comparing APPLES to ORANGES

"We don't intend retaliation over the drawings of the prophet. We just want to show that freedom is restricted in the West," said Davood Kazemi . . . executive manager of the contest.

The Iranian Holocaust cartoon contest may be a great exercise to demonstrate how restricted so-called free speech is in the West, but cartoons about the Holocaust are not a helpful comparison to the ones aimed at insulting the prophet Muhammad.

The latter insult a man revered by over a billion people, the vast majority of whom live in peace, minding their own business, while the former questions facts and figures of a historical event continuously brandished politically to exact reparations for its victims.

The former can be triggered either by curiosity, conflicting facts, or a desire to refute accusations; the latter cannot be explained by anything other than contempt and animosity for an entire population who revere the prophet.

Questioning the Holocaust is like questioning how many people were killed in the American civil war, or whether or not slavery truly existed in America (as they describe in textbooks), or who scalped who first, American Indians or Spanish settlers.

True, people are emotionally invested in one particular version of events over another. And, indeed only one version of events can actually be true (only God knows what it is). But, persons who believe different versions need not necessarily hate one another (although they might depending on how much is riding on one version being true).

In contrast, you CANNOT launch a full frontal attack on the founder of a religion without hurling hatred and contempt at his followers. It cannot be explained as an innocuous exercise in free speech or a fair exercise in debating or challenging historical facts.

It's like comparing apples to oranges.