We didn't start the fire*

That Chris Britt is a very good editorial cartoonist is evident in his ability to present his viewpoint in such way that it instantly sparks debate. Often, vigorous debate. Such as the one I hope to have here now.

In today's offering, Britt show the Pope pouring fuel on the flames of Islamic bigotry. It's an interesting take.

There's no doubt that Islamic bigotry is on the rise, probably more so in European countries where Muslim immigrants are more segregated than they are in the U.S. Yet it's true that there are more negative feelings towards Islam here, and I admit to harboring some myself. In particular, I have trouble with the belief that the Islamic version of an eternal weekend in Vegas can be won by strapping a bomb to your chest and heading down to the deli. But I understand that not every Muslim shares in this belief and it's not fair to judge them as if they do.

I do wonder, however, if Britt doesn't overstate the effects of the Pope's words on Islamic bigotry. I haven't read any reports of mosques being burned, Imam's being murdered, or mass protests where likenesses of Mohammed are burned in effigy. So the Pope didn't douse an anti-Islamic uprising with gasoline, so much as squirt a little lighter fluid on people's quietly-held prejudices.

The Pope's comments did prove to be quite incendiary to some Islamics, who in response attacked Christian churches, murdered a nun, and set fire to papal-like puppets while demanding an apology or his pointy-hatted head on a platter.

It strikes me as more than a bit absurd to respond to accusations that your religion spurs violence by becoming violent. If being called a lush sends you straight to the bottle, then the problem isn't the name caller.

There are more important lessons to be learned from this incident than simply that the Pope should be more careful to not offend Muslims. For example, that people should be free to practice whichever religion they choose, or no religion at all. That criticism often leads to understanding, even though it may sting a bit at first. And most importantly, that free speech is essential to a free society and should be fiercely defended.

Anne Applebaum, writing for Slate**, made this last point quite well while addressing the Western response to this incident:

I don't mean that we all need to rush to defend or to analyze this particular sermon: I leave that to experts on Byzantine theology (and to my colleague Christopher Hitchens). But we can all unite in our support for freedom of speech-surely the pope is allowed to quote medieval texts-and of the press. And we can also unite-loudly-in our condemnation of violent, unprovoked attacks on churches, embassies, and elderly nuns. By "we" I mean here the White House, the Vatican, the German Greens, the French Foreign Ministry, NATO, Greenpeace, Le Monde, editorial cartoonists (amendment mine) and Fox News. Western institutions of the left, the right, and everything in between. True, these principles sound pretty elementary-"we're pro-free speech and anti-gratuitous violence"-but in the days since the pope's sermon, I don't feel that I've heard them defended in anything like a unanimous chorus.

I don't know why we aren't singing in harmony on this one, but she's right that there a good number of people taking the Pope to task while almost taking for granted the extremist response throughout the Middle East.

I seem to recall, in the aftermath of the Danish cartoon furor, that Britt sided with his ink-stained brethren against Muslim condemnation. I wonder why the Pope isn't afforded this same freedom of expression. Granted, you can believe that the Pope had the right to say what he did and still have been wrong for saying it, but when you choose to only address the latter, bloggers like me will question why you ignored the former.

As to the larger issue of global unrest, some are of the opinion that what we are experiencing is a clash of civilizations brought about by advances in technology and communication that have thrust modern beliefs and values on people who would prefer to live more insularly lives. There is hope in this theory. Once the culture shock wears off, understanding and acceptance could follow. I read something recently that might give credence to this:

Speaking at campuses, mosques, and the homes of Muslims, the Al Qasemi (an Islamic institute of higher learning) faculty said that it is time for Muslims to quit blaming others and examine their own responsibility for the troubles of Islamic civilization; time for Arab Israelis to call themselves Israelis, not Palestinians; and, above all, time for women to have full equality with men in the Muslim world.

All these assertions are considered radical, even incendiary, in much of the Arab Muslim world. But Mohammad Essawi, the president of the college, said such changes in thinking are needed to transform an education system in the Islamic world "that is still in the 12th century and does not have an open mind."

It's comforting to hear this type of liberal thinking amidst so much theological fascism. But where in the Middle East, you may be wondering, would a group of Islamic educators dare call for such progressive changes in attitude? In Israel, the home of Al Qasemi College. When a rabbinical school opens in Iran, we'll know that the educators' message is taking hold.

*Forgive me for cribbing titles from Billy Joel.

**If you aren't familiar with Slate and are on the verge of accusing me of being manipulated by right wing doctrine, Slate was founded by Michael Kinsley and still leans to the left most of the time. It's one of my favorite online sources for commentary.