JOHN LEO'S BLOG

My argument was based on civility. Free speech is important, I wrote, but "if millions of people think their faith is compromised by illustrations of a particular religious figure, why not just drop the illustrations?"

If there was nothing really at stake — no real purpose except to demonstrate freedom of the press or a willingness to provoke Muslims by printing cartoons of Muhammad — why do it? Taking this position put me on the same side of the issue as Pat Buchanan and the Boston Globe, which is always alarming. Blogger Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy gently reproved the Globe for double standards — it wants civility and deference toward Muslims but isn't interested in calling for similar restraint about outrageous anti-Christian material.

James Taranto at Opinion Journal had a good explanation for that. He said multicultural liberals divide the world into oppressors and victims. He calls this "folk Marxism. " Muslims are generally viewed as a victim class, so their complaints are taken seriously, whereas Christians are oppressors who are not really entitled to complain.

But the reason my column looked a bit odd, at least to me, is that it had been overtaken by events. So much violence has occurred since I wrote, including eight or nine deaths, that calls for civility are now irrelevant. The core issue is simple: Is Europe going to shed its paralyzing fear of Islam and stand up for principle? Finn Graff, a Norwegian cartoonist who has done satirical drawings of Jesus, said he doesn't draw Muhammad "out of respect" and out of fear of Muslims.

Forget the boilerplate about respect. He's scared. The Muslim violence of the past week is making a simple point — offending us can be very costly. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit summed this up nicely. He wrote, "The lesson is that if you want your religion not to be mocked, it helps to have a reputation for senseless violence. Is this the incentive structure we want?"

To the amazement of many, much of Europe is finally saying no.