…embarrasses himself in Pakistan:”I strongly disagreed with both the creation and the publication of cartoons that were considered blasphemous to devout Muslims around the world because they depicted the Prophet. “
Leaving aside the fact that the prohibition on depiction of Mohammed is by no means as clear-cut as Clinton pretends to think, we have to deal with the fact that Clinton believes that images that “offend’ the beliefs of one religious faith should not even be created, let alone published.
And they call Pat Robertson intolerant?
And then there’s this:
“But I would not be surprised if the person who drew those cartoons and the newspaper publisher who decided to print them did not even know that it was considered blasphemous to have any kind of personal depiction of the Prophet to Muslims.”
Oh good grief. If Clinton has read any newspapers on this subject (and if he hasn’t, could he please shut up about the whole topic) he would know that Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons specifically to test the extent to which the beliefs of one religious faith were being imposed upon others.
And do we get from Clinton any suggestion that the rioters, thugs and bullies who have defaced the name of Islam in the course of the cartoon wars should apologize? No we don’t. If anything, Clinton’s implication is that it is the West that should be apologizing, and that publication of what he calls “blasphemy” was unacceptable.
That’s wrong, wrong, wrong. No collection of beliefs, even if they do involve a deity, should be given special privileges and protections. And, Bill, if my free speech is your blasphemy, that’s just tough.
Get over it.