A controversy erupted last week in Chicago after it was publicly revealed that a noted anti-Islam blogger, Robert Spencer, had been invited to an American Library Association panel advertised as "dispelling stereotypes about Islam."
Ultimately, the panel was canceled after all the other panelists withdrew. I'll get into that in a minute, but first, who is Robert Spencer?
In his own words:
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of eight books on Islam and jihad.Spencer is a weekly columnist for Human Events and FrontPage Magazine.
Spencer has also written eleven monographs and well over three hundred articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism. Along with the bestsellers The Truth About Muhammad, Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion (Regnery) and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (Regnery), he is the author of Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith (Encounter); Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West (Regnery); and Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't (Regnery), a refutation of moral equivalence and call for all the beneficiaries and heirs of Judeo-Christian Western civilization, whatever their own religious or philosophical perspective may be, to defend it from the global jihad.
More recently he has also written monographs for the David Horowitz Freedom Center: What Americans Need to Know About Jihad; The Violent Oppression of Women In Islam (with Phyllis Chesler); Islamic Leaders' Plan for Genocide; and Muslim Persecution of Christians.
In case his one-sided tone and unabashed slant has left you a little queasy, Spencer is sure to add:
"Spencer has been studying Islamic theology, law, and history in depth since 1980."
Longevity equals credibility, eh? (Or put another way, it's been ample time for him to perfect his bias.)
Spencer postures himself as an "Islamic Scholar." But unlike most people we tend to call "scholars," Spencer did not burden himself with the traditional scholarly route that puts an emphasis on objectivity and academic rigor.
There is a good reason for this: his "scholarly" methodologies would not jive in any of our nation's accredited PhD programs let alone a path for tenure where he would have to get his papers peer-reviewed and have his methodology checked by notable scholars for objectivity and a lack of bias (unless, of course, David Horowitz decides to build the David Horowitz Freedom University).
Spencer dismisses such criticism as follows: he is right, and all of the tenured professors of Islamic studies, with their inconvenient knack for unbiased scholarship, are wrong. After all, universities are the establishment of the left-wing liberal conspiracy.
Besides who needs peer-reviewed papers, Spencer seems content to receive rave reviews from Weasel Zippers, Nice Doggie, Atlas Shrugs, Muslims are Terrorists, and of course, frontpagemag.com, that other gem of a creation, and bastion of objectivity, by the guy who cuts his checks.
Now, I will be the first to admit that there are plenty of problems in the Muslim world. I welcome an honest and responsible critique any day. But honest and responsible Spencer's agenda-driven hatemongering is not. I am not not the only one to take issue with Spencer's technique. Most objective scholars and professors of Islamic studies dismiss the guy as laughably fraudulent and amateur.
The independent national media watch group, FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting), identifies Spencer as one of the "Dirty Dozen: America's leading Islamophobes" who systematically "spread fear, bigotry, and misinformation." The special report, entitled "Smearcasters" provides examples of Spencer's sensational views.
So let us take a quick look at the crux of Spencer's methodology which is as disingenuous as his conclusions are sensational. In fact, it can be analogized to the three acts of a magic trick as described in the movie The Prestige.
The Set Up: Spencer and his associates scour the web for the most sensational and extreme expressions within the Muslim world. They may be related to a certain extremist interpretation of Islam, or may not even have anything to do with Islam altogether, but that won't matter, so long as the perpetrator is a Muslim, it will do.
The Performance: Spencer then supplants his own commentary on the story which he meticulously crafts with the ultimate goal of convincing his readers that the bizarre incident in question is representative of the faith of Islam and Muslims at large. This subtle leap of faith that he hopes no one notices is the key to his magic act.
The Prestige: He can then rightly claim, with the innocence of a schoolboy, that he does not make up the material he produces, that he is merely quoting things as is, hoping no one notices that he uses the aberrant to define the normative.
Yet, methodology is not the only disingenuous thing about Spencer, his marketing is as well. In selling himself, Spencer engages in double speak where he engages in one tone when riling up his right-wing fan base via his blog, books and documentaries and a whole other tone when hoping to be perceived as credible by the mainstream media.
Consider his most recent interview in which he denies my assertion that he subscribes to the point of view that Islam is evil:
Mr. Spencer challenged that interpretation of his views in an e-mail to The Times.
"Terrorists use the texts and teachings of Islam to make recruits among peaceful Muslims, and to justify their war against the United States and the West. I explore how they do it," he said.
Here he is claiming that he is simply interested in exploring how terrorists abuse Islam. That is an exercise none of us can fault. In fact, if this were truly his premise, I would count myself as a fan. But then you look at his actual work and you don't even need to go beyond their titles to see that he is lying through his back teeth.
Consider his most touted work, Muhammad, founder of the world's most intolerant religion. Note that he does not attribute intolerance and all the other lovely qualities he covers in this book to the extremist ideologies within the Muslim world, but to the basic religion itself. Contrary to what he claims in the above quote, his beef is not with extremists or terrorists like Bin Laden - but with Islam and Muslims. He claims to be an intellectual warrior in the "war on terror" but really brings in the baggage of an apocalyptic preacher out to bash a "rival" faith.
Similarly, consider his film "What the West Needs to Know about Islam," note he does not specify "radical Islam" or "terrorism" but "Islam." Indeed the whole film is dedicated to demonizing just that - Islam - as you can see for yourself if you watch it.
Now let me be clear, if Spencer wishes to take the position that Islam itself is the problem, as opposed to extremist interpretations, fine, he is entitled to that position. But the fact that he would take this position and then lie about it makes him not only a purveyor of medieval polemics, but deceptive on top of that. (I suspect he deceived the ALA in a similar fashion to get the invite.)
Which takes us back to the ALA Panel:
After the panel cancellation Robert Spencer claimed to be a victim of censorship brought about by the acquiescence of the weak-kneed ALA to the ominous and sinister CAIR.
But is that really what happened?
Before we get into the details, let me say this:
It never ceases to amaze me how the likes of Robert Spencer and Michael Savage who gleefully spout off anti-Muslim propaganda touting the freedom of speech card, suddenly feel threatened and victimized when Muslims use their own freedom of speech to respond. Spencer has a right to speak, Savage has a right to speak, and so does CAIR.
Yet when Muslims exercise the same basic rights that the Islamophobes claim to defend on behalf of Western civilization, the Islamophobes somehow cry "Sharia-foul." Their Muslim critics are hitherto branded as "Hamas-linked" or "Terror-linked." No evidence needs be provided, just regurgitation of other people's accusations.
As it so happens, CAIR does not concern itself with censoring or silencing Spencer's earth-shattering truthiness as he routinely claims on his website. Spencer speaks regularly at college campuses at the invitation of student groups like the College Republicans. He publishes books, produces documentaries, and freely blogs on a daily basis.
If anything, CAIR advertises Spencer's website every time it mentions Spencer in a press release, probably helping drive traffic to his website. How does this support Spencer's self-important claim that CAIR is afraid of what he has to say?
CAIR's position is that Spencer's own dismal record speaks for itself.
In fact, CAIR-Chicago's call on the ALA to rescind Spencer's invitation was not about Spencer but about the ALA, specifically: a) questioning why a respectable organization like the ALA would secretly invite an Islam-basher for an event designed to dispel stereotypes about Islam, and b) demanding that the ALA take responsibility for its misrepresentation of the panel event to the other panelists involved and to the public, and to provide an appropriate remedy for their error.
CAIR was not the only one to protest the ALA's inexplicable action, nor was it even the first to do so. Librarians affiliated with the ALA had launched their own protest before CAIR wrote to the ALA, and a Chicago federation of over 50 Islamic organizations later did the same in its own letter to the ALA.
Here are excerpts from my letters to the ALA:
"Would the ALA invite a notorious anti-Semite on a panel that aims to dispel stereotypes against Jews? Would they allow such an invitation to squeeze through under the guise of promoting diversity and averting censorship?
"People are free to hold extreme, bigoted views but whether they should be invited by reputable associations like the ALA to spew these views is a different question. That is the question ALA must answer..."
"We too support freedom of speech, including that of bigots; what we oppose is false advertising. If the ALA was sponsoring a debate on whether Islam is evil and publicized that Mr. Spencer was an invited panelist, we would not have asked to rescind Spencer's invitation, as the sordid nature of the event would have been honestly communicated to all."
"Everyone could then have made informed decisions about whether they wished to be co-panelists or attendees. But that is not what happened."
So what actually happened to get us to this point?
Here are the facts that Spencer has managed to confabulate on his website's rendition of events:
The ALA invited three Muslims three months ago to a panel entitled "Perspectives on Islam: Beyond the Stereotyping" that was scheduled to take place last Sunday during the ALA's annual conference held in Chicago.
The three invitees were Dr. Marcia Hermansen, Director of the Islamic World Studies Program and Professor in the Theology Department Loyola University Chicago; Dr. Esmail Koushanpour Emeritus professor, Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago, & Former Executive Director of the Islamic Cultural Center of Greater Chicago; and Dr. Alia Ammar, Chief Neuropsychologist, Geriatric Care Association & member of the Islamic Foundation North.
Misrepresentation
These three distinguished members of society accepted the invitation eager to help dispel the prevalent stereotypes about their faith and their community. At no point did the ALA bother to inform the Muslim panelists that Spencer -- a guy who makes a living out of promoting those very same stereotypes -- was also invited. As a result, the ALA denied them the opportunity - nay, the right - to make an informed decision on whether they wanted to be part of such a panel, and if they did, then having the time to make the necessary preparations regarding how Spencer's contributions were bound to change the stated nature of the event.
Months later and only days before the event was to take place, Dr. Hermansen discovers by mere chance that Robert Spencer was in fact a fourth panelist. Dr. Hermansen informs the other two panelists and later informs me. Though shocked and disappointed in the ALA's bizarre behavior, she along with Dr. Alia decide to stay on board. The third panelist, Dr. Koushanpour drops out in protest. I write my own letter of protest to the ALA, as the Executive Director of CAIR-Chicago.
On his website, Spencer disputes the fact that the panelists were never informed by the ALA that he would be speaking, but the proof is in the pudding. Here is the email that broke the news to Dr. Hermansen (note the date):
Even if we accept that anyone who does not think as they are "supposed to" should be silenced (which, oddly enough, I don;t...), wouldn't it be nice to see some - well, evidence?
When reasons were further articulated why Spencer is an Islamophobe, anti-Muslim, when his associations and support for racist undemocratic and neo-fascist politicians were brought to light his supporters screamed "misrepresentation," "context," "lies," "ignorance." This is quite funny because it is usually these very Spencerites who mock Muslims for stating that they are being "misrepresented." The refrain goes along the line of, "Oh those Mohammedans are playing the victim card and can't take criticism, etc." This time around it seems that they can dish it out but cant take any of their own medicine. Either way, again, the ALA did the right thing, though the even more right thing would have been to disinvite Spencer and apologize for being duped into almost giving him a platform.
Light skin doesn't magically change Islamic Law, nor does it change Islam's encouragement of hatred and violence against non-Muslims. Unlimited Muslim immigration into a non-Muslim country is likely to lead to violent Muslim separatist movements. The seeds are being sown in England now, where there are areas police will not enter because it's a Sharia Zone - British laws do not apply.
It comes down to an exercise in logic. If freedom of religion is one's goal, but one religion explicitly and specifically names other religions as having less rights, and includes instructions to enforce restrictions on other religions, by force if necessary, and then what do you do? If Christianity explicitly ordered Christians to kill abortionists (which it doesn't), would that absolve people who kill abortion doctors? Hey, they would just be freely practicing their religion, right?
Do you protect and condone the violence and human rights abuses perpetrated by a religion as 'freedom to practice religion'? Or do you acknowledge a religion's aggresive, totalitarian, supremacist nature and demand that it must operate within the confines of the law, or else it will be outlawed-restricted-marginalized?
An apologia from Spencerites for his program to limit freedom of religion makes hollow your claims to defend Democratic values. Something very fundamental as reading the Quran in the Wilders program would be a punishable offense. According to Wilders, Thomas Jefferson's possession of a Quran back in the 18th century was a crime. Either you support that or you don't?
Wilders when confronted with hard and challenging questions, such as on HardTalk revealed what he is really about. He wants a dominant culture, but that culture is one that is at odds with old Dutch values. He is attempting to create new Dutch values such as intolerance, less openness, predominately White, excluding foreigners and immigrants. Also in another step towards fascism he wants to strip Dutch citizens of their citizenship and send them to where their ancestors came from. So if you are a second or third generation Dutch whose ancestors came from Morrocco he would send you back. That is who Spencer supports and advocates for.
I don't believe in banning the quran, but I also don't believe in banning Mein Kampf. Why ban one and not the other? I don't believe in double standards. How can Mark Steyn be prosecuted for stating facts about Islam and Muslims, but supposedly moderate Muslims calling for gays and Jews to be murdered get a pass? Is it because killing gays and Jews is part of their religion, which they should be free to practice?
I truly feel sorry for peaceful Muslims who were born into Islam, for being burdened with a religion whose holy book says Jews are apes and pigs, and whose prophet personally executed, by beheading, hundreds of men before taking their wives and daughters as sex slaves. I can't imagine having to explain to my children why the man their religion holds up as the perfect example of human behavior married a six year old child and consummatd the marriage when she was nine.
Spencer then lies in stating that the ALA invited Rehab to placate CAIR after CAIR had sent out its press releases. FALSE. As stated on the ALA blog, CAIR sent its first press release 24 hours after Rehab had sent a response to his "invitation" and did not get an answer to his concerns.
Here is Wilders on BBC Hardtalk:
[Sackur]: Are you saying that the fact that Amsterdam, Rotterdam, the Hague are very soon, if not now going to be majority non-White cities is not acceptable?
[Wilders]: Of course it's not acceptable! You're asking me the question as if it's some kind of surprise what my answer would be.
Also, where do you have any evidence that Robert Spencer would want to restrict the freedom of religion of Muslims? If by freedom of religion, you mean honor killings, beheadings, female genital mutilation, and sharia law provisions, then yes, I would be in favor of restricting that as well. If you consider sharia law and Islamic jurisprudence elements of "freedom of religion," then that would imply taking rights away from Christians, Jews, and non-Muslims, who are classified as dhimmis and second-class citizens under sharia and are not entitled to equal rights. In addition, Muslims are not entitled to special religoius accommodation at the expense of other religions. This means that Muslims are not entitled to special prayer times or prayer rooms in the workplace, extra loud muezzin amplifiers which create a public nuisance because of noise, etc, etc. As for practices such as zakat (alms-giving) and attending mosque, Muslims are fully entitled to that. So, I hope you are speaking in ignorance, otherwise your comments are quite disingenuous.
Wilders has said, "We should also stop pretending that Islam is a religion, the right to religious freedom should not apply to Islam." He said this at a conference in Florida and a few synagogues to roaring applause.
Spencer wrote recently, "I didn’t actually have anything to do with that conference in Florida, but Hoop could just say straight out that I support Wilders. And so should anyone who holds dear the Western values that are threatened by Islamic supremacists — notably, as I said above, the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of all people before the law."
All freedoms except for the freedom of religion applying universally to all groups is what Spencer keeps out.
By freedom of religion, I am not referring to those cultural appendages that you conflate with religion. I am speaking about something very fundamental that Wilders would deny. Im speaking about the right of a Muslim to practice their religion. To read their Quran and not have it be a punishable offense. As you and Spencer know Wilders wants to ban the Quran. Do you support that John? It seems Spencer in his support of Wilders does.
I am so amazed by the loaded terminology that Rehab tries to use to mislead the American left in their attempts to depict their critics as irrelevant, marginal bigots. Words like "Islamophobe," "bigotry," and "far right-wing" are so out of place that they are downright deceitful and insulting. Those who oppose Islamofascism come from diverse racial and faith backgrounds, ranging from Somali atheists like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, to Christian Lebanese like Brigitte Gabriel, as well as Jewish and Christian minorities who have lived under sharia law and actually experienced the oppression of Islamic governments (e.g. Bat Ye'or, Robert Spencer's own family in Ottoman Turkey, the Coptic relatives of Raymond Ibrahim). These people speak from the depth of their experience and knowledge, unified in their consensus that Islamofascism poses a threat to human rights and freedom. The ad hominem attacks are very shameless, because invoking "far right" associations somehow suggests that his critics are members of the KKK or neo-Nazis (ironically, the far-right whom Mr. Rehab so vociferously dismisses has a much closer alliance with the Islamofascists than they ever did with "Islamophobes." Hence, David Duke traveled to Iran to attend Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial conference and went on Syrian television calling for the destruction of Israel.)
There are over 1.5 billion Muslims, many of which live in Europe and North America. Nothing anyone can do or say will make a majority of Muslims suddenly renounce and denounce their religion - for most of them, it's not just a religion, Islam is their government, their history, their culture, their whole identity is wrapped up in Islam.
Unfortunately, secular Western democracies are not compatible with the current MAINSTREAM Sunni and Shia interpretations of Islam. Islam mandates theocracy; unlike Christianity, there is nothing in Islam to justify the separation of church and state. Islamic law directly contradicts the equal protection clause of the constitution in that it requires Muslims and non-Muslims to be treated differently under the law.
Debate and discussion on issues like these is necessary. Promoting a simplistic, fictionalized, idealistic view of the world (Islam is the Religion of Peace), or meaningless anectodal evidence (I know a nice Muslim) produces cognitive dissonance. Why aren't there Muslim 'scholars' (you know, the ones with the credentials) advocating a different interpretation of the Quran, one that doesn't include killing apostates, homosexuals, and adulterers, or consummating marriage with a nine year old? Is it because they themselves would then be murdered for being a heretical apostate? It's the Salem witch trials circa 2009.
1- They acknowledge the growing amount of atrocities committed in its name, and
2- They find plenty of straightforward justification for them in Islam's teachings, starting with the Coran itself.
That is the only thing R. Spencer claims to do. And you don't need to have a PhD in Middle-Eastern history to do that.
What Ahmed is doing here, essentially, is saying that :
1- R. Spencer doesn't have a right to speak about that, for lack of credentials and because of impure motives, and
2- everything he says about Islam is distorted truth anyway. Yet he won't debate him.
What's unfortunate, is that everybody who dares take a look at Islamic ideology and criticize it eventually ends up being told the same thing, and gets denied a reasonable debate. So no debate ever occurs.
What's even more unfortunate, is that in the face of such a taboo, only far-right elements (such as those commentators on jihadwatch.org) end up speaking what's on common folks' minds.
(PS- If you want to check, I've also posted comments at jihadwatch.com, under the pseudo "Ramanujan". Twice, I believe. Both times to criticize Spencer.)
To the contrary, he says in 4 places:
"Spencer has a right to speak, Savage has a right to speak, and so does CAIR."
"As it so happens, CAIR does not concern itself with censoring or silencing Spencer's earth-shattering truthiness as he routinely claims on his website."
"We too support freedom of speech, including that of bigots; what we oppose is false advertising."
"Now let me be clear, if Spencer wishes to take the position that Islam itself is the problem, as opposed to extremist interpretations, fine, he is entitled to that position."
It would be nice if you did not project your lazy assumptions on other people and you actually read things carefully before you comment.
Let me add, you too are free to agree with Spencer and engage in a selective reading of history and religious texts, and to use a double standard in assessing Islam from assessing Christianity. It is a little bizarre that if you choose that path, you would fault Rehab for not coming to save you. You have a mind of your own, make your choices as you see fit.
-Of course Rehab would state that he is in favour of free Speech: Even if his and CAIR's actions do the exact opposite.
The fact is, everytime Spencer or others like him are scheduled to speak at universities, CAIR, the MSA and other groups stage boycotts and demonstrations to try to intimidate the organizers in cancelling them. Whereas it seems to me that if Spencer's views were so factually skewed and distorted, as you assume yourself, the easiest way to demonstrate it would be to ridicule them in debate.
As for my own double standards, I'll ask if you have read the Coran and Hadith (I have), and can honestly say you've found a message of peace in them ?
Have you not noticed that what they and sharia offer is a total system of repression ? They do : It's in Islam's texts and in its history. I haven't taken Spencer's or anybody's word on it, I have done my homework. Have you ?
If you need to know, I'm an anti-theist. If you're to compare me with anyone, think Bill Maher or Sam Harris before R. Spencer. And especially, don't hint that I'm a fan of Christianity or any other religious ideology.
My only contention in all of this, is that we should give ourselves the right to publicly criticize religious ideologies as we do any others. Especially when those ideologies are responsible for countless acts of irrational violence.
Canto28:
"I admit I don't have indept knowledge or familiarity with the BNP but frankly, based on what I can read & see on their web sites I don't see what's so terrible about the BNP" (BNP is Britain's fascist party)
"So stop whining and start electing right wing politicians with backbones who will actually not sellout your country! "
Butwhatabout (goes by "Awake" on Jihadwatch):
Here are some of his "scholarly" posts, no doubt learned from his grand guru Spencer:
"I am clearly a paranoid "Islamophobe", and most proud of that fact. "
"A country of Christians and ...negligible...and ....negligible...and...negligible others."
"I personally would nuke you flat first. "
"Muslims are liars and the MSM groups are complicit? Whou'da thunk it?"
"Obviously. The more the Islam, the worse it is for the ladies."
"I suggest a takfir "Battle Royal" out in the Ethiopian desert for the lot of them. Just another corpse, brought on by acts that Muslims seem to routinely excel at."
"The status of Muslims, their principles and their individual associations to a group or groups willing to commit violence is ever-changing. The impetus, justification and mandate for this evolving numerical global group ...Islam, is fixed, permanent and unyielding to the bitter end."
"God Bless Netanyahu!"
"*Pictures Muhammad licking boy's tongues**barfs* "
Context?
For two, it proves that you and Canto28 are not the per-chance commenters you would love for us to believe you are, but are infiltrators from jihadwatch.com, here to sing the Islamophobic tune of your grand guru, Spencer. And that just like him, you bear rotten extremist and racist views as evidenced by your own verbatim quotes.
For three, it proves that CubsFan77 is right, that most of the people attacking Rehab in the comments section here are none other but the biased apologists for Spencer that raced over from his cesspool of vile ant-Muslim commentary, jihadwatch.
Four, it proves that like your grand guru, you speak in one tone to the mainstream when you try to dupe them that you come in reason and logic, but show your true (extremist) tone that tou try to conceal from us when your guard is down speaking your true mind to your radical brethren.
etc. etc.
Spencer's unofficial shock troops are here attempting to pressurise Rehab and others behind the veil of objective commenters which they quite obviously are not. In fact they are Islamophobes and bigots.
Still for the life of me I don't get how these people can proclaim to uphold Democratic values and at the same time be proud followers of Spencer. Contradiction anyone?
I haven't received one response to the fact that Spencers good friend, who he is on the record "supporting" (that is his words not mine), Geert Wilders has called for the restriction and denial of religious freedom to Muslims - a pillar of American Democracy. That is who you support Spencerites,
Geert Wilders at a conference in Florida:
"We should also stop pretending that Islam is a religion…the right to religious freedom should not apply to Islam."
Canto28:
"I would encourage all to demand on comments at Rehab's article... Let's show that Robert Spencer is not some no account "rabble-rouser" he can so easily dismiss."
"The Koran, which this evil fraud [Muhammad] obviously fabricated as he went along"
" [Obama says] 'I respect Islam as one of the world's major religions as well as its religious symbols,' What's to respect?"
"Should anyone respect a brutal totalitarian "religion", based on an obvious and odious fabrication by an obvious 7th century megalomaniac con man, that aspires to hold a sword over everyone's head? That it has over a billion followers is testimony only to the ignorance & illiteracy of so much of the Muslim world, the evident desire of its men to oppressively dominate women, and Islam's commandment to kill apostates!"
"I don't doubt that if a Palestinian state (armed or not) were created that it would be vastly more populated and very much poorer than Israel and all the pin head bleeding hearts of the West would called the situation a wicked apartheid like nasty white South Africa once had and demand total integration. The results, of course, would be even much worse than what has happened in SA" (Here you have it, this guy bewails the anti-apartheid desegregation of South Africa as such a horrible thing)
Readers can judge for themselves the level of knowledge and insight of Robert Spencer by, for example, viewing his lecture on Muhammad at the Heritage Foundation's website. All you & Ahmed can offer is ad hominem attacks that convince no one. I'm surprised this site stoops to allowing just attacks from a representative of CAIR. See the CAIR Watch site to learn about CAIR.
And I really think this site should stop blocking my reasonable comments.
You mean Joe Kaufman's site? (learn about Kaufman here: http://www.loonwatch.com/tag/kaufman-o-meter/ )
Nice going Canto28, not biased at all are you.
What next? Are you going to recommend the stormfront.org site to learn about Jews?
I see that Spencer has trained you guys well.
All of these of course have been answered even though they didn't relate to the topic under discussion which is more important then Spencer and that is how could the ALA be duped into inviting a Spencer to a panel that is to go beyond Stereotypes. Spencer works off and cashes checks from stereotypes. The old stereotypes from Medieval Europe that Islam is inherently violent, bloodthirsty, etc. etc. The Orientalist cards of Oppressing women, unable to adopt to modernity and so on and on and on.
So as Rehab and the others point out Spencer is just not suited for the topic or the organization. Hate speech belongs somewhere else.
Nobody wonders why Mr. Rehab objects to Mr. Spencer. What everyone is wondering about is why this perfect opportunity to publicly expose this hate monger, who appears on, TV, radio, Universities and on the NY Times best selling list as a, fraud, and teller of lies.
Surely there is no other target more worthy of a public exposure than this Islamic hatemonger. To say Mr. Spencer is not worth it for whatever reason seems deeply dishonest in light of his very, very, public presence.
Yeah, because so many rabble-rousers have lots of published books. Some on the NY Times best selling list. It is obvious Mr Spencer has a huge following, and here's you chance prove how right you are, and how wrong he is. In light of how far and wide Mr. Spencer's message has gone, I would think you would jump at the chance to debate.
Being on that list does not make you a respectable scholar. It just makes you a good marketer of your product.
No doubt in the case of Spencer, sensationalism played a role in that regard, much like pyrotechnics and good special effects help a shallow flick get number one in the box office. Objectivity makes you a good scholar and that's something tenured professors will tell you this "man on a mission" does not have.
So yeah, if Rehab is after publicity, all this should matter and he should debate this guy. Otherwise, I say don't legitimize him. As Xac said, would Abe Foxman give David Duke the time of day?
Nice try Smith1953, but no cigar.
Yes, I could easily understand if it was just some rabble-rouser who had some silly website with a paltry 100 hits a day. Not someone who has authored many books (again some on the NY Times best selling list,) and who appears with his message constantly on TV, radio, and lectures the FBI, CIA, and at many universities. Come on, isn't this exactly the kind of man that needs to be straightened out? I can’t think of a better example. Can you? If so, Who?
Why let this superb opportunity slip by?