In my previous post, I noted Dennis Prager, a Jew, was called a "bigot" for lamenting that a Muslim Congressman was going to swear a symbolic oath of office on something else than the bible.

In his article, Prager made it clear he was not objecting to Islam by noting his disagreement with swearing on any other book, be it The Book of Mormon, the Collected Works of Volatire, or L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics.

But Prager's critics heard his objection primarily as an argument against Islam. And, of course, criticizing someone else's religion is a terrible thing to do!

For example (my bold added for emphasis):

"Never Again" means that we must never tolerate the persecution or demonization of any group because of their skin color, creed, race or any other intrinsic personal characteristic including sexual identity. Dennis Prager is a bigot who believes that America essentially belongs to conservative white Christians.... He believes that Jews, Muslims and other non-Christians are second class citizens....

Clearly the main sticking point is that the author believes Dennis Prager (who he assumes is a Christian) hates someone else's religion. (Not that he doesn't also sneak in the obligatory charge that Prager must also be a racist.)

So, okay: I get it! It's wrong to criticize someone else's religion!

That's the new rule, and I hear you saying that. Good enough!

But, um, what those websites, books and misleading articles which are deeply critical my religion? Is Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris now to be called "bigots" because they "demonize" people based on their "creed"?

Might their vitriol lead to anti-Christian hatred, like this?:

Do you think if the fascisto-theocons got their way, they would still be so accompdating to Jews or others? You are just another brainless theocon, utterly hypocritical and ungodly to the core.

As a Christian I'm somewhat used people bashing my faith with disgusting and lurid accusations of all sorts. (*Yawn!*) But prominent liberals will denounce you as a bigot if they even think you've critiqued Islam.

Walid Shoebat, a former terrorist who criticises Islam, encounters this dichotomy all the time:

Shoebat recounts how, in some public speeches he gave warning of Islam, many in the audience attacked him, not radical Islam. He recalls: "At another speech, one Rabbi critiqued the New Testament as 'riddled with violence', I had no problem with his right to state this, yet when I confronted him I asked 'Why do you feel free to critique the New Testament, but afraid of critiquing Islam's well documented violence?' to which he could not reply.

It didn't matter that I stated in my speech that a Jew had the right to critique Christianity, a Christian had the right to critique Mormonism and Islam, and a Muslim had a right to critique the Bible and Christianity, I was still accused of racism and bigotry against Islam. One can say almost anything against any other religion but Islam. Why?" [1]

Ironically, Prager made the same point, arguing that if it were any other belief system it would have gotten more press, noting "virtually every editorial page in America is not going to offend a Muslim." I think the Danish cartoon incident -- where no paper in the US ran even one -- demonstrates he's correct about that.

So: Why?

The answer is simple:

(1) Fundamentally, the left is at war with conservative Christianity. Radical Islam does not concern or interest them. But if they can use criticism (real or imagined) of Islam eminating from "the right" about it as a political tool, they will.

So, on one hand, they are free to engage in an orgy of bashing the "religious right" (e.g. traditional Christians who vote), but, on the other hand, they will display great sensitivity to any seeming criticism of Islam. They don't care about Islam, good or bad: it's just a convient stick with which to bash their real enemies.

(2) Also, they know Christians will only, at worst, write them angry letters.