Hemant Mehta recently stumbled all over himself trying to say that the Southern Poverty Law Center’s designation of “hate groups” is fine when it comes to Christians, but not when it comes to atheists (something he first tried to do last November).

Just a few days ago Mehta defended the SPLC when Guidestar, a charity review site, began including the SPLC’s ‘opinion’ on charities it claims are “hate groups”.  Within the conversation, Mehta appropriated the SPLC’s “hate group” designation for some Christian groups.  When those groups complained they were being targeted for their beliefs, Mehta said “that’s a lie” and celebrated the idea they would lose charitable donations for the designation. (Guidestar subsequently dropped the categorization under pressure.)

Then, the news broke that Maajid Nawaz is suing the SPLC. He’s a former “Islamist” who now advocates for “secular Islam.” The SPLC labeled him an “anti-Muslim extremist” — and Mehta had fits, claiming criticism of Islam was not the same thing as being “anti-Islam” and noting Nawaz’s charity had lost funding since the designation.

Finally, in the same spirit Mehta approvingly quoted Ali Rizvi explaining the problem with the term “Islamophobia”:

“Islamophobia” is a misnomer. “Islamophobia” does not make the distinction between legitimate criticism of Islam and anti-Muslim hate or anti-Muslim bigotry. That’s a very important distinction. Islam is an idea. It’s a set of ideas in a book. Muslims are people. It’s an identity. It’s a group of human beings.

Criticizing ideas moves societies forward. Challenging ideas moves societies forward. Demonizing people rips societies apart. And human beings have rights. Ideas don’t.

The word “Islamophobia” does not make this distinction. When we say “anti-Semitism,” we’re not saying “Judaismophobia.” We’re saying “anti-Semitism,” because bigotry is against people. You can’t be bigoted against ideas.

When it doesn’t make that distinction, it’s a very sinister term. Because it actually takes the pain of genuine victims of anti-Muslim bigotry and exploits that for the political purpose of stifling criticism of Islam.

The blind hypocrisy is astounding, and it’s also hilarious, given that Mehta and many atheists equate criticism with other ideologies — say, homosexuality — as being “anti-LGBT”, etc.  Here, let’s try it this way:

“Homophobia” is a misnomer. “Homophobia” does not make the distinction between legitimate criticism of homosexuality and anti-gay hate or anti-gay bigotry. That’s a very important distinction. Homosexuality is a behavior. It’s a lifestyle. Homosexuals are people. It’s an identity. It’s a group of human beings.

Criticizing behaviors moves societies forward. Challenging behaviors moves societies forward. Demonizing people rips societies apart. And human beings have rights. Behaviors don’t.

The word “Homophobia” does not make this distinction. When we say “anti-Semitism,” we’re not saying “Judaismophobia.” We’re saying “anti-Semitism,” because bigotry is against people. You can’t be bigoted against behaviors.

When it doesn’t make that distinction, it’s a very sinister term. Because it actually takes the pain of genuine victims of anti-gay bigotry and exploits that for the political purpose of stifling criticism of homosexuality.

Mehta displays a prejudice common to many human beings: He’s ok with something negatively affecting others until it starts to affect him — then it’s a bad thing.  In his case, he’s fine with men and women of faith being targeted as “hateful” because of their ideologies.

But when they suddenly come for you, though, it’s a bit different, isn’t it?

ADVERTISEMENT