Lipstick?

Writing in Salon online, Professor Juan Cole, a professor who, I think it's fair to say, espouses a philosophy that is extreme Left, continues the current anti-Palin mime by criticizing the VP candidate in the following way:

Sept. 9, 2008 | John McCain announced that he was running for president to confront the "transcendent challenge" of the 21st century, "radical Islamic extremism," contrasting it with "stability, tolerance and democracy." But the values of his handpicked running mate, Sarah Palin, more resemble those of Muslim fundamentalists than they do those of the Founding Fathers. On censorship, the teaching of creationism in schools, reproductive rights, attributing government policy to God's will and climate change, Palin agrees with Hamas and Saudi Arabia rather than supporting tolerance and democratic precepts. What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick.

Lipstick? That's all, just Lipstick?

I agree that there is a certain irony when Christian-Right fundamentalists try impose their views on others … you might call what they do Taliban-lite.

It appears that all religious fanatics (regardless of religion) lack a sense of proportion and a sense of humor. Luckily, their efforts at imposing their views within the USA have been met with relatively limited success and almost no violence.

But to suggest that the only thing that distinguishes Palin from Hamas is “Lipstick” is so ridiculous that I’m almost embarrassed for Cole. He is either so consumed with post-modern moral equivalence that he can’t think clearly or so misinformed that he honestly thinks that Hamas, Saudi Arabia, and other islamist regimes are no more dangerous than the Governor of Alaska.

Robert Spencer comments:

Witless moral equivalence and hysteria from the estimable Juan Cole. Note, first, the sleight of hand that Cole tries to pull off by claiming that "on censorship, the teaching of creationism in schools, reproductive rights, attributing government policy to God's will and climate change, Palin agrees with Hamas and Saudi Arabia rather than supporting tolerance and democratic precepts." Palin disagrees with Cole on these issues, to be sure, but does she really oppose "democratic precepts" on them? Does she want to dismantle the American Republic and impose a totalitarian order, a la Sharia?

I doubt it. But of course that is not the only difference, besides lipstick, between Palin and Osama. It is strange to have to spell this out, like explaining how to boil water to a particularly slow-witted chef. Palin, you see, does not advocate, pace Cole, the replacement of U. S. Constitutional law with religious law. She does not advocate, and does not plot, the mass murder of workers in office buildings. She does not promise people that they will be rewarded with unlimited sex in Paradise if they murder unbelievers. She does not teach that those who steal should have their hands amputated, that those who commit adultery should be stoned to death, or that those who leave her religion should be murdered. She does not advocate the consignment of women to veils, burqas, and confinement to the inner chambers of the home.

Need I go on? Isn't this obvious?

It is obvious, unless your world view is so distorted that only one orthodoxy is permitted and anyone with opposing views must be considered evil (Oops, forgot, postmodernists never use that word. After all, there is no evil in their through-the-looking-glass world, only the oppressed and the oppressors.)

If Obama supporters continue with their deranged criticism of Palin, they will single-handedly give the election to their opponents. It’s interesting to watch.