The Brian Leiters of the world are an important part of the reason why anti-Semitic tropes are creeping back to legitimacy in academia. His knee-jerk defense of an admitted Jew hater — who, according to Leiter is not a despicable anti-Semite but an acceptable "cosmopolitan" — contributes to the legitimization of anti-Semitism.This is apparently a large part of what Jewish identity politics is all about -- going around calling people anti-Semites and bigots and invoking silly Nazi analogies. He even calls Jews and other Semites anti-Semites if they do not support Israel.
The same can be said of Ron Paul, who everyone has heard of. Paul has, according to The New York Times, refused to "disavow" the "support" of "white supremacists, survivalists and anti-Zionists who have rallied behind his candidacy." ...
It has been said that "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Leiter and Paul may or may not be good men, but they are guilty of more than merely doing nothing. They are, by their actions, helping to legitimate the oldest of bigotries. Shame on them!
Leiter and Paul have all sorts of goofy views. It is reasonable to assume that 2% of their goofy views involve Jews, since Jews are about 2% of the USA population.
Deshowitz is the worst sort of bigot. He doesn't even believe in the religious aspects of Judaism. He just promotes Jewish identity politics and Zionism, and recklessly calls people Nazis if they do not share his political views. He claims to support free speech, but he wants organized ostracism of anyone who even associates with people he dislikes.
A different view comes from leftist-atheist-evolutionist Jerry Coyne. He is of Jewish descent but he says that all religion is poisonous. He says:
We need the right to freely and publicly criticize politicians, religious people and their beliefs, and historians — indeed, even those historians who affirm the Holocaust. I’ve learned a lot listening to Holocaust deniers, including ways that they resemble other conspiracy theorists, the methods that Nazis used to suppress information about the gas chambers, and the paucity of direct written links between Hitler himself and the extirpation of the Jews. It should not be a crime to promulgate such denialism, odious though those viewpoints may seem.That is a crime in much of Europe, and Holocaust historical work is unreliable as a result. Another religion wants the UN to give it special protection from criticism:
It’s Islam, and at issue is Resolution 16/18 of the United Nations Human Rights Council (have a look at it.) It ostensibly protects all religions, but the people pushing it are, of course, Muslims. ... But now the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (a consortium of Islamic Nations) has tweaked the language to make it palatable to America, and they’ve succeded: Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are supporting the resolution, and the U.S. may sign on.Yes, it is odious. Some religions really are better than others. Nearly everyone agrees to that, altho they differ about what the better religions are. Speaking in support of one religion implicitly devalues the competing religions, and incites discrimination against those other religious views. That is a good thing, not a bad thing, even if it is upsetting to Dershowitz and the Islamic nations. They are textbook examples of bigoted religious intolerance. There is no true freedom of religion in any Islamic nation.
This is what the resolution says ...3. Condemns any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audio-visual or electronic media or any other means; ...What’s happening here is that Islam is seeking special protections not afforded to other faiths. We should not let ourselves be bullied by this stance, or by this resolution. Resolution 16/18 is an offense to the American tradition of free speech, and it’s odious that both Obama and Hillary Clinton are supporting it.