A Catholic website, What’s Wrong with the World: Dispatches From the 10th Crusade, considers its mission as,
dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism…
What about the women of the “Cross of Christ?” Didn’t they play a part?
Anyhow, it is not surprising to then read an anti-Muslim diatribe from Lydia McGrew, where she essentially echoes the viewpoint of Daniel Pipes and his ilk who think the “enfranchisement” of Muslims must not be allowed–at any cost.
According to McGrew, her main fear regarding anti-Sharia bills is not that they are unconstitutional but that they will lead to Muslims not being perceived “negatively.”
To my mind, then, the real danger (if we should call it that) of anti-sharia bills is not that they will foster negative ideas about large numbers of Muslims in America but that they won’t. The effect could be like that of a vaccination: “I’m safe now. I’ve taken care of that.”
In her words we can essentially read the strategy of militant right-wing anti-Islam Christians. A relentless PR war on Islam and Muslims, to portray them “negatively,” as backward barbarians, irreconcilable to modernity, democracy, blah, blah, blah.
First Thing‘s Matthew Schmitz has a liberal Catholic response, labeling McGrew’s view as counter to “Christian charity” and “liberal tolerance”:
McGrew is arguing something that none of my other critics has so far: namely, that the correct approach to Islam really is the dialing up of animus against American Muslims. I believe this is wrong as a matter of Christian charity and, secondarily, as a matter of liberal tolerance.