The Constitution Trumps Islamic Law

{snip} [The] extraordinary global campaign against this stunt [burning a stack of Qurans] is yet another concerted effort, aided by an army’s worth of useful fools, to bring our constitutional republic into conformance with Islamic law.

Islam demands “respect” with an intensity and strategic purpose well beyond other beliefs. (Still) don’t believe me? For indelible culture contrast, imagine the worldwide body count in reaction to a hypothetical NEA-funded project entitled “Piss Mohammed,” or the absence of a worldwide body count in reaction to the Army’s actual decision to discard and burn a bunch of Bibles on a U.S. base in Afghanistan last year for fear of offending Muslims in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan–a land where Christian converts (Abdul Rahman) and promoters of (minimal) women’s rights (Sayed Pervez Kambakhsh) must flee with their lives, by the way.

{snip} Islam in fact means exempting this religious-political ideology from “slander,” “defamation,” any mockery, criticism, analysis, resistance, denunciation or rejection–or else. And we all know what “or else” means–or else murder and mayhem will convulse some region where Muslims live, leaving behind a permanent threat of death to non-repentant “offenders.”

What Islam is demanding, then, is a separate speech code for itself. {snip}

{snip}

{snip} That [Islamic] narrative, or rationale, tells us that burning a Quran causes murder and mayhem, putting our troops, our citizens, our cities and our interests at increased risk. In this narrative, the actual bad actors are absolved of both volition and blame. Similarly, drawing cartoons of Muhammad (Kurt Westergaard, Lars Vilks)–or not drawing cartoons of Muhammad (“South Park”)–sermonizing about violence within Islam (the Pope), and critiquing Islam (Geert Wilders’ “Fitna”) are increasingly viewed as unacceptably “insensitive” and “disrespectful” provocations in Western society, regardless of their free-speech protections.

{snip}

{snip} Instead, of course, they [inanimate objects] go down in history as a kind of murderer and victim, with the non-Islamic world assuming all responsibility–all guilt–for the actions of barbarians who pillage and kill at the drop of, well, a Quran. This is rank capitulation to dhimmitude, the non-Islamic state of deference to Islamic law, {snip}.

Repeat after me: The Constitution trumps Islamic law.