Reviewing media commentary about the event that drew the rats from their nest to attack the Texas “Draw a Cartoon of Muhammad” event, I am astonished at their casual and low view of freedom of speech and their lack of knowledge of the pervasively intolerant doctrines of orthodox Islam. I am especially disappointed by the reaction of many conservatives who I thought knew better.
There are two messengers: One, the messengers of Muhammad who mete out death for insulting Islam, and the other, the messengers who draw attention to the intolerance of the first messenger.
Rich Lowry, the Editor of the conservative magazine National Review criticizes the wrong messenger. He wrote that Geller was a “provocateur” and referred to others of “her ilk”, a connotation that does not put “provocateur” in the same positive usage as applied to George Washington, unless you’re British.
Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham and Donald Trump had similar criticism of the cartoon contest. I’m learning that some “conservatives” are as clueless of Islam as low information voters and have little regard for freedom of speech.
Here is another example of a “conservative” news organization, a Newsmax commentator, attacking the messengers:
At one point the Newsmax interview drew the analogy between the cartoon event and shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre. However, that “shout” was deemed an illegal act because there was no fire. In the case of holding an event that demonstrates that Muslims show their offense by shooting or beheading there IS a fire. Give Newsmax an “F” for Analogy 101.
Here is the winning entry in Pamela Geller’s Draw a Cartoon of Muhammad contest:
How offensive is that to western sensibilities? Only to Muslims. And Islamic doctrine contains dozens of other perceived slights that justify beheading or carnage. Which ones will we bow to next?
We heard much worse slanders of religions: Christ in a jar of urine; the play “The Book of Mormon.” About the intended ridicule contained in that play, one writer gave this reply:
Late last year NPR interviewed Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of television's "South Park" as well as "The Book of Mormon", and they talked about the LDS Church's response to the show. "The official church response was something along the lines of, 'The Book of Mormon' the musical might entertain you for a night, but the Book of Mormon — the book as scripture — will change your life through Jesus," Stone said. "Which we actually completely agree with. That's a cool, American response to a ribbing."
Not so with Islam. Orthodox Islam teaches that Muslims should be not merely offended by homosexuals, by women who have freedoms, by Christian who don’t convert, and by Jews who merely exist. They must ACT when they are offended. The acts they are urged to take when offended are considered immoral barbarism by the standards of civilized man. In their Sharia there are three options for the offender: Submission, death, or some other punishment deemed barbaric in our culture.
National Review’s Lowry, and others “of his ilk”, to borrow his phrase, are part of the problem. They condemn the defender of free speech more than those who would quash it for the sake of their fascist ideology. They apparently believe free speech is no big deal. Or perhaps they don't recognize the path Islam is taking to impose its doctrine of intolerance on what is for now a fairly free society.
HERE (click link) is an editorial defending the freedom of speech you apparently won’t see in US papers, this from the Israel National News.
Those who criticize the few brave souls on the front line confronting and highlighting the threat of Islam to our culture fail to realize this: Islamic ideology decreed many freedoms we take for granted insult Islam. And those who violate any of these Islamic taboos must be punished. What's going to be the next thing we should not "insult" under penalty of death? Check out Islamic Sharia - there are dozens.
The likes of Rich Lowry is one reason I don't subscribe to the National Review. He is ignorant of the doctrines and dangers of orthodox Islam, and is more apt to be critical of one who reveals the truth and evils of Islam than he is to call out the evils of Islam itself. Who or what is the "provocateur" here, the truth-teller (Geller) or the representatives of an ideology best known for its deception, intolerance, and terror?
I've been amazed at the ignorance and obliviousness about Islam among the self-absorbed US media, elected officials, academia and electorate for 10 years. I am especially disappointed at the comments about this event from "conservatives." They haven’t learned a thing in all these years.
It looks like we have a new brand of “conservative”:
CONINO - Conservative In Name Only®
Those who are critical of Geller and critical of the very few others who attempt to inform us of the slippery slope to tyranny that Islam promises, if they were consistent, would be critical of everyone attempting to reveal any unpleasant truth on any topic. But they are not. Their agenda befuddles.