Radio personality Neal Boortz had a piece up on his site talking about the Muslim outrage over the political cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Mohammed. I guess it's causing quite a stir among his listeners and others on the ineterweb, mostly because of his "lowlights" list of things that can be attributed to Muslims that didn't cause Muslim outrage (such as the rioting and demonstrations that are currently going on). Here's a few off that list:
...Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. No Muslim outrage.
Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage...
...Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Muslims are outraged...
One could correclty point out though that one could make a simliar list for Christians and Jewish people, as one of his listeners, Catherine, does:
...Jewish terroists blow up buses containing Christians, Jews, and Muslims. No Jewish outrage.
Christians murder other Christians inside churches all over Rwanda during a large scale genocide. No Christian outrage.
Christians blow up abortion clinics in an effort to stop the murder of innocents, killing doctors and nurses in the process. No Christian outrage.
Pre-911 Christians hijack planes, media calls them hijackers, not Christian terroists. No Christian outrage...
...Danish newspaper publish anti-Muslim cartoons. Christian outrage and indignation at Muslim riots in response to an attack on their religion...
So the question is, how should a group properly express outrage? I'm afraid rioting against rioting probably won't get the point across.
Technorati tags: politics, Neal Boortz