In the heading of his NRO column yesterday, Victor Davis Hanson alludes to Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence's autobiographical account of his work with the Arabs on behalf of Great Britain during World War I: "Three pillars of wisdom." Hanson writes:

[T]he Islamic world is organizing boycotts of Denmark because one of its newspapers chose to run a cartoon supposedly lampooning the prophet Mohammed. We are supposed to forget that it is de rigueur in raucous Scandinavian popular culture to attack Christianity with impunity. Much less are we to remember that Hamas terrorists occupied and desecrated the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in a globally televised charade.

Instead, Danish officials are threatened, boycotts organized, ambassadors recalled — and, yes, Bill Clinton steps forward to offer another lip-biting apology while garnering lecture fees in the oil-rich Gulf, in the manner of his mea culpa last year to the Iranian mullacracy. There is now a pattern to Clintonian apologies — they almost always occur overseas and on someone else's subsidy.

Ever since that seminal death sentence handed down to Salman Rushdie by the Iranian theocracy, the Western world has incrementally and insidiously accepted these laws of asymmetry. Perhaps due to what might legitimately be called the lunacy principle ("these people are capable of doing anything at anytime"), the Muslim Middle East can insist on one standard of behavior for itself and quite another for others. It asks nothing of its own people and everything of everyone else's, while expecting no serious repercussions in the age of political correctness, in which affluent and leisured Westerners are frantic to avoid any disruption in their rather sheltered lives.

In "The Mohammed cartoons," Paul Marshall meticulously recounts the origin and spread of the controversy over the cartoons in a manner that puts one in mind of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Marshall astutely identifies the demand for submission that seems to lie at the heart of the Islamist response to the cartoons:

Defending freedom of religion and freedom of the press requires distinguishing who is being criticized, and distinguishing criticism from threats. It is one thing to condemn Jyllands-Posten for offending millions of people. It is a very different thing to criticize the Danish or other governments, since the criticism itself, even apart from invidious calls for cartoonists to be punished by the state, assumes that government should control the media. Saudi Arabia, Iran, and their authoritarian brethren, as well as jihadist vigilantes, are attempting to export and impose their media censorship and version of sharia on the world at large, using economic pressure, international organizations, or violence.

Hence, as [Danish Prime Minister] Rasmussen correctly stated, he was sorry that Muslims "felt insulted," but the Danish government"cannot be held responsible for what is published in the independent media." Similarly, Norwegian prime minister Jens Stoltenberg was sorry "this may have hurt many Muslims," but said the Norwegian government "cannot apologize for what the newspapers print."

As a man of principle, Rasmussen should also tell the Egyptian and other ambassadors that not only is this none of the Danish government's business, but, since they are ambassadors of countries, not religions, it is none of their business either. They, especially the Saudis, may reply that they do not make that distinction. Our response should be to state clearly and firmly that we do, and that protecting religious freedom requires us to uphold it in our dealings with others.

Finally, amid current calls for "toleration" and "respect for belief," we need to be very clear about the distinction between religious toleration and religious freedom.

Religious toleration means not insulting somebody else's religion, and it is a good thing. But religious freedom means being free to reject somebody else's religion and even to insult it. Government should want and encourage its citizens to be tolerant of one another, but its primary responsibility is to protect its citizens' rights and freedoms. The fact that people are sometimes insulted is one cost of freedom. The Jyllands-Posten affair calls us to uphold that principle internationally as well as domestically.

On CNN yesterday, Bill Bennett appeared with Professor Shibley Telhami and took a poke at CNN's submission as well (transcript here). Roger Kimball quotes Wretchard speaking perhaps a bit optimistically in light of CNN's behavior:

The West should understand, if it didn't realize it before, that Muslims are willing to fight for their religion. And Muslims should understand, from the cartoon controversy, that whatever they had heard to the contrary it goes double ditto for the West.

At Little Green Footballs, Charles Johnson dug out the State Department press briefing yesterday in which the cartoons were addressed: "State Department criticism of cartoons -- a hoax?" State Department spokesman Sean McCormack speaks on behalf of the department:

I have seen a lot of protests. I’ve seen a great deal of distress expressed by Muslims across the globe. The Muslims around the world have expressed the fact that they are outraged and that they take great offense at the images that were printed in the Danish newspaper, as well as in other newspapers around the world.

Our response is to say that while we certainly don’t agree with, support, or in some cases, we condemn the views that are aired in public that are published in media organizations around the world, we, at the same time, defend the right of those individuals to express their views. For us, freedom of expression is at the core of our democracy and it is something that we have shed blood and treasure around the world to defend and we will continue to do so. That said, there are other aspects to democracy, our democracy — democracies around the world — and that is to promote understanding, to promote respect for minority rights, to try to appreciate the differences that may exist among us.

We believe, for example in our country, that people from different religious backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, national backgrounds add to our strength as a country. And it is important to recognize and appreciate those differences. And it is also important to protect the rights of individuals and the media to express a point of view concerning various subjects. So while we share the offense that Muslims have taken at these images, we at the same time vigorously defend the right of individuals to express points of view. We may — like I said, we may not agree with those points of view, we may condemn those points of view but we respect and emphasize the importance that those individuals have the right to express those points of view.

For example — and on the particular cartoon that was published — I know the Prime Minister of Denmark has talked about his, I know that the newspaper that originally printed it has apologized, so they have addressed this particular issue. So we would urge all parties to exercise the maximum degree of understanding, the maximum degree of tolerance when they talk about this issue. And we would urge dialogue, not violence. And that also those that might take offense at these images that have been published, when they see similar views or images that could be perceived as anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic, that they speak out with equal vigor against those images.

QUESTION: That the Muslims speak out with equal vigor when they see — that’s what you’re asking?

MR. MCCORMACK: We would — we believe that it is an important principle that peoples around the world encourage dialogue, not violence; dialogue, not misunderstanding and that when you see an image that is offensive to another particular group, to speak out against that. Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images or any other religious belief. We have to remember and respect the deeply held beliefs of those who have different beliefs from us. But it is important that we also support the rights of individuals to express their freely held views.

QUESTION: So basically you’re just hoping that it doesn’t — I’m sorry I misspoke when I said there was violence, I meant uproar. Your bottom line is that both sides have the right to do exactly as they’re doing and you just hope it doesn’t get worse?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I —

QUESTION: You just hope it doesn’t escalate.

MR. MCCORMACK: I gave a pretty long answer, so —

QUESTION: You did. I’m trying to sum it up for you. (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. Sure.

QUESTION: A couple of years ago, I think it was a couple of years ago when, I think it was the Syrians and the Lebanese were introducing this documentary about the Jews — or it was the Egyptians — this Administration spoke out very strongly about that and called it offensive, said it was —

MR. MCCORMACK: I just said that the images were offensive; we found them offensive.

QUESTION: Well, no you said that you understand that the Muslims found them offensive, but —

MR. MCCORMACK: I’m saying now, we find them offensive. And we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive.

Yes.

QUESTION: One word is puzzling me in this, Sean, and that’s the use of the word “unacceptable” and “not acceptable,” exactly what that implies. I mean, it’s not quite obvious that you find the images offensive. When you say “unacceptable,” it applies some sort of action against the people who perpetrate those images.

MR. MCCORMACK: No. I think I made it very clear that our defense of freedom of expression and the ability of individuals and media organizations to engage in free expression is forthright and it is strong, you know. This is — our First Amendment rights, the freedom of expression, are some of the most strongly held and dearly held views that we have here in America. And certainly nothing that I said, I would hope, would imply any diminution of that support.

McCormack's statement seems to me considerably closer to striking the correct balance than the press reports yesterday indicated, perhaps the best that could reasonably be hoped for under the circumstances.