In a previous post [here] I noted two distinct interpretations being attached to the Islamic protests over Danish cartoons slandering the image of Allah. Wretchard at the Belmont Club felt that they brought into conflict two irreconcilable sets of values, a conflict from which neither side could retreat, and which therefore threatened to escalate into violence. Hugh Hewitt, on the other hand likened the Islamic protests to those made by Christian believers when confronted by certain Hollywood products. At the time I tended to agree with Hewitt [although with reservations]. Now I'm having second thoughts. I cannot see how the sentiments expressed by these Islamic protesters in London, can possibly be reconciled with core Western beliefs. If these signs express the real feelings of the protesters, then Wretchard is right, and we have taken a fateful step down the road to Hell. [hat tip Michelle Malkin]
Sully seems to agree. He writes:
The only word that describes these people, taking to the streets and threatening the lives and security of people who exercize freedom of speech, is an obvious one: brownshirts. There is no compromise with them. And no way to appease them short of surrendering the bedrock of our civilization.Read it here.
Sight and Sign has a detailed account of the development of the controversy here.