Robert Spencer joined Janet Mefferd on Friday to discuss a new pamphlet he co-authored with David Horowitz called Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future [pdf], which claims that “‘Islamophobia’ is a hoax comparable to The Protocols of The Elders of Zion.” While speaking with Mefferd, Spencer alleged that the term “Islamophobia” was created in order to criminalize any criticism of Muslims, and maintained that “the media is getting some money” to represent Muslims in a positive light and smear anti-Muslim activists like himself. Spencer’s ally Pamela Geller made a similar case to Mefferd last week, ranting that groups monitoring anti-Muslim activists are trying to make her into “a big ole cow.”
He also stressed that freedom of religion shouldn’t be “considered absolute,” arguing that Islam is both a religion and “a political ideology” and “the political ideology is what is dangerous to Americans.”
So I don’t know why nowadays freedom of religion is considered absolute especially since, as you point out Janet, we’re talking about a political ideology here and the political ideology is what is dangerous to Americans because it impinges upon our freedoms, our freedom of speech, our freedom of conscience, the idea of equality of rights of all people before the law and so on. That is the only reason why anybody is concerned about Islamic law. So if those political aspects were restricted then there would be no problem. And I don’t think it would restrict the freedom of religion to restrict the political aspects of Islam.
See they had a big public relations disaster on 9/11. They’ve turned it around with amazing skill and I can’t help but think that maybe media is getting some money for this, maybe there’s some other explanation for why everyone is in the tank and has accepted this manipulation.