In which Marty Peretz tries really hard, but still misses the point

Well, he apologized for saying that Muslims shouldn’t have First Amendment rights:

The embarrassing sentence is: “I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment, which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.” I wrote that, but I do not believe that.

…

So I apologize for my sentence, not least because it misrepresents me.

But then he turns right around and says this!

There is no hatredin my heart; there is deep anxiety about the dangers of Islamism,and anger at the refusal of certain politicians and commentators toadequately grasp those dangers,

I’ll take him at his word that he doesn’t hate Muslims, but here you have it; he has “deep anxiety about the dangers of Islamism.” What dangers, exactly, might you be referring to, Mr. Peretz? And “Islamism”? This term in and of itself is highly Islamophobic. No one uses “Christianism” to describe Scott Roeder‘s philosophy. We don’t say “Jewishism” to describe Israeli settler violence. No, we call it what it is: violent extremism. “Islamism” implies some sort of creeping danger from Muslims, or from Islam in general.

I give Peretz credit for believing that Muslims are worth of constitutional protections, but that’s a pretty low bar. He’s got a long way to go.