And now a word from the other side.

Yesterday I posted a piece (gently, I hope) critical of people who spend a lot of time being fearful of efforts to impose Islamic standards on them. I suggested that such efforts are no danger, and that indeed they would be violently self-defeating.

I never suggested that they don’t exist.

“If the Western world fails to understand the sensitivity of the Muslim world, then we are in trouble,” [secretary general of something called the Organization of Islamic Cooperation] Ihsanoglu said. Such provocations pose “a threat to international peace and security and the sanctity of life.”

No they don’t. Failure to ‘understand your sensitivity’ is not a provocation to violence.

If someone criticizes me, for example, by suggesting I might profit from a haircut, a bath, and a better-looking shirt, that person is merely making an observation. It may be true or not, it may be stated respectfully or insultingly, but it’s still just a statement. It does not harm me, and my “sensitivity” to criticism is my problem. Has that person thereby posed ‘a threat to peace, security and the sanctity of life?” Not if I’m sane. If I’m not, I’m the one posing the threat. And I’m the one who may need to be dealt with. Such threats should not be tolerated.

This morning Claire juxtaposed the article above with another, this one describing a Broadway play that’s very disrespectful of Mormonism, and Mormons’ reaction to it.

Mormons are people who have historically been known to take up arms in their own defense. They are not pacifists. But most don’t get worked up when people point out that their religion’s origin is really rather silly. Joseph Smith was a con man, nothing but, and I have met some (not many) Mormons who quietly admit it.

I imagine there are Mormons who find the ‘insensitivity’ annoying. But they don’t hijack planes or burn down embassies over it. And so people mostly leave them alone to worship as they will. Critics of Mormonism are not ‘threats to peace and security and the sanctity of life,’ and neither are Mormons.

The difference is in the current conduct and not the history. I could point out convincing historical reasons why Catholicism should never be allowed any political influence whatsoever. The Catholic church, when in power, is perfectly capable of becoming a horrifying terrorist organization. It has. But I’m not afraid of Catholics, and neither are you.

When Muslims suggest that they should be immune to all criticism lest there be violence, they’re arguing against their own best interests. They are making the threats, and the most extreme among them have proven that the threats should be taken very seriously. The rational response to people who make such threats, and certainly to those who try to carry them out, is two in the center of mass and one in the head.

I have nothing against anyone practicing his or her own religion, or even pointing out to me why I might want to examine that religion for myself. Hell, they could be right. When Americans get all terrified by the lunatic fringe of a religion that hasn’t been a major political force in the world since the sixteenth century, they’re getting worked up over nothing. Muslims are not going to impose Sharia law on you this week, Cletus. Most, especially in this country, have no such desire. The others have no such power. Relax.

But that’s not the same as saying we should put up with the ones who make threats, or the ones who carry out the threats. Tolerance can be taken too far. If someone convincingly threatens your life or your family, kill him. Be prepared to defend your actions.

Intolerance can also be taken too far. You don’t get to track down the dead guy’s country of origin and reduce it to glowing glass – tempting as that may sometimes be.

I’m rambling. The end of the matter, everything having been said, is don’t become the problem. I’m not going to plead “can’t we all get along,” because the answer to that question is clearly no. But we can keep things in perspective. If we just relax.