Why Are Liberals So Defensive of Islam?
In all the hullabaloo over the Ground Zero Mosque and the (now aborted) burning of the Koran, it has been the Left that has been most resolutely defending the Muslim side, often with invective and personal attacks against those taking the contrary position. Yet it is clearly liberalism that is most at risk from a growing Islamic presence in the West.
Fundamental tenets over which modern liberalism fights its fiercest battles - absolute equality of the sexes, total freedom of expression*, complete normalization of homosexual relations, the hegemony of secularism in society, the immunity of Jewishness from any criticism in our public discourse, and of course the elevation of tolerance as the highest ideal - are anathema to Islam, and sure to be eroded as it grows in influence. But while this seems incongruous, it is in actuality not so as liberalism is, at its core, an ideology of suicide.
* Obviously with some hypocrisy, as language of "hate" or intolerance is not approved.
P.S. The New York Times has an article today about how the town of Gainseville in which the Koran burning was to take place is so mortified by this scandalous attention, as it is "educated and progressive, with a gay mayor." Oh the irony.
Fundamental tenets over which modern liberalism fights its fiercest battles - absolute equality of the sexes, total freedom of expression*, complete normalization of homosexual relations, the hegemony of secularism in society, the immunity of Jewishness from any criticism in our public discourse, and of course the elevation of tolerance as the highest ideal - are anathema to Islam, and sure to be eroded as it grows in influence. But while this seems incongruous, it is in actuality not so as liberalism is, at its core, an ideology of suicide.
* Obviously with some hypocrisy, as language of "hate" or intolerance is not approved.
P.S. The New York Times has an article today about how the town of Gainseville in which the Koran burning was to take place is so mortified by this scandalous attention, as it is "educated and progressive, with a gay mayor." Oh the irony.
posted by ziel | 9/11/2010 09:22:00 AM
8 Comments:
They're defensive out of the Marxist-Multiculturalist habit of defending the non-western Other, and out of common cause of Islam's hostility to America. The fact that most Muslims are non-white and claim to be oppressed also increases their prestige. It's true, though, that if liberals were serious about liberal political ends--gay marriage, tolerance, etc,--they would recognize that Muslims are little better than Nazis or fundamentalist Christians or any other anti-liberal force in the world.
And to some extent, liberals deny that anyone actually believes their stated religious beliefs - to them discussing religious doctrine is just like discussing Star Wars canon. They think that it is just a game, even amongst believers. To them, "There is no God but Allah" is no more significant than "Han Shot First."
It baffles me how almost 2 years ago, the Lefties all had their panties in bunches over a bunch of Mormons in California advocating on behalf of Proposition 8.
Now, Lefties are all in favor of "religious tolerance" of the "religion of peace"!
Politics really are stupid. There's no logic to any of it, left or right.
I like your site, but I have to take issue with this one. In fact, I wrote an article about this exact point a few weeks ago. My basic argument is that I absolutely don't want to defend Islam, but, as I see it, a lot of innocent Muslims are being vilified here (not intentionally, perhaps, but still), and that's a much bigger problem than whatever speculative threats are posed by this mosque.
I'll concede that I don't speak for all liberals (I'm not even a liberal myself, by many definitions), so I can't assume they all share my reasoning, but it's ridiculous to suggest that support for the mosque is the same as support for the spread of Islamic extremism in general.
"I'll concede that I don't speak for all liberals (I'm not even a liberal myself, by many definitions), so I can't assume they all share my reasoning, but it's ridiculous to suggest that support for the mosque is the same as support for the spread of Islamic extremism in general."
I agree with your basic point - and I certainly agree that basic politeness dictates that we don't condemn others based on their identity.
Still, in your article you concede that Islam poses a very grave risk to our way of life when you describe the basic facts of civic life in Muslim lands. Our inability to have an intelligent conversation about this topic is what is really alarming (present company excepted - I found your article reasonably argued and without vitriol).
What's additionally alarming about the mosque (other than the establishment's refusal to allow anyone to object to it) is that it is symbolic of the growing power and influence of Islam on our shores. I don't believe there is any positive aspect to having Islam practiced in our country, and plenty to be worried about. That 9 years after 9/11, Islam is actually a growing movement in NYC tells me our nation is incapable of defending itself.
"that Islam poses a very grave risk to our way of life"
Of course this is nonsense.
When stated in isolation it is crazy, at clearly there is no such threat today. What I was trying to get at in responding to the previous commenter was that the way Islamic societies typically operate is completely incompatible with the way our society operates, so that a greater Muslim presence in our society will tend to bring behaviors/views/threats that are deleterious to the way we prefer to operate here.
For example, some dopey woman-cartoonist for some alternative newspaper is now in hiding for proposing a "draw Muhammed" day. When someone puts a crucifix in urine he may get a lot of crap for it, but he doesn't have change his identity and go into hiding.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ie4WkjL1gozckeHn_zsQg-hr0ipAD9I9AHBO0
From the NY Times:
With its high taxes and a generous welfare system, Sweden has been regarded by many outsiders as a bastion of liberalism and tolerance — immune from far-right politics.
However the integration of minorities within this nation of 9.4 million people has become a growing preoccupation, especially in cities that have experienced high rates of immigration.
Young, slick and tough-talking, the leader of the Sweden Democrats, Jimmie Akesson, 31, campaigned for a 90 percent reduction in immigration. He described Muslim population growth as the greatest foreign threat to the country since World War II.
In Sweden, mainstream politics is changing. For most of the last century, political life was dominated by the Social Democrats, one of the most successful vote-winning parties in Europe. Ejected from power in 2006 by Mr. Reinfeldt, their decline has deepened. The results on Sunday amounted to their worst election result since World War I.
If a staid, pseudo socialist nation such as Sweden can be having an anti Muslim movement, how nonsensical can the premise in this post be?
Post a Comment
<< Home