Skip to main content

'Antisemite!', "Islamophobe!'

Interesting article here on a schoolboy interviewed by the police about terrorism because he wore a 'Free Palestine' badge.

Wear 'Free Palestine' badge = likely terrorist supporter. Pro-BDS = antisemitic. This is obviously ridiculous. Which is not to deny there are anti-semites amongst such people, of course. Similarly, some think those pointing to at least *some* significant Western responsibility for rise of Islamic terrorism = Islamism (or at least support or apologetics for it).

On the other side, suggest there's a significant problem re Islamism in the UK (and I do think that, in fact) and you will likely be deemed Islamophobic. You will also be labelled Islamophobic if you defend the right to free speech of someone like Maryam Namazie. Or if you believe Islam is a root cause of terrorist violence (which I do).

In each case, there's an attempt to stifle and silence dissent with a shaming accusation of bigotry. For of course, the one thing us lefty liberals can't bear to be accused of is bigotry. 'Anti-semite!', 'Islamophobe!' Gets us every time. We start self-censoring for fear of being thought bigoted.

Comments

Christoph Dollis said…
This is a great article about the dishonest shaming tactics people wield as weapons to stop others from speaking out, often against evil and destructive things.

Yeah, that won't work on me.
February 15, 2016 at 4:07 PM
Unknown said…
I can understand why the police interviewed that young Muslim.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing Muslims can do to prevent themselves from being radicalised if somebody decides to radicalise them.

We must save them from being radicalised, as they apparently (we are told) can do nothing to save themselves from that fate.
February 15, 2016 at 10:36 PM
Paul P. Mealing said…
In regard to Steven's comment, a few years ago I read Ed Husain's The Islamist. As this review in The Guardian points out, this is probably as close as you'll get to understanding this issue. Basically, it becomes an ingroup-outgroup dynamic, where the teenager's (includes some girls now as well as boys) only social contact is with peers with extremist views.

I live in another country where there is a lot of hysteria about Islam by people who have no contact with it. In our current period in history, Islamic extremists are responsible for the worst atrocities witnessed on all forms of media, including against school children and women. One should be careful not to alienate Muslims who are actually on the same side as us. 'Us', in this context, being secular humanists.

Regards, Paul.
February 17, 2016 at 6:10 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...
250 comments
Read more