Cartoons and Islamic imperialism,
by Daniel Pipes:
The key issue at stake in the battle over the 12 Danish cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad is this: Will the West stand up for its customs and mores, including freedom of speech, or will Muslims impose their way of life on the West? Ultimately, there is no compromise: Westerners will either retain their civilization, including the right to insult and blaspheme, or not.
. . .
The deeper issue here, however, is not Muslim hypocrisy but Islamic supremacism. The Danish editor who published the cartoons, Flemming Rose, explained that if Muslims insist “that I, as a non-Muslim, should submit to their taboos … they’re asking for my submission.”
Dumb Ox Blog knows Charlie-hebdo well:
Charlie Hebdo has been an aggressively atheist, anarcho-communist, anti-establishmentarian, perverted, cultural arsonist pig sty since it’s beginnings in 1969.
I certainly agree. While their magazine is gross (and now has become a best-seller), the editors and the cartoonist stand for their right to blaspheme all.
If that makes them a bundle of Euros, may they enjoy the anarco-communist irony of it all over a glass of nice wine. Better that than, as Dumb Ox puts it,
the hypocrisy of American liberals who are happy to endorse blasphemy against Christianity and now have the nerve to call for suppression of freedom of the press in this case.
The NY Times publishes yet another picture of Chris Ofili’s “Holy Virgin Mary”, which features elephant feces and photos of women’s genitalia, but not the “offensive” cartoons. As Sluggo put it,
The New York Times provides cover for any of the bien pensent who want to pretend this whole thing isn’t happening.
Juliette points out that the Times is acting out of fear, not conviction (emphasis mine):
Any Time Now…
…we Christians will start rioting.
One problem with that, however: a portrait of the Virgin Mary covered in dung–and looking suspiciously Sambo-like–does absolutely nothing to shake the faith of those who believe in her Son as the Savior of mankind. Yes, it’s offensive, but burning down the New York Times building or issuing some form of Christian fatwa–an idea that is completely foreign to this Christian at least–on the artist (Chris Ofili) would violate the tenets of everything in which Christians believe and bring absolutely no credit upon Jesus Christ nor his followers. The editors of the New York Times know this. That’s why they feel total comfort in publishing a photo of this painting, but balk at showcasing the Danish cartoons in question
Freedom of thought, freedom of expression: All of which strike a blow against Islamic supremacism.