The Fire

There have been millions of words written on the thwarted Islamic terrorist attack against the Mohammed cartoon contest in Texas. A significant majority of those words come from left-leaning members of the main stream media and the left-wing commentariat who are far more angry at Pamela Geller for sponsoring this "anti-Islamic event" than they are at the Islamists who decided that an appropriate response would be to murder all who attended the event.

Peter Wehner suggests that criticism of religion is well accepted (even applauded) and rightly defended by those on the Left, unless that criticism is directed at Islam. Then, those who draw cartoons or level legitimate criticism of a religion whose (to quote Samuel Huntington), “borders are bloody and so are its innards,” are labeled Islamophobes and bigots.

Wegner comments:

Yet when it comes to Muhammad and the cartoons, we’re supposed to indulge Muslim militancy. We’re expected to take into account, and tiptoe around, the delicate sensibilities of jihadists. Easily provoked, our job is not to trigger a violent response from them. Today it’s a cartoon. Tomorrow it may be a dissertation that is critical of aspects of Muhammed’s life. The following day it may be Bill Maher’s monologue. Jihadists will come up with an endless number of reasons to be offended by us and to kill us. And at every stage and at every point, we’ll be told that we need to conform to the demands of the militants in order to prevent a “clash of civilizations.” Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations.

I find it rather stunning that those whose profession depends on freedom of speech are so eager to cater to those who are undermining it. The thinking of many in the political class seems to be that if cartoons are deemed offensive and off limits by jihadists, then the cartoons are offensive and off limits. Ms. Geller, however imperfect she may be, decided she wouldn’t go along with this game. She wouldn’t play by jihadi rules. If the demand by Islamists is you can’t draw cartoons of Muhammed, her response was: Oh yes we can. Certainly in America we can.

As a general matter, I’m not particularly enthralled with those who mock other people’s faith. But when people, in the name of their faith, threaten to kill you for drawing cartoons, I’m a good deal more understanding of those who will do it just to prove that intimidation tactics don’t work, that the First Amendment lives.

Winston Churchill said that he declined utterly to be impartial as between the fire brigade and the fire. And while I’m no fan of Geller, I decline utterly to be impartial as between Pamela Geller and the jihadists who want to kill her (and us). So should you

From their high moral perch, members of the Left do in fact practice the soft bigotry of low expectations. Islam (a religion counting over 1.6 billion people as adherents) is somehow "oppressed" by angry white men, and as such, virtually anything they do or espouse can be explained away under the guise of "oppression." Violence and murder, the subjugation of women and gay people, a legal code that is better suited to the 8th century than the 21st, even genocidal objectives are best left unexplored ... because if your try to explore them ... you're a bigot.

Like Winston Churchill I'm inclined to side with the fire brigade rather than the fire.