Skip to content

Criticism or Mistrust?

August 27, 2010

Via the New York Review of Books, John T. McGreevy and R. Scott Appleby provide some much needed historical perspective on the so-called Ground Zero Mosque. Muslim, it seems, is the new Catholic: in the 19th-century, many Americans deemed Catholics unassimilable; today, a chorus of voices — including Bill Maher on the left and Charles Krauthammer on the right — continually casts suspicion on Islam.

The other parallel is that the religious leaders of both faiths were and are out of sync with their flock:

Like many American Muslims today, many American Catholics squirmed when their foreign-born religious leaders offered belligerent or tone-deaf pronouncements on the modern world. New York’s own Bishop John Hughes thundered in 1850 that the Church’s mission was to convert “the officers of the navy and the Marines, commander of the Army, the legislatures, the Senate, the Cabinet, the president and all.” The Syllabus of Errors, promulgated by Pope Pius IX in 1864 denied that the Church had any duty to reconcile itself with “progress, liberalism, and modern civilization.”

Elsewhere, Douthat has catalogued some equally unsettling pronouncements from Feisal Abdul Rauf, the 21st century Islamic counterpart to Bishop Hughes and Pope Pius IX.

Douthat cites Rauf’s remarks on Iran, terrorism, 9/11, and other issues as “sufficient grounds for criticism and mistrust.” While no one would deny that criticism of Rauf and other Islamic leaders is sometimes appropriate, it is difficult to see what can be gained from mistrust — especially when it is broadened to a general mistrust of Islam. But, then again, I’m not the one who wrote a column insisting on the “real wisdom” of nativism and xenophobia.

Unlike his somewhat more hysterical right-wing colleagues, Douthat recognizes that “Muslim” is not a synonym for “jihadist”. What he fails to realize, however, is that no good can possibly come from such a conflation, or from the nativism that underwrites it. It is not, as Douthat suggests in the column, “nativist concerns about Catholicism’s illiberal tendencies” that “inspired American Catholics to prod their church toward a recognition of the virtues of democracy, making it possible for generations of immigrants to feel unambiguously Catholic and American.” What set the Church on the road to modernity was not nativism, but intelligent criticism. That’s what Islam needs. And that’s what the Church still needs on issues like gay marriage and contraception.

Advertisements
3 Comments leave one →
  1. catullus permalink
    August 30, 2010 7:23 am

    Good luck getting that intelligent criticism of Islam taken for what it is. The reasonable observations of Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens are quickly branded ‘Islamophobia’ by mainstream liberals. We are close to the point where only Muslims get to be the arbitrators of what constitutes fair comment on their faith. I can’t think of anything more likely to drive people into the Pipes-Horowitz-Krauthammer axis than this.
    It’s time to admit that feelings about race are at the forefront of liberal delicacy vis-a-vis Islam.

  2. Innocent Smith permalink*
    August 30, 2010 2:42 pm

    You’re right. The problem with Paul Krugman-style liberalism is that it leaves little room for honest disagreement: the Tea Party crowd is racist; Paul Ryan is a “Flimflam man”; those who oppose the Mosque’s construction are Islamaphobes; and so on. (On this point, I find myself in agreement with Charles Krauthammer, of all people. http://ow.ly/2wW9p.)

    The point I made in the post also applies here. Criticism of Islam should itself be met with intelligent criticism, and not mistrust.

    • September 21, 2010 8:52 pm

      I agree with the Kraut sometimes too.

      The problem your facing is the because of the deep politicization of pretty much everything. Thank you political correctness, which makes even everyday language a political point to score points on. And thank you politicians for wanting to make every life choice a political choice. I prefer the right to choose, choose to smoke in a public place (I don’t smoke), choose to smoke MJ if I want (Don’t smoke that anymore), choose to have a soda without a special tax because politicians want to nudge me to make a “better” choice. The right to choose isn’t just about abortion, but a lot of people forget that.

      The point is, when you make every life choice political and the very language that we use political…you get chicken fuckery like this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: