48believed what he said he believed. Of course, if he
said he did these things because he was fi lled with
despair and felt nothing but revulsion for humanity,
or because he was determined to sacrifi ce himself
to rid his nation of tyranny, such a psychological or
po liti cal motive would be accepted at face value.
This double standard is guaranteed to exonerate re-
ligion every time. The game is rigged.
I don’t know if you’re familiar with the same lib-
eral apologists I am. Some are journalists, some are
academics, a few are Muslims— but the general pic-
ture is of a white, liberal non- Muslim who equates
any criticism of Islamic doctrines with bigotry, “Is-
lamophobia,” or even “racism.” These people are
very prominent in the US, and their infl uence is as
intellectually embarrassing as it is morally problem-
atic. Although they don’t make precisely the same
noises on every question, they deny any connection
between heartfelt religious beliefs and Muslim vio-
lence. Whole newspapers and websites can now be
counted on to function as de facto organs of
Islamist apology— The Guardian, Salon, The Nation,
Alternet, and so forth. This has made it very diffi -
cult to have public conversations of the sort we are
having.
Bereitgestellt von | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
Angemeldet