For those devotees of Manning’s Corollary who find the concept of moral equivalence difficult

Note the following:

FRANCE TO CLOSE 20 EMBASSIES IN FEAR OF CARTOON BACKLASH

French mag runs drawing of Mohammad naked; riot police stand guard…

Here is an elementary moral idea everyone but a devotee of Manning’s Corollary understands:

Those who respond to murder with satire are not morally equivalent to those who respond to satire with murder.

Victims of Islamic terror and those who empathize with them tend to fall in the former class.  Radical Islamic terrorists tend to fall in the latter class.  Clip and save for future reference.

Also clip and save the following:

The fact that the ancestors of Christians and Jews behaved barbarously in the conquest of Canaan or the Spanish Inquisition does not mean that contemporary Christians are the moral equivalents of thin-skinned thugs who burn down Paris because of a stupid cartoon or youtube video.

Oh, and Radical Muslims are pantywaist cowards who tend to take out their sense of aggrieved entitlement and frustration at not running the world on  powerless and innocent third parties, like so:

Report: 4 injured in Paris explosion at kosher store…

Such people are cowardly savages who are, I repeat, not ready for civilization.

  • Kirt Higdon

    Those who respond to murder with satire when they know very well that it will result in more murder are inciting to murder and indeed equivalently guilty of it even if there is technically no blood on their hands and they are protected by civil law from criminal responsibility. Oh, and they are also “pantywaist cowards who tend to take out their sense of aggrieved entitlement and frustration at not running the world on powerless and innocent third parties”.

    • JoFro

      Yup! Charlie Chaplin was the worst of all men! He knew fully well that Hitler and his Nazis underlings were all like calling for the death of people who they didnt like and what does he do? He makes a movie mocking Hitler, even though Hitler was a major fan of his, called The Great Dictator – and that just peeved him off and we got WW2….what an ass! The last thing Chaplin needed to do was provoke those crazy Nazis….

    • ivan_the_mad

      This is the most poorly reasoned rubbish I’ve had the misfortune to read in some time.

  • Thomas

    ‘Such people are cowardly savages who are, I repeat, not ready for civilization.’
    Or they are ignorant and mislead persons who need compassionate teaching in the way of Christ?
    Even if it means martyrdom? It’s happened before.

    None of which is intended to apologize for or excuse atrocities committed by these same persons.

    • JoFro

      Thomas – already happening mate! Ask the Copts

  • Thomas

    Is name calling really befitting a man of your age and faith?

    • JoFro

      Jesus was a man of 30 and called his detractors some vile and nasty things! But Mark is not Jesus and he should not be calling people who murder innocents over a film nasty things like “savages”

      For goodness sakes Mark, they are misunderstood persons, not savages. You go and wash your mouth with soap, sir!

      • Thomas

        Our Lord Jesus Christ can see into the soul.

        Neither you, nor Mark, nor any other human can do so.

        Different things, my friend.

  • Thomas

    I suppose, if they are only savages who are not ready for civilization, going over and bombing them and occupying their nations is reasonable.

    Who knew the government was so just all along!

    • Andy, Bad Person

      Now there’s a big leap.

    • Mark Shea

      I know it’s hard to hear me over the sound of your own sanctimony, but those with an elementary knowledge of my umpteen times stated views would hesitate before making such an assertion.

      • Thomas

        Stating that you believe one thing while continuing in behavior clearly its opposite is meaningless.

        A thing is as it acts. It’s a basic philosophical concept.

        If you could see past your own pride and take my words and the words of others seriously, instead of taking the reactionary and ad hominem approach of calling me ‘sanctimonious’, then having a comment system could be a source of dialogical growth instead of monological stagnancy.

        • ivan_the_mad

          You know you’re just making yourself look bad, right?

          • Thomas

            I see how what I stated is not likely to be received well, yes.

            • Mark Shea

              A prophet unappreciated by the unwashed. Sad.

        • Mark Shea

          I will endeavor to treat your sanctimonious scolding with the respect it richly deserves.

          • Thomas

            Or you could drop the sarcasm, take me at my word that I’m looking for dialogue and respond in kind.

            • Therese

              “I suppose, if they are only savages who are not ready for civilization, going over and bombing them and occupying their nations is reasonable.
              Who knew the government was so just all along!”

              Yeah. That totally sounds like a person wanting dialogue. Not someone just typing in a snarky sarcastic comment. 100% invitation to respectful dialogue, that.

        • Ye Olde Statistician

          A thing is as it acts. It’s a basic philosophical concept.

          So if we go by the acts of the Islamics, we have to conclude… what? Among their victims of course are pious muslims:
          http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gQQoizh_DRmaU_vWO_DzVSg6sZ7w?docId=CNG.a002cbee78dd0fb030a5a366e75800bc.3c1

          • Thomas

            One thing that is obvious is that they are upset and behaving irrationally.

            Should we make fun of them? Or try to find out why they are upset and behaving irrationally, then do whatever possible to help them? Or just bomb them? Or discuss what you think the problem is without name calling, using measured language; write about the problem as a civilized man?

            • Andy, Bad Person

              You’re the only person in this entire thread that has mentioned bombing.

              • Thomas

                Are you the only person that imagined I thought anyone else had mentioned it?

                Do you not see a series of questions? Have I been, again, accidentally obtuse?

            • Noah D

              “[it] is obvious is that they are…behaving irrationally.”

              I’m not so sure about that. If they have observed that violence gets them the results that they want, then why not use violence?

              • Thomas

                So, what they want is an unstable infrastructure, burned out buildings, and all the other attendant dangers of rioting? What other goal could they be achieving? Certainly seems like a lashing out in anger. I highly doubt the actual rioters were the architects of the riots. And a worried/scared/confused group of people is really easy to whip into an emotional and irrational frenzy. Libya is a crazy place right now; I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that a large portion of the population is highly manipulable by unsavory elements.

                That’s why I say, ‘irrationally’. Maybe they were all behaving with cool, detached reason; it seems very unlikely.

                • Thomas

                  ‘Libya is a crazy place right now; I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that a large portion of the population is highly manipulable by unsavory elements.’

                  Insert US for Libya and I think this still holds. Le sigh.

    • Ted Seeber

      There is another, more reasonable option. Restrict travel to, trade with these cultures. Wait the additional 310 years it will take for them to become sane.

      • Thomas

        Yes, but this option has the problem of punishing innocents and forcing them to live in abject poverty, or at least artificially limited conditions, due to no fault of their own.

        • Ted Seeber

          Maybe not of their own- but certainly the fault of their parents.

    • Therese

      And the award for quickest building of a strawman goes to…..

  • Richard Johnson

    OK…let’s accept the premise of this post for a moment. Those who react with violence and murder to satirical cartoons and movies are indeed uncivilized animals not ready to participate in contemporary culture.

    If that be true, what is to be gained from provoking them continually? Also, what is to be gained by provoking them into committing acts of violence (predictably) against folks not involved in the provocation?

    If the provocative artists (cartoon or movie) wish to prove that a violent sect of Muslims will resort to violence and murder at the drop of a rhetorical hat, then they have succeeded numerous times over. Why continue with the provocation?

    • Mark Shea

      I’m not arguing that it’s smart to go around poking crocodiles with sharp sticks. If you do that, expect to be bitten. I’m simply arguing that those who see a moral equivalence between cowardly bullying murderers and their innocent victims who sometime make fun of them are basically cowards who side with the bullying murderers out of cowardice.

      • Thomas

        Re: poking poking crocodiles with sharp sticks,
        ‘Oh, and Radical Muslims are pantywaist cowards’
        ‘Such people are cowardly savages who are, I repeat, not ready for civilization.’

        The internet is international, you noob. You think no Muslims read this? or maybe find you quoted out of context? Or only read one of your angry diatribes and not one of your more reasoned posts because they are immediately disgusted? Or that maybe a lot of people do that? And that you are the author of books titled ‘The Work of Mercy’ and ‘Mary, Mother of the Son’ and that it may have a negative impact on how all of your ideas are recieved?

        So, it’s okay to make fun of people if you don’t like them?

        • ivan_the_mad

          Wait, Thomas, what was that about “taking the reactionary and ad hominem approach”? Well, like you said, “A thing is as it acts. It’s a basic philosophical concept.”

          • Thomas

            You are going to equivocation is amazing.

            • Thomas

              rofltypo.

              Your equivocation is amazing.

              • Mark Shea

                Your insufferability is even more amazing.

        • Mark Shea

          You called me a noob! O the humanity! But you were driven to it, I guess, by my horrible horrible witness meeting your deep deep sanctity like anti-matter meeting matter. Who can blame you? When you are the self-appointed Jiminy Cricket to my corrupt conscience, that makes your name-calling okay. I just hope I can live up to your high standards someday.

          • Thomas

            Do you mean to be trolling?

            • Mark Shea

              Goodbye, Jiminy Cricket. I already have a conscience. I’m not interested in your decision to appoint yourself mine. Grow up. Learn some manners. Come back when you aren’t so insufferable. I expect you will turn out to be a quite a pleasant fellow in a few years.

            • Hezekiah Garrett

              Can you troll your own blog? Is that even possible? It’d be like murdering yourself.

              • Chris M

                No. That’s a divide by zero situation which could lead to things like Highlander 2 or the gum disease GINGIVITIS

                • Andy, Bad Person

                  Highlander 2? Didn’t we just pretend that one didn’t exist once the third one came around?

        • Ted Seeber

          Maybe the Internet should no longer be international. Maybe that development was a horrid error.

        • http://natewinchester.wordpress.com/ Nate Winchester

          Wait so… are these people animals that shouldn’t be poked or people deserving of Christ? If they are people, then they should be rebuked for acting like animals.

        • Ye Olde Statistician

          So let them be disgusted. They don’t have to behead Iraqi nuns or firebomb kosher delis in Paris, or assassinate a diplomat just because some Copt grew sick and tired of the murder of his co-religionists that he made an inept YouTube video.

          I note your not-so-hidden assumption that Radical muslims lack moral agency; that is, that their behavior is always caused by external forces, not by their own moral choices or workings out of currents running within islam itself. “It’s always ‘all about us’.” Or did we miss the announcement today that the Libyan attack was a pre-planned act of terrorism pegged to the 11th anniversary of 9/11 and not a spontaneous act of rage over a video?

          In a further act of irony, the perp, Sufyan Ben Qumu had been the leader of the Darnah Brigade in the Cyrenaican overthrow of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s Tripolitanian regime, succeeding with the assistance of France and Britain with background support from the US. Released from Guantanamo detention center in 2007 into Qaddafi’s custody, he was released by Gaddafi in 2008 as part of his outreach program toward Islamic radicals.

          • Thomas

            No, in fact that isn’t my assumption at all. I am only in-line with St. Thomas when I say that the truly free human act is rare. I am only stating that there are many limiting factors in the development of our acts of the will, such that we are not wholly free, none of us. Consequently, we should be cognizant of this factor and manifest it in mercy and patience, speaking with Charity about the problems we see and withholding from demeaning our brothers and sisters, even if only in speech. Scripture attests to the truth of this maxim.

            • Thomas

              God knows, I fail miserably.

  • Richard Johnson

    Also, let’s note that the apparent director of the provocative movie is, himself, a Coptic Christian. No doubt the violent, uncivilized Muslims will enact revenge yet again against the Coptic Christians they have been persecuting for years in the name of “blasphemous actions against the Prophet”. Innocent Copts, who are condemning both the movie and those behind it, will (and are) dying because of these violent thugs and murderers.

    What do the movie makers gain in all of this?

  • Kirt Higdon

    If these so-called satirists are so courageous, why don’t they go to Egypt or Libya and show the film there or burn Korans there instead of doing it in the safety of the US and posing as innocent victims and champions of the First Amendment? “I may disagree with what you say but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” Wrong!!!! Nobody gets to put my life on the line to defend his right to obnoxiously insult other people and anyone who puts the lives of innocent people in jeopardy by his intentionally insulting and obnoxious behavior is both cowardly and an accomplice to murder. These film makers are no more entitled to my defense than are pornographers.

    • Mark Shea

      I dunno. Why don’t you buy a plane ticket and go to personally confront French cartoonists, then rush across the globe to confront makers of crappy Youtubes? Is that due to the fact that you are a coward or simply to the fact that you are a normal person who says what he wants to say via mass media? I think the latter.

      • Kirt Higdon

        My comments about the film and it’s producers don’t put anyone else in danger.

        • Mark Shea

          You asked why people sitting at computers don’t cross the world. I answered your question. It’s not really a big mystery.

        • Noah D

          Your comments don’t put people in danger. Radical Islamic thugs put people in danger.

  • Richard Johnson

    I wouldn’t go that far, Kurt. However it is interesting to note that the film was apparently modified after shooting, with a quick overdubbing into Arabic, and then brought to the attention of the violent thugs in the region by an Egyptian “ministry”. Given that, as has been cited on this very blog, there is a huge amount of evidence demonstrating that these violent Muslim cowards will react to the least provocation, why then provoke them? What is gained, especially if you know they will likely kill innocents once provoked?

  • Richard Johnson

    “I’m not arguing that it’s smart to go around poking crocodiles with sharp sticks. If you do that, expect to be bitten.”

    But if I go about poking a crocodile with a sharp stick and it kills an innocent person, what then? Should that innocent person have known better than to be near where the crocodile lives? Or should I have known better than to use the stick on the crocodile?

    And yes, lest it be thought otherwise, I am in full agreement with your statement. There indeed is absolutely no moral equivalence between those who make fun of the murderers and the murderers. What happened in Libya was indeed murder, bloodthirsty and cruel as it gets.

    But if it was known that the murderers would kill, and would kill innocents in their midst, why provoke them? What is there to gain?

  • Richard Johnson

    “I’m simply arguing that those who see a moral equivalence between cowardly bullying murderers and their innocent victims who sometime make fun of them are basically cowards who side with the bullying murderers out of cowardice.”

    But that’s just it, Mark. The victims, the dead, were not making fun of the murderers. Those making fun of them were doing so from the safety of the US, under assumed names. The innocent victims were denouncing both the movie and the murderers.

    http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2012/09/17/2104238/coptic-christians-muslims-denounce.html

    “Bishop Serapion of the Coptic Orthodox Church in Southern California said the actions of a few ignorant individuals do not represent the views of many Coptic Christians and Muslims.

    “We find there is no justification whatsoever that is to do such kind of movie,” Serapion said. “As there is no justification to retaliate or attack the Coptic community. The right way to respond to such kind of events is to come together with a dialogue and to overcome such kind of tensions which unfortunately exist.”

    We can agree that the murderous thugs who took (and are taking) innocent lives in some trumped up religious fervor are indeed cowards and criminals. But what about those who provoke such cowards and criminals from a safe distance away? What are they trying to prove, and what to they have to gain?

    • ivan_the_mad

      “But what about those who provoke such cowards and criminals from a safe distance away? What are they trying to prove, and what to they have to gain?” Respectfully, you’ve repeated this question, with some variation, quite a lot in this comments thread. But I doubt anyone here can answer for them regarding their motivations. You’d be better off asking them directly. And note that Mark’s assertion involves a lack of moral equivalence, not a lack of moral responsibility.

      • Richard Johnson

        Perhaps so, Ivan. But there has been a lot of electronic ink spread on this blog about the first amendment rights of those who produced the movie, but precious little inquiry or investigation into their motivation. Instead we get the invocation of Manning’s Corollary and an offhanded dismissal of the folks behind the movie as amateurish and ignorant.

        Poking a crocodile knowing that it could kill you is stupid. Poking a crocodile knowing that it might kill an innocent is…what?

        • Mark Shea

          Not ignorant. As far as I know the guy who made the movie was a Copt. They know very well what Radical Islam is. Amateurish. Yes. Dishonest. Yes, if they deceived their actors and endangered them. Irresponsible, knowing that the crocodile would bite innocents. Sure. But in the end, the fact remains that the problem is the crocodile and the main thing we should be concerned with, not the people who make fun of the crocodile.

          • CK

            “But in the end, the fact remains that the problem is the crocodile and the main thing we should be concerned with, not the people who make fun of the crocodile.”

            We should be concerned with both. And we should really be concerned with the ones we have the most influence with. Rights, be they the crux of western law, are not an excuse for imprudent, and at times immoral behavior.

        • Hezekiah Garrett

          There’s been a metric butt ton of inquiry in this very thread. You’ve inquired so often I’m waiting for someone to bump your danged needle.

          As was said before, go ask them.

        • Ye Olde Statistician

          Why do you compare muslims to unthinking animals?

          • Thomas

            Yes, good question.

          • Chris M

            Possibly a hesitance to call them brainwashed or else active participants in evil?

            • Thomas

              So, because it’s more convenient to de-humanize them?

              • Chris M

                Would it be better to say “They’re ACTING like animals”?

                • Thomas

                  Well, semantically, yes. But Homo sapiens sapiens ARE animals.

                  :P

                  ‘Unthinking animals’ is the problem. And yes, ‘acting like unthinking animals’ is far better, hopefully attended by the corresponding difference in thought. To dehumanize them in thought and only mask it semantically is still a problem. (No accusation intended.)

  • Wil

    All this talk about “provoking” the thugs reminds me of my mother telling me not to “provoke” the bullies in school. As though they needed “provoking”.

    Then I saw the same thing with the campus Marxoid goons, a gang of professional troublemakers who simply seized on any excuse that was handy that week. The lying bastards claimed that Nixons-invasion-of-Cambodia caused “spontaneous” riots which had been planned and announced on every wall on 8th street for months.

    Do you buy the media narrative that an “movie” which exists only on Youtube brought on “spontaneous” attacks which, by pure coincidence, happened on September 11th? If so, I have a nice cathedral under construction I can sell you.

  • Observer

    Lack of moral equivocation never escapes moral responsiblity (both go hand-in-hand.) Unfortunately, you cannot defend someone for being imprudent, as well, you can never fend off the person who suffers their imprudence. So, moral responsibility hangs on the initiator of the provocation for seeing moral equivocation in the same way a child says to his or her mother or father, “He (or she) hit me! So, I can hit him (or her) back.” Or, he or she may simply taunt his or her brother or sister, because he or she feels it’s justified to get back at their sibling by making him or her irritated to get back at them through their parents discipline.

    Which, the brother or sister will keep telling the parent, “He (or she) keeps calling me names! He (or she) keeps swearing and calling me all kinds of dirty words…” In many respects, a parent would first get their child to stop hitting their sibling. And once the parent has stopped the physical fighting, he or she will eventually get around to his or her taunting kid.

    If you take a step back and look at the enticement of a disguise and a lie by LA to draw out an un-intended confession from the PP worker (because, afterall, they’re reasonably assured since PP lies or does something not only dishonestly, but as well as evil, they [LA] feel they’re morally able to equivocate in doing the same thing in so far as a lie goes [as long as it serves a moral good - getting PP to stop aborshuns by lying to ruin their reputation - to do evil so that good may come out of it.])

    Thus, the attempted moral equivocation stands: if they’re violent and evil, I can produce an offensive and satirical piece to draw out a reaction as a justification against them for their evils.

    Think, those who produce such a thing which is not only satirical. But, as well, they produce something as a justification (we’re victims – morally equivocating our actions is a justified response in satire) in as much as LA did lie to a PP worker for an un-intended confession through manipulative means through a lie and disguise (as a piece of satire is a manipulative work to draw out a re-action.)

    So, I wouldn’t tell

  • Kirt Higdon

    The Catholic Maronite Patriarch of Lebanon has called for legislation making it illegal to insult religions. He, of course, represents a community of potential innocent victims of the violent reaction provoked (from a safe distance) by the cowardly film makers. The chief shiekh of Hezbollah, representing most of the Lebanese Shia Moslems, has called for the same thing. This shiekh, Nasrallah, has led peaceful demonstrations against the film, but called for no demonstrations at all during the Pope’s visit in order not to distract from that visit. So we see the largest Christian and the largest Moslem communities in Lebanon united in opposition to the film. Now of course in the US, the first amendment is not going to get repealed, but this just requires that the government take no action against the film makers. It doesn’t mean that we have to defend them as “innocent victims”. Is our first reaction to pornography to defend the first amendment rights of the pornographers? I recall a few years ago participating, along with many Catholic laity and clergy as well as Protestants and Jews, in demonstrations against the movie The Last Temptation of Christ. The fact that there were a few instances of low level violence against that film doesn’t make the producers and other people involved “innocent victims”. If this be Manning’s corollary, make the most of it.

  • Richard Johnson

    “All this talk about “provoking” the thugs reminds me of my mother telling me not to “provoke” the bullies in school. As though they needed “provoking”.”

    No, bullies generally do not need provoking, but those who would provoke them are generally considered to be stupid and deserving of the consequences if they end up being injured. I doubt your mother would have much sympathy for you had you taunted them and ended up getting a fist to the nose.

    • Chris M

      In which case, most parents would prefer their kids fight back and win the fight (if it comes down to it). Bullies shouldn’t be appeased.. it just emboldens them. However, this is more like hitting a bully from behind then running away to make it look like someone else hit him and letting them get beat up for it. Pretty despicable for both parties.

  • Scott W.

    Let me get this straight–Christians and non-Moslems in Moslem countries are basically hostages. Moslems will kill some of those hostages every time someone, anyone in a non-Moslem country says so much as a cross word in public about Muhammed. Therefore, non-Moslem nations have a duty to give into the demands of the hostage-takers and police and muzzle every citizen. Is that the gist of it?

    Anyone else get the sense this is like the People’s Front of Judea’s demands? “We’re giving Pilate two days to dismantle the entire apparatus of the Romanimperialist state, and if he doesn’t agree immediately, we execute her.”

    • Kirt Higdon

      Aside from the special case of Ambassador Stevens and his bodyguards, have any non-Moslems been killed in these riots over the film? The people I have heard of being killed have been Moslems gunned down by Moslem riot police in various countries. Nor have any Americans contended that these film makers should be muzzled by the government. I’ve simply contended that they’re not entitled to a defense by me. If someone else wishes to defend them, that’s up to them.

      In the case of Stevens, he was apparently killed in a well planned assault by as yet unidentified assailants who may have taken opportunistic advantage of the film riots. Since Stevens played a key role in the overthrow of the Libyan government and was praised by his boss Hillary Clinton for doing so, it’s likely that many Libyans may have regarded him as the proconsul of a hostile foreign power and accordingly conspired to kill him.

      • Scott W.

        Wait a minute. Did they riot over the film, or did they not?

        • Kirt Higdon

          Who is the “they” you are talking about? The Libyan government states and the US government has finally reluctantly agreed that the attack on Stevens and his guards was pre-planned. It was apparently unrelated to the film other than that the assassins may have used the riots as cover for their own assault. Sound unlikely? I know a guy who claims to have used a soccer riot as cover to trash an abortion mill.

          • Scott W.

            Ok, so nobody rioted or killed over this film. What then of your original statement: “Those who respond to murder with satire when they know very well that it will result in more murder are inciting to murder and indeed equivalently guilty of it even if there is technically no blood on their hands and they are protected by civil law from criminal responsibility”?

            Now I would agree that if the maker of this film thought that “Ha! Watch as I make this film and people will riot and people will die!” then yes, I would say this is an evil intention and thus, an evil act. But that doesn’t seem to be the case.

            • Kirt Higdon

              Obviously, people rioted and people have been killed over the film, 49 is the most recent figure I’ve seen, almost all of them Moslem. This is a double plus for people who are anti-Moslem; they get to point out how evil Moslems are even as they gleefully watch Moslems killing other Moslems. And if a few non-Moslems also get killed, all the better for the sake of incitement. Did the film makers intend to do this? Only God can read their minds and hearts, the rest of us can only judge by their actions and the foreseeable results of those actions. And that is what we are seeing now; it’s not as if nothing like this has ever happened before. If someone shoots someone else in the head, my fallible judgment would be that the shooter intended to kill. Of course, only God can see what is in someone’s mind and heart. There are also the matters of passion and ignorance or knowledge, which may mitigate or aggravate guilt. And these could well weigh more in favor of the ill-educated, hot-blooded rioter than the well-educated cold-blooded film maker. But that’s God’s call not mine. As I see it, my job is to pray for all of these people and defend none of them.

  • CK

    Both the act of desecrating a revered religious figure and the murder of innocents are mortal sins. Yes, they are not morally equivalent in the sense that man’s law should deal with them differently. Nevertheless, they ARE MORALLY EQUIVALENT if both actions lead to the Final Judgement of Hell.

    • ivan_the_mad

      Writing it in caps doesn’t make it any less wrong, nor does it make it any less necessary to distinguish in kind and degree.

      • CK

        Nevertheless, they are morally equivalent if both actions lead to the Final Judgement of Hell.

        • ivan_the_mad

          No, moral equivalence means they’re equal in both kind and degree. Turns out, murder and sacrilege aren’t the same kind of thing, and we’ve already failed equivalence.

  • CK

    “Such people are cowardly savages who are, I repeat, not ready for civilization.”

    I agree, and nor are the Barbarians in Brooks Brothers suits who insult Islam ready for civilization either. Critique Islam, yes, yes, yes. See Belloc, Chesterton, and Benedict XVI who did so forcefully with caritas. Insult Islam with ignorance, and good luck dealing with the people who’s God is alone.

  • Richard Johnson

    Thankfully, as Mark and many others have pointed out, not all Libyans fit the description of being on the wrong side of this battle. It’s sad that this story is getting so little play here in the US media…sad, but not surprising.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19680785

    “The militia suspected of killing the US ambassador to Libya nearly two weeks ago has been driven out of its base in the eastern city of Benghazi.

    Police and protesters stormed the HQ of the Islamist group Ansar al-Sharia.

    The HQ of the Sahaty Brigade, said to have official backing, was also stormed. At least nine people were killed there, another died elsewhere.”

  • John P.

    Rights, be they the crux of western law, are not an excuse for imprudent, and at times immoral behavior.

    The right to freee speech is pretty much absolute in America provided that during the exercise of that right you do not call for murder and mayhem.

    Those advocating that the right to free speech be whitteled down so as to avoid offending certain consituencies are off the mark because these constituencies have actually called for the execution of a teacher simply because of the name her students assigned to a teddybear.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X