Tolerance

Politicians and the MSM are pulled in opposite directions as they attempt to grapple with the ever-expanding, cartoon-related violence that has spread throughout the Moslem world. They abhor any attempt to muzzle a free, democratic press and condemn the mindless violence that has resulted in burned embassies, a number of human deaths, and thousands of death threats to the authors of the cartoons. But they cling to the idea that religious tolerance is worthwhile at all costs, even if it means muzzling the press and promulgating empty apologies to Islamofascists.

But worse, it turns out that the MSM has been taken in by the Islamofascists. Although virtually every US media outlet has reported that images of Mohammed are forbidden, there is NO prohibition in the Koran against drawing images of Mohammed. In fact, an Egyptian Newspaper published the cartoons in October, 2005, and there wasn’t a peep out the Egyptian (Moslem) readership. The Belmont Club comments:

And now it turns out that these cartoons have been circulated in the Muslim world, in Egyptian newspapers to be precise, as far back as October 2005. Amir Taheri says the Multiculti "intellectuals" have been humbugged. Taken. Sold some phony interpretation of Islam the way you would take a rube to the Olive Garden for Italian food, Taco Bell for Mexican, or serve up chop-suey and General Tso chicken as authentic Chinese cuisine. According to Taheri the whole "you can't portray Mohammed" injunction was largely drummed up by snake-oil salesmen who found a ready market of people ready to fall all over themselves in the West.

So why is it that the MSM tiptoes around this issue, refusing to print the cartoons so that the American public can see just how “offensive” they are or are not?

As I noted in an earlier post (Cartoons), much of the MSM (and many on the left) encounter cognitive dissonance when they consider cartoon related violence:

Many surveys indicate that editors and journalists in the main stream media tend to be left of center. This story presents them with cognitive dissonance. First, anything claimed offensive to Islam is a violation of political correctness and most editors and journalists subscribe to PC wholeheartedly. Second, any attempt to control the media violates freedom of the press and speech and is therefore a violation of a MSM birthright. Third, the Europeans have, in recent years, been held up as examples of nuanced, advanced culture, very PC, very peaceful -- not at all like the "blundering" US.

Yet, in this case, the Euros blatantly violate PC (with very little nuance) while at the same time those who feel offended (Moslems) violate freedom of the press [and react with mindless violence]. The US is not involved. Editors and journalists have had trouble sorting this out, and until recently, have chosen to make it a non-story, hoping that the dissonance will dissipate. It hasn't.

Representative of this is a recent Boston Globe editorial which stated: “As with the current consensus against publishing racist or violence-inciting material, newspapers ought to refrain from publishing offensive caricatures of Mohammed in the name of the ultimate Enlightenment value: tolerance.”

But exactly what are we tolerating? An Islamofascist ideology (NOT a religion) that would destroy every freedom we hold dear? An Islamofascist ideology that encourages mindless violence, the murder of Infidels (unless you’re Moslem, that’s you!), and the subjugation of millions of their own people? An Islamofascist ideology that’s working hard to acquire nuclear weapons?

Thomas Mann, a Nobel prize winner (in Literature) who escaped Germany just before another fascist element—the Nazis—took center stage, once said: “Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil.”