Ayaan Hirsi Ali is outspoken against abuses in the Islamic world. The most obvious of these are abuse against women, adulterers, and of course, homosexuals. So she often comes to their defense. This is good. We cannot consent to the killing of homosexuals for being homosexual. But this should also not preclude vigorous debate about homosexuality.
In the interview discussed earlier, Hirsi Ali rejects the term Islamophobia because Islam is not an inherent trait, as race and sex are, for instance. Critiquing an idea or practice is not necessarily an act of phobia. (Even hatred of an idea or practice is not de facto phobia.) This is a sound argument. The term Islamophobia is very new, created and used deliberately to shut down critical debate about Islam by putting it on the same level as racism. Redefining the debate is a favourite tactic for those who don't have the facts on their side.
Those who created the term Islamophobia were merely copying those who created the term homophobia. This term, while older, is still a relatively young term, created for the very same reasons, with great success. It makes the assumption that homosexuality is an inherent trait, and therefore is off-limits for critical debate. Homosexual activists have been quick to label detractors racists. The problem is that they do so with impunity, even though it is absurd to equate inclinations or behaviour with race.
So we hear Hirsi Ali making the same error with regard to homophobia as she is refuting in regard to Islamophobia. To her credit, the error is not due to obviously faulty logic, but to a false premise. Her logic is sound; if homosexuality is an innate trait, determined by one's genes, then sexual orientation could legitimately be considered to be on the same plane as sex and race. It is her premise regarding sexual orientation - "It's something you can't do anything about" - that is fallacious. Homosexuals are not born that way. There is no gay gene. Thus homophobia joins Islamophobia in the dictionary of deceptive nonentities, and we should strive for vigorous debate about the health and effects of both Islamic society and homosexual behaviour.
Vancouver Lawyer Accused of Pseudolegal ‘Paper Terrorism’ in Neighbour
Dispute
-
A legal battle over a privacy divider on a condo rooftop deck in
Vancouver’s Fairview neighborhood has escalated into accusations of
pseudolegal ‘paper t...
5 months ago
1 comment:
What is phobia? According to Merriam-Webster, it is "an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation".
The problem with terms such as homophobia and islamophobia is that the distinction between the concepts and those who practice them has been lost. Thus, a fear of Islam (if this is even valid as noted by the author) assumes a fear of muslims. Furthermore, our age of tolerance has developed the idea that even an aversion to the above practices and practitioners can be considered phobic. Merriam-Webster's definition of homophobia is a clear example of this when it defines homophobia as being an "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals".
Did I miss something here? I don't recall reading that ideas were part of the definition of phobia in their own dictionary entry of the same. Further, last time I checked, "aversion" and "an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear" weren't synonymous.
I fear a society in which "we all, like sheep, have gone astray and turned each one to" the common culture's way of accepting anything and everything in the name of tolerance. Now if only that fear was inexplicable and illogical...
---
We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
- Isaiah 53:6,7
How true this rings today as always.
Post a Comment