Image 01 Image 03

Today in dumb left-wing equivalencies

Today in dumb left-wing equivalencies

Left-wing blog finds single example of Christian violence over film almost 25 years ago in France

We have had an epidemic problem of violence directed at people perceived as insulting Islam stretching back over 30 years.  That violence is part of a greater Islamist and Jihadist struggle against the West, and encompasses attacks on Christians, Jews and other religious minorities throughout the Middle East.

Sometimes the violence does not even require an insult, as in the case of Daniel Pearl.

That truth is an uncomfortable narrative for the left wing in America, which generally is allied with Islamists against Israel and the West, notwithstanding the obvious ironies.

So how should a left-wing blog react to the wave of violence across the Middle East on the flimsy pretext of a YouTube video few people ever saw produced by some guy no one ever heard of?

Find examples of similar Christian violence driven by a film.

Susie Madrak at Crooks and Liars blog found one example, some group which threw a molotov cocktail at a movie theater in France in 1988:

While listening to all the outraged right wing rantings about free speech and how Muslims were a separate, primitive class of religion for their outraged and violent response in Libya to the deliberately provocative work of a California porn director, I kept thinking to myself, “Why does this all seem so familiar?”

And then, last night I watched Martin Scorcese’s 1988 film, “The Last Temptation of Christ”, and it all came flooding back. From Wikipedia:

On October 22, 1988, a French Christian fundamentalist group launched Molotov cocktails inside the Parisian Saint Michel movie theater while it was showing the film. This attack injured thirteen people, four of whom were severely burned ….

Lesson of the day: No religion has a monopoly on irrational violence.

Well, it is a truism that no religion has a “monopoly on irrational violence.”   That hardly makes the two situations equivalent.

Presumably if one searched hard enough there might be other examples of Christian violence over a movie or book in the last 30 years, but you will have to do some searching.   To find Islamist violence, one only need pick up the newspaper.

Here’s an easy test.

Where would you feel more safe in 2012, at a screening of The Last Temptation of Christ, or a public reading of the Satanic Verses or a showing of that video no one had heard about until a few days ago?

(image via Blazing Cat Fur, related story at Twitchy)


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The problem is not that the comparison is inaccurate. The problem is the impulse behind the rejection, the reflexive defense of what cannot be defended. The complete rejection that there is something going on right now that is active, pre-planned terrorism, not just ordinary interracial discontent.

“On October 22, 1988, a French Christian fundamentalist group launched Molotov cocktails inside the Parisian Saint Michel movie theater while it was showing the film. This attack injured thirteen people, four of whom were severely burned …”

—This is what’s known in the Islamist world as an “extremely slow day.”

Anyway, the latest news is that Hollywood has already bought the rights to the infamous youtube filmmaker’s story.

It’s said that the film adaptation will either take place in the Deep American South and feature murderous riots of bitter, bible- and gun-clinging Christians … OR … in Europe with rampaging neo-Nazi skinheads as the villains.

    “—This is what’s known in the Islamist world as an “extremely slow day.”” Too, too true -funny in a sick way. And since it happened 24 years ago, it has been a non-existent reality in Christianity for almost a quarter of a century. Leftists do not have any ability to argue; they invent comparisons out of thin air – or time. They wouldn’t know a true example of equivalency if it bit them in the derriere.

The Left is so desperate to rope Christians into this, they’re beclowning themselves intellectually. CNN is blaming evangelical Christians for what the Islamists are blaming the Coptic Christian for:

The Crooks and Liars blog is aptly named.

They ARE.

    One hopes you are correct. The idea that they may believe the idiocy they publish is just too horrible to contemplate.

    Actually, in this case they are speaking the plain truth.

    The good professor highlights the real issue, wherein C&L goes for the equivalence.

      Ragspierre in reply to Casey. | September 17, 2012 at 8:57 am

      What in trial work is called “the greater lie”.

      The plain facts of the French incident are true.

      The greater lie her portrayal of those facts fosters is that there is a moral equivalence.

      No. Not qualitatively, and certainly not quantitatively.

Yes, I distinctly remember when Martin Scorsese was knifed on the street by a radical Christianist because of “The Last Temptation of Christ.”

Oh wait, that was Theo Van Gogh and the film “Submission.”

Susie Madrak was most likely not out of diapers in 1988 so how “familiar” can she be with an event that occurred in France in 1988 … not at all is what I am thinking …

Distinctions are made by the left wing only when it fits their narratives. Otherwise, it’s all lumped together.

Anyone else remember the time, not so long ago, when Egypt celebrated its holy month with a TV series denigrating another religion? ( Bloody hypocrites.

Kind of like the Kenworth calling the Dinky Toy truck BIG!!

This woman is so stupid she defies comment. She defies an exclamation mark. It is mind boggelling she is literate. It blows the mind she is probably college educated. Oh wait , this is 2012 , she is the end product of Liberalism , her number is legion , she IS the educated elete. It now makes sense. IF you are of that class and are also mind blowo insane by any traditional measure.

Dumb equivalencies may be more apt than you might think. I’ve yet to see anything that specifically states that any of these “Christian Fundamentalists” were indeed held accountable for the fire bombing. We know for sure that Bernard Antony was not held accountable because he possessed parliamentary immunity. There is a report that nine members of a religious group were detained during the investigation (NY Times Nov. 9, 1988). But, there were no reports of arrests even 20 days after the event.

So I’d have to question whether our Leftist friends have their facts correct. All I saw was an article suggesting possible arson, speculation in general as to who might have done it, and an ongoing police investigation.

It’s not like we have names of perps such as we have with the five Occupy bridge bombers in Cleveland.

    Orson, please. Why work so hard to defend a tiny group of vicious bigots? Antony was excommunicated from the Catholic Church, and even the Archbishop of Paris condemned the bombing: “You don’t behave as Christians but as enemies of Christ. From the Christian point of view, one doesn’t defend Christ with arms. Christ himself forbade it.”

      Casey: I’m not working hard at all, and I’m, certainly, not going out of my way to defend the “God Squad” in the Oct. 21, 1988 molotov cocktail attack. I’m merely pointing out that the Leftists went out on a limb to equivocate today’s events to an alleged (important word, alleged) event back in 1988 by Christian Fundamentalists. There’s no proof that they were the perps…only general implications.

      Incidentally, Bernard Antony was not ex-communicated from the Church. That would be Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and it had nothing to do with this issue (Lefebvre defied the Pope and inducted some piers into the Society of St. Pius X).

      On a side note, I’m agnostic. And, I like facts when some one is lobbing mudballs.

Up is down; left is right; black is white. The left’s creed.

There are many more instances of Christian violence. Like the time that …, no, that was a muslim group. Or the time that …, no, that was also muslims. How about the time that …, no, that was muslims, too.

The “movie” trailer reminded my of a real movie I saw back in high school with a bunch of my buddies.

It was stupid, made no sense, and wasn’t funny–though it was supposed to be.

I asked half way through the movie “hey, is this supposed to be about Jesus or something?”. Duh, and a poke in the ribs followed.

That movie was Monty Python’s Life of Brian.

    BLBeamer in reply to Browndog. | September 17, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    Oh, come on. The Life of Brian is hilarious and I am an evangelical Christian. It’s not Monty Python’s funniest movie, but it is still laugh out loud funny. The blasphemy stoning scene (“He said Jehovah!”), the different Palestine People’s Liberation Armies (“splitters!”), the Sermon on the Mount and the man insisting it was his right as a man to have a baby still keep me in stitches.

    To me, the joke on liberals is that they think it applies a mortal wound to Christianity. Long time fans of Monty Python know differently. One can take the same movie, put it into the present day and use Barack Obama as Brian, and suddenly the movie liberals loved becomes riot-worthy.

BannedbytheGuardian | September 16, 2012 at 8:46 pm

Regarding the photo.

This pic was front page on a Sunday newspaper . I went to the local supermarket twice yesterday & whilst lining up at the checkout had a good look at the customers’ reactions .

They all looked at the foto -read the paragraph & took a deep breath. Nothing will erase that visual.

I live in a union blue collar labour stronghold . I don’t see any muslimlurve.

F*ck the elite “left -the ordinary working class will not take it .

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Towson Lawyer. | September 16, 2012 at 11:36 pm

    Haha . This kid has -or will have -her genitals cut off & pain will be her companion for life.

    We try to help avoid this by laws both here & against taking girls to egypt to slice off everything but we are up against a sado masochist cult.

    Last week 4 people were arested for wiping out the genitals of a 5 & 7 year old.

    I no longer care. let the children suffer . They can go crying to allah.

I remember when “Last Temptation…” came out. The one incident that occurred anywhere around here was a man drove his old rusted bus into an Ithaca theater “before daybreak.” The driver had wrapped himself in a blanket and had taped the bus windshield first. You can read the account here:,2271536

“Lesson of the day: No religion has a monopoly on irrational violence.”

But I don’t agree. Islam does have a monopoly, a relative and in extremis one. To deny this simple brute fact of modern history signifies one’s lack of seriousness and honesty. Islam is sociopathic — the rule not the exception.

For the Left to concede the unique, fierce pathology of Islam would put its whole worldview at risk. It would lead to horrifying revisionism that Bush may have been right, and trigger a chain of collapse, of their anti-American political logic and moral superiority. Blaming it on a film is absurdly perfect and a neat tie-in to their love of censorship. But it puts them in a real bind (not that they notice or care), i.e., if this little film caused all this, how can they not argue for the suppression of Sony’s big Obama-loving bin Laden film?

Not to change the subject, but in a descending order of commonly acknowledged faiths engendering human rights violations there is atheism (most notably in the 20th century and continuing into the 21st century), Islam (the first two are interchangeable), Christianity, and Judaism.

The secular cult needs to acknowledge its articles of faith and end its perverted and perverting defense through science. They need to acknowledge that their faith engenders inconsistent principles and effectively no reproducible guidance for individuals, society, or humanity. They own the product of left-wing regimes, including communism, socialism, fascism, imperialism, etc.

Now back to the Muslims. They remain highly active in Africa and Asia. In the first, they continue to inhabit occupied land through force of arms, hold slaves, and wage wars on their neighbors. Islam — especially the imperial variant — never had moral standing and its evolution has not changed that disposition.

Christianity has engendered positive evolution (and positive progress) of its faithful. While both atheism and Islam have generally failed. The former doubly so as it promotes dreams of instant gratification and its subscribers embrace behaviors which constitute evolutionary dysfunction.

Left-wing ideology is progressively incompatible with the preservation of individual dignity and in its modern form serves to devalue human life.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to n.n. | September 17, 2012 at 12:40 am

    Rubbish N.N

    I am an atheist though I have read of many Gods. Some have had some terrific statues & works of art. Some have adherents who do some good works & some evil.

    It just has not been necessary for me to do more than that. What is the crime in being simply unconvinced by all literature & all offerings so far?

TeaPartyPatriot4ever | September 16, 2012 at 9:56 pm

This what happens when good people do not stand up against hatred, intolerance, violence, and evil. They allow themselves to be manipulated and coerced into going with, accepting this kind of behavior and attitude as normal and right, when in fact it is not, it’s wrong, bad and evil. And that’s just for the normal unindoctrinated good people of America and this world.

These indoctrinated, whether the far left socialist marxists, or the radical militant fanatical religious zealots of islam, makes no difference. But the radical hate mongering islamists and the evil they do, and wish to do, is done under the guise of religion, which is why they are so dangerous, as that ruse is an extremely easy to indoctrinate someone into total obedience, as evidenced with islamists..

Religion is for personal salvation, harmony, and peace, not for political ideological world conquests. Radical militant arab islamic muslim leaders have poisoned the religion well, have poisoned the minds of people, and have encouraged hate and intolerance and violence as the islamic way, thus turning their people, even their own children into agents of evil..

As quoted from Mr. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a former Soviet prisoner of conscience, author of Gulag Archipelago, and One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch, a titan of moral clarity warned us about the coming failure of our society back in 1978 in a speech given at Harvard University.

Equivalence is the essence of Moral Relativism- The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines moral relativism as something that one accuses another of, rather than something to which one proudly admits.

Quote: “The rise of Moral Relativism, whereby equivalence and mediocrity (or outright evil) trumps value and quality, continues to be the grim reaper of our national life.”

I defy them to find one instance of no reaction to some perceived slight of Islam by a Christian.

Not all Muslims are terrorists but most terrorists are Muslim.

That’s a good enough credo to live by for me.

Count me out when it’s time to bow to some murdering savage living a 7th century existence who expects me to obey his creed.

This is America . . so far.

It claims to be the “suburban guerilla” and and art school drop out. HTF do you drop out of art school? And WTF is it with these libtards and the faux tough personas they adopt online? It’s an overweight pampered skank who failed at Fn art school.

So, is Susie Madrak at Crooks and Liars blog saying that if Christian had maintained a long series of fire-bombings, like that at the Parisian Saint Michel movie theater, that Obama would give Christians of all denominations the same deference that he gives Muslims ?
They are aware that Muslims are exempt from many requirements of ObamaCare, aren’t they ?

Every time one of the media quacks and invalids say the “prophet” Mohammed, I want to gag. “Prophet” Mohammed my rear end. What has he prophesied? Is convert, pay jizya, or die prophecy? I guess it is because the Koranimals are rioting and killing almost 1400 years later.

I don’t have time to read all of the comments but here is the difference the leftists are missing. When Muslims attack someone for blasphemy they are acting in accordance with the tenets of their religion. When a Christian does it he is acting at odds with the teachings of his religion.

I am not a religious man but even I know that you can’t lump all belief systems together. Just because you can find an adherent of a belief or philosophy who does something wrong in its name it doesn’t make the belief or philosophy suspect unless the act is in accordance with those beliefs or is required by them.

[…] murderous riots of bitter, bible- and gun-clinging Christians … … See the original post: Today in dumb left-wing equivalencies – Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion ← Pastor Alex's Sermon Carryouts: What Is […]

To follow onto @Voluble’s comment:

The other main difference is that the violent actions of a group or individuals claiming Christianity is that these acts are immediately condemned by both the Christian community and the government/law enforcement as illegal and immoral acts. Most Christian leaders speak out quickly and vociferously condemning the violent actions of the individuals, as un-Christian.

The imams, governments and other “leaders” do not condemn the violent acts of these Muslim mobs: the rapes, the murders, the rioting and destruction. In fact, most encourage and praise these acts…..or at least remain silent, which implies approval and consent. It can even be argued that Islam followers are following their religion, with many sura’s and Muslim tenets to support the assertion. Not to mention the videos of imams and leaders encouraging such barbarians.

No. Nothing at all alike.

Not in any rational, logical, coherent way. Only by twisting logic and reason into pretzel logic can it even be asserted; certainly not accepted as rational or acceptable comparisons.

What I have noticed, arguing with liberals for the better part of several decades, is that they all too easily treat anomalies as commonplace, while paying lip service or completely ignoring what actually is commonplace.

I’m sure there is a psychological condition for this.