About censorship: "Jihad Watch banned again" (September 4, 2007).
Taking a look around Jihad Watch, I think I'm beginning to understand the problem. Jihad Watch doesn't approve of Islam, and therefore is a hate group. At least, by the standards of some segments of American society.
Jihad Watch's post, "Iraq: Misunderstanders of Islam continue with creation of "Islamic Cabinet"" (September 4, 2007), makes it very clear that they do not agree with the mainstream view that Islam has been hijacked by terrorists.
Jihad Watch rejects the idea that Islam is a peaceful religion, and that the jihadists are the Islamic equivalent of one of, say, the KKK with its cross-burnings.
For those without a knowledge of American culture in the 20th century, the KKK said they were Christians who were protecting their faith (and racial purity). Quite a few Christians, particularly Catholics, didn't agree: at all.
Back to Jihad Watch: I doubt that their identification of all Islam with the jihadist faction is accurate; but so far, there's been a remarkable lack of fuss raised by Muslims, regarding what is supposed to be a hijacking of their faith.
The matter certainly can be debated, and I am very concerned that a point of view is being banned.
I will admit that I have a personal stake in this. I express views in this blog that probably do not meet with the approval of
- The likes of Jihad Watch
("If You Hear Someone Speaking Arabic, GET A GRIP!")
- Abdallah bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud
("Saudi Arabia: Non-Islamic Religious Items Verboten")
- Keith Ellison
("Rep. Ellison's Misconstrued Reichstag Remarks")
I lived with political correctness in academia. I'd rather not see the same sort of censorship become common in the blogosphere.