Saturday, February 11, 2006

Muhammed Cartoons - Exposing Hypocrites Everywhere!

The publishing of a dozen cartoons of Muhammed, and the violent upheavel that followed, left us boatloads of hypocrites to examine in its wake. Charles Krauthammer exposes the first group - "Curse of the Moderates" - he calls it - for what they really are:

What passes for moderation in the Islamic community -- "I share your rage but don't torch that embassy" -- is nothing of the sort. It is simply a cynical way to endorse the goals of the mob without endorsing its means. It is fraudulent because, while pretending to uphold the principle of religious sensitivity, it is interested only in this instance of religious insensitivity.
Have any of these "moderates" ever protested the grotesque caricatures of Christians and, most especially, Jews that are broadcast throughout the Middle East on a daily basis? T he sermons on Palestinian TV that refer to Jews as the sons of pigs and monkeys? The Syrian prime-time TV series that shows rabbis slaughtering a gentile boy to ritually consume his blood? The 41-part (!) series on Egyptian TV based on that anti-Semitic czarist forgery (and inspiration of the Nazis), "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," showing the Jews to be engaged in a century-old conspiracy to control the world?
A true Muslim moderate is one who protests desecrations of all faiths. Those who don't are not moderates but hypocrites, opportunists and agents for the rioters, merely using different means to advance the same goal: to impose upon the West, with its traditions of freedom of speech, a set of taboos that is exclusive to the Islamic faith. These are not defenders of religion but Muslim supremacists trying to force their dictates upon the liberal West.

Yup, that's why I said yesterday I need to actually see some Muslim moderates before I can acknowledge they exist. You want to see how crowded a "moderate" anti-terrorism Muslim demonstration can get? See the sad results here:

Michael Kinsley, usually a liberal house organ, takes his shots at the Muslim hypocrisy as well in today's Washington Post:

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the noted wit, expert on freedom and unelected religious leader -- the leader who counts -- of Iran, observed the other day that in the West, "casting doubt or negating the genocide of the Jews is banned but insulting the beliefs of 1.5 billion Muslims is allowed...
...In a spirit of "see how you like it," a European Muslim group posted on the Web a cartoon of Anne Frank in bed with Hitler....
...Muslim complaints about a Western double standard would be more telling if the factual premise were accurate. But it is not. In fact, it is nearly the opposite of the truth.
Nothing is easier and more common in the West, including the United States, than criticizing the United States -- except for criticizing Israel.
The other problem with his little joke about double standards, and with the whole, supposedly mordant, comparison between denying the Holocaust and portraying the prophet is that the offended Muslims do not want a world where people are free to do both. They don't even want a world where people are not free to do either, which would at least be consistent. They want a world where you may not portray Muhammad (even flatteringly, slaying infidels or whatnot), but you may deny the Holocaust all day long.

I believe that this great awakening is dawning on Kinsley only because he sees his freedom to write whatever he pleases without threat of death slowly disintergrating. Well, it should've smacked these guys upside the head when Theo Van Gogh was executed on a busy Dutch street, but better late than never....
And for some guys that will never, never get it, Timeswatch points us to a new low perpertrated by the Old Gray Whore:

Times wrote in an editorial on the Danish cartoons of Mohammad that “The New York Times and much of the rest of the nation's news media have reported on the cartoons but refrained from showing them. That seems a reasonable choice for news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols, especially since the cartoons are so easy to describe in words.”
Apparently the Arts pages didn’t get the memo, because it runs a photo of Chris Ofili’s dung-clotted “Holy Virgin Mary” in Wednesday’s Arts section story by Michael Kimmelman, who calls the Danish cartoons “callous and feeble.”
This is the most striking
example yet of the double standard by the Times when it comes to art that offends religious sensibilities.

The Times acts with all the heart of a fey Frenchman...they editorial board knows that they are a big target for Muslim Rage if they print the Muhammed cartoons, but since Catholics in America have no history of group violence, well, we can show their patron saint covered in elephant sh*t with no fear. They bash Christians because the atheists at the Times hate them ("fundamentalist" Christians appear as an enemy in the Times as often as Doc Ock in a Spiderman comic book), they appease Muslims because they are terrified of them. All the while, they wallow, self-lovingly, in their own filthy hypocrisy as a publication that "refrains from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols".

I'm gonna reprint this cartoon, 'cause it says it all:

No comments: