I don’t particularly agree with outspoken atheist Sam Harris on much of anything. Our world-views are strikingly different, based in large part upon our respective views of religion.

That said, he hits the nail right on the head in a HuffPo piece on Islam and freedom of expression – and says in a manner more eloquent than I the very thing I have pointed to over the last few years.

The controversy over Fitna, like all such controversies, renders one fact about our world especially salient: Muslims appear to be far more concerned about perceived slights to their religion than about the atrocities committed daily in its name. Our accommodation of this psychopathic skewing of priorities has, more and more, taken the form of craven and blinkered acquiescence.

There is an uncanny irony here that many have noticed. The position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we will kill you. Of course, the truth is often more nuanced, but this is about as nuanced as it ever gets: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we peaceful Muslims cannot be held responsible for what our less peaceful brothers and sisters do. When they burn your embassies or kidnap and slaughter your journalists, know that we will hold you primarily responsible and will spend the bulk of our energies criticizing you for "racism" and "Islamophobia."

And therein lies the problem. I’m all for showing respect for religious belief and sensitivity, but not enforcing it with threats of violence and death. I may disagree with the tenets of a faith, but I won’t intentionally insult its beliefs and the sensitivities of its believers – unless, of course, that faith and it adherents demands I refrain from doing so under penalty of great bodily harm or death. At that point, defense of freedom requires that I speak out – and echo those who have given offense – in order to ensure that I and others retain those rights and do not allow them to atrophy.

And let us not be unobservant of the double standard as it plays out in the press. During his campaign for the GOP nomination, many commentators and reporters wanted to focus on the religious practices of Mitt Romney’s polygamous Mormon ancestors – and had he remained in the race, Romney would no doubt have been expected to comment upon the FDLS child abuse case, despite the fact that the FDLS split from the LDS Church over a century ago over precisely that issue. Unless I missed it in the news, though, Barack Obama has not ever been asked to comment on the FDLS case and the polygamy issue – despite being the son of a polygamous Muslim. The difference? Which “M” religion the two candidates have a familial association with, of course! And we all know the reason why – bad things happen to folks who dare to offend the sensibilities of the Muslim community in this country and around the world.

I think Sam Harris is wrong on a lot of issues – but he really does peg it here. Make sure you read the whole thing.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Rosemary's Thoughts, A Blog For All, Right Truth, Kodera's Korner, Big Dog's Weblog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, third world county, Faultline USA, Woman Honor Thyself, McCain Blogs, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.