?
Or doesn’t it make sense to fear a group of people who would stone new born babies (and more).
How is a private company not publishing something censoring?? The Post can publish or not publish whomever or whatever they want to. If PJM does not post this comment is that censoring?
It may be cowardly on the part of the Post, but it is not censoring.
Strictly speaking, you are correct, WJ. But the WaPo solicited this piece from Dr. Elliott as a response to a question they were asking. They clearly didn’t like his answer and spiked it. Is that censoring? Well, in a way, yes, and in a way, no. Either way it’s bad and, as you say, cowardly.
Mr. Simon:
Thank you for your response. Spiked it, being cowardly, losers, I would agree with all of those.
I am just sensitive to the misuse of the word censor. I remember back when Mayor Guiliani was trying to block (or withhold taxpayer funds from the museum) a city run museum in Brooklyn from showing some “art”.
All these people got on the news and started bleating about “censorship”. And not one “reporter” would ask them why they had a right to taxpayer money to show this “art”. I kept saying to the TV, no it is not censorship.
The “On Faith” feature, a Meacham/Quinn collaboration, is routinely political first and ‘faith’ second. So much so that, eschewing faith altogether, they often, in fact regularly, give over their space to an avowed atheist for her apologia, indeed almost proselytization. The Pope is mocked routinely by an array of contributors, and aside from the once-in-a-blue-moon begrudging offering of a Franklin Graham piece, Christianity is most often portrayed in that space as a hypocritical dogma. A radically disproportionate number of Islamic scholars and clerics receive deference. The few self-described Catholics who contribute are almost universally of the left-wing variety. The common thread as far as ‘Faith’ is concerned is that if it is an ‘American’ version, it is inhumane. That is the Quinn/Meacham offering.
One thing has been bothering me and it’s slightly off topic. As Snork points out “Islamophobes are the ones, literally and directly, who fear Islam”. So, what are those who hold it in utter disdain and contempt called?