It is truly amazing the leaps that some will make in order to continue their own narratives no matter what realities are getting in the way. Moral relativism is the refuge of the morally ambiguous. Those who believe that concepts like "good" and "evil" are constructs of ideologies and that the truly enlightened have long since dispensed of these cursed absolutes.

Never recognizing the contradiction that believing absolutes don't exist is itself an absolute, moral relativists spend days like yesterday trying to find stories that they believe will support their worldview.

Yesterday's attacks were an assault on freedom of speech carried out by adherents to a form of Islam that commands them to make the whole world submissive to their ideology. The evidence that this version of Islam is pervasive and that its members are legion is hardly disputable. The civilized world has spent 15 centuries pushing back on this extremism whether it was during the Crusades - which were primarily a response to the Muslim empire expanding into Europe through conquest - or in Iraq & Afghanistan in the last decade.

That there are moderate or peaceful Muslims who do not adhere to this ideology is wholly irrelevant to the scores of followers who believe their religion mandates that the world shall be made Islam. This are of course, the ones that we remain concerned about.

Events like yesterday's horrific attacks, prompted by drawings of Islam's prophet Muhammed as illustrated in the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, are in keeping with this goal of world domination. Whereas some Christians or Jews might take offense at similar images of Jesus or Abraham, by and large it is not the position of either religion that nonbelievers must themselves follow the laws of their respective religions, the form of Islam that instructed yesterday's attacks uses violence to enforce their rules on others, regardless of their own beliefs.

So with that background on what was behind yesterday's attacks, and with the understanding that all of this explanation is way too "simple" for the pontificating moral relativists I mentioned earlier, would you be surprised to know that multiple people are genuinely and sincerely making the case that Jerry Falwell suing Larry Flynt for libel in the 1980's is roughly equivalent to the murder of 12 people?

Our own Caleb Howe first alerted the world to the absurd comparison yesterday afternoon.

So we at Digitas dutifully found and posted the video as proof that such imbecilic comparisons exist. Of the following clip, Jonah Goldberg asks, is this the dumbest 57 seconds ever on tv? [youtube]M_hizBb-z60[/youtube] Transcripts via Newsbusters

ERIC BATES, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, FIRST LOOK MEDIA: I think we also have to remember that this isn't just Islamic extremism. If you go back to the '80s – during the Reagan administration – when Jerry Falwell sued Hustler magazine for portraying him having – I believe it was drunken incest with his mother in an outhouse – again, in a visual form – and won a $150,000 court case against Hustler for that. It was overturned by the Supreme Court, I think, eight-to-zero. So, you know, religious fundamentalists of all stripes and of nationalities have this penchant to say, we want to be able tell you what you can and can't portray.

Host Alex Wagner continued the absurdity by pretending that the comparison is an example of how we're merely focused on Islam these days for various sensational reasons but that, of course, all religious ideologies commit some form of what happened yesterday.

ALEX WAGNER: And yet, Islam is – because of the age of terror in which we live, occupies – is a third rail, in a way, that you can show, sort of, blasphemous photos or drawings – not photos, but drawings of the Pope. Charlie Hebdo was an equal-opportunity slanderer or satirist – whatever you want to call it – in terms of religion. And yet, we focus very specifically on Islam, because it is much more incendiary and much more controversial to talk about.

And then Rick Macarthur of Harper's Magazine dutifully made sure to identify that there is a justification for the grievances which led to the attack because, you guessed it, America is all up in their business.

RICK MACARTHUR, HARPER'S MAGAZINE: Well, it happens to be right now because of a huge American troop presence in the Middle East, and an insertion of American power in the Middle East that never existed before. This is a political/foreign policy question that we could talk about. I mean, I want to keep the – the principle of freedom of expression separate. But there is a sense of grievance in the Muslim world today that didn't exist twenty years ago – before the United States sent troops to Saudi Arabia.

That they are equating Falwell's decision to sue with terrorists deciding to kill is obviously the worst offense, but let's not forget a few other things that these geniuses got wrong.

In the first place, Falwell didn't sue Larry Flynt as a matter of religious conviction. He wasn't following a command of his religion and trying to force his Christian views on the world. He sued Hustler because he believed that the article with false quotes from him would be believed by readers to be true and thus damage his reputation. A typical case of libel that ultimately the Supreme Court decided wasn't justified because Hustler's article was protected as parody.

Furthermore, Bates falsely claims that this case also revolved around an illustration. It did not. It centered around quotes that were attributed to Falwell that Hustler acknowledged were untrue. You can read the fake article "Jerry Falwell talks about his first time" here.

Perhaps less important to the case but more important to the question of drawing an equivalency, let's not forget that unlike the Paris attacks in which 12 people are dead, Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt became lifelong friends following the lawsuit and Flynt even eulogized him in the L.A. Times after this death.

Sadly, these alleged deep thinkers on MSNBC aren't the only ones drawing this false comparison.

Clay Calvert wrote yesterday at the Huffington Post about the importance of protecting satire & parody in light of the terrorist attacks as though any rational, non-murderous observers thought these Islamists overreacted but had a case. He even draws from the same story of Falwell because relativists are nothing if not predictable.

Anyone comparing these two instances, whether from a moral point of view, a religious point of view or a legal point of view, has committed an unforgivable sin against intellectual honesty and should burn in satirical Hell.   

But as I said earlier, moral ambiguity is of primary importance to the narrative.  It's fine to condemn individual actions here and there, but only if you steadfastly mention that others have committed similar acts. Can't find anyone outside of the accused group committing such acts? Fine, just bend and shape a completely different story to make it seem like they're comparable.

This is what the progressive left and their enablers in the mainstream media consider intellectualism.  In reality it’s just a twisted cousin of that other intellectual sin, contrarianism (an affliction you mostly find on the right) however the two are but opposite sides of the same coin.

But here's the truth for anyone reading: There is absolute good in the world.  There is absolute evil in the world.  Morality is not relative.  Yesterday, 3 evil men following the beliefs of an evil religious worldview destroyed innocent human lives in an attempt to silence dissenters through fear.

If you're giving them cover or making excuses for them or otherwise lending credibility to their cause by morally associating their terrorist rampages with the civilities of peaceful disagreement, you are worse than a useful idiot, you are a terrorist sympathizer.  

How's that for black & white?