I oppose groups such as the English Defence League for many reasons, but for this brief essay

specifically I want to argue that groups such as the EDL hinder the individuals right to legitimately critique religion. There exists what I term an unfortunate alliance between some (emphasis on some) antitheists and skeptics - and even self-described humanists - and Far-Right counterjihadist organizations such as the EDL. This is unfortunate as not only does it allow groups like the EDL to exist and grow through tapping into genuine concerns and issues regarding faith in general and Islam in particular, but it also harms legitimate critique of religion. Far-Right groups exist through amalgamating the acceptable with the unacceptable. The EDL aims to amalgamate the acceptable (critique of Islam) with the unacceptable - a jingoistic, racialist and millenarian form of nationalism (as opposed to Civic Nationalism variants). Lets start with the EDL. A Far-Right nationalist movement that, despite its many claims to the contrary, seems to have only one purpose for existence: to generate support for the Far-Right political parties such as the British National Party, the National Front, and more specifically the BNP-spin off British Freedom Party (the EDL exists more or less as the BFPs semi-autonomous militant combative wing). What many people fail to understand is that groups like the EDL are a product of rationality: the Far-Right, unable to sell anti-Semitism to the electorate, switching instead to Islamophobia - recycling the same conspiracies, the same methodologies and the same propaganda only replacing Jew with Muslim: attempting to tap into to legitimate concerns and issues, and attempting to portray their politics as a defense of secularism and liberal values. Ill stop here for a moment, as readers may be put off by my use of the term Islamophobia. Let me qualify this: I differentiate between a legitimate critique of religion (such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism) and promoting hatred and fear of the religious (Christianphobia, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism). It is hypocritical to claim that Islamophobia doesnt exist without also stating that anti-Semitism does not exist. Knowing the horrors of the Holocaust for example, no one in their right mind would try to claim that anti-Semitism doesnt exist or deny the consequences of an unchallenged anti-Semitism, and the same should be with regard to Islamophobia (and other forms of racism directed at an individual and/or a group because of a shared religion, ethnicity, skin colour, etc). In short, it takes a callous bastard to claim that Islamophobia doesnt exist - as if to say that its impossible for an ordinary person to be harassed, persecuted and even physically attacked for simply being an adherent of Islam. And yes, Islamophobia as distinct from critique of Islam is a form of racism no matter how many times some people say Islam is not a race, so how can I be racist. Again, would anyone say Judaism is not a race [which it isnt] therefore Neo-Nazis are not racist? No they wouldnt, or at least I hope not. Racial dimensions are evident when Islamophobes themselves differentiate between English and Muslim for example; consider a Muslim with white skin to be a traitor (they tend not to call Asian Muslims traitors, believing them not to be part of the community to begin with) or when they assume that anyone with an Arabic name; a North African or Western Asian ethnical heritage to be Muslim. Just as the Nazis claimed that the Jews were a distinct race (or group of similar races) and that Judaism was an ideology designed to advance Jewry at the expense of the Germany Volk, so do groups like the EDL seemingly believe that Muslims are distinct race (or group of similar races) whereby Islam is an ideology designed to Islamificate the UK at the expense of the English. In both cases, Jews and Muslims are defined as an external threat to the German and English peoples retrospectively, with Judaism and Islam being ideologies designed to protect Jews and Muslim from criticism. The Nazis presented themselves as the only force that was prepared to fight this and that all the Nazis enemies were either complicit or in denial in the conspiracy. Groups like the EDL do the same. Promoting a millenarian narrative of an impending destruction, and presenting themselves as the only hope or the only salvation. 1) Pick an arbitrary doomsday scenario. 2) Heroificate yourself and your followers. 3) Demonise anyone that opposes you. Thats the basic formula for how Far-Right political organizations work. Just as the Nazis championed themselves as the defenders of Germany against the forces of international Jewry so to are groups like the EDL championing themselves as the defenders of England against the forces of Islamification (also termed Islamo-Marxism and Cultural Marxism and various other thought-terminated clichs). The problem here is that the Far-Right actively attempt to make critique of a

religion to be synonymous with support for the Far-Right. Of course, there is a difference between a critique of religion and promoting the myth of a coming invasion or takeover by adherents of that religion in some organized plot. The former is perfectly legitimate, and indeed healthy. The latter is a delusion. But organizations in the Far-Right attempt to present the two as synonymous with one another. What emerges is the appearance of a false dichotomy: you either critique religion and support the far-right; or you dont critique religion and dont support the Far-Right. If you do the former, your critique of religion serves the purpose not of critiquing religion but promoting the Far-Rights myth. And if you do the latter, you would likely be deemed an apologist or conspirator. So, theres the risk of a false dichotomy. But the reality is different: it is possible to critique religion in a legitimate and democratic manner AND to denounce the Far-Right simultaneously. We all know this of course, except for those engaged in the unfortunate alliance who seem to think to varying degrees that critique of Islam necessitates a denial of the existence of Islamophobia and support for Far-Right organizations. Its either a serious error of judgment, or blatant opportunities that only serves to give the Far-Right credibility while harming legitimate critique of religion. What is legitimate critique of religion? Without going in a long winded essay, its suffice in my opinion to say that a legitimate critique of religion is one that takes place within the norms and parameters of a Liberal Democratic society. Compare this to organizations such as the EDL, who actively generate Islamophobic sentiments and conspiratorial worldviews in order to attack Liberal Democracy itself (in the hope that they will one day be able to replace it with an authoritarian system in which the government has the ability to involve itself in every aspect of life as it chooses). Or more simply, compare the critique of religion by individuals such as Dawkins and Randi (generally rooted in science and philosophy) with the blatant Islamophobia of people like Pam Gellar. Or read Jason Burkes accounts of al Qaeda, and compare them to the scaremongering of Robert Spencer. Similarly, compare a legitimate critique of Judaism with the rants of a Seig Hailing Neo-Nazi. Or compare a legitimate critique of Christianity to the Crusader rants of Osama Bin Laden. If people arent able to distinguish between a legitimate critique of religion and playing to politically motivated individuals, then what is the pint of a critique of religion? Who would want to live in a world where someone who critiques Islam or Judaism has to continuously add but I dont support the Far-Right and dont agree with fear mongering? Who would want to live in a world were critique of religion serves nothing but to fuel extremist narratives; give a sense of legitimacy to criminals and mass murderers? In such a world, people would be afraid to critique religion. And already, time best devoted to legitimate critique of religion is instead wasted on having to point out the false dichotomy of support for Far-Right organizations. Just as the religious need to accept that a critique of their religion isnt Islamophobia, or Christianphobia (any more than a critique of my philosophical and political views can be considered Existentialphobia or Libertarianracism), the critiques of religion need to accept the risk of Far-Right organizations seeking to amalgamate those views with their own racialist, racist, xenophobia and millenarian attitudes. Criticism of religion can peacefully coexist with opposition to Far-Right groups. And the religious and skeptics can peacefully coexist. Dont let the Far-Right drive a wedge in between them. Dont let them convince people that critique of a religion necessitates a support of Far-Right politics.