Secretary of State Clinton tells Islamic organization dedicated to crushing free speech that Islam and the West can agree on tolerance

In the current state of affairs, in a way, they can, but not in the way the Secretary of State meant in her comments to the Organization Formerly Known As The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OFKATOIC). Islamic groups continue to press their demands while their spokesmen engage in deliberate deceit about the limitations of Islamic tolerance. They speak of “tolerance,” “justice,” and “human rights” with the expectation that Western listeners will project their own understanding of the terms onto what is being said.

Much of the West, for its part, operates on the article of faith that those values are shared and do fundamentally match, because all cultures are supposed to be based on the same values and vision of the future. It is on that gelatinously shaky ground that they tend to come into agreement, and it is to the benefit of organizations like the OIC.

Clinton’s defense of free speech is not unwelcome, of course, but the OIC will say “yes, thank you, that’s very nice,” and press on with its agenda. “Clinton: Islam, West can agree on tolerance,” by Matthew Lee for the Associated Press, July 15 (thanks to Kenneth):

ISTANBUL — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says she’s hopeful that a religious tolerance agreement between the West and Islamic countries will end efforts to criminalize blasphemy that threaten freedom of expression.

Talk of a “tolerance agreement” threatens to dignify the OIC’s position with a response, when no response is warranted except an intensified refusal to compromise on free speech.

Clinton said Friday in Turkey that an initiative by the U.S., the European Union and the Organization of the Islamic Conference will promote religious freedom without compromising free speech.

The Associated Press seems to have missed the memo on the OIC’s great re-branding as the equally awkward-sounding “Organization of the Islamic Cooperation.”

Many Muslim nations have laws that punish perceived insults to Islam. As a way to rationalize those laws, those countries have long sought U.N. action condemning the defamation of religion.

“Rationalize” is an odd word, and doesn’t seem to fit. All of the global initiatives are simply an extension of the same supremacist impulse that drives those laws on the national level.

The U.S. and others were concerned that such a step could stifle legitimate debate. Earlier this year, the U.S. brokered an agreement that removed defamation language from a U.N. resolution and focused instead on ending religious discrimination.

Read more at Jihad Watch