I was reminded of that double standard by the debate over the Da Vinci Code, and how perceived blasphemy against Christianity doesn't seem to raise the ruckus that it does against Islam.
More specifically, compare the debate over the movie and the reactions of those it offends, with the Muslim reaction to what they saw as blasphemy against Islam several months ago.
Then, the publication of cartoons by Danish newspapers that poked fun at the Prophet Muhammad provoked officially encouraged riots across much of the Muslim world.
Complaints that this response was an affront to the notion of free speech were then shouted down by those who suggested the need for greater sensitivity to Muslim religious views (emphasis mine--Darren)...The Da Vinci Code is probably even more an insult to Christian believers than the cartoons were to Muslims, because it challenges fundamental long-held doctrines about the divinity of Jesus and the Bible.
There is some irony that when the uproar over the cartoons surfaced, most U.S. newspapers and television stations declined to show the offending drawings to avoid offending the beliefs of the more than a billion Muslims around the globe.
Meanwhile, portions of the U.S. media are not just offering the movie, but encouraging through their coverage of it a discussion about the truthfulness of Christianity's basic tenets.
None of this is to imply that there is anything wrong with making and showing the movie. I'll probably watch it.However, I'm happy I won't have to worry about Christians burning down the theater around me.
I've said it before, I'll say it again--consistency is not a strong suit for the left.
Here's another example. John at Discriminations (see blogroll at left) had a post about the toothless Senate bill amendment to declare English the "national" (not "official") language of the US. Here's the inconsistency:
The ever-reliable Democratic Minority Leader, Senator Reid, commented on cue that this amendment was “racist.” Senator Salazar (D, Colo) added that it was “divisive and un-American.”
I [am] always impressed that Democrats who defend distributing all sorts of government goodies on the basis of race and ethnicity, favoring some and disfavoring others, are quick to spot “divisiveness” in programs others see as unifying.
The Left is not capable of consistency because they try to be everything to everyone and wind up being nothing to anyone. They no longer have a real platform or even a real constituency, and are left begging for political scraps after the big dogs feast.
I wouldn't equate this type of inconsistency, however, with that of the Right. The Right's inconsistency is more of the "when it's convenient for me" variety.
One question for the Right: Do deficits matter? Follow that question over the last twenty years and tell me that the GOP has cornered the market on consistency.
Damiano, good point--one that was answered for me by reading The Right Nation, a book about the rise of conservatism in the US, written by two Brits.
They posit that there have always been two "wings" in the Republican Party: the Southern "Religious" wing and the Western "Libertarian" wing. The Southern wing, which unfortunately is ascendant now, consists of the religious and social conservatives, whereas the Western wing consists of the "get government off the backs of the people", "that government governs best which governs least" conservatives.
To that latter group, of which I am a devout member, deficits matter.
I don't know why the lefties have such a problem with the social/religious conservatives--they're merely trying to do what the lefties do, use government to enforce their own view of society onto the rest of us.
I am not nearly as offended by the DaVinci Code, which is a work of fiction that poses some questions that have been in the air for around 2000 years as I am by SouthPark and what amounts to a tasteless slur on Catholic beliefs. But you have a point. If we are willing to allow smears of Christanity and Judaism, why then are we so fearful of offending those of Muslim faith? Is it simply okay because Christianity is the prevailing religion in the United States, or is it just another example of allowing a small vocal population to call the shots? There are American scholars of Islam that are afraid to speak publicly on some of the historic violence that diffrent Muslim sects have exerted against their brethren. If we are to openly discuss the dangers of radicalized religion, we need to open the Pandora's Box not just to Islam, but to conservative, survivialist Christian groups, polygamous Mormon groups and others that are similarly allowing a charismatic leader to form their opinions for them. Put Hitler, who was reported to be a fiery speaker, into a pulpit and you have the same one-mindedness that the Islamists' Doctrine supports. We need an open discussion. But fear is holding it hostage. If either side in the political debate ignores this fact, then we will continue to have lopsided application of respect and concern for whatever belief system comes up on the hit list.
Post a Comment