{"id":41148,"date":"2017-06-29T00:15:43","date_gmt":"2017-06-29T03:15:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/?p=41148"},"modified":"2017-06-29T21:53:23","modified_gmt":"2017-06-30T00:53:23","slug":"friendly-atheist-tries-fails-to-qualify-criticism-on-splc-hate-groups","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2017\/06\/29\/friendly-atheist-tries-fails-to-qualify-criticism-on-splc-hate-groups\/","title":{"rendered":"Friendly Atheist Tries, Fails to Qualify Criticism on SPLC Hate Groups"},"content":{"rendered":"

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<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Just a few days ago Mehta defended<\/a> the SPLC when Guidestar, a charity review site, began including the SPLC’s ‘opinion’ on charities it\u00a0claims are “hate groups”.\u00a0 Within the conversation, Mehta appropriated the SPLC’s “hate group” designation for some\u00a0Christian groups.\u00a0 When those groups\u00a0complained 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<\/a> under pressure.)<\/p>\n

Then, the news broke that Maajid Nawaz is suing the SPLC<\/a>. 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.<\/p>\n

Finally, in the same spirit Mehta approvingly quoted Ali Rizvi<\/a> explaining the problem with the term “Islamophobia”:<\/p>\n

\u201cIslamophobia\u201d is a misnomer. \u201cIslamophobia\u201d does not make the distinction between legitimate criticism of Islam and anti-Muslim hate or anti-Muslim bigotry. That\u2019s a very important distinction. Islam is an idea. It\u2019s a set of ideas in a book. Muslims are people. It\u2019s an identity. It\u2019s a group of human beings.<\/p>\n

Criticizing ideas moves societies forward. Challenging ideas moves societies forward. Demonizing people rips societies apart. And human beings have rights. Ideas don\u2019t.<\/p>\n

The word \u201cIslamophobia\u201d does not make this distinction. When we say \u201canti-Semitism,\u201d we\u2019re not saying \u201cJudaismophobia.\u201d We\u2019re saying \u201canti-Semitism,\u201d because bigotry is against people. You can\u2019t be bigoted against ideas.<\/p>\n

When it doesn\u2019t make that distinction, it\u2019s 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The blind hypocrisy is astounding, and it’s also\u00a0hilarious, given that Mehta and many atheists equate criticism with other ideologies — say, homosexuality — as being “anti-LGBT”, etc.\u00a0 Here, let’s try it this way:<\/p>\n

\u201cHomophobia\u201d is a misnomer. \u201cHomophobia\u201d does not make the distinction between legitimate criticism of homosexuality and anti-gay hate or anti-gay bigotry. That\u2019s a very important distinction. Homosexuality is a behavior. It\u2019s a lifestyle. Homosexuals are people. It\u2019s an identity. It\u2019s a group of human beings.<\/p>\n

Criticizing behaviors moves societies forward. Challenging behaviors moves societies forward. Demonizing people rips societies apart. And human beings have rights. Behaviors don\u2019t.<\/p>\n

The word \u201cHomophobia\u201d does not make this distinction. When we say \u201canti-Semitism,\u201d we\u2019re not saying \u201cJudaismophobia.\u201d We\u2019re saying \u201canti-Semitism,\u201d because bigotry is against people. You can\u2019t be bigoted against behaviors.<\/p>\n

When it doesn\u2019t make that distinction, it\u2019s 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Mehta displays a\u00a0prejudice common to many human beings: He’s ok with something negatively affecting others until it starts to affect him<\/em> — then<\/em> it’s a bad thing.\u00a0 In his case, he’s fine with men and women of faith being targeted as “hateful” because of their ideologies.<\/p>\n

But when\u00a0they suddenly come for you<\/em>, though, it’s a bit different, isn’t it?<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

ADVERTISEMENT<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\n