There wasn’t a picture of him in the strip.

But the Post, and some other papers, still pulled it.

Admirably, Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander asked his Style editor why- and he said, “it seemed a deliberate provocation without a clear message.” He added that “the point of the joke was not immediately clear.”

Yeah. That’s why you did it: ambiguity. Weasel.

Anyway, here’s the cartoon.

Eh.

And here we see another float in the parade of pussies – a callow editor making a cowardly decision based on a fear of upsetting religious fanatics (a fear he cannot even admit to coworkers).

Which leads me to my only point. Why is it that the media keeps reminding us that we shouldn’t exaggerate the threat of a small group of radicals – but completely changes tact, when it comes to their own personal safety?

Think about it: if the average Joe expresses fear or anxiety over Islamic fundamentalism, they are called Islamophobes. But if an editor with balls the size of electrons removes a comic in which Muhammad isn’t even present – that’s not honest-to-Allah Islamophobia?

No, that’s just being sensitive.

Look, the media can’t have it both ways. They cannot criticize the public for concerns over Islam, and then eradicate anything in their midst that they perceive might elevate their risk for getting stabbed buying a chai latte at Starbucks. If their governing principle in the newsroom is fear, then they should admit it – and get the hell off our backs for feeling the same way.

And if you disagree with me, you’re a racist, homophobic Islamophobic bathophobe. 

Tonight:

Carrie Keagan in studio!

Nick Gillespie!

Daily Caller staff writer Mike Riggs

and, of course, Rob Zombie!

Apparently the free speech warriors discovered that their beloved First Amendment has an “on/off” switch. It reserves them the right to offend with obvious intent only those religions that profess such core tenets as “turn the other cheek” and “do unto others” when slighted. Of course, when the target of their rapier wit responds not with quiet resignation but rather the banshee wails of “Allahu Akbahr!” followed by exploding IEDs in their fruit of the looms—well the art warriors tune changes to free speech, schmee speech just don’t slit my throat bro! Wow, if only those God-fearing wimps at Normandy and Iwo could have mustered such courage of conviction!

Oh my…there are just so many places I can go with this story but to rehash the topic would demonstrate a lack of originality that only another trite lampooning of such a docile target as Jesus in the name of “art” could top. I suppose I could berate the absolute hypocrisy of those on the left who rail with such self-righteous piety against the imagined intolerance of others while demonstrating their very real, almost bizarrely manic, hostility towards Christianity. (Except of course when they are on one of their ”Jesus was a liberal” or “what would Jesus do” soap boxes to justify this or that expansion of the entitlement state on my dime. Then suddenly “JC” as the self-proclaimed hipsters call him is a handy God to have on their side, but that is another story.)

What I will not do is allow myself to be offended by, or even pay attention to, the new show after the last period is struck on this commentary. As one of those Christians myself (that pesky 80% plus of the US population) and, worse, a Roman Catholic (is there anything more evil in their eyes?) I have become inured to watching my beliefs lampooned by those who still delude themselves into thinking that attacking a target so docile such as my Lord who preached peace on earth and good will towards men still passes these days as even remotely “edgy.” Anyone who understands the evolution of modern culture realizes that at this point when you attack Christ under the guise of art or entertainment or just trying to make a splash what you are really admitting is that when it comes to creativity and ingenuity “er…I got nothin’”

Back to their actions vis-à-vis the “religion of peace.” What happened to the ole mantra of: “I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it!” Where is the real manifestation of all that self-righteous liberal drivel that I was indoctrinated with in my years of academia? Is this what the so-called brave artistic community has become? A bunch of girly-men who will shriek and beg forgiveness from a rag-tag band of radical Muslims who view even the MO postal code for Missouri to be offensive and worthy of yet another interminable “jihad”?

And really guys. Is this how you get your mojo back after exposing your spinelessness? Yet another slight against a religion whose cardinal sin apparently seems to be that it will not slit your throat if you disagree? Anyway, by developing the “JC” project the writers at Comedy Central are demonstrating that they have about as much fresh material as the a History Channel exec. offering yet another documentary about Hitler. And in the process, they are revealing that deep down they are both bullies for picking on such a pacifist target, and cowards whose principles and willingness to stand up for the U.S. Constitution and freedom of expression end where their own necks begins.

CBS won’t comment, but the NY Times reports that on Tuesday night’s episode of the ”The Good Wife” the story revolved around an artist killed by a bomb after he drew a cartoon featuring Muhammad. It looks as though the episode used a number of camera dodges to ensure no one got a good clean look at Islam’s founder:

In a plot line on Tuesday’s episode of “The Good Wife,” the show’s law firm deals with a suit brought by the widow of a newspaper editor who was killed by a bomb after he published an editorial cartoon showing the Prophet Muhammad being searched by airport security officers. In scenes like the one above, the editorial cartoon is depicted only in small portions, obscured by shadows or pieces of paper, and never revealed in its entirety.

If you combine this with Comedy Central’s over-the-top censoring of a recent “South Park” episode, we’re really only left with two explanations, right? Either Hollywood’s had a massive change of heart and has suddenly decided to treat religion with respect or they’re terrified of becoming the next Theo Van Gogh.

Right?

We should all be rippling with anticipation over how one or both of these moral revelations will alter upcoming Tinseltown product. If The Former Religious Bigots Known As Hollywood have finally come around and changed their ways when it comes to insulting people of faith — just for starters, who will the new bad guys be on all four of those “Law & Order” series? Who will be the new whipping boys in the independent film world? 

Just think of how this new era of religious tolerance will change everything; how it will force arty-types to address certain issues with a little – oh, I don’t know — creativity?  The result: Better product for us, more money for Hollywood. A win-win.

All together now: Kumba-freakin’-ya.

From Tuesday’s episode of ‘The Good Wife.’

On the other hand, if what this means is that Hollywood’s finally figured out that racist, sexist, homophobic Islamic extremists are the enemy, this is also a win-win.

Naturally, we can’t expect too much from The Cowards Who Make The Movies. They’re not going to take the enemy on. After all, this isn’t your grandfather’s Hollywood where men like Jimmy Stewart and Clark Gable went to war while the rest of the industry rallied ’round protecting liberty. Hell, this isn’t even your father’s Hollywood where men like Marlon Brando, Paul Newman, Frank Sinatra and Charlton Heston risked their careers and faced threats of violence marching for Civil Rights before marching for Civil Rights became très chic. 

But maybe now that this current generation has figured out these fanatics do need to be defeated, our creative-types will stop losing hundreds of millions of dollars on embarrassingly bad movies churned out in the hopes of undermining America’s drive to bring about that defeat.

Or not.

Forgive my fit of optimism. It’s just too depressing to think that after all this we’ll still have to deal with a Vichy Hollywood’s hoary old anti-Christian prejudices.

Side Note: Has anyone seen the “Good Wife” episode mentioned above? If so, please don’t tell me the story ends with one of those “twists” where the real bomber is revealed to be some uber-patriotic, right-wing, Christian out to frame innocent terrorists through the act of becoming what he hates. 

And if that was the case… lemme guess: he wore a lapel flag?

But not today.

Then Jon Stewart performs a spectacular pivot reminiscent of Wes Unseld in his prime and focuses his rage exactly where it should be: on the animals who used their unhinged interpretation of Islam to threaten the lives of Stewart’s colleagues, Trey Parker and Matt Stone. He goes on to show highlights of how The Daily Show has targeted all religions from the Amish to the Jews, from Methodists to Wiccans.

Backed by a gospel choir, he sums up this celebration of free speech and true tolerance with a musical message “to anyone threatening death in the name of religion or politics” with the pithy and resonant lyrics: “Go F*ck Yourself!”

Today, Jon Stewart is my hero. He should be a hero to every weak-kneed, lily-livered, cowardly member of the American media, from the reporters who meekly submit to arbitrary authority to the jellyfish executives who cower in their Sixth Avenue towers over threats from guys living in some cave or Brooklyn basement.

And he should be yours too.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with a respectful, big-budget biopic of the prophet Muhammad – that’s not the point – but it’s well worth remembering that while he was one of the biggest movie stars in the world, Oscar-winning director Mel Gibson had his ”Passion of the Christ” turned down by every studio in town. You know, even though 70% of Americans identify themselves as Christians.

Now, if Gibson had produced “The Pissing on the Christ…”

Producer Barrie Osborne cast Keanu Reeves as the messiah in The Matrix and helped defeat the dark lord Sauron in his record-breaking Lord of the Rings trilogy. Now the Oscar-winning American film-maker is set to embark on his most perilous quest to date: making a big-screen biopic of the prophet Muhammad.

Budgeted at around $150m (£91.5m), the film will chart Muhammad’s life and examine his teachings. Osborne told Reuters that he envisages it as “an international epic production aimed at bridging cultures. The film will educate people about the true meaning of Islam“.

The article then goes on to inform us that out of respect for Islamic law Muhammad will not be shown on the screen. If only such respect was extended to every major religion. Which isn’t to say religion, including Christianity, is above satire, but what we have here is another example of the mindset of those who control the most powerful propaganda machine ever created. Think about it: “The Passion” remains one of the most profitable films ever and yet an industry frequently ridiculed for reproducing ad nauseum anything resembling a hit will have none of it.  

Feel free to comment away but please don’t make the mistake of accusing Hollywood of hypocrisy. This is an ideological war and there are no rules in war and anyone wringing their hands over “not playing fair” are missing the point.  

When you loath Christians and want to do everything in your power to marginalize who they are what they stand for, there’s nothing at all hypocritical about pissing on Christ and deferring to Muhammad.

In fact, that behavior is perfectly consistent.

***

Yes, I know, I know … even people I respect, those from our side of the aisle, are telling me that when it comes to Larry David’s urine and the “Onion” wishing Glenn Beck dead that I need to take a joke and not conform the stereotype of a stodgy, humorless conservative. But…

• “South Park” has never offended me.
• One of my first DVD purchases was “The Life of Brian.”
• Here’s my eulogy to The Mighty George Carlin.

I can take a joke, even a satiric savaging.

What I don’t take so well are cheap shots … even at the expense of my Hip Credentials.

Zahra.

Well known to Muslims, Fatima az-Zahra was one of four daughters of the prophet Muhammad. Today, Zahra is also the name of two important, outspoken women of Iran.

One is Zahra Rahnavard, the courageous and charismatic wife of the allegedly defeated Iranian presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi. The other is Zahra Khanum, the equally courageous and charismatic woman portrayed in a new movie, “The Stoning of Soraya M.,” about the death of an Iranian woman on trumped-up charges of adultery.

Begging forgiveness for this confederacy of cliches, but we seem to have a perfect storm of tipping points.

Beneath the surface of news blasts covering Iran’s tainted elections, riots, protester deaths and government crackdowns, a subtext of women’s rights is emerging. It is a subtext only to the extent that women’s oppression isn’t often acknowledged directly — not even by the leader of the free world. But human rights are at the core of what is occurring now.

A government that oppresses its people can only sustain itself with violence, as the world is witnessing yet again as thousands take to Iran’s streets. And, in Iran as elsewhere in the Muslim world, violence against women — as well as against homosexuals and others considered inferior according to the mullahs’ masculinist standards — isn’t only permitted but justified with religious doctrine.

Mousavi challenged these notions — and the government, apparently, saw fit that he lose. Even in the midst of so much heat, Mousavi’s wife, Zahra, on Monday urged students at a Tehran University protest to hold fast in their resistance. Climb to the rooftops, she said, and shout, “God is great!”

Zahra R., who holds a PhD in political science and was an adviser to former president Mohammad Khatami, also has been vocal in urging reforms that would eliminate “morality police” as well as end discrimination against women.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that monument to self-confident masculinity, reportedly was so undone by Zahra’s power on the campaign trail that he questioned whether her doctorate was legitimate.

Americans will begin getting a glimpse of the other Zahra as soon as “The Stoning” opens in select cities. Based on a true story, the movie is adapted from French Iranian journalist Freidoune Sahebjam’s 1994 novel of the same name.

In the film, produced by Stephen McEveety (“Braveheart” and “The Passion of the Christ”), the journalist-author is stranded in a small village when his car breaks down. Zahra (Shohreh Aghdashloo) dodges the threatening stares of her fellow villagers and persuades the reporter to come to her house and record her story. Evil has visited her village, she tells him, and she wants the world to know.

Briefly, Zahra’s niece Soraya, mother of four, had been accused of adultery by her abusive, unfaithful husband. The truth was that he wanted a divorce so he could marry another. When Soraya refused, he and the village mullah conspired to accuse her of adultery.

As the title suggests, Soraya was convicted and condemned to death by stoning.

I saw a rough cut of this film several months ago. Since that time, I’ve been unable to shake the story or images that I suspect will haunt me forever. Be forewarned: It is brutal. McEveety and director Cyrus Nowrasteh felt that the stoning scene needed to be accurately portrayed or the film would be an insult to Soraya’s suffering.

It will be hard for many to get through to the end, but staying with the movie brings a reward. Despite the brutality, the film is also beautiful and true. It reminds us that a woman in some parts of the world can be destroyed at a man’s whim without consequence. The beauty is that truth will out.

“The Stoning,” which will be in most theaters June 26, was intentionally timed for release after Iran’s elections. Dennis Rice, charged with promoting the movie, figured the election would help create interest, but he didn’t anticipate the serendipitous intersection of the two Zahras. “Irony?” he asks. “I think not.”

In Arabic, Zahra means “The Shining One.”

In English, we’d call that a beacon.

kparker@kparker.com