I disagree with Christopher Hitchens when it comes to his assertions about religion generally, but the conclusion to his column pointing out that fear dominates our society's treatment of Islam, and the special sensitivity that too many advocate towards that faith.

There can be no concession to sharia in the United States. When will we see someone detained, or even cautioned, for advocating the burning of books in the name of God? If the police are honestly interested in this sort of "hate crime," I can help them identify those who spent much of last year uttering physical threats against the republication in this country of some Danish cartoons. In default of impartial prosecution, we have to insist that Muslims take their chance of being upset, just as we who do not subscribe to their arrogant certainties are revolted every day by the hideous behavior of the parties of God.

It is often said that resistance to jihadism only increases the recruitment to it. For all I know, this commonplace observation could be true. But, if so, it must cut both ways. How about reminding the Islamists that, by their mad policy in Kashmir and elsewhere, they have made deadly enemies of a billion Indian Hindus? Is there no danger that the massacre of Iraqi and Lebanese Christians, or the threatened murder of all Jews, will cause an equal and opposite response? Most important of all, what will be said and done by those of us who take no side in filthy religious wars? The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant, or neutral, without inviting their own suicide. And the advocates and apologists of bigotry and censorship and suicide-assassination cannot be permitted to take shelter any longer under the umbrella of a pluralism that they openly seek to destroy.

To answer Hitchens, though, the answer seems to be that there is not a possibility of a violent response to Islam when atrocities are regularly and gruesomely carried out in its name. We know that because we have seen, time and time again, that the rest of us stand by as Islamic barbarism is perpetrated against us and out co-religionists (or, in Hitchens' case, co-irreligionists). When there is a response, the meekest voices among us demand that we turn the other cheek, forgetting that the same Christ said that the day would come when his followers would need to buy a sword to defend themselves.

Of course, I do not suggest that we need to duplicate the methods of the jihadi swine who engage in riots, bombings hostage-taking and murder to advance their malignant faith. I do not advocate that we behead innocent Muslims or otherwise murder random Islamic hostages. But I do insist that it is right and proper that people of good will speak out against the teachings and actions of the Islamists -- and that we not hold back for fear of radicalizing those who object to such condemnations as treading upon what they hold sacred.

And to the Muslim who demands that we not blaspheme against the Koran or Muhammad, let me remind you of an inconvenient truth -- Islam's teachings that the Bible is corrupt and that Jesus is a human prophet and not the eternally preexistent Son of God constitutes blasphemy to the ears of Christians. Shall we impose upon you the penalties that you and your faith demand upon those who tread upon your religious sensitivities and sacred tenets?

H/T Blogs for Bush

Posted by: Greg at 04:14 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 585 words, total size 4 kb.