To be "phobic" of something is normally taken to mean to be frightened of it. The Greek word phobos actually means fear or terror, so it would make sense to think that people who are "Islamophobic" are those who are frightened of Islam. However, in recent times, the term "islamophobic" has been used to describe those who publicly criticise Islam such as Richard Dawkins and other "new atheists" e.g. in a rubbish article a few months ago by Salon.com.

However, this use of the term seems rather ironic to me, considering how much courage it takes to dare to criticise Islam in today's climate of fear.

Case in point: a student newspaper Woronibased at the Australian National University, the country's flagship university no less, ran a series of satirical articles about "Advice from Religion." The first four articles, which poked fun at Catholicism, Scientology, Mormonism, and Judaism respectively, all ran without problems. The fifth instalment in this series was bold enough to poke fun at Islam.

Infographic from Woroni which the university forced students to remove. For more details see The Friendly Atheist piece about this

 

The university's response, described in detail on the Woroni website, makes for some disturbing reading. In brief, the students responsible were summoned before the Chancelry, threatened with disciplinary action, including academic exclusion from the university, and forced to remove the piece from their website. The university cited some politically correct BS about "providing a welcoming environment for a diverse student and academic population." However, they also cited particular concerns about the likelihood of religious violence that I think are much more telling: 

“This was most clearly demonstrated by the Jyllands- Posten cartoon controversy … and violent protests in Sydney on September 15 last year,” the Chancelry told Woroni.

 So now we get to the heart of the matter. The student newspaper poked fun at Catholics, Mormons, Jews, and Scientologists, yet there were no complaints about making students of these faiths feel unwelcome. Yet when they criticise Islam specifically, the university threatens to expel them. They even admit that they are afraid of a violent response by Muslim extremists.

I find it ironic, even hypocritical, that people who are brave enough to criticise Islam are described as "islamophobic", yet those who are most cowed by fear of Islam are the ones who would suppress all criticism of it. People who would forbid criticism of Islam due to fear are the ones who truly deserve the label "islamophobic."

Why wouldn't anyone be afraid of people like this?

Once upon a time, universities cherished the right of freedom of speech. The fact that Australia's most prestigious university would show such cowardice and disregard for the principles of academic freedom is a sorry reflection on the times we live in. But what is even more disturbing perhaps is the fact that such responses are rooted in realistic fears of violence by intolerant people with contempt for the values of liberal democracy. However, placating the sensibilities of fanatics who demand "respect" for their violent beliefs by shutting people up out of fear is not only cowardly, it provides no real solution to the problem. Instead, it will only reinforce the sense of entitlement and embolden religious fanatics to demand more and more concessions to their preferences at the expense of liberty.

This article also appears on one of my personal blogs here.

Further reading

Surrendering freedom to the violent: ANU censors student paper for ... 

Is Insulting Religion "Extremism"? No amount of provocation can excuse violence. Piece I wrote on Psychology Today in response to "The Innocence of Muslims" riots

Consider following me on Google Plus, and Twitter.

Views: 218

Tags: Islam, censorship, freedom, of, speech

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Loren Miller on May 28, 2013 at 12:51pm

What you said, Pat.  It would seem as though the islamists want to enjoy free speech while everyone else has to go fish.  I noted with interest the above sign: "Freedom of Expression Go To Hell!"  Seems as though SOMEONE was expressing himself pretty freely!  But sauce for the goose is NOT a horse of a different color.  If the islamists want to express themselves, fine ... but the christian and jews and atheists also get their innings as well.

I think it's time that the academics learned that ALL freedom of speech should be defended ... and when one group wants to abridge the speaking rights of another, that group gets told, NO ... in no uncertain terms ... and if that group wants to feel offended and resort to violence, let's make it absolutely clear to them that 1) violence is NOT an acceptable form of expression and 2) that such an expression will have untoward consequences for THEM.

It's time freedom of speech grew a pair.

Comment by Pat on May 28, 2013 at 12:42pm

Let's be honest. Threats of violence are effective. If it takes the threat of hell to make you a moral person, then you are not at all moral, you are just a coward who responds well to threats. Most believers will acknowledge they're afraid of the boogeyman version of the afterlife. And, sad to say, cowardice is not confined to the religious or uneducated.

I recall when the Jylland-Post published the cartoons of Islam's prophet, and the violence that ensued. What I recall most, though, is Christopher Hitchens pointing out the cowardice in the western press and media outlets for their pusillanimous refusal to stand in support of the Danish cartoonist and newspaper.  And, the cowardice was not just from one side of the political spectrum.  Fox News and Murdoch's media outlets, MSNBC, the NY Times, the London Times, the Chicago Tribune, CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS all amply demonstrated they, too, were cowards who responded well to threats. Why should we think run of the mill academic-bureaucrats are any different?  Same thing when Salman Rushdie's life was threatened. The literati hid under the table and pissed in their pants, without any show of support for him - save one. Again, Mr. Hitchens.

The recent riots in Sweden are based in Muslim communities.  Yet, reading anything in the news, or media outlets, the only thing you're told is that these are "disaffected communities." No mention of religious motivation for the wanton destruction.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali once made a very salient point about Muslim immigrants to Europe who were not required, by the nations who accepted them, to adapt to the culture they fled to.  And what a terrible mistake that is for both the immigrants and nation.  

Do not give them a pass based upon fear of violence.  If anything, knock them down on their rear ends for it.  "You'll be treated equally.  But equality is just that.  You don't get a free pass that no else receives.  Including an exemption from having your feelings hurt."

Comment by Loren Miller on May 28, 2013 at 9:09am

Here is the contradiction: you have people, presumably academics, who want to be all-inclusive and inoffensive.  The problem is that some of what they want to include want to be EXCLUSIVE and can be pretty damned offensive in the process.  Inclusiveness is fine when those included are interested in sharing and learning and not proselytizing and coercing.  With any evangelical religion (which includes the three Abrahamic religions), this just plain isn't the case.  The problem comes when the aforementioned academics want to lie to themselves that it IS the case in order to maintain their multicultural universe, then sleepwalk through the contention and controversy that follows.

Duke Leto Atreides once said to his son, Paul: "The sleeper must awaken."  Anyone got an alarm clock?

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

Latest Activity

Sentient Biped replied to Adam's discussion UUA
4 minutes ago
Luara replied to Deidre32's discussion Happy Labor Day!
5 minutes ago
Dr. Allan H. Clark commented on Deidre32's blog post Pascal's Wager -- Your Fate is a Crapshoot
8 minutes ago
Luara replied to Adam's discussion Political Ideology
14 minutes ago
Pat replied to Adam's discussion Political Ideology
20 minutes ago
Jonathan Tweet commented on Deidre32's blog post Are you a spiritual atheist?
21 minutes ago
Dr. Allan H. Clark commented on Deidre32's blog post Pascal's Wager -- Your Fate is a Crapshoot
24 minutes ago
Plinius commented on Sentient Biped's group Food!
33 minutes ago
Susan Stanko replied to Adam's discussion Political Ideology
34 minutes ago
Plinius commented on Calla's group Nexus Book Club
36 minutes ago
Adam posted discussions
36 minutes ago
Pat replied to Adam's discussion Political Ideology
59 minutes ago

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service