Kossacks blast Michelle’s criticism of the chocolate Jesus double standard

posted at 5:07 pm on March 31, 2007 by Allahpundit

The post is silver but the comments are gold. I’ll leave you to scroll through, but let’s preserve this for posterity:

[R]eading Michelle Malkin’s rant about the difference between the MSM’s self-censorship in this case and in the case of the infamous Danish cartoons sparked within me the need to comment.

Just how ignorant is this woman? She must know that Islam forbids depictions of its Prophet, while Christianity has no such restrictions on artistic representation of Jesus. Right? She must understand that therein lies the fundamental difference in likelihood of offense between printing the Danish cartoons and running a picture of a chocolate Jesus.

Never mind his assumption that secular media organizations should internalize Islamic standards of public discourse. It would create a perverse incentive among religions to deem ever more types of criticism “forbidden” and it shows you the lengths to which these cringing morons would go in the name of tolerance, but neither of those points need bearing out. Note instead the two levels of dishonesty here: one, the fact that the entire nutroots defended Silky Pony’s hire of the Blunder Twins notwithstanding the “likelihood of offense” to Christians from Marcotte’s ode to God’s “hot, white, sticky holy spirit;” and two, the suggestion that it’s religious sensitivity, not fear, that leads the media to cower before images of Mohammed. Granted, it’s not always fear of violence: increasingly, in countries that lack free speech rights as robust as our own, it’s fear of lawsuits. But sometimes it is fear of violence, however well or ill founded. They don’t always admit it through their words, but sometimes — as in the most shocking case of the double standard — they admit it through their actions.

All of which gives me a chance to rerun one of my favorite South Park clips. Was it Comedy Central’s famous sensitivity to religious beliefs that produced the following? Not quite:

Along with South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker (who are also Executive Producers of the show), [Anne] Garefino was heavily involved in the negotiations with Comedy Central. She made clear that the reason for Comedy Central’s decision was “fear”: “We were happy that they didn’t try to claim that it was because of religious tolerance.” She thought that South Park’s arguments and influence might have had something to do with the candor of Comedy Central executives on this point.

Don’t forget to vote in the Kossacks’ poll about whether Michelle is “ignorant” or an “attention whore” for worrying about this stuff.

Exit question: Am I giving this moron way too much credit in thinking he cares if they’re self-censoring out of fear instead of “tolerance”?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Aparrently Nick Bergs head wasn’t convincing enough. The difference between offending Islam and Christianity that is. How many more heads will it take? Liberalism is truly a mental disorder.

roninacreage on March 31, 2007 at 5:20 PM

Maybe all the beheading videos need to be played on the big screen in the middle of Time Square on a busy saturday night. On a loop. For 72 hours or more.

roninacreage on March 31, 2007 at 5:23 PM

They bash Christianity because they can. They don’t have the balls to speak against anything that may hurt them. Their cowardness is becoming more obvious as they burn effigies of US soldiers and crap on the flag. Let them try their stunts in Venezuela.

darwin on March 31, 2007 at 5:26 PM

I ask again – is there any situation in this modern world that can’t be explained by South Park?

Good Lt on March 31, 2007 at 5:31 PM

Isn’t there something in the Bible about “Thou shalt not exhibit craven images?” or something about “Worshipping false idols?”

My wife will not wear a crucifix because of this. I’m no biblical scholar (not even a very good Christian, to be honest) so maybe someone can elaborate on this. Or maybe I’m just way off base hear.

robblefarian on March 31, 2007 at 5:31 PM

Wow, the residents of Koslamistan are dumber than I thought.

JammieWearingFool on March 31, 2007 at 5:32 PM

They’re worse than dumb, they’re dangerously dumb.

roninacreage on March 31, 2007 at 5:34 PM

Wait AP, let me translate your headline into plain english:

“Kossack briefly pulls his head out of his ass, types something, then resumes normal position.”

Dog bites man. Must be a slow Saturday.

Anton on March 31, 2007 at 5:37 PM

She must know that Islam forbids depictions of its Prophet, while Christianity has no such restrictions on artistic representation of Jesus.

Translation: It is forbidden to mock Allah, but it is perfectly okay to mock Jesus.

Please help me understand where within all of Christianity that it says it is okay to mock Jesus?

Lawrence on March 31, 2007 at 5:38 PM

Am I giving this moron way too much credit in thinking he cares if they’re self-censoring out of fear instead of “tolerance”?

Yes.

kmcguire on March 31, 2007 at 5:40 PM

Wait AP, let me translate your headline into plain english:

“Kossack briefly pulls his head out of his ass, types something, then resumes normal position.”

Anton on March 31, 2007 at 5:37 PM

I think he has a Braille keyboard, and is therefore capable of typing while maintaining a state of rectal-cranial inversion.

ReubenJCogburn on March 31, 2007 at 5:46 PM

I get the feelings these fools wouldn’t fight even if their lives depended on it … much less fight against the enslavement that islam offers. They’re almost pining to convert.

darwin on March 31, 2007 at 5:46 PM

They’re worse than dumb, they’re dangerously dumb.

Yes they are.

TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2007 at 5:46 PM

Am I giving this moron way too much credit in thinking he cares if they’re self-censoring out of fear instead of “tolerance”?

Well, I’d say he cares in the sense that it’s important to the left to pretend/convince themselves it’s only about tolerance, so as to downplay the way militant Muslims are changing Western society through intimidation–legal, violent, or just the charge of racism/Islamophobia.

That said, the biggest lie here (and in all these episodes) isn’t the motive of the double standard, but the nature of it. Really, the left is being consistent, but their principle isn’t one they are usually willing to admit. The principle is equality; Islam comes from a weaker culture than the overly-powerful West. Therefore the trappings of the West can and must be torn down, the trappings of the weaker non-West must be protected and exalted.

But usually the left isn’t willing to admit this too clearly, so they have to weasel around, trying to explain double standards like this.

Alex K on March 31, 2007 at 5:50 PM

I find it interesting that liberals believe they get to decide what offends me. It’s not that Jesus was nude. It’s the fact that the sculpture portrayed Jesus nude while being crucified. This is mockery at the least. Non-believers do not get to cherry pick scriptures that they think suits their needs and then ignore the rest of the scriptures that explain what idiots they are.

calirighty on March 31, 2007 at 5:51 PM

Isn’t there something in the Bible about “Thou shalt not exhibit craven images?” or something about “Worshipping false idols?”

My wife will not wear a crucifix because of this. I’m no biblical scholar (not even a very good Christian, to be honest) so maybe someone can elaborate on this. Or maybe I’m just way off base hear.

robblefarian on March 31, 2007 at 5:31 PM

The passages you speak of are talking about worshiping idols. The graven images spoken of are things like golden calves, or emperors, or trees and rocks, etc.

A crucifix is simply a symbol, and isn’t supposed to be in itself worshiped. A crucifix reflects the Christian belief in the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus. And since Jesus is God incarnate in this representation, a crucifix with a physical image of Jesus is a true representation of God. But again, a crucifix isn’t itself supposed to be worshiped in the same manner as a graven image would be worshiped.

The problem with the crucifix in question is a secular artist creating a chocolate image of God and displaying it out of context. This not worship, it is mockery.

Lawrence on March 31, 2007 at 5:53 PM

Exit question: Am I giving this moron way too much credit in thinking he cares if they’re self-censoring out of fear instead of “tolerance”?

Yes. He’s more interested in calling Michelle names and reveling in the fact that George Bush is the greatest threat in the world.

Pablo on March 31, 2007 at 5:56 PM

I think it was the title “My Sweet Lord” that was the tell. It said that this was clearly intended to offend. I still wouldn’t be for canceling it though. This guy’s career is going to soar now.

But on the scale of atheist media offensiveness with 1 being the use of the label “fundy” and 10 being a fawning 60 minutes profile of Normal Bob Smith, choco-Jesus is about a 2. The LA Times giving column space to Sam Harris on Christmas Eve was more obnoxious, IMO.

John on March 31, 2007 at 5:59 PM

It was Charlie Daniels who said “Wake Up and Smell the Trade Towers Burning”. They never woke up.

amerpundit on March 31, 2007 at 5:59 PM

See the commotion over the Jesus cartoons in the University of Oregon far-left paper a year ago. The students, being crazy wide-eyed kids who don’t know they’re not supposed to say these things so clearly, admitted the for them difference was that Christianity has power in our society, while Muslims are oppressed.

Alex K on March 31, 2007 at 6:01 PM

You can always rely on Daily Kos to find the most obtuse way to approach an issue. My favorite thread is still where they seemed as confused by a “Steele Democrat” sign as the monkeys were of the black obelisk in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey.

frankj on March 31, 2007 at 6:03 PM

Just how ignorant is this woman? She must know that Islam forbids depictions of its Prophet, while Christianity has no such restrictions on artistic representation of Jesus. Right? She must understand that therein lies the fundamental difference in likelihood of offense between printing the Danish cartoons and running a picture of a chocolate Jesus.

This is messed up anyway. They have the same restrictions against depictions of Jesus as they consider Him one of their prophets.

Esthier on March 31, 2007 at 6:09 PM

I get the feelings these fools wouldn’t fight even if their lives depended on it …
darwin on March 31, 2007 at 5:46 PM

Exactly. Probably just another bedwetting sissy, afraid of the dark as well…

Zorro on March 31, 2007 at 6:16 PM

1) How assinine of this turd to refuse to realize that a chocolate statue of Jesus naked wouldn’t be offensive.

2) He is a cowardly thumb sucking sissy mary hiding under his bed with his pants full of crap. The only people he attacks are those who he knows wont chop his head off.

3) Yeah AP, you’re giving this scumbag waaaaaay too much credit.

csdeven on March 31, 2007 at 6:43 PM

It was Charlie Daniels who said “Wake Up and Smell the Trade Towers Burning”. They never woke up.

amerpundit on March 31, 2007 at 5:59 PM

Your right. . .The scumbags are roosting marshmellows
over it in denial.

Texyank on March 31, 2007 at 6:44 PM

The passages you speak of are talking about worshiping idols. The graven images spoken of are things like golden calves, or emperors, or trees and rocks, etc.

A crucifix is simply a symbol, and isn’t supposed to be in itself worshiped. A crucifix reflects the Christian belief in the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus. And since Jesus is God incarnate in this representation, a crucifix with a physical image of Jesus is a true representation of God. But again, a crucifix isn’t itself supposed to be worshiped in the same manner as a graven image would be worshiped.

The problem with the crucifix in question is a secular artist creating a chocolate image of God and displaying it out of context. This not worship, it is mockery.

Thanks, Lawerence! Much appreciated. I’m such a bad Christian…ugh!

robblefarian on March 31, 2007 at 6:58 PM

Wow. The idiots really do run the asylum over there, don’t they. Evidently it’s lost on them that Christians can find things offensive without resorting to riots and murder over it. Evidently quite a few nuances and very obvious truths are lost on the Kos Kids.

Bryan on March 31, 2007 at 7:32 PM

I wonder what the outcome would have been if it were a chocolate, crucified Kos or Goracle? Or better yet, a Michael Moron or Kucinich? They’d go nuts and burn even MORE flags! There’d be hell to pay!

I’m a professional artist–maybe I’ll make a big ol crucified Darwin. Hmmmm…

robblefarian on March 31, 2007 at 7:36 PM

The comments over at Kos made me ill…however, Even while Jesus was being crucified he asked God to forgive them. “They know not what they do”. People have mocked Jesus and his followers from the beginning. The Bible even states that people will do this to followers of Jesus, because they mocked Jesus himself. There is nothing new under the sun.

God gives us lots of chances to repent, but we never know when our time is up and those chances stop. Think about it.

GoodBoy on March 31, 2007 at 8:05 PM

She must know that Islam forbids depictions of its Prophet, while Christianity has no such restrictions on artistic representation of Jesus.

While that is true, the First Amendment allows me to blaspheme any religious idea.

The issue is not that offending Christians is just as bad as offending Muslims. The issue is that Muslims are trying to force all of us to follow shariah, and the double standard of the MSM which denigrates Christians when they are offended yet is solicitous of Muslim perpetual outrage.

[The following content may be offensive to Christians]

When the Piss Christ and elephant dung Madonna made the news (with no Christians killing anyone, btw – what’s a Christian going to do, forgive you?), I was thinking that’s hardly offensive. Now a painting called Jesus fucking Christ, with Christ played by himself and Jesus played by a gay Puerto Rican, now that’s offensive. Now I wonder what Muslims would do if someone did a statue of Jesus and Mohammed performing gay sex with each other.

But it’s my right to be offensive without fear of getting my head hacked off.

rokemronnie on March 31, 2007 at 10:09 PM

But it’s my right to be offensive without fear of getting my head hacked off.

rokemronnie on March 31, 2007 at 10:09 PM

Mind where you go, mate: I hear that there are some places on Earth where that whole ‘head hacked off’ thing just might happen if you even imply that you might like to see a photo-shopped photo of Mo humping anyone, mortal or otherwise

Janos Hunyadi on March 31, 2007 at 11:24 PM

I’ll never ever understand the Kos Kidz, or their ilk.

I try to understand them, I truly do. But I just can’t. I can’t wrap my head around the way those people think and perceive their surroundings. It’s like they’re from another planet, another plane of existence, a dimension of unsound mind and body.

…probably has something to do with drug induced brain damage or just plain bad genes on their mother’s side. I guess I’ll have to be content knowing that I’m right, they’re wrong, and just pity them I guess.

SilverStar830 on March 31, 2007 at 11:27 PM

Silly me. When the chocolate Jesus story broke, I just assumed that it had to do with an unveiling in Ray Nagin’s Chocolate City. ‘Til I got to the anatomically correct part– then I assumed, obviously, that maybe San Francisco had decided to become a Chocolate City in solidarity.

smellthecoffee on March 31, 2007 at 11:47 PM

The problem with the crucifix in question is a secular artist creating a chocolate image of God and displaying it out of context. This not worship, it is mockery.
Lawrence on March 31, 2007 at 5:53 PM

Nicely stated.

naliaka on March 31, 2007 at 11:58 PM

How about if I sculpt a chocolate Mohammad’s Brain?

(Since Islam’s hypocritical homicidal iconoclasm forbids the exterior.)

Rendered about the size of a walnut, I would guess.

And chock full of nuts.

Would that be permissible that, Kos-lings?

profitsbeard on April 1, 2007 at 12:12 AM

Maybe all the beheading videos need to be played on the big screen in the middle of Time Square on a busy saturday night. On a loop. For 72 hours or more.

roninacreage on March 31, 2007 at 5:23 PM

I think you’ll find that you won’t need a loop.

sanclemman on April 1, 2007 at 12:51 AM

The Kos Kids – is really so self-evident – a perfect name.

I only link there, from here, and can’t stay for more than 3 comments. By comment 4 I’m so bored and in pain. Idiocy should hurt; it really should. Instead I hurt for them.

Those ‘voting’ choices on MM are too precious. This person probably feels proud to have come up with them…yeah, kiss your fingers, then touch each of your cheeks – great work!

Entelechy on April 1, 2007 at 1:29 AM

He watches.

We decide.

Connie on April 1, 2007 at 1:59 AM

Dear Protective Tolerant Entity;

I promise to shield all who hate me. I don’t do this because I fear you but yeah I do. Remember me when you come here ok? Just call first so I can get the rug ready ok? Promise?

Thanks

Limerick on April 1, 2007 at 2:29 AM

The guy who wrote those comments isn’t very bright.

What’s his name?

Kos?

Truly only morons would regularly read his, respond to, and agree with the content of his blog site. Who else could tolerate such idiocy?

William

William2006 on April 1, 2007 at 4:08 AM

The problem with the Kos Kidz (and Liberals in general), is that they ARE kids. They remind me of my 6 yr old, whining “But, its not FAIR!!!”. They honestly think the world should revolve around them, and whatever they want should be handed to them on a silver platter. And when reality smacks them in the face, they have a tantrum and refuse to believe that reality is true. Emotionally and intelectually stunted growth. I think it was W. Churchill that said “If you are 20 and not a liberal, you dont have a heart; but if you are 40 and not conservative, you dont have a brain”. The infants are running the day care.

mrfixit on April 1, 2007 at 6:18 AM

Exit question: Am I giving this moron way too much credit in thinking he cares if they’re self-censoring out of fear instead of “tolerance”?

I just don’t like the exit questions AP. If that pisses you off, then you care too much, if you disregard, you’re just annoyed with stupidity.

Ringmaster on April 1, 2007 at 9:10 AM

To understand the root of liberal double-standards, just remember this: “Strong is wrong.”

Sloganized concepts like this are much easier to use than actual thought.

drunyan8315 on April 1, 2007 at 9:53 AM

To end this thread about Kos Kidz.

Screw them!

Canadian Infidel on April 1, 2007 at 10:33 AM

Isn’t there something in the Bible about “Thou shalt not exhibit craven images?” or something about “Worshipping false idols?”

My wife will not wear a crucifix because of this. I’m no biblical scholar (not even a very good Christian, to be honest) so maybe someone can elaborate on this. Or maybe I’m just way off base hear.

robblefarian on March 31, 2007 at 5:31 PM

Well, the depiction of Christ on the cross
is neither a “craven image” or “a false Idol.”

Rightwingsparkle on April 1, 2007 at 10:35 AM

Wow. The idiots really do run the asylum over there, don’t they. Evidently it’s lost on them that Christians can find things offensive without resorting to riots and murder over it. Evidently quite a few nuances and very obvious truths are lost on the Kos Kids.

Bryan on March 31, 2007 at 7:32 PM

That has been our mistake Bryan! Why didn’t we see this before? We simply need to band together as Christians and make it clear that we will behead all those who make fun of Christ. That will stop them! Right? I mean that threat is what makes it alright to demand no depictions of Christ!

Good grief! Seriously. Do these people not see the irony here?

Rightwingsparkle on April 1, 2007 at 10:37 AM

I agree with those who believe that present-day liberalism is a mental disorder, not so much in the “they ought to be committed” sense as much as in their display of symptoms of mental dysfunction.

The case in point is another example of what I’d call “avoidance mechanisms” but which Dr. Sanity (http://drsaninity.blogspot.com) refers to as “displacement” – redirecting one’s intense emotions of fear and anger away from their true source (which might hurt them if confronted) toward someone or something less threatening.

Kowtowing to Islamist “sensibilities” while mocking Christianity is a perfect example. Standing up to those who would impose a new Dark Age upon us all entails real risk of physical harm or death; slapping Christians around is easy and entails no risk at all save for being included in somebody’s prayers.

The problem with displacement is that it’s like putting a band-aid on a malignant melanoma or rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic: it offers a false sense of security and control, but does nothing to address the real problem and in fact makes the problem worse by letting it continue to grow without taking any kind of constructive action against it.

Bashing Christians and Michelle Malkin similarly offers a false sense of control, security and moral superiority, but does nothing to address the fact that Islamism is a real and growing danger.

Putting aside the psychological connotations in favor of what we lay people better understand, the critical distinction that the Kossites don’t make is that between courage and cowardice.

People like the Kos Kidz are – rightly – mortified by the menace of Islamism. But because they won’t face their fear, and instead wallow in petty and destructive avoidance mechanisms, they let their fear direct their actions. That is the essence of cowardice.

Courage would be to face the real danger, to overcome the fear instead of redirecting it at others.

It’s a distinction that some liberals eventually learn, but which many, many more never figure out.

Spurius Ligustinus on April 1, 2007 at 10:38 AM

Those ‘voting’ choices on MM are too precious. This person probably feels proud to have come up with them…yeah, kiss your fingers, then touch each of your cheeks – great work!

Entelechy on April 1, 2007 at 1:29 AM

Yeah, definitely into “when did you stop beating your wife” territory. Might as well have taken it all the way:

THE NEW DAILY KOS POLL

Michelle Malkin stopped beating her spouse:

o During her latest out-of-town trip (but the beatings will resume when she gets home)
o The day her broomstick shattered (but a stronger one made of titanium is on order)
o Ash Wednesday (gave it up for Lent but beatings will resume after Easter – you know how seriously those Jesus freaks take their religion)
o Never (because Malkin is an ignorant, angry right-wing attention whore)

I’m expecting this (or one like it) any day now.

RD on April 1, 2007 at 11:16 AM

Just saw your post Spurius… ’twas excellent.

RD on April 1, 2007 at 11:19 AM

Spurius Ligustinus on April 1, 2007 at 10:38 AM

That’s very interesting and like most truths like this, I try to recognize it in myself so I can make improvements. I suspect that my absolute disgust (and by extension the foul words I use to describe them) for KOS et al, belays my fear that conservatives will turn on each other and the the liberals politics will actually take over this country if Hillary or some other liberal is elected as POTUS. I go through stages of rational discourse and frothing anger. I am in the frothing anger stage right now and I know exactly what set it off. After reading your comment, I feel I can get back to being calm and rational.

Great post and I thank you.

csdeven on April 1, 2007 at 11:40 AM

That Daily Kos crowd is a ridiculous gaggle of of brain-dead cowards.

Shocked by this, I am not.

Malpaso on April 1, 2007 at 11:48 AM

ust how ignorant is this woman? She must know that Islam forbids depictions of its Prophet, while Christianity has no such restrictions on artistic representation of Jesus. Right?

Christianity forbade homosexuality and adultery so I wonder if this moonbat does not support homosexual rights and holds Clinton responsible for his adulterous relations as president. Somehow I doubt that this moonbat really denounces the homosexuals or Clinton for their immoral behavior and doesn’t support the Boy Scouts in their fight to keep homosexual scoutmasters out of scouting.

Hypocrite, thy name is Kossack.

RedinBlueCounty on April 1, 2007 at 1:05 PM

Just finishing sculpting my “MOHAMMAD’S BRAINartwork, out bitter chocolate (with peanuts), and should have it on ebay later today.

Although I somehow think they will take the auction down within… say thirty minutes…

April Fools?

profitsbeard on April 1, 2007 at 2:43 PM

OK, so I have an idea for an artwork. Unfortunately I have no artistic skills whatsoever. So, if anyone out there is a painter or a sculptor, feel free to use this idea. (It’d be nice if you credit me, but it’s not crucial).

OK, the idea is this: A statue or painting of Mohammad. He’s wearing a suicide bomber belt, and cutting his own head off with a scimitar. The title would be “The Uses of Religion.” Ideally it should be done in the style of Renaissance religious art.

Farmer_Joe on April 1, 2007 at 10:46 PM

Liberalism is truly a mental disorder.

roninacreage on March 31, 2007 at 5:20 PM

Really, at this point, what else is there to add?

The only part worth pointing out is the delicious irony: the liberals fall over themselves defending the absolutely anti-liberal. Modern Islam is anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-free speech, anti-abortion, anti-religious freedom … it is, in a sentence, the absolute embodiment of everything that liberals SHOULD be oppossed to.

But they’re either too stupid to say so … or too scared.

Professor Blather on April 1, 2007 at 11:48 PM

I wonder what the outcome would have been if it were a chocolate, crucified Kos or Goracle? Or better yet, a Michael Moron or Kucinich? They’d go nuts and burn even MORE flags! There’d be hell to pay!

I’m a professional artist–maybe I’ll make a big ol crucified Darwin. Hmmmm…

robblefarian on March 31, 2007 at 7:36 PM

Crucified Darwin, okay. But Goracle? That’s just crossing a line, man. He’s a saint.

Professor Blather on April 1, 2007 at 11:52 PM

Professor Blather on April 1, 2007 at 11:48 PM

In other words, Modern Islam is anti-liberal. Oh, the irony and the blindness of the Left.

But they’re either too stupid to say so … or too scared.

…or because we’re against Islamofascists, they instinctively, and without thinking, must be for them…

Entelechy on April 1, 2007 at 11:56 PM

or because we’re against Islamofascists, they instinctively, and without thinking, must be for them…

Entelechy on April 1, 2007 at 11:56 PM

Ah – now there’s an interesting point.

Islamists are obvious against everything liberals pretend to support …. but President Bush is the Islamist’s enemy.

So what does a liberal do? Who is the real enemy to them?

Good point. It appears that literally ANYBODY opposed to Bush, is the enemy of the modern neo-lib. It’s funny they bring up Hitler so much …. does anybody really think that if Hitler were alive today, and opposed to Bush and/or America, that liberals wouldn’t just love him to pieces …?

Professor Blather on April 2, 2007 at 12:00 AM

The only part worth pointing out is the delicious irony: the liberals fall over themselves defending the absolutely anti-liberal. Modern Islam is anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-free speech, anti-abortion, anti-religious freedom … it is, in a sentence, the absolute embodiment of everything that liberals SHOULD be oppossed to.

But they’re either too stupid to say so … or too scared.

You missed by a very small margin. The reason the socialists aren’t anti-muslim is because they are SO VERY anti-Christian, that any view which opposes Christianity becomes popular with them. There really is no other way to reconcile the pro-abort, pro-feminist, pro-gay crowd with islam except through a common enemy.

I don’t buy Bush as the common enemy. Everything liberals tend to stand for is completely at odds with pretty much everything Islam teaches morality-wise. By that notion, you would think that muslim extremists would prefer a President Bush to a President Clinton.

Here’s the deal. Muslims know that they can force their way into our society if “tolerant” liberals are in charge, and that it will be much harder if conservatives, who still by a large majority claim Christianity, are in charge.

Freelancer on April 2, 2007 at 7:02 AM