Of Peter Beinart, writing for The Atlantic an article that "claims that conservatives want to restrict the religious freedom of Muslims", Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch accuses him of "spectacularly poor reasoning". Actually, Beinart is being more coherent than Spencer is. Spencer is trying to have his cake and eat it too -- his cake of being a Fearless Leader of the Counter-Jihad, whilst eating too his refusal to condemn Islam and to condemn Muslims as agents & enablers of Islam. Spencer robustly criticizes Islam all day long, 24/7, and has done so for years, but maintains that he is not thereby opposing Islam or Muslims.
Thus, Spencer's bold rebuke of Beinart:
Beinart should beware, as he commits himself to the proposition that all opposition to jihad terror and Sharia oppression constitute a desire to restrict Muslims’ religious freedom. Would he, then, agree with attorney Mary Chartier that to prosecute those who mutilate girls’ genitals is restricting Muslims’ religious freedom? That would open the door to a host of other exercises of Muslim religious freedom that Beinart might not find so appealing.
I am sure that many of Spencer's fans disagree with him on this; they know that it would be a good thing for the West to "restrict Muslims' religious freedoms", because they know -- having had Spencer himself as a teacher for the past decade as he has been amassing a mountain taller than Everest of data damning the Islam of all Muslims -- that the religious freedom of Muslims facilitates and enables the dangerous evil of Islam.
Why would any sane person (i.e., any lover of liberty and human rights) not want to restrict the religious freedom of a religion as pernicious and perilous as Islam?
Shame on Spencer for continuing to push his incoherence, and shame on his sycophants society for not calling him on the carpet for it.
Further Reading:
Counter-Jihad Mainstream Gumbo (particularly the links at the end)
You'll Thank Me Later
1 comment:
Actually, a lot of things that are religious duties of Muslims are translated by them to 'religious freedom' when they are in the West speaking the language of the West. That would include things like FGMs, murder of people who commit apostasy, waging jihad, et al.
Under this definition/understanding, the things that Conservatives wanna ban are things that Liberals might wanna ban, had they known about it. Except that increasingly, they consider illegal immigrants and Muslims surefire votes for them, which explains why they do what they can w/ judicial power to strike down presidential executive orders, be it the travel ban or sanctuary cities. Which is why Libs violate what they'd normally be fervently opposed to, particularly if done by Christians, and look the other way for things like violence against gays, women, Jews, et al
Post a Comment