John R. Houk
© August 22, 2008
The blog Doctor Bulldog and Ronin has reposted a New York Times editorial by Clark Hoyt from the NYT’s Public Editor’s Journal.
Hoyt defends Deborah Solomon’s hostile interview with Brigitte Gabriel that was posted on the Times Magazine that begins with “Questions for …”
I myself posted an Act For America email pertaining to this interview in which the organization CAMERA was organizing an email/mail-in/phone-in protest for treating Gabriel with such mindless ignorant Leftist venom (my words – not CAMERA’s).
Evidently there was enough protest to elicit a weak response from the NYT. Clark Hoyt wrote the response which basically mimicked Solomon’s attitude about Islam; i.e. the self-righteous anger that anyone who calls a devout practitioner of that religion is a radical and thus a bigot or a racist.
Solomon’s words of choice were Crusader and Islamophobe.
Hoyt’s last paragraph says this:
So we must conclude that the NYT is implying that Brigitte Gabriel is a bigot and a racist.
This means the NYT feels that a Crusader and an Islamophobe are invectives.
Let us examine these two words.
CRUSADER
I am guessing the NYT is referring to the Crusades from Europe to take back the Holy Land from Saracens (oops I mean conquering sadistic Muslims) rather than Christian Protestants who also use the word Crusader to mean one who operates a ministry event or meeting in a city or Church to share the Good News of Jesus Christ.
It has been Politically Correct in the last quarter century or so to portray the Crusades and the Crusaders as a murderous band of thugs that set out for the Holy Land to pillage and kill along the way there and to slaughter people upon arrival. This is the victimized image Leftists, Left Wing Academics and Muslims would have everyone believe.
Although it is very true the Crusaders committed heinous acts, it also true the cause of the Crusades were the result of heinous acts committed by Muslims against Christians and Christian lands from the pseudo-prophet Mohammed and through many of his military successors (both in direct line and those that were inspired by the theo-political cult of Mohammed).
Robert Spencer utilizes actual documentation to dispel the myth that the Crusaders existence was mere greed and blind ambition. The Crusader/Saracen encounter was a two-way street with most of the mud initiated by the Saracen (or Mohammedan or Muslim or whatever).
So it would seem that Deborah Solomon’s use of the word “Crusader” as an invective against Brigitte Gabriel is a display of Left Wing ignorance which the NYT has been nailed with a lot lately.
ISLAMOPHOBE
Phobia is usually a Greek etymological word that is slapped with another word to convey a meaning of a fear of … something. (Here is a list of fears.)
In the victimization politics of Leftists (and in post 9/11 days Muslims) a phobia often is extended beyond fear to include “hate.” Thus a common definition for Islamophobe is this:
Certainly this is Solomon’s meaning toward Brigitte Gabriel when she called her an “Islamophobe”.
The irony is most Islamophobe’s that believe they are Islamophobic are proud of being labeled with that moniker. A true Islamophobe is not fearful of Mohammedans or Muslims personally, rather there is a sense of exposing Islam as a threat to Western Society that believes in Freedom and Liberty. For an American this Freedom and Liberty is defined by the American Constitution. For the rest of Western Society there is a slight difference in the perceived rights inherent in Freedom and Liberty; nonetheless it is still contrary to the basics of Islam.
Now the “hate” portion of Islamophobia may differ depending on individuals. As a Christian I believe hate should not enter the mind toward any individual. In the Bible it says to “be angry and sin not.” This means to be angry or hate the evil force or thinking motivating an individual and NOT the individual. Unfortunately I sense there are non-Muslims that exist that “hate” the individual; however Brigitte Gabriel is not one of those even though she has plenty of reasons to hate. Gabriel has taken the path of exposing rather than retribution (American Congress For Truth and Act For America).
I like TheReligionOfPeace.com’s definition of Islamophobia:
I also like the Gates of Vienna’s rational about being an Islamophobe:
Deborah Solomon’s effort to use words like Crusader and Islamophobe as invectives and Clark Hoyt’s NYT defense of Solomon is a Mainstream Media Leftist smear campaign to smear Brigitte Gabriel’s reputation in order to discredit the work she is doing to exposing the inherent deviancy in Mohammedanism that is categorically opposed to Western thought and the American Constitution in particular.
I am with Doctor Bulldog and Ronin in saying this:
JRH 8/22/08
© August 22, 2008
The blog Doctor Bulldog and Ronin has reposted a New York Times editorial by Clark Hoyt from the NYT’s Public Editor’s Journal.
Hoyt defends Deborah Solomon’s hostile interview with Brigitte Gabriel that was posted on the Times Magazine that begins with “Questions for …”
I myself posted an Act For America email pertaining to this interview in which the organization CAMERA was organizing an email/mail-in/phone-in protest for treating Gabriel with such mindless ignorant Leftist venom (my words – not CAMERA’s).
Evidently there was enough protest to elicit a weak response from the NYT. Clark Hoyt wrote the response which basically mimicked Solomon’s attitude about Islam; i.e. the self-righteous anger that anyone who calls a devout practitioner of that religion is a radical and thus a bigot or a racist.
Solomon’s words of choice were Crusader and Islamophobe.
Hoyt’s last paragraph says this:
I’ve had my issues with Solomon in the past, but I don’t think she or her editors have done anything here requiring an apology or any other corrective action. (A Radical Islamophobe?)
So we must conclude that the NYT is implying that Brigitte Gabriel is a bigot and a racist.
This means the NYT feels that a Crusader and an Islamophobe are invectives.
Let us examine these two words.
CRUSADER
I am guessing the NYT is referring to the Crusades from Europe to take back the Holy Land from Saracens (oops I mean conquering sadistic Muslims) rather than Christian Protestants who also use the word Crusader to mean one who operates a ministry event or meeting in a city or Church to share the Good News of Jesus Christ.
It has been Politically Correct in the last quarter century or so to portray the Crusades and the Crusaders as a murderous band of thugs that set out for the Holy Land to pillage and kill along the way there and to slaughter people upon arrival. This is the victimized image Leftists, Left Wing Academics and Muslims would have everyone believe.
Although it is very true the Crusaders committed heinous acts, it also true the cause of the Crusades were the result of heinous acts committed by Muslims against Christians and Christian lands from the pseudo-prophet Mohammed and through many of his military successors (both in direct line and those that were inspired by the theo-political cult of Mohammed).
Robert Spencer utilizes actual documentation to dispel the myth that the Crusaders existence was mere greed and blind ambition. The Crusader/Saracen encounter was a two-way street with most of the mud initiated by the Saracen (or Mohammedan or Muslim or whatever).
So it would seem that Deborah Solomon’s use of the word “Crusader” as an invective against Brigitte Gabriel is a display of Left Wing ignorance which the NYT has been nailed with a lot lately.
ISLAMOPHOBE
Phobia is usually a Greek etymological word that is slapped with another word to convey a meaning of a fear of … something. (Here is a list of fears.)
In the victimization politics of Leftists (and in post 9/11 days Muslims) a phobia often is extended beyond fear to include “hate.” Thus a common definition for Islamophobe is this:
A person who fears or hates Islam or Muslims. (Wiktionary)
Certainly this is Solomon’s meaning toward Brigitte Gabriel when she called her an “Islamophobe”.
The irony is most Islamophobe’s that believe they are Islamophobic are proud of being labeled with that moniker. A true Islamophobe is not fearful of Mohammedans or Muslims personally, rather there is a sense of exposing Islam as a threat to Western Society that believes in Freedom and Liberty. For an American this Freedom and Liberty is defined by the American Constitution. For the rest of Western Society there is a slight difference in the perceived rights inherent in Freedom and Liberty; nonetheless it is still contrary to the basics of Islam.
Now the “hate” portion of Islamophobia may differ depending on individuals. As a Christian I believe hate should not enter the mind toward any individual. In the Bible it says to “be angry and sin not.” This means to be angry or hate the evil force or thinking motivating an individual and NOT the individual. Unfortunately I sense there are non-Muslims that exist that “hate” the individual; however Brigitte Gabriel is not one of those even though she has plenty of reasons to hate. Gabriel has taken the path of exposing rather than retribution (American Congress For Truth and Act For America).
I like TheReligionOfPeace.com’s definition of Islamophobia:
Islamophobe (is-slahm-o-fohb) - A non-Muslim who knows too much about Islam.
Islamophobia is a fear of losing life or liberty to Islamic rule merely because the laws, sacred texts, and modern practices of Islam demand the submission of culture, politics, religion and all social expression. It tends to afflict those most familiar with the religion, while sparing the more gullible.
In Muhammad's day, Islamophobia was treated with a practice known as beheading. Since this is now impractical outside of the Muslim world, the condition is best addressed by means of prevention. Such preventive measures include willful ignorance helped along with a strong dose of taqiyya.
The fact is that when Islam checks in, a lot of folks wind up checking out... permanently. Therefore Islamophobes are a pretty broad group known to include: READ FURTHER …
I also like the Gates of Vienna’s rational about being an Islamophobe:
The term “Islamophobe” is fast joining “racist”, “homophobe”, et al., as a reliable tool of politically-correct argument, a way of silencing the Left’s opponents and consigning dissenters to the phobic outer darkness beyond the pale of polite discourse.
Object to Hamas? You must be Islamophobic!
Want to scrutinize speakers of Farsi or Arabic more carefully at the airport? Islamophobe!
Deborah Solomon’s effort to use words like Crusader and Islamophobe as invectives and Clark Hoyt’s NYT defense of Solomon is a Mainstream Media Leftist smear campaign to smear Brigitte Gabriel’s reputation in order to discredit the work she is doing to exposing the inherent deviancy in Mohammedanism that is categorically opposed to Western thought and the American Constitution in particular.
I am with Doctor Bulldog and Ronin in saying this:
In a word: Predictable… But, then again, being called an Islamophobe is a badge of honor in our book!
JRH 8/22/08
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment