The New York Times reports on the controversy over IGF contributing author Bruce Bawer's nomination for a National Book Critics Circle award, for his book "While Europe Slept," a condemnation of European appeasement of Islamic fundamentalism. While lefty critics accuse Bawer of "racism," the article notes that:
he does not fit the typical red-state mold. An openly gay cultural critic from New York who has lived in Europe since 1998, Mr. Bawer has published books like "Stealing Jesus," a harsh critique of Christian fundamentalism. "Some people think it's terrific for writers to expose the offenses and perils of religious fundamentalism-just as long as it's Christian fundamentalism," he wrote on his blog.
The Times further quotes from Bawer:
"One of the most disgraceful developments of our time is that many Western authors and intellectuals who pride themselves on being liberals have effectively aligned themselves with an outrageously illiberal movement that rejects equal rights for women, that believes gays and Jews should be executed, that supports the coldblooded murder of one's own children in the name of honor, etc., etc."
But for too many on the left, the enemy of my enemy (America, George Bush, globalization...) must be my friend.
More. Jamie Kirchick writes:
Bawer has long been a thorn in the side of the American literary left, which likes its gays "queer," adherents to left-wing gay orthodoxy and unquestioningly loyal members of the Democratic party.
And it's not only the left-wing that has a weak spot for Islamic fundamentalism's traditional values. Here is Bawer's new broadside against a strain of the anti-gay American right that thinks Islamic gay-hatred is just peachy.
15 Comments for “Illiberal Liberals?”
posted by ETJB on
I lost much respect for Bawer with his assertion that anyone who is not as racist as he is about Islam must hate freedom and democracy.
It is interesting how he seems to understand that differences of opinion when it comes to his own religion, but is less then eager in doing so with other religions.
Religious fundamentalism of any stripe can be a problem to those that support democracy and freedom. Historically it has been.
Yet, does Bawer think that invading Iraq has brought such values to the republic?
Does he support and give recognition to progressive Muslims as he does to progressive Christians?
posted by jomicur on
As is frequently the case, I’m baffled by Steve Miller’s post. Where exactly is he coming from? When those of us on the left criticize Christian homophobia, no matter how blatant it is, he counters that “they have a right,” “we have to respect freedom of religion,” and all sorts of other rubbishy platitudes. But he seems to have a problem with people who apply those exact same standards to Muslims. Steve, can you please explain to us why it’s not okay for Muslim extremists to be as homophobic as the Christian right in this country? Shouldn’t we extend the same tolerance to them?
posted by James on
In another thread, I am called a bigot because I am proudly femophobic–why is OK for gays to be Islamophobic? I am actually not Islamophobic–I believe that there is much in Islam which needs a Reformation, but the Muslims I’ve met have all been pretty normal.
Gays pride themselves on their tolerance based solely, it seems, on their acceptance of effeminate and exotic behavior. But their tolerance does not extend to Muslims, Christians, undocumented workers, etc.
I defend my right to be femophobic with the same logic you use to defend your right to be Islamophobic. Stop acting so superior.
posted by jomicur on
James, darling, you really need to get in touch with happening reality. The widespread public perception is that gay = effeminate. Period. Whether you are fem yourself (I happen not to be) is not really the point. The simple, inescapable fact is that in the minds of most Americans, if you are gay you are not really “manly” or “masculine,” even though it may not be easy to pinpoint in any specific way, and therefore not quite worthy of respect. “Femophobia” hurts us all, fem or not.
posted by toujoursdan on
I don’t get it either. Here in Canada we had Muslim groups like the Muslim Canadian Congress and the Canadian Muslim Union that openly and vocally supported same sex marriage. Am I supposed to lump them in with the the fanatics?
Fundamentalism is a threat to equality and tolerance everywhere, but every long-established religion, including Islam, has a breadth of responses to many issues, including gay rights. Inside Islam there a discussion just like in Christianity, over whether the Qu’ran condemns “homosexuality” or simply lust-based relationships that happen to be homosexual. We need to support those who are trying to work for a place for gay people inside Islam, not alienate everyone by lumping everyone together.
Europe, the US, Canada, Australia and elsewhere have problems with fundamentalism[s] – Muslim as well as Christian – but these problems aren’t going to be solved through Bawer’s approach.
I looked at the book and wondered why Islam rather than some other fast growing movement with an anti-gay face, like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons). If it isn’t racism, what is it?
posted by James on
Gay is not effeminate anymore than Islam is terrorist. Some Muslims, distorting the teachings of the Koran, CHOOSE to be terrorists. Some gay men (and some straight men) CHOOSE to express themselves in effeminate ways. I can be against effeminate behavior for the same reason I am against terrorism–it is a CHOICE. I am not against an inborn tendency to be attracted to men–I am against men who CHOOSE to express that tendency in effeminate ways. It is a distortion of the truth–the same way terrorism is a distortion of true Islam. (Uh, by the way, terrorism is worse than effeminacy. I’m just trying to make a point, not equate the two.)
Gay is intrinsically femophobic–how could it not be? Gay is men not liking women–why would they like effeminate men better? If I liked femininity, I’d go after women.
So, if it’s OK for gays to be bigoted against Muslims, thinking they’re all terrorists, why isn’t it OK for gays to be bigoted against fems? Why is your bigotry more noble than my bigotry?
posted by James is a mouth breather on
Okay, I’ve lurked here a bit, and I just can’t help but respond. I know, I know. I’m not supposed to respond to James, but it’s just. too. easy.
Radical Islam threatens our lives. Extreme flaming threatens… oh… um… *scratches head* the senses of James? Wow, that’s a logical analogy isn’t it? That’s like comparing Mussolini to someone who stole a cupcake from you in kindergarten. Boo f*ckin’ hoo.
And for crying out loud, some people are just naturally “fem.” I know kids from elementary school, who, looking back, had “flaming” written all over them. And this was before puberty. They are just being themselves. Give it up James. Don’t punish others just because you can’t get a date with your ideal man.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Last spring, after my review of Bruce Bawer’s book was published in Bay Windows (it’s called “Gays in ‘Eurabia’,” dated March 30, 2006, and is in the IGF Collection under Military & Foreign Affairs), I was inevitably called a racist and an Islamophobe. There is no way to criticize Islamic extremists, much less defend Western values of tolerance against those who threaten it, without being treated as racist and colonialist by definition. The irony of this is not only that the West, unlike the Wahhabists, has significantly repented of its past sins, but that the anti-American leftists who decry this alleged “Islamophobia” are themselves relying upon Western standards of tolerance for which the Islamofascists have nothing but contempt.
It also feels strange to be called Islamophobic when I not only dated a Muslim but helped him find a gay-friendly imam to help him through his personal torment over being gay. I recognize that mentioning this personal story will open me to derisive insults from some people; you’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. Well, they can be as derisive as they like; that doesn’t make them any less foolish.
posted by Avee on
jomicur, you attribute (in qutoes no less!) statements to Steve that he never wrote, and views that he does not hold. That is, you lie and mislead in order to smear. And if you find Steve’s postings so foolish, then why do you hang out here?
posted by Brian Miller on
Unjust accusations of Islamophobia tend to be common when extreme fundamentalist views of gay people are discussed and critiqued in a critical way across the political spectrum. Such accusations are patently absurd and should be brushed off — nine times out of ten, they’re being made by people who are neither gay nor Muslim and thus have no role whatsoever in the debate.
posted by ETJB on
“There is no way to criticize Islamic extremists, much less defend Western values of tolerance against those who threaten it, without being treated as racist and colonialist by definition.”
Yes their is. If you don’t know how then I would humbly suggest you should not be getting paid to be a writer.
posted by jomicur on
Avee, you wrote “jomicur, you attribute (in quotes no less!) statements to Steve that he never wrote, and views that he does not hold.” To which I can only respond that if you’ve never seen those attitudes expressed here by Steve, you must either be new to this site or have comprehension problems. And you ask, “if you find Steve’s postings so foolish, then why do you hang out here?” Because I enjoy the exchange of ideas and viewpoints–even ones I disagree with. Maybe you should too.
posted by Avee on
jomicur, you made up quotes (and put them in quotes) to disparage Steve. If not, tell us where these “quotes” came from (or supply real quotes, if you can).
posted by Brian Miller on
Yes their is. If you don’t know how then I would humbly suggest you should not be getting paid to be a writer.
If you’re going to criticize their writing, there is a better way to do it than the way you’re doing so. And I’m not sure that they’re being “bigoted” in their writing techniques to begin with. I read Bawer’s book cover to cover, and while I don’t agree with everything he’s written, I find his portrayal of the fundamentalist mindset to be consistent with my experience with religious conservatives of various faiths.
He also does an excellent job of pointing out the hypocrisy of several of the powers that be in Europe. Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, had no problem comparing the Catholic Pope to a Nazi — and that’s his right. Of course, if a public figure compared Egyptian Muslim cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi — a recent guest of the mayor and a man who calls for the violent execution of gay men — to a Nazi, he’d not only be pilloried as “racist,” and “Islamophobic,” but he could very well find himself in prison for “inciting religious hatred.”
That’s hypocrisy of the highest order. If Pope Benedict is “like a Nazi” because of his beliefs about homosexuality (which are, if anything, tamer than Mr. al-Qaradawi’s views), then so is Mr. al-Qaradawi. However, making such an observation — as both Mr. Bawer and various Muslims such as Irshad Manji have done — opens one up to screaming accusations of racism, bigotry, etc.
Perhaps one of the more interesting forms of bigotry being displayed is the patent anti-Americanism being embraced by many of Mr. Bawer’s critics in this matter. They’ve been pointing out the American citizenship and passports of various commentators as proof of their inability to analyze the facts of the matter, or even as some sort of epithet. Again, if one was to make similar comments about a Nigerian, Saudi or French citizen, the same individuals would accuse the commentator of racism, neo-imperialism, bigotry, etc. — despite the fact that they engage in the same bigotry that they attack others for.
In short, it’s a giant ball of double standards which must be challenged factually, in a reasoned tone — and individuals accused of “bigotry” when criticizing religious fundamentalism’s war against liberal society should not be afraid to confront their accusers. More often than not, the true bigot is the faux-progressive with his made-to-order bag of clich
posted by ETJB on
I enjoyed Bawer’s book a “Place At The Table”. So I am not ‘anti-Bawer’. I also grew up in the Middle East so I need to lecture from anyone about the dangers of religious extreamism — of any stripe.
Their seems to be a great interest in showing & writing about one side of Islam. But very little interest in the lives of gay or lesbian Muslims. I see this with gay conservatives and their selective coverage of Iraq.
If some cleric — of any faith — makes a racist or sexist or homophobic comment then they should be called on it.
Politicans are not always the best people to do this because they are looking for voters.
However, to suggest that Islam itself is incompadible with liberal values or tolerance is Islamphobia. It is also conceeding power to religious conservatives and fanatics.
In western Europe, racism is a very real issue and immigrants are often unfairly mistreated. That does not excuse sexism or homophobia.
However, one can be critical of homophobia without catering to xenophobic — “lets get rid of all Muslims” — mentality.
Also I doubt that the Pope’s views on homosexuality are that tamer then a conservative cleric. The Pope has to tone down his rethoric because his faith exists within a certain set of political and social norms.
A major Dutch film maker (whoes name escapes me at the moment) did an expose on fundamentalist Islam and. He was killed a few years back.
He was right to be criticial of the sexism and intolerance expressed by some Muslim clerics and promoted as the official version of Islam.
However, he was openly fond of making rather overtly racist comments about the Muslim immigrants.
This is because western Europe is in many ways much more racist then America but also much less sexist and much less homophobic.
Many Europeans who have little problem with feminism, or gay rights get very very very ugly with the notion of their nation becoming multi-ethnic.
Some of this is a valid concern over intolerant or violent extremists or the welfare state. But lots of it is very old habits in Europe about citizenship being about bloodlines.