I just got done reading an article by Charles Krauthammer and had a couple follow up thoughts. I suppose that's what blogs are for. so i'm taking the liberty of using mine. Maybe someone else out there has another point of view. Just thinking out loud...

First. go read the article.

Good.

Now that you have. maybe you'll see why I could think that maybe in the Western press' rush to cave to the mob we're committing a higher crime.

Condescention.

We don't get in the faces of those who would scream for the murder of the Pope over words...WORDS...because we don't think they'd comprehend just what is wrong with that reaction. It's like we view the Muslim world as a bunch of 2 year olds.

Instead we shrink into the corner. asking the supposedly "infalliable" representative of God to apologize. By "we" I actually mean the press and anyone with a microphone. Most commonfolk could give a damn...except to look to the east with a quizzical look as if to say "WTF is wrong with those people?"

Do we do it because those rioting. flag-burning (not that there's anything wrong with that) Muslims wouldn't respond to a rational response and act accordingly? You know...like human beings instead of animals? I know it's bad and i'm a horrible person for painting an entire religion based on the brush wielded by the extremists...but where's the outrage? As a Christian i'm equally offended by Pat Robertson and other hate-mongerers. But the key difference is this:

Today's Christians call these false Christians out when they go off the deep end. I see no similar call from the Islamic leadership. the greater family of believers or most notably ALL PEOPLE of the world when the riots start over a comment made by a funny looking old man in a white robe. I doubt i'll have a Catholic calling for my assassination because of that last line. God forbid you say something goofy about Mohammed.

We're being more condescending towards Muslims by not working out our differences man to man. Instead. we engage them in two ways at the same time. neither of which is going to EVER be effective:

1) back down and refuse to call them out on their childish. immature behavior

and

2) pick up the sword and force democracy on a people that don't have a clue as to what that really means

A rational man would be secure enough in his own personal beliefs to not resort to violence unless absolutely necessary. Is it really the case that as long as the middle east remains woefully undereducated we will be stuck with only these two options?

Yes. Because belief is inherently irrational.

John Mayer is right:

I'm an engineer. I believe (and will defend) in the things that can be proven. I have additional beliefs (religious) that I will not feel compelled to defend in words because they cannot be proven -- so what is the point in fighting to convince someone else you are right? You believe what you believe and i'll believe what I want to believe - right up to the point that my beliefs infringe on the life or liberty of another person. Then it's my job to STFU.

Let the personal be personal. let the public be public...and where they cross let's come to an agreement of the people. Not this passionate. irrational and neverending quest for one true religion. It'll never happen. so let's just figure out how to get along. ok?