The Wasington Post refused to run the above, one-panel cartoon strip last Sunday for fear of offending Muslims. As Robert Spencer describes it...
".. John D. Stackpole, who wrote in to the paper to call their editorial staff cowards, which they manifestly are, and added: “The wonderful irony [is that] great newspapers like the Washington Post, that took on Nixon—run in fear of this very tame cartoon, thus validating the accuracy of the satire.”
If any person or group is considered off-limits for critical examination and even ridicule, that person or group has been given a privileged position in society, and has a free hand to do what it wishes. That's why the freedom of speech is an indispensable bulwark against tyranny: It prevents authoritarian rulers from arrogating to themselves and exercising unfettered power...
It is also virtually indisputable that the Post would never hesitate to run an item that might offend Christians, and would have been the first to start talking about the freedom of speech if those Christians complained. So why is the Post so solicitous of Muslims? Why the double standard? Because they know that when I get offended, no one gets killed, and when Christians get offended, no one gets killed, but when Muslims are offended, people die."
If any person or group is considered off-limits for critical examination and even ridicule, that person or group has been given a privileged position in society, and has a free hand to do what it wishes. That's why the freedom of speech is an indispensable bulwark against tyranny: It prevents authoritarian rulers from arrogating to themselves and exercising unfettered power...
It is also virtually indisputable that the Post would never hesitate to run an item that might offend Christians, and would have been the first to start talking about the freedom of speech if those Christians complained. So why is the Post so solicitous of Muslims? Why the double standard? Because they know that when I get offended, no one gets killed, and when Christians get offended, no one gets killed, but when Muslims are offended, people die."
Does anyone doubt in the slightest that a huge double standard exists here? Not only would the WaPo not hesitate for a second to run a cartoon that Christians would consider offensive, but at the first sign of protest among any member of the Christian community,the editorial board would be quick to lecture anyone who would be critical of such a cartoon on the importance of "freedom of speech" and the necessity of "tolerance in a Western democracy". Phoney, sissified, wanna-be guardians of free speech who instead are suppressing it and at the same time enabling a dysfunctional religion that is responsible for the majority of all religious wars in history while being a relative new comer to the world scene.
14 comments:
No dissent here.
I have a little sympathy for WaPo, but essentially you're right.
There is a tremendous double standard. It amazes me.
No religion should be above criticism.
[Islam] "is responsible for the majority of all religious wars in history"
That's a big statement. Citation?
It might be considered a big statement. If you don't want to take my word for it then you should be showing me where I am incorrect.
Citation?
JD:"If you don't want to take my word for it..."
You seem to be citing yourself, which would mean more if you were some kind of expert in this field.
JD: "...then you should be showing me where I am incorrect."
Do you have anything to back up your statement? Until you do, I'm just going to consider this a case of passionate rhetoric not fact.
If you don't want to take my word for it then you should be showing me where I am incorrect.
Asked and answered: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion
"...here is the list of all the wars that the authors of the Encyclopedia of Wars saw
fit to categorize as religious wars for one reason or another:
Albigensian Crusade, Almohad Conquest of Muslim Spain, Anglo-Scottish War (1559–1560), Arab Conquest of Carthage, Aragonese-Castilian
War, Aragonese-French War (1209–1213), First Bearnese Revolt, Second Bearnese Revolt, Third Bearnese Revolt, First Bishop’s War, Second
Bishop’s War, Raids of the Black Hundreds, Bohemian Civil War (1465–1471), Bohemian Palatine War, War in Bosnia, Brabant Revolution, Byzantine-Muslim War (633–642), Byzantine-Muslim War (645–656),
Byzantine-Muslim War (688–679), Byzantine-Muslim War (698–718),
Byzantine-Muslim War (739), Byzantine-Muslim War (741–752), Byzantine-Muslim War (778–783), Byzantine-Muslim War (797–798),
Byzantine-Muslim War (803–809), Byzantine-Muslim War (830–841),
Byzantine-Muslim War (851–863), Byzantine-Muslim War (871–885),
Byzantine-Muslim War (960–976), Byzantine-Muslim War (995–999),
..
(cont.) Camisards’ Rebellion, Castilian Conquest of Toledo, Charlemagne’s Invasion of Northern Spain, Charlemagne’s War against the Saxons, Count’s
War, Covenanters’ Rebellion (1666), Covenanters’ Rebellion (1679), Covenanters’
Rebellion (1685), Crimean War, First Crusade, Second Crusade,
Third Crusade, Fourth Crusade,7 Fifth Crusade, Sixth Crusade, Seventh
Crusade, Eighth Crusade, Ninth Crusade, Crusader-Turkish Wars (1100–
1146), Crusader-Turkish Wars (1272–1291), Danish-Estonian War, German
Civil War (1077–1106), Ghost Dance Uprising, Siege of Granada,
First Iconoclastic War, Second Iconoclastic War, India-Pakistan Partition
War, Irish Tithe War, Javanese invasion of Malacca, Great Java War, Kappel
Wars, Khurramite’s Revolt, Lebanese Civil War, Wars of the Lombard
League, Luccan-Florentine War, Holy Wars of the Mad Mullah, Maryland’s
Religious War, Mecca-Medina War, Mexican Insurrections, War of
the Monks, Mountain Meadows Massacre, Revolt of Muqanna, Crusade
of Nicopolis, Padri War, Paulician War, Persian Civil War (1500–1503),
Portuguese-Moroccan War (1458–1471), Portuguese-Moroccan War
(1578), Portuguese-Omani Wars in East Africa, Rajput Rebellion against
Aurangzeb, Revolt in Ravenna, First War of Religion, Second War of Religion,
Third War of Religion, Fourth War of Religion, Fifth War of Religion,
Sixth War of Religion, Eighth War of Religion,8 Ninth War of Religion,
Roman-Persian War (421–422), Roman-Persian War (441), Russo Turkish
War (1877–1878), First Sacred War, Second Sacred War, Third Sacred
War, Saladin’s Holy War, Schmalkaldic War, Scottish Uprising against
Mary of Guise, Serbo-Turkish War, Shimabara Revolt, War of the Sonderbund,
Spanish Christian-Muslim War (912–928), Spanish Christian-
Muslim War (977–997), Spanish Christian-Muslim War (1001–1031),
Spanish Christian-Muslim War (1172–1212), Spanish Christian-Muslim
War (1230–1248), Spanish Christian-Muslim War (1481–1492), Spanish
Conquests in North Africa, Swedish War, Thirty Years’ War, Transylvania-
Hapsburg War, Tukulor-French War, Turko-Persian Wars, United
States War on Terror, Vellore Mutiny, Vjayanagar Wars, First Villmergen
War, Second Villmergen War, Visigothic-Frankish War.
(cont.)"That is 123 wars in all, which sounds as if it would support the case of the New Atheists, until one recalls that these 123 wars represent only 6.98 percent of all the wars recorded in the encyclopedia.
...It’s also interesting to
note that more than half of these religious wars, sixty-six in all, were waged by Islamic nations, which is rather more than might be statistically expected considering that the first war in which Islam was involved took place almost three milaylennia after the first war chronicled in the encyclopedia, Akkad’s conquest of Sumer in 2325 b.c."
Day, Vox; The Irrational Atheist, pgs. 104-106
Source cited by Day: Phillips, Charles and alan Axelrod; The Encyclopedia of Wars, "a three volume, massive, 1,502-page compendium compiled by nine reputable professors of history, including the director of the Centre of Military History and the former head of the Centre for Defence Studies"
Well then, you've done two things here. First, you've supported your assertion re. Islam.
Second, you've justified the Washington Post's behavior.
"Second, you've justified the Washington Post's behavior. "
Not sure "justified" is the right term. Perhaps "explained" is better. There is no getting around that they don't hesitate to publish gratuitous attacks on almost every branch of Christianity... because they can. There is no fear of a violent uprising or Christian jihad.
On the other hand, they steer clear of even the lamest commentary on Islam that might offend their sensibilities. In so doing, they are tacitly admitting the very real possibility that the adherents to the "religion of peace" might get all riled up and do something violent.
The shameless and provocative lampooning of Christianity on the one hand, and the respectful, kid-glove treatment of Islam on the other hand, do have one thing in common: cowardice.
Point taken, 'Crustacean (re. justification vs explanation).
While I think a little apologism is valid, I still agree that the double standard is quite obvious.
Juan Williams speaks honestly and offends the sensibilities of CAIR, the politically correct crowd, and NPR axes him. Another one bites the dust.
Post a Comment