Monday, February 13, 2006

Western Blasphemy Or Just More Islamist Bigotry?

Check this from Bill Kristol at the Weekly Standard. They reproduced the Mohammed cartoons that were printed in European newspapers which sparked riots among chronically angry youth in the Middle East. But the important thing is that those cartoons were also printed in Egypt's version of the Washington Post. The Western act spurred riots. The Middle East version didn't.

But isn't ANY reproduction even for demonstrative purposes (i.e. here are what the cartoons looked like) blasphemy under this increasingly unyielding standard which these thugs apply to us? So it seems that the basis of these violent demonstrations is that westerners published them. But if that's the case--and make no mistake, it is--then it's not blasphemy to make such reproductions, but rather bigotry to attempt to stop someone else from doing it based upon their nationality.

And just for a bit of reference, the Koran has NO prohibitions on images of Mohammed. These are legalisms created by clerics who felt that it would be a good thing to subject people to absolutist regulations.

So let's reduce this matter into a couple of simple ideas. Because these people hate westerners, they attacked them. The offered justification for this particular event of violence was that the westerners offended an obscure prohibition of a religion which these thugs use as a political cloak of righteousness for what is essentially a brutal anti-civilization movement. They want westerners to limit their rights to free speech where their religious sensibilities are concerned, and they want their cultural norms to replace ours on our own turf.

And if, through the pressures of political correctness we do that, we may as well lay down our concerns in the terror war, because they will have scored a political victory, paving the way for a whole lot more.

And this all comes back to 9/11. If there is any more appropriate example of who and what we tolerate when we accommodate radical Islam in order to avoid a conflict, we in a very significant way capituate to people who flew three civilian airliners into buildings and another into the ground--people who committed such acts because they didn't tolerate us.

So when we consider giving up certain rights, namely that of free speech in order to buy into some misbegotten politically correct ethic, remember that in doing so, we are stating that the whims of murderers are more important than the lives of the Americans whom they will kill whether we kowtow or not.

And with that thought, I invite us to be on our own side in this one.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home