Those Crazy Danes!

Haven't done a politically-inspired post in a while, but I just can't resist with what's going on right now. Many of you have probably heard about the rage in the Islamic world over several cartoons published by a Danish newspaper. The cartoons depict the prophet Mohammed in various offensive poses. For instance, one features him wearing a turban resembling a bomb with a lit fuse. Muslims are up in arms over the chariactures, which anyone with respect for believers would see as horribly offensive. Since their publication, protests - most of which evolved into riots - have broken out across Europe and the Middle East.

Yet, there is a strange contradiction I see going on here that makes me grin. The media and the American left are treating this story with kid gloves. The way they have sat on their hands in response to obvious perversion of Islam. But these two groups usually seem to LIKE offending religious believers. When Western Christians become offended with blatant attacks on their religion, the media reports it with the usual "look at these zealots" slant. Take the rush to jerk off the First Amendment when NYC museums display "art" featuring Jesus on the cross submerged in a jar of urine, or a rendering of Mary done in pig feces (classy!). Or the full-scale attack on "The Passion of the Christ" in 2004. A movie that saved Hollywood from another profit-loss year couldn't satiate the anti-religiosos who were offended at the masses it touched (the NYT review that compared it to a S&M film is my personal favorite example here). And the left was again incensed that Christians could become offended by NBC's "Book of Daniel," a show that featured Christ depicted as a hippie. Canceled after only 3 episodes due to terrible ratings, the NBC bigwigs learned a lesson that the entertainment industry is still trying to grasp - offending the members of the country's majority religion isn't the best thing for the bottom line.

Yet, in the rage over the Mohammed portraits, the reaction among these groups is much different. To be honest, it's contradictory enough to the point where I'm not sure how to reconcile it. Every time Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell opens his mouth to insert his foot, the American left is all over them. Yes, they are bafoons. But talking on a the syndicated "700 Club" is a lot different than burning down a Danish embassy. Yet, in comparison, the left in America has not put an ounce of venom into condemning the latter actions. This speaks to something that's been on my mind since 9/11. You remember in the days following the attacks? In a time of great national sorrow and anger, some of the most prominent liberals in the country seemed to harp one message over all the others. They pleaded for calm and urged Americans to be vigilant not to turn our anger on our Muslim neighbors. I don't disagree with such a position, of course. But the same sympathy is rarely shown to Christians. If Christians get offended, the position seems to be: "So what, they're the majority, and they better deal with it." Yet now, when an analogous situation comes up where Muslims are offended by a cartoon, the American left not only won't tell the Muslims to get over it, they also won't condemn their violent response to it. So they get a pass on both fronts!

For me, it boils down to this. Listen, Muslims have a right to be pissed. Their religion thinks depictions of Mohammed are blaspehmous in their own right. But these cartoons didn't kill a single believer, and the violent response is uncalled for by a faith that clerics urged us to regard as a "religion of peace" in the aftermath of 9/11. I am particularly upset for another reason, as well. The other day, the Vatican released a statement condemning the violent response (what a true religion of peace is supposed to do) but also strongly criticizing blatant attempts to offend believers. This is the smart stance for anyone on this matter, yet news reports today have several Catholic churches in the Middle East being the targets of angry mobs.

The left continues to occupy an unenviable position - reluctance to condemn the actions of any religious group other than Christians, coupled with uneasily condoning the militiant wing of Islam. I think back to the 2004 election, and the vitrolic attacks on Bush. A quick sweep of Democratic Underground.com showed liberals labeling the Bush administration as the 4th Reich. Pictures of Bush with swastikas on his forehead were posted without a sense of irony. Yet I can't recall a similar example of liberals condeming Osama and his goons. I once heard a liberal earnestly refer to Bush as the Antichrist, to which I wondered, "Why isn't Osama the Antichrist? Why isn't Saddam Hussein the Antichrist?" Liberals today seem to regard those they disagree with on an ideological level as more evil than MURDERERS.

But I digress. In the coming days we will see this story develop, and in this time I hope we get a more coherent response from the left. Of course, Europe is even farther to the left than American democrats, so its intriguing that this controversy wasn't started by a bunch of conservatives who offended some solemn Allah-fearers, as is usually the portrayal. This time, they have to blame it on their European cousins. It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood.