Monday, September 20, 2010

How the West bows down before Islam

Mark Steyn, fresh off of winning the Sappho Prize in Copenhagen, weighs in on various controversies that have been gripping Americans. And he is absolutely spot on about the different standards that we apply to transgressions against Christianity and insults to Islam.
Take this no-name pastor from an obscure church who was threatening to burn the Koran. He didn’t burn any buildings or women and children. He didn’t even burn a book. He hadn’t actually laid a finger on a Koran, and yet the mere suggestion that he might do so prompted the President of the United States to denounce him, and the Secretary of State, and the commander of US forces in Afghanistan, various G7 leaders, and golly, even Angelina Jolie. President Obama has never said a word about honor killings of Muslim women. Secretary Clinton has never said a word about female genital mutilation. General Petraeus has never said a word about the rampant buggery of pre-pubescent boys by Pushtun men in Kandahar. But let an obscure man in Florida so much as raise the possibility that he might disrespect a book – an inanimate object – and the most powerful figures in the western world feel they have to weigh in.

Aside from all that, this obscure church’s website has been shut down, its insurance policy has been canceled, its mortgage has been called in by its bankers. Why? As Diana West wrote, why was it necessary or even seemly to make this pastor a non-person? Another one of Obama's famous "teaching moments"? In this case teaching us that Islamic law now applies to all? Only a couple of weeks ago, the President, at his most condescendingly ineffectual, presumed to lecture his moronic subjects about the First Amendment rights of Imam Rauf. Where's the condescending lecture on Pastor Jones' First Amendment rights?

When someone destroys a bible, US government officials don’t line up to attack him. President Obama bowed lower than a fawning maitre d’ before the King of Saudi Arabia, a man whose regime destroys bibles as a matter of state policy, and a man whose depraved religious police forces schoolgirls fleeing from a burning building back into the flames to die because they’d committed the sin of trying to escape without wearing their head scarves. If you show a representation of Mohammed, European commissioners and foreign ministers line up to denounce you. If you show a representation of Jesus Christ immersed in your own urine, you get a government grant for producing a widely admired work of art. Likewise, if you write a play about Jesus having gay sex with Judas Iscariot.

So just to clarify the ground rules, if you insult Christ, the media report the issue as freedom of expression: A healthy society has to have bold, brave, transgressive artists willing to question and challenge our assumptions, etc. But, if it’s Mohammed, the issue is no longer freedom of expression but the need for "respect" and "sensitivity" toward Islam, and all those bold brave transgressive artists don’t have a thing to say about it.
Read the rest. It's an instant classic.


Bachbone said...

"...a word about the rampant buggery of pre-pubescent boys by Pushtun men in Kandahar." Bill Gertz, in The Washington Times' 9/13/2010 weekly edition, reported on this matter. While Islam forbids homosexuality, the practice isn't considered "homosexuality" by those precticing it, according to a report by a group of anthropologists working with the U. S. military. A military spokesman said, "We encountered something like this in Iraq as well. It can be a problem, but it's not insurmountable."

I see the "Bill Clinton excuse" ("I did not have 'sex' with that woman, Ms. Lewinski.") is making its way around the world.

This topic would no doubt have wider dissemination under the hated Bush, but the Left sees the military as a place for social engineering and Obama is again pushing for repeal of the "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" military policy Congress passed under Clinton. To show how intimidated and PC our military leaders are, the last report I saw said only the Marine commandant dares to openly oppose the repeal.

tfhr said...

Steyn's article, includes the comment, "As my colleague Jonah Goldberg points out, Justice Breyer's remarks seem to assume that Muslims are not fully human." This observation on Breyer's racist remarks on the subject of Koran burning reaches to the heart of liberal, western thought about minorities and foreign cultures and customs. I would sum it up as such: Multiculturalism is the noun described by "the soft bigotry of low expectations".

By the way, where is the ACLU on this Koran burning thing and the retribution that has befallen Pastor Jones?

tfhr said...


I don't think Congress backed the DADT policy and that's the crux of it - Clinton could not win the support of enough members to make changes in the UCMJ, that's why the whole thing is a bastardization on so many levels.

Also, while the Commandant has been the most visible, vocal critic, there have been a few other flag officers from other services to speak in opposition. The CG of US Army Pacific, LTG Benjamin Mixon, took a hit from the administration over his comments in the Stars & Stripes, in which he advised readers to write their elected officials and chain of command to express their opposition to efforts to repeal the DADT policy.

Freedom of speech within the Armed Services is a different matter than the First Amendment rights other American citizens believe they have, or should have. Nevertheless, it is a strange thing to see so many Americans standby while this pastor is punished for his comments.

pumping-irony said...

So all this talk about Obama being the reincarnation of Abe Lincoln may be wrong. He may really be the reincarnation of Neville Chamberlain.