Sigh. I knew this one was coming. Those darn evil Muslims. Coulter couldn't resist.

Where do liberals demand this? I've never demanded this. I've never heard anyone demand it. I have heard people make the point--rather obvious I would think--that evil acts by some Muslims does not mean all Muslims are evil, but that's not quite the same thing. So where does Coulter get this idea that liberals are in full throttle defending Islam as a "religion of peace." I did a Nexis search on the New York Times, arch-liberal organ that it is, for the phrase "Islam is a religion of peace." It came up 3 times this year. In March, there was an op-ed piece by Nicholas Kristoff in which he quotes President Bush using that phrase. In August there was a news article about a terrorist blast in Israel; the White House press spokesperson, Ari Fleisher is quoted in the piece as saying "The president believes very deeply that Islam is a religion of peace, and there are people who use the pretext of religion as an excuse to kill Jews, to kill Israelis and now to kill Americans." Finally, in September, in a long article quoting various people on their reaction to the Sept 11 anniversary, boxer Muhammad Ali has a brief 2 paragraphs in which he uses the phrase.

Three times since January 1. And twice by President Bush. Maybe it's not the liberals who are hung up on Islam being a religion of peace; maybe it's the Republicans?

To be technical, the killing was not in reaction to the pageant but in reaction to a Nigerian journalist's remark that was considered insulting to Muhammad. Whatever the reason, however, the bloodshed is a crime and deserves to be strongly condemned. To think any liberal--or sane person--would condone this violence is, well, insane.

Also Old Testament law, we might point out. Read your Bible, adulterous women are to be stoned. It's true, Jesus spoke out against that with "let he who is without sin throw the first stone," but he was speaking against the written law of the Jews.

Ok, that last line was kinda funny.

A "this just in" news flash: the highest Muslim council of Nigeria just over-ruled a lower council's fatwa against Daniel. No great victory for toleration here, but worth mentioning.

And what is incorrect about that headline? What Coulter ignores is that although the violence was started by Muslims it was responded to in kind by Christians. Both groups in Nigeria have a long history of trying to kill each other from time to time.

Do we need to mention the long history of Christian violence? How about in Rwanda where the mass slaughter of 750,000 people was supported by Hutu nuns and priests? This is not to defend Islamic fanaticism (or Stalinist slaughter) but simply to point out that fanatics of all kinds kill each other. Should we make some note of the Catholic vs. Protestant violence in Northern Ireland? Or how about the Holocaust? (Yes, I know that Nazism was not a Christian ideology, but the roots of its hostility to the Jews comes in part from the Catholic Church's long history of demonizing the Jews. This has been acknowledged by many honorable Christian leaders, including Pope John Paul II.)

No, it is not the same. There was fighting between Christians and Muslims. This is accurate. The article also makes very clear that the Muslim were the main instigators of the violence. Hardly liberal apologism.

Hmm. On this one I agree; it's a poorly worded headline.

Come on, the missionaries are trying to convert people to Christianity. What's so subtle about that? You come into my town and tell me that my religion is wrong and your religion is right and you don't think I might get a little pissed off? This in absolutely no way justifies violence, but it is quite reasonable for an article to offer it up as one cause of the violence.

Not this century, true.

Again, I don't particularly like refuting this sort of article because I honestly find the sorts of behavior Coulter talks about loathsome. Who wouldn't? Mass murder in the name of any religion is disgusting. What's twisted about Coulter is both her attempt to claim that only Muslims practice this sort of insanity as well as her attempt to argue that liberals defend Islam as a religion of peace. Of course, before Sept 11, conservatives like Coulter were not in the forefront of defending against Islamic extremism. After all, when Muslims attacked Salman Rushdie for his book, The Satanic Verses, many conservatives joined in attacking him. Cardinal O'Connor, Archbishop of New York, called the book offensive and said good Catholics shouldn't read it. Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher attacked it, as did French conservative Jacques Chirac. Is was liberal intellectuals who defended Rushdie against the Iranian fatwa. Or in Afghanistan, it was feminists who called for action against the Taliban, a cry ignored until Sept 11, 2001, when suddenly Bush thought it was time to speak out for women's rights.

Furthermore, Coulter ignores when Muslims fight against narrow-minded fundamentalism. Right now crowds of Iranian Muslim students are demonstrating in defense of a liberal Muslim writer (Hashem Aghajari) who has been condemned by the Iranian government.

It's not Islam which leads to evil (or Christianity or Hinduism), it's blind fanaticism, hatred, and bigotry. Something the blindly fanatical Coulter allows her bigotry to obscure.

©2002 Carl Skutsch. All rights reserved.
All opinions expressed herein are those of the author unless otherwise noted
(and it goes without saying that they make more sense than Coulter's opinions.)

graphics & design by pixelforge