Replies

Perhaps this liberal is starting to understand what we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Just as there was a bit of hope for this liberal writer, suddenly this logical left turn:

"This is the dilemma we face: Politically and economically, the modern world has left much of the Muslim society behind. The only lever of power that impotent Islamists and Islamist nations now have to make the West take them seriously is violence. By kowtowing to this violence, we only reinforce its power and guarantee its spread."

Are we responsible for the violence by leaving the oil-rich, despotic Muslim world "behind" and responsible for more violence by giving into the violence?

I thought the writer was against kowtowing:

"Westerners ought to learn how to respect Muslim traditions and not needlessly anger the faithful. And if there is any upside to this embarrassing episode its that millions of non-Muslims worldwide may come to know more about what the Islamic religion holds sacred."

Embarrassing for whom, the insensitive cartoonists or the agitated defenders of the "Religion of Peace"?

However, I'm glad the writer logically yet unknowingly identified what's wrong with this situation:

"But the right to profane is fundamental to the freedom of the world."

Freedom of speech is nonnegotiable, but it's also laden with responsibility, not only for prudence but also for consequences. Fools may hate you for correcting them. (Where have I read that before? Hmmm, Proverbs, maybe?) In other words, you must be prepared for violence resulting from profaning the beliefs of violent people. The Declaration of Independence resulted in the American Revolution and several years of warfare and death sentences for the signatories.

"We should no sooner appease the angry throngs who burn embassies in Damascus than we would enter into a 'truce' with bin Laden."

If I understand this Rolling Stone piece correctly:

* Respect Muslim traditions such as the sacredness of the physical form of Mohammed

* Yet exercise freedom to profane Mohammed by depicting his form even doing so derisively

* Yet profane Mohammed without "needlessly angering the faithful"

* Yet reject appeasement of Muslims reacting violently to profanity against Mohammed.

This writer's moral compass needle is spinning 'round 'n' 'round. Perhaps the needle would stop with the signing of a "time out" with Osama bin Laden.

That way, America can enjoy more "Sex and the City" reruns undisturbed by nightly pictures of burning embassies, severed heads and dismembered bodies, and Osama can reload in peace.