It is an interesting aside to note that with riots waging as a result of the Mohammed cartoons, very few on the liberal left have blamed the Muslim world for its incitement and violence. Dennis Prager has written a very thoughtful piece titled 'Why the Left doesn't blame Muslims for Muslim violence'.
Parger cites three reasons for the seeming absence of liberal condemnation of Muslim violence,
"Here are three hypotheses:
One is that liberals tend to blame outside forces for evil. This emanates from the secular humanistic view of people as basically good -- and therefore human evil must come not from the bad choices and bad values of the evildoer, but from the unfortunate socioeconomic and other circumstances of the person's life.
The second explanation is that as you go further left on the political spectrum, it becomes increasingly difficult to blame the "weak" for any atrocities they commit. The Left does not divide the world between good and evil nearly as much as it does between rich and poor, and between strong and weak. Israel is stronger and richer, so Palestinian terror is excused. White America is stronger and richer than black America, so black violence is excused. The West is stronger and richer than the Muslim world, so Muslim violence is explained accordingly.
And third, liberals tend to be afraid of the truly evil. That's why the liberal newspapers of America refused to publish the Danish cartoons, probably the most newsworthy cartoons ever drawn, but have never had any hesitance about showing cartoons and photos that mock Jewish and Christian symbols. Christians and Jews don't kill editors".
I would like to hear from anyone who considers themselves as liberal to respond to these hypothesies. Do you agree or disagree with these charges?