Yea the liberals are willing to stand up to people when they know the worst thing that could happen to them is that get arrested (briefly) by US police. But they have no guts to protest against regimes or others who might actually inflict harm on them.

How many times have they protested Iran, Russia, Cuba, etc? How often have they stood up to Islam as Islam persecutes women? Where were they when the Taliban was doing their dirty deeds in Afghanistan? Why, now where to be found!

The liberals are basically cowards and hypocrites.

"But there’s still a sense in which the “South Park” case is particularly illuminating. Not because it tells us anything new about the lines that writers and entertainers suddenly aren’t allowed to cross. But because it’s a reminder that Islam is just about the only place where we draw any lines at all."

Exactly right - if they were going to black out the Islamic-related content, then they should have blacked out all the other religious references. It's not only gutless, it completely arbitrary line-drawing.

"But there’s still a sense in which the “South Park” case is particularly illuminating. Not because it tells us anything new about the lines that writers and entertainers suddenly aren’t allowed to cross. But because it’s a reminder that Islam is just about the only place where we draw any lines at all."

Exactly right - if they were going to black out the Islamic-related content, then they should have blacked out all the other religious references. It's not only gutless, it's completely arbitrary line-drawing.

They cross the other lines because they are protected by the society in which they live and Constitution that we adhere to. Also the other religions they mock do not condone violence.

They did not cross the Islamic line because they know that Islam has no sense of freddom and hence some nut would try something and be justified by his religious leaders for doing it.

For all of the good things that can be said about the Islamic religion; their condoning of violence (against both Islamic and non-Islamic people) is a major flaw.

From Glenn Greenwald: "The various forms of religious-based, intimidation-driven censorship and taboo ideas in the U.S. -- what Douthat claims are non-existent except when it involves Muslims -- are too numerous to chronicle. One has to be deeply ignorant, deeply dishonest or consumed with petulant self-victimization and anti-Muslim bigotry to pretend they don't exist. I opt (primarily) for the latter explanation in Douthat's case."
Greenwald then goes on to cite numerous examples of religious-motivated violence by Christian and Jewish extremists designed to intimidate and suppress ideas offensive to their religious dogma.
-----------
All in all, a typical Douthat piece which doesn't take reality into account.

"The liberals are basically cowards and hypocrites."
-------------
lee makes a great point. Now lee, tell us again why we shouldn't try terrorists in NYC.

Berto,

Please explain how your question relates to what I said? I don't understand.

Thank you.

Sure thing, Lee.
You mentioned in your post that liberals are cowards.
I'm pointing out that it's conservatives, not liberals, who are afraid of trying accused terrorists in civilian courts in the city where they are accused of perpetrating their crimes. Plus the rhetoric conservatives have used is that they are afraid of the harm accused terrorists might inflict upon them if they were to be tried in civilian courts in the places their alleged crimes occurred.
Of course we're talking about conservative rhetoric, which might just be a smoke-screen covering-up the fact that they have no faith in the American judicial system (or other rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, for that matter). If I've learned anything in the last 40 years, it's conservative arguments are littered with "dog whistles" and red herrings, so you can't necessarily take them at their word.
So I'm asking you to explain (clarification), is it really that you're afraid of the harm that might be inflicted by trying alleged terrorists in the US judicial system (which is the definition of "cowardly") or are you just opposed to the the rights guaranteed in the Constitution?

So let me see if I understand your point. You are equating the desire by people not to hold civilian, criminal trials of non-citizens near the site of the 9/11 attacks by the people who had a part in these attacks with the "gutless" behaviour I pointed out in my comments? Is this what you are saying? You can't really be trying to make the two equavalent? Come on, you can be serious!

Lee,
Outstanding! I almost didn't notice you completely avoided my question. You should be a political press secretary.
-------
If you realize those who are so afraid of accused terrorists they're willing to suspend rights enumerated in the Constitution of the United States are by definition 'cowards', then yes, you understand my point.

Berto,

I am not avoiding your question, rather I don't see it's relavance and felt it was not worth my time to react to it.

It was you who tried to spin things off in a different direction and totally avoid commenting on either Crank's original post or my comment.

So if you want to stay on the topics at hand and not hijack the thread, then start staying on topic or start your own blog site!

Lee,
I commented on the original Crank post. Did you not see this: "...a typical Douthat piece which doesn't take reality into account. " ???
-----------
I also responded to your post, where i pointed out the total hypocrisy of your "liberals are cowards" line by mentioning that it's conservatives who say (and we don't know if they believe it, because conservative arguments are rife with red herrings) they are afraid of terrorists who are in US custody.

So if you want to make statements (which are easily disputed), and you don't want people to point out your hypocrisy, start your own blog and restrict comments there.

Truly great article you have here. I'd like to read something more about that theme. Thanx for giving that info.