More Media Tolerance

I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but just when I think the disdain shown by the MSM and the liberal talking-heads might slow down, I get another jolt. Say nothing bad about Islam, say anything bad you want to say about Christianity, but whatever you do, don't say anything good about Christianity.

This post concerns the latter media bias--saying something good about Christianity and something negative about Islam. Washington Post columnist and theologian Dr. Willis E. Elliot is the current offender against political-correctness and one-sided multiculturalism. In essence, after hearing Christianity slammed as violent and Islam praised as the religion of peace, Dr. Willis had just had enough.

In essence, he plainly stated that Islam is violent and Christianity practices peace. The picture accompanying this post represents a period of time when Christianity did commit violent acts--about eight hundred years ago. The left, MSM, and Islamoliars act as if the Crusades and the Inquisition were happening today. In a way, they are right, only it isn't the Christians committing the barbaric acts.

The Post pulled the article, as did Salon.com which had reprinted it for their online edition. Here's what Dr. Elliot said that brought on the vitriol: "Jesus said, love your enemies. Islam is hostile in the extreme to 'the infidels.' Calling evil good is bad news, but the worst news is violence done in the name of God, such as Mohamed Atta's theological justification for the [9-11] attack he led. Blasphemy is currently in the news only when Muslims become violent, or threaten violence, when they feel offended. When we Christians feel offended, almost never do we become violent, and almost always suffer the disrespect in silence or peaceful protest."

Not so, says Salon's Alex Pareene. He was quick to point out a "monster" anti-abortion Christian fanatic who murdered abortionist Dr. George Tiller and the ravings of the Westboro Baptist Church. Pareene failed to note that in both cases he was talking about the rare Christian extremists while Elliot had produced a long litany of nearly-daily Muslim outrages. Dr. Elliot had dared to speak of Islam's recent violent, sadistic history and present day bloodshed against America and Israel, along with Islamic brutality toward and murders of Christians in Iraq, Nigeria, Egypt and Pakistan. He noted that Pakistan, an alleged ally of America's, refuses to do anything about jihadist murders of Christians and Hindus and at the same time enforces blasphemy laws against anyone who even mildly questions Islam.

Pareene couldn't even bring himself to be civil, despite the pleas of the Obamassiah. Rather than produce solid arguments or refute Elliot's facts, he simply called him "stupid and insulting." Dr. Elliot had also pointed out that Muslims continue to practice jihad to advance dar es salam (the peaceful world of Allah) and to make war on dar es harb (the world not yet pacified by Allah's warriors). The Christian West, Elliot further points out, will not cease seeking religious freedom throughout the world. That sent Fareene and the Post editors into paroxysms.

Dr. Elliot had told a story of attending a so-called Christian service at a church which had invited an imam to speak from the pulpit. After the goody two-shoes, ain't we tolerant services, the imam met with the congregants outside and declared "God has no son." He did not say "We Muslims do not believe that God has a son." Dr. Elliot called the imam "blasphemous" for making such a statement on the grounds of a Christian church. But nobody threatened the imam's life or threatened to charge him with a hate crime. That brought on Pareene's "stupid and insulting" remark.

It was bad enough that a brave doctor of theology at a Christian assemblage dared to say "blasphemy," but relating that story in a Washington Post article was more than the tolerant lefties could handle without sputtering and launching ad hominem attacks. For the Post and Salon, religious freedom and tolerance are basic human needs, unless you're talking about Christians.

Let's leave the Post and Salon to their crazed opinions and take a brief look at how Christians have been treated outside Islamic lands when they criticized or disrespected Islam. Since the reaction to a Florida pastor threatening to have a Koran-burning to memorialize 9-11 last year, here are a few examples.

In East Lansing, Michigan, police offered a $10,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of the person who left a charred Koran outside a Michigan mosque. The individual actually surrendered and was jailed. But since he had not actually committed a crime, other than a possible littering charge, the prosecutor ordered his release saying "there is no criminal offense that I can charge under Michigan law." Would the same absurd overreaction have occurred had a Muslim burned a Bible and left it in front of a church? Or a Jewish synagogue?

Last December, a man in Tulsa, Oklahoma was charged with a hate crime (yes, even in Oklahoma) for allegedly sending an "intimidating" letter to a mosque along with a video in which a Koran and pork chops were grilled, put on a bun, and fed to a dog. The man was arrested, held for arraignment, then transferred to a psychiatric hospital based on the prosecutor's charge that the video "intends to produce violence directed to others because of their religious beliefs." Well, he wasn't exactly beheaded, but it sounds a lot like the old Soviet Union imprisoning dissidents in mental facilities. Meanwhile, imams continue to preach and print the Protocols of the Elders of Zion without being charged with anything. Oh, and by the way, the charges were dropped.

Overseas, it's no better. After being arrested, jailed and held for days, so-called "English nationalists" were finally charged with inciting racial hatred by way of allegedly posting a video of them burning a Koran behind a pub in Gateshead. They were subsequently released for lack of any evidence other than the word of a local Muslim. Meanwhile, sharia law, which calls for death for apostates and defamers of Islam is alive and well in many sections of London. No prosecutions pending.

A Frenchman was arrested for an online video showing a man tearing a page out of the Koran, making a paper airplane with it, and throwing it into two glasses allegedly representing the World Trade Center. He then burned the page and urinated on the ashes. He was charged with promoting racial hatred. The charges were dismissed, but the prosecutor is planning on resubmitting an amended version. Meanwhile, unidentified "Asian youths" in Paris and Marseilles continue to deface Jewish houses of worship and burn cars in the banlieues with little or no action being taken against them. Shouting "death to the infidels" didn't assist the gendarmes in determining which religion the "youths" represent.

There are two more nearly identical cases in England regarding speaking ill of Islam combined with Koran-burning. Both defendants were charged with "using racially aggravated threatening words or behavior." Both cases were ultimately dismissed, but not before two people exercising free speech were threatened, jailed and humiliated. None of the cases here or abroad have yet resulted in convictions, but why were they arrested in the first place? Bad taste and poor judgment used to bring a little clucking and some social estrangement, but we didn't put people in jail for it. On the other hand, we used to prosecute actual desecration of Jewish synagogues and cemeteries. Those were the days before leftist, unilateral political correctness.