OK, here's a scenario for you: a redneck walks into a bar, with full western wear. Problem is, it's a bar filled with metrosexual nancy boys, and one of them takes it upon himself to insult the redneck for his apparrel. Said redneck goes to his pickup truck (of course), gets his 12 gauge (of course), and proceeds to blow nancy boy's brains out the back of his skull.

Did the insult, regardless of how provocative, justify the response? No. Not in any way, or in any stretch of the imagination.

And yet, in a recent article, Link, we see the following comment:

It is pure hatred fertilized by dogmas and fueled by rage catalyzed by the occupation of his land by those who have been insulting his faith...

So, how then, do we make the intellectual stretch that someone insulting the faith of another is in any way a justification for violence, especially in the instance detailed in this article, which dealt with violence that targetted children? Answer: we DON'T, and anyone who DOES use this as a justification is reaching for an excuse for animals who deserve NONE.

Defenders of Muslim extremists are quick to point out abortion clinic bombings in the United States, in the apparent hope that the wrong actions of a faction of one faith can be used to justify the equally wrong actions of a faction of another faith. The simple fact remains that they cannot, and that key differences STILL remain between the two. In the case of abortion clinic bombings, the vast majority of Christian churches were quick to condemn the actions, not defend them. In the case of the Muslim terror attacks, the Muslim community is not only molasses slow to condemn, but such condemnations usually aren't supported by a substantial number of clerics. Add to the fact that Christian terrorist leaders who have organized such activities have NEVER been elected to major public office; by contrast, many in the Arabic world still regard Yasser Arafat as a hero to his cause. and of the numerous fatwahs that have been issued by Muslim practitioners who have "insulted" Islam, NONE has received a substantial condemnation from the more moderate Muslim clerics.

I respect the right of Muslims to practice their faith, as long as they do it peacably. I do NOT, however, support the right of Muslims, or people of ANY faith, INCLUDING Christianity, to practice their faith when their faith is contingent on the use of violence or force against others. And I will NOT accept the rationale of a perceived "insult" as a justification for their actions. If you're going to use THAT as a defense, you could say that Matthew Sheppard "insulted" his murderers' sexuality.

And THAT would be abhorrent.