Hypothetical outrages

A comedian says something mean about Jesus and, through a predictable chain of events, Jamie Kirchick has a typically measured response. First, Bill Donohue said:

It is a sure bet that if [Kathy] Griffin had said, 'Suck it, Muhammad,' there would have been a very different reaction," Catholic league president Bill Donohue said in a statement posted on the group's Web site. He called on TV academy president Dick Askin to denounce Griffin's "hate speech" and on Griffin to apologize.

And then Kirchick noted:

Andrew's absolutely right about Donohue's oversensitivity, but the perpetually-outraged Donohue does have a salient point, though I'm not sure he was conscious of making it: There certainly "would have been a very different reaction" had Griffin said, "Suck it, Muhammad." Not only would the liberal PC police be after her head (figuratively), but she would have a fatwa placed on her head (literally), would be placed under 24-hour armed guard and would have to limit any public appearances, if even make them at all. In other words, the Rushdie treatment.

That a comedian cannot make an innocent joke with the word "Muhammad" in it out of fear of getting killed--and not a supposed ban on "blasphemy" against Catholics, who don't, as a matter of course, burn effigies, destroy buildings, or murder people when someone says or writes something they don't like--seems to be the larger outrage.

Yes the "larger outrage" is, as always, the non-existent liberal response to a televised bashing of Muhammad that never happened. It makes perfect sense. We're still waiting for the "largest outrage", which as one reader points out will be the holocaust that ensues in Bangladesh--through a Rube Goldberg-like chain of events--when Kathy Griffin one day makes fun of Scientology.