In 2006, a Danish newspaper called Jyllands-Posten published
a dozen editorial cartoons, some of which depicted the Islamic Prophet Muhammad
unflatteringly. The paper described it as a simple exercise in free speech.

The response was to become worthy of the history textbooks.
Many Muslim leaders, including Mahmoud al-Zahar of Hamas, issued death threats
against those who would reprint the Muhammad caricatures. Across the Muslim
world, mass protests ensued, many of which became violent and degenerated into
rioting. More than 100 people were killed. Scandinavian countries had their
embassies closed, products boycotted and flags burned.

Remember, this was all about a few cartoons.

Many in the Western media, especially those of a left or
liberal disposition, made the most pathetic condemnations of the Danish
newspaper's decision to print the cartoons. Religion (especially Islam) must be
tolerated, as the groveling went, and Jyllands-Posten had offended the faith's
followers.

A few courageous newspapers,
including The Badger Herald, refused to succumb to religious bullying and
decided to reprint the cartoons. They were certainly worthy of news coverage,
so campus progressives must have been sympathetic to the Herald's cause, right?
Wrong. Protest ensued, the point of which I was never able to truly understand.

Among liberals and the left,
insulting Islam is anathema. Christianity may make for a reliable punching bag,
but Islam deserves "respect." Well, this leftist thinks that's bullshit, and I
make no apologies for saying so.

From the ruckus over Salman
Rushdie's novel, "The Satanic Verses," to the murder of the Dutch filmmaker
Theo Van Gogh over his film, "Submission," the left's response to Islamic
outrage has always been less than commendable. The feeling among many — though
not all — has always been that the response from Muslims was in some way
warranted. Mr. Rushdie's book "offended" them, so the real blame is with him — not
the Iranian mullahs who issued a fatwa against him.

Why does Islam deserve such
protection? In almost every country with a Muslim majority, the oppression of
women, gays and non-Muslims has received official, state codification. And
let's stop with the notion that this is somehow a perversion of the religion;
the license for primitivism of all kinds comes right out of the pages of the
Koran, just as both Testaments of the Bible sanction war, racism and a
generally backward state of affairs.

If the left really stands for the
values of the Enlightenment, if it really does uphold the ideas of
egalitarianism and secularism and reason — and on all counts, I think it does —
then making excuses for Islam must stop. Religion is based on faith, not
rationality. It gives credence to almost every type of anti-humanism one can
think of, and Islam is no exception.

Yes, Western Muslims are
increasingly feeling the pinch from a xenophobic society — this I find
deplorable. It is for this reason that we must distinguish between Muslims and
Islam. The former are entitled to all the protections the law can offer and
more, while the latter deserves the same disinterested treatment that leftists
give to Christianity.

And the term "anti-Islamic racism"
has got to go. The logical fallacy embedded in the term should be obvious to
even the laziest reader, but its effect can be stinging nonetheless. Islam is
not a race; it is a system of thought, adopted voluntarily, just like political
conservatism or stoicism. As such, it should be subject to the same method of
critique, without the political correctness police calling its critics racist.

Undoubtedly, many desperate and
oppressed Arabs find the anti-Western message of religious groups an attractive
one because it serves as a channel to resist American imperialism — i.e., the
recent invasion of Iraq. It's easy to see how U.S. policy has given legitimacy
to the ideas of religious fanaticism in the Middle East, and thereby
exponentially increased the number of terrorists intent on doing harm to
civilian populations.

But it should never be forgotten
that while many in the region have found a monstrous outlet for their
grievances, the essential message of the Islamists is opposed to that of
American progressives. Aside from foreign policy, the things Mr. al-Zahar and
his ilk hate about our society are not what leftists dislike and seek to
change, but the things they cherish and have fought for — i.e. separation of
religion and state, gender equality and artistic freedom. In this context,
political Islam can only be defined as a force of the far right and should be
treated with the appropriate derision.

I do not consider myself part of
the militantly antitheist crowd that seems to be in vogue these days. Nor do I
think that Islam is inherently worse (or better) than any other religion. I do,
however, think it's important to use the same measuring stick in critiquing
them all.

Kyle Szarzynski ([email protected])
is a junior majoring in history and Spanish.