The episode involving the kooky Florida pastor who threatened to burn the Koran was what you might call a teachable moment for me. I had mixed feelings about the whole thing from start to finish. On the one hand I felt that it was wrong to insult Muslims without specific cause, but on the other I thought it could serve as a much needed blow against PC (not against Muslims). Anything to wake us from our Left-induced stupor. But I also worried about the visuals and that it might backfire on us. So my thinking on the matter wasn’t settled. The kook pastor represents the most extreme and fringe element to be found in the Christian world, and yet even he didn’t have the guts to follow through on his threats. That pretty much disproves the Left’s narrative about fundamentalist Christianity as far as I’m concerned. Our fundies can’t even muster the nerve to burn an inanimate object. Scary, aren’t they? I was also disgusted by the one-way sensitivity the Left shows for Islam after decades of blashpeming Jesus and desecrating Christian symbols in the name of art and freedom of speech. Their outrage was obviously false. Perhaps if the pastor had applied for an NEA grant and burned the Koran as performance art that would have made it more acceptable. And what about that pastor’s free speech rights? If you’re a Liberal, free speech obviously only applies to Leftists desecrating Christian symbols and Muslims building victory mosques at Ground Zero. You see, those are shots against “the Man,” so every level of their transgression can be defended on the grounds of “free speech.” At the very least, we owe that Florida pastor a debt of gratitude for exposing their hypocrisy to the light of day. But the rabbit hole goes far deeper in Mark Steyn’s excellent column as he slices and dices Muslim and Liberal hypocrisy and the one-way sensitivity that is multiculturalism. This is a CCHQ must read.
MOLLIFYING MUSLIMS, AND MUSLIFYING MOLLIES
Too many people in the free world have internalized Islam’s view of them. [They have internalized the neo-Marxist narrative of “the other”, a modern update of the “noble savage”]. A couple of years ago, I visited Guantanamo and subsequently wrote that, if I had to summon up Gitmo in a single image, it would be the brand-new copy of the Koran in each cell: To reassure incoming prisoners that the filthy infidels haven’t touched the sacred book with their unclean hands, the Korans are hung from the walls in pristine, sterilized surgical masks. It’s one thing for Muslims to regard infidels as unclean, but it’s hard to see why it’s in the interests of us infidels to string along with it and thereby validate their bigotry. What does that degree of prostration before their prejudices tell them about us? It’s a problem that Muslims think we’re unclean. It’s a far worse problem that we go along with it.
Take this no-name pastor from an obscure church who was threatening to burn the Koran. He didn’t burn any buildings or women and children. He didn’t even burn a book. He hadn’t actually laid a finger on a Koran, and yet the mere suggestion that he might do so prompted the President of the United States to denounce him, and the Secretary of State, and the commander of US forces in Afghanistan, various G7 leaders, and golly, even Angelina Jolie. President Obama has never said a word about honor killings of Muslim women. Secretary Clinton has never said a word about female genital mutilation. General Petraeus has never said a word about the rampant buggery of pre-pubescent boys by Pushtun men in Kandahar. But let an obscure man in Florida so much as raise the possibility that he might disrespect a book – an inanimate object – and the most powerful figures in the western world feel they have to weigh in.
Aside from all that, this obscure church’s website has been shut down, its insurance policy has been canceled, its mortgage has been called in by its bankers. Why? As Diana West wrote, why was it necessary or even seemly to make this pastor a non-person? Another one of Obama’s famous “teaching moments”? In this case teaching us that Islamic law now applies to all? Only a couple of weeks ago, the President, at his most condescendingly ineffectual, presumed to lecture his moronic subjects about the First Amendment rights of Imam Rauf. Where’s the condescending lecture on Pastor Jones’ First Amendment rights?
When someone destroys a bible, US government officials don’t line up to attack him. President Obama bowed lower than a fawning maitre d’ before the King of Saudi Arabia, a man whose regime destroys bibles as a matter of state policy, and a man whose depraved religious police forces schoolgirls fleeing from a burning building back into the flames to die because they’d committed the sin of trying to escape without wearing their head scarves. If you show a representation of Mohammed, European commissioners and foreign ministers line up to denounce you. If you show a representation of Jesus Christ immersed in your own urine, you get a government grant for producing a widely admired work of art. Likewise, if you write a play about Jesus having gay sex with Judas Iscariot.
So just to clarify the ground rules, if you insult Christ, the media report the issue as freedom of expression: A healthy society has to have bold, brave, transgressive artists willing to question and challenge our assumptions, etc. But, if it’s Mohammed, the issue is no longer freedom of expression but the need for “respect” and “sensitivity” toward Islam, and all those bold brave transgressive artists don’t have a thing to say about it.
Read the rest.