You heard it all the time on the left; “I support X, but…” and then they subject us to logical spaghetti that usually refutes the very principle they claim to support in the first place. In this instance, it’s free speech and expression, particularly the Muhammad cartoon-drawing contest that was hosted by Pamela Geller, blogger and President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative. Apparently, two Muslim would-be attackers thought it was rational to grab some rifles and kill people at the event. Luckily, no one was killed, except for the two gunmen.

Now, most of the controversy surrounds Geller for organizing the event, instead of the rationale of killing someone because you disagree with him or her, or don’t like what he or she is drawing. The Media Research Center compiled our spineless media saying they’re for free speech, when really they’re not. Sorry, folks; the vast majority of Americans think it’s okay to host an event, like the one Geller organized, even if others find it offensive.

First, let’s talk about the double-standard here that I’m sure all of you are aware of–and that is Christianity gets dumped on all the time.

We had “Piss Christ,” where artist Andres Serrano submerged a small crucifix in his own urine; a dung-covered canvas of the Virgin Mary was made by Chris Ofili, and let’s not forget Peter De Cupere’s ice statue of the Virgin Mary that was made from frozen vaginal sweat. I don’t recall bloodshed ensuing from these controversial pieces. One may call these works profane, perverse, blasphemous, and morally repugnant, but these individuals have every right to create them, show them, and receive the criticism from those offended, who are also exercising their rights to free speech. What they don’t deserve in any circumstance is a rifle round going through their head. Oh, and no bloodshed ever resulted from these pieces.

Second, some people in the montage cited the Southern Poverty Law Center. Backward wheels the mind to the summer of 2013, where Floyd Lee Corkins planned to shoot up the Family Research Council due to their stance on traditional marriage? Corkins used the SPLC as a resource (via Washington Exmainer):

Family Research Council (FRC) officials released video of federal investigators questioning convicted domestic terrorist Floyd Lee Corkins II, who explained that he attacked the group’s headquarters because the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) identified them as a “hate group” due to their traditional marriage views. “Southern Poverty Law lists anti-gay groups,” Corkins tells interrogators in the video, which FRC obtained from the FBI. “I found them online, did a little research, went to the website, stuff like that.” The Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard reported that Corkins, who pleaded guilty to terrorism charges, said in court that he hoped to “kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-Fil-A sandwiches in victims’ faces, and kill the guard.” As Bedard explained, “the shooting occurred after an executive with Chick-Fil-A announced his support for traditional marriage, angering same-sex marriage proponents.”

So, why is there such a difference between the coverage of Christianity and Islam bashing? Why so much criticism against Geller for merely hosting this event? One shouldn’t have to question their right to speak, assemble, or carry a firearm. I don’t find questioning the why someone chooses to exercise laws codified in our Bill of Rights to be a discussion. In some cases, it’s a progressive exercise to put the Constitution of a graduated scale to put some amendments, likes the Second one, in the crosshairs for marginalization and elimination. These are rights that should be maximized in civil society. So, why do some members of the media have this appalling attitude? Maybe it’s because they know Islam has a problem, and it’s one that's been present for a very, very long time (via NRO):

…The fury against Pamela Geller is motivated mostly by fear — by the understanding that there are indeed many, many Muslims who believe that blasphemy should be punished with death, and who put that belief into practice. It’s motivated by the fear that our alliances with even “friendly” Muslim states and “allied” Muslim militias are so fragile that something so insignificant as a cartoon would drive them either to neutrality or straight into the arms of ISIS. … That’s why even the military brass will do something so unusual as call a fringe pastor of a tiny little church to beg him not to post a YouTube video. That’s why the president of the United States — ostensibly the most powerful man in the world — will personally appeal to that same pastor not to burn a Koran. They know that hundreds of millions of Muslims are not “moderate” by any reasonable definition of that word, and they will,in fact, allow themselves to be provoked by even the most insignificant and small-scale act of religious satire or defiance. After all, there are Muslim communities that will gladly burn Christians alive to punish even rumored blasphemy. Our nation’s “elite” knows of the 88 percent support in Egypt for the death penalty for apostasy, and the 62 percent support in Pakistan. They know of the majority support for it in Malaysia, Jordan, and the Palestinian territories. They know that even when there’s not majority support for the death penalty for exercising one of the most basic of human rights — religious freedom — that large minorities still exercise considerable, and often violent, influence on their nations. The elite also knows this bloodthirstiness extends to supporting terrorists. The following Pew Research Center numbers should sober anyone who believes in the “few extremists” model of Muslim culture … Further, our elites also know that while ISIS’s brutality certainly repels many Muslims, it attracts many others — that there are Muslim young people who are so captivated by images of beheadings and burnings that they’ll defy the law and their own nations to make their way to the jihadist battlefronts of Iraq and Syria. Unable or unwilling to formulate a strategy to comprehensively defeat jihad or even to adequately defend our nation, our elites adopt a strategy of cultural appeasement that only strengthens our enemy. Millions in the Muslim world are drawn to the “strong horse” (to use Osama bin Laden’s phrase), and when jihadists intimidate the West into silence and conformity, the jihadists show themselves strong.

Now, what happened in Garland shouldn’t drive us all to participate in a national campaign of “do your part, offend a Muslim, but some in the media–and in politics–need to quit with the political correctness sound bites and parsing of the First Amendment. There is no such thing as responsibility with free speech; that’s liberal code for don’t say things we don’t like. Exercise your speech with pride–and if it offends someone; politely remind him or her they have every right to voice why they think you’re wrong. They can also express their views in a cartoon-format.