Mohammed in a jar of urine

Is it just me or is it odd to hear liberals talk about how we need to avoid being offensive vis a vis these cartoon riots? What kind of understanding could the left possibly engender with their long record of ‘religious understanding’?

I’m wondering when a liberal artist will apply for an NEA grant to produce some Serrano-like ‘works of art’. Perhaps Mohammed in a jar of urine? Or maybe they might go the Maplethorpe route… but many people (even liberal artists) have reservations about involving themselves with bearded men and bullwhips (that might be a sin, unless they’re married of course).

CNN says they will not display blasphemous cartoons of Mohammed, "out of respect for Islam." But is this an issue of respect or an issue of freedom? Because if Jesus in a jar of urine must be funded with federal dollars (or else it's censorship), I'm pretty sure that cartoons merely depicting Mohammed is no big deal.

In Paris, the daily newspaper France Soir fired its managing editor after it republished the caricatures Wednesday, and in Pakistan protesters marched chanting "Death to Denmark" and "Death to France."

...Muslims consider it sacrilegious to produce a likeness of the Prophet Mohammad. CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons in respect for Islam. (Watch the furor caused by cartoons -- 2:48)

"The cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad are an attack on our spiritual values. There should be a limit to press freedom," the state Anatolian news agency quoted Erdogan as telling French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy during talks in Ankara. cnn

The real question is, where are all the radical left-wing activists up in arms about Muslim censorship? Where are the demands to have these cartoons publicly funded?

At first, I had a hard time even finding these cartoons on the web, but now they're on thousands of blogs, but few official journalistic enterprises feel compelled to display them. I wonder why? What's so offensive about them? They are not even a twentieth as offensive as Andre Serrano's works of publicly funded art.

Speaking truth to power: the utter failure and tragic hypocrisy of liberalism

The tragedy here is that it is supposed to be the left who champions the cause of liberty and freedom. It is supposed to be the left who bravely stands up to those who use oppression and fear to cow others into subjugation to their will. (Speaking truth to power.) The left is supposed to be fighting sexism, slavery, racism, religious bigotry and ignorance. But where are the protestors on the left? You won't find them speaking out against the burning of Danish embassies. You won't find them fighting for women's rights in Tehran, or Egypt, or Syria, or even Iraq. You won't find them protesting the complete subjugation of women in Saudi Arabia.

You only find them 'speaking truth to power' here in America, (at funerals and memorial services). Mouthing banal and empty slogans, completely without fear of reprisal, about how evil and oppressive western society, and in particular the Bush administration is. Let's see International A.N.S.W.E.R. organize a protest in Syria or Iran and call for a 'regime change' there. Or create paintings of Mohammed with animal dung (Why is this picture even here in a story about cartoons of Mohammed?) in protest to the sexist, racist, patriarchal oppressive Islamic society.

The fight for freedom on the left has been overtaken by a redefinition of terms. Racism, sexism, imperialism, bigotry, ignorance, and intolerance are all words that apply only to America in the liberal lexicon. Thus we have the idea that people of color cannot be racists. Minorities cannot be prejudiced or intolerant-- by definition. Muslims are being oppressed by our foreign policy and support for Israel, therefore, ipso facto, they cannot be engaging in intolerance and the like, because they are an underprivileged and oppressed people.

Fundamentalism

The tragic truth is that the left still does not believe there is an 'Islamic fundamentalist' problem. The reason for this is that the only fundamentalists they are concerned with are the ones right here at home (in their minds).

Jimmy Carter's latest book is a shallow and shrill political denunciation of conservatives as religious zealots who are the real danger to the free world in Carter's mind. Imagine that.

In his tome, Carter blames all the world’s ills on the rise of "fundamentalism." Appearing on CNBC’s "Tim Russert Show" on Saturday, November 5, Carter reminisced that he saw such fundamentalism "when the Ayatollah Khomeini rejected any kind of reasonable interpretation of the Koran and took American hostages" – and now it’s spreading among Christian conservatives. Carter defines fundamentalists as "authoritarian males who consider themselves to be superior to others" and "have an overwhelming commitment to subjugate women." They believe "they are right and that anyone who contradicts them is ignorant and possibly evil…They are often angry and sometimes resort to verbal or even physical abuse against those who interfere with the implementation of their agenda." They tend "to demagogue emotional issues" and view "efforts to resolve differences as signs of weakness." [1] When challenged whether he actually meant Christians were little Ayatollahs, Carter affirmed, "all of those things are compatible [with Christian fundamentalism], yes." He explained to Russert that the sway of fundamentalism in the South derives "from more ancient times, 30, 40, 50 years ago," – ancient? – "from racism, when whites dominated blacks."

The man from Plains makes clear in his book that "fundamentalists" aren’t merely knuckle-dragging yokels who believe in a flat earth: "neocons" are also "fundamentalists" [2] Opponents of the Kyoto Treaty are "fundamentalists." [3] Even justifying violence against judges is attributable to fundamentalist "intimidation of the judiciary." [4] Thus, Jimmy Carter continues his long history of insufferable, grating moralizing; demonizing his opponents; and rewriting the history of his failed presidency.

...Carter demonstrates he has the same grasp on the War on Terror as he did the Cold War as he pens the only sentence in the book that is underlined: "The fact is that, unlike during other times of national threat or crisis, the United States of America is not at war." [12]
~Ben Johnson

Mr. Carter can be thankful that the enemy he has chosen to 'speak truth to' is not anything like those we are actually at war with.

***** UPDATE *****

This is exactly the wrong response:

LONDON (Reuters) - The European Union may try to draw up a media code of conduct to avoid a repeat of the furor caused by the publication across Europe of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, an EU commissioner said on Thursday. ADVERTISEMENT

In an interview with Britain's Daily Telegraph, EU Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini said the charter would encourage the media to show "prudence" when covering religion.

"The press will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression," he told the newspaper. "We can and we are ready to self-regulate that right." yahoonews

[H]egemonic Word count: 1219