You go, gal.

I'd take such a suggestion seriously if the liberal-leaning God-bloggers I peruse would stop using words like "right-wing," "patriotic," "conservative," and "fundamentalist" in a pejorative sense. We're all a bunch of rubes, you know, we Americans in the "religious right." We don't love enough or tolerate enough.
Anyone who knows me (or who reads me regularly) knows I'm big on love and hard on unfair criticism, but sometimes I think some of the folks I read in the Christian blogoshere have sanitized Jesus to some kind of c'est la vie hippie or something. And these prophets of tolerance sure spend lots of time being intolerant of those not like them. They just don't do it in an obvious or caustic way; they're more passive aggressively condescending.
I won't name names.

Sorry for hijacking your thread here with a barely on-topic rant, Susan. I feel better now, though. ;-)
Good post.

Hi Jared,

Thanks! And no need to apologize at all -- you hit the nail square on the head much better than I was able to. And I feel better, too! ;-)

Susan,
My name is Steve [Hi Steve] and I too am a bad Christian.

My pro-Palestinian sister occasionally takes me to task for intolerance, for supporting the oppressive Israeli occupation, etc. Real Christians would leave well enough alone!

Blog on!

Thanks for the mention!

Calling something "political correctness" doesn't close down the argument you know. This isn't about whether the words are insensitive or offensive. If you've read my short piece you'll know that I never suggested that. I'm asking for "islamofascist" to be dropped because it is *inaccurate* as a political label and its only function is as a perjorative. It is entirely different from words like "fundamentalist" and the others you mention in that it comes "pre-loaded" with entirely negative connotations and it inevitably links "Islam" and "fascism" in a most unhelpful way. You may say that you reserve the word only for those Muslims engaged in violence. My argument is that this word casts it net more widely than maybe some of its users intend.

You entirely mis-characterise what I was suggesting. I'm talking about niceness or bear-hugs or foreign aid. I'm asking for clarity.

And for the record, I never suggested that those who use the word islamofascist are "bad" - Christian or otherwise. All that I'm trying to do is persuade others that the word is not useful. I don't see how that is "tut-tutting".

Jared - how can someone present an argument in a "passive aggressive" way?

Hi Susan:

I'm not quite sure how we jumped from Richard's plea to being bad, 'politically incorrect, insensitive, good. No one is tut-tutting.
I am trying to understand, so pardon what may be a stupid question for you.
How does Richard's plea ignite the opposites listed above?

I propose a compromise; we'll stop calling radical muslims "islamofascists" if the liberals will stop calling us "neo-fascists." Then again, I kind of like to use the term "islamofascist"...

Richard,

I disagree that "Islamofascist" is inaccurate. I think there is a fascist movement among radical Islamic fundamentalists. I don't think we should dance around that fact that there is a religious component to this war, whether we like it or not. It's not about declaring war on Islam, but rather acknowledging that some adherents to Islam have declared war on us. What does accepting this fact have to do with charity?

Bene,

Let me quote from Richard's post, he said: "... I believe that these terms are damaging to understanding and therefore to peace." I say, how so? Unless pointing out the undeniable religious component behind much of the radical Islamist terrorism is somehow a no-no. That's why I ranted about "political correctness", because of what I saw as an attempt to get people to gloss over an uncomfortable truth.

You go, girl. Have you ever seen Mean Girls?? I liked the line where the friend said, "There are two types of evil people: People who do evil things and the people who see evil things happen and don't do anything." . . . or something sort of like that. Anyway, point: I totally respect your standpoint. I think that by standing behind your feelings on the situation so firmly is to do some good. I love good people.

Hi Michelle,

Thank you! :-)

Who said anything about charity? I'm sticking to my assertion that the term is *inaccurate*. Fascism exalts race and/or nation. Is there a brand of Islam that does that? I'm not denying that there's a religious component to events in the Middle East. Far from it!
I agree with Michelle. And for what it's worth, I can claim to have been part of a campaign to stop arms sales to Saddam Hussein during the 1980's. When he was "our" ally.

Asking for things to be properly labelled does not amount to doing nothing. If you disagree with my point, fine. Let's disagree. But don't presume that I'm making any point other than the one I am actually making. Not "charity", "political correctness", niceness, or anything else. I want words to be used so that their meanings remain clear.

Richard,

My apologies -- I misread your first comment. That's where the "charity" thing came from -- you actually said "clarity". (This has been happening to me a lot today; perhaps I should call it a day on blogging and commenting.)

Couldn't fascism also exalt one religion over another? And I don't mean thinking that your religion is the truth, with the others not being true. I also don't mean wanting people to convert of their own free will. Rather, I mean the belief that your religion should forcefully stamp out all other beliefs. The Wahhabi brand of Islam looks to be the source of much of this kind of radicalism.

Here's the definition of fascism according to Mussolini, who knew a thing or two about the subject: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

This page is pretty info-heavy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Susan:

I had no problem with your "No!"
It showed some independent thinking, and it made me laugh. You lost me on the rest though.
I asked because I think intent was read in where no intent was. But, I see you and Richard figured that out.:^)
I hope you are feeling better by the way. Blog on!

Susan said: 'My apologies -- I misread your first comment. That's where the "charity" thing came from -- you actually said "clarity".'
That explains alot! There's a fine irony about the word "clarity" being mis-read, don't you think? ;o)

Richard,

There's a fine irony about the word "clarity" being mis-read, don't you think? ;o)

Yes, there is. ;-)

I still disagree that those words lack clarity (or charity) per se. Yes, some people may abuse the words and use them to refer to any and all Muslims. That is wrong. But that can happen to most any word. If these particular words are used properly, I don't see why they shouldn't be used.