Venn diagram of the day on what else? Liberal inconsistency…..

The Venn diagram above was inspired by Jonah Goldberg’s excellent National Review article “Progressives Love Anti-Religious Art — as Long as It’s Anti-Christian” that points out how the left’s position on provocative art is inconsistent. Here’s a slice:

Why aren’t liberals offering Pamela Geller a federal subsidy? Geller is the blogger-activist who organized the “Draw Muhammad” exhibition in Garland, Texas, which inspired some DIY jihadists to attack the event. The would-be terrorists chose poorly: They were cut down by Texas lawmen shortly after wounding a security guard.

I’m consistent: I didn’t like [taxpayer-funded] “Piss Christ,” and I don’t like insulting drawings of Mohammed. If Geller wanted a [taxpayer-funded] National Endowment for the Arts grant to dunk Mohammed in beautifully illuminated urine, I would disagree quite strongly.

But that’s not what she’s doing. She’s contending that in America, people are allowed to say offensive things without risking execution. I am at a loss as to why anyone would disagree with that. But I am utterly baffled how people who think it’s censorship to withdraw [taxpayer] funding for anti-Christian “hate speech” can argue that private individuals have no right to express anti-Muslim views.

“While we have freedom of speech,” a New York Daily News columnist insisted, “we also have freedom of religion, which shouldn’t be impinged upon.” CNN’s Chris Cuomo, a law-school grad, tweeted that Geller’s “hate speech” isn’t protected by the Constitution. At first Cuomo suggested proof of this could be found in the Constitution itself. He then hastily clarified that it fails the “fighting words” doctrine of the Supreme Court.

I’m dubious about that. But if he’s right, the lesson is clear: Violence pays. I doubt that’s what he intended to say. But what do I know? I think these people are nuts.

from AEI » Latest Content http://ift.tt/1cAlWN7