|
|
February 2, 2006“Will and Grace”, Muslim cartoons and free speechBritney Spears will guest star on an episode of “Will & Grace,” NBC announced Tuesday. The pop star will appear as a Christian conservative sidekick to Sean Hayes’ character, Jack, who hosts his own talk show, on the April 13 episode, the network said. Jack’s fictional network, Out TV, is bought by a Christian TV network, leading to Spears contributing a cooking segment called “Cruci-fixin’s.” Supposedly, although I have not yet seen anything confirming it, this episode is going to air on Holy Thursday, the first day of the Easter Triduum, the day before Good Friday. Which, of course, is the day we remember Christ’s Passion. So, if the information is correct, “Cruci-fixin’s” will be played up for yucks on the Eve of the day of Crucifixion. I think we need to be consistant, here. If we’re applauding France (and we are) for not being cowed into self-censoring cartoon depictions of Muhammed, if we’re going to agree with the secularists that God is “not beyond caricature” in a free society, then we’ll have to anticipate it continuing (Christianity, clergy and Christ and his mother have been played for laffs for years) in America, where artists have used elephant dung to paint the Madonna and crucifixes-in-urine have been touted as “high art.” Yesterday, I mentioned to Buster that France was standing up to the Muslim death-threaters and printing the Danish cartoons which some Islamists find offensive. Buster observed, rightly, that the first time France stood up for anything in decades, they were standing up for their right to mock what others find sacred. “Quite an impressive move on the part of France,” he declared, “‘we will fight for nothing but our right to disdain you…‘” Smart kid. He’s quite right. But, be that as it may - the fact is a free society is one that allows non-believers to make perfect and ignorant asses of themselves in waves of adolescent daring. Which is all this stunt on Will and Grace is. The producers and writers and actors taking part in this silliness no doubt believe they are being “brave” and “edgy”. In fact, it takes no courage or daring at all to mock Christians in America, anymore than it is “brave” or “daring” to make fun of President Bush when you are before a crowd in Hollywood. It’s actually the safest, most cowardly thing to do, because you are running with, not against, the current in which you and your pals swim. And your friends will reward you for taking on those big, bad Christians. At a time when Jesus is on trial, and there are movements afoot to tax churches, we Christians understand that we are possibly coming into an age of persecution from the “tolerant, enlightened” secularists - people so passionate about their own “religion” of “no-God-before-ME” that they will brook none of that silly talk of “sin” or “redemption,” (unless it can be dressed up in some Eastern belief system that the secularists don’t actually understand but is, at least, not Western) because it makes them feel all ookey. Will and Grace” is a product of post-modernist, post-Christian minds who routinely cross lines, particularly when there is little risk in doing so. After all, “those Christians” will fuss and moan, turn off the tv and boycott advertisers for a little while, but most big corporations have such sprawling tentacles that someone boycotting Fisher Price won’t even realize that their morning Quaker Oatmeal supports the same people. And it’s not like the Christians are going to fly planes into buildings! Nope, we’ll do something more constructive. We’ll pray for you. We’ll turn the other cheek because there is enormous power in doing so, as the last 2000 years have demonstrated. After we have done the “worldly” things, have written letters to sponsors and turned off the televisions, we’ll go to our prayer closets and raise our hands in prayer to the God of Mercy, who is also the God of Justice. And we’ll pray for you “daring” types. And you know what’s going to sting? That Augustinian moment when grace has stuck you, and you are desiring to cling to your old ways even as you realize you no longer can. Ouch. It smarts, but only for a little while. A Tai-Chi master will use his enemy’s own force and thrust to lay him low. Turning the other cheek is just as discreet and just as effective. And frankly, most serious Christians will be too busy on Holy Thursday, reading the scriptural story about Moses parting the red sea, and the terrible deaths of Pharoah’s army - his chariots and charioteers - and washing each other’s feet, to pay a whole lot of attention to “Will and Grace.” Or, actually we’ll be looking at issues of “Will” and “Grace” but in an utterly different context. I know lots of Christians have been annoyed with me, lately, because I was scornful-but-not-offended by Kanye West dressing up as Jesus for the cover of Rolling Stone, and that I am not wringing my hands about “Jesus on Trial.” But I had a good teacher, who said, “my grace is sufficient.” All of these things will pass. What is Eternal will endure. And surprising changes of mind will occur in His time. Some of our greatest evangelists and teachers started out persecuting the Christians, like St. Paul. Slightly off topic, there was an Australian television program that I once saw called John Safran vs God, in which - among other things - the moderator walked around Melbourne with a man dressed as Pope John Paul II and another dressed as the Dalai Lama. He would approach people and read a quote - about pre-marital sex, homosexual sex, drug use - and ask people who said it, the pope or the Dalai Lama. People routinely assumed that the “out of touch” teachings they heard were made by the pope. In each case, it was a teaching of the Dalai Lama. It was very eye-opening. People hear what they want to hear, and believe what they want to believe. Which is why, I guess, people think of a Buddhist celibate as an enlightened being, and a Christian celibate as a freak. Odd, that. Meanwhile, onto the Muslim Cartoon Controversy: AJ Strata has serious cautions about those cartoons: What I hope everyone remembers is that moderate Muslims represent the salvation of not only Islam, but world peace as well. America has been very clear in discerning our views on radical Islam verses moderate Islam. While we prepared for war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda we walked with Muslims to protect them from any out of control backlashes from people who cannot discern a radical movement from an ancient religion. Mark at Decision ‘08 also urges caution and says: We need not roll over and apologize for exercising our freedom of speech - but neither should we make a fetish of thrusting it in the face of those we wish to work with… A good point. Michelle Malkin says that she’s asked American papers if they will be publishing the offending cartoons, they say no. Sissy Willis says the LA Times might. Michelle also points out that many EU papers blocked out some parts of the cartoons. She has, unsurprisingly, the best and most comprehensive round up. Thomas Lifson points out that we do not have the whole story on the cartoons, that some highly offensive pieces - one has Mohammed with a pig face - have been “inserted” so to speak, into the mix, to stir up anger. Lifson relates some interesting asides in his quest to find images of Muhammed. Gateway Pundit has more on this developement. The Islamic Society of Denmark is behind it! Ed Morrissey has more. Judith Klinghoffer is following the EU angle on this story very closely. Dymphna notes the BBC is feeling gunshy. Alexandra is pretty mad to hear that the French editor has been fired. Sigmund, Carl and Alfred have a very interesting piece up which suggests that this whole enormous controversy is a contrivance started up by Danish Muslims. UPDATE: “John Safran vs. God” can be googled. I saw a few episodes with my elder son and found them to be pretty well-done explorations of differing religions and belief systems, funny and semi-punk but more curious than disrespectful. The voodoo episode was harrowing. There is an interview with Safran, here, which touches on the Pope/Dalai Lama thing. Very interesting read. No, I have not seen the exorcism episode. Rachael Kohn: Well you’re bound to surprise some hopeful Buddhists by your man on the street survey comparing statements by the Pope, and those by the Dalai Lama. You really proved your point in that piece. John Safran: Yes, that’s because the Dalai Lama has quite a I guess conservative position on things like masturbation and sexual practices that aren’t missionary position sexual practices, but yet the Pope gets all this bad press for having those positions whilst the Dalai Lama, everyone kind of coughs into their hand, and pretends he doesn’t say these things. I wasn’t kind of being judgmental of his position either way, I was just like comparing him, it’s like why does the Pope get heat for rapping people over the knuckles. John Safran: Yes. Rachael Kohn: Is that really so, that all the people that you asked - ? John Safran: You know because every person we went to we went through all the quotes with them, after a while they kind of go Oh, I see, so it actually was the Dalai Lama who said all these things, but generally it was accurate, you know, it was like most people thought that his quotes on conservative sexuality were from the Pope. WELCOME you google searchers, you! While you’re here, please look around! Today we’re also talking about the quality of Condi, the anger of Hillary, cartoons and their effects on some people, and John Bolton’s Peace Prize nomination. http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/02/02/we-fight-for-the-right-to-disdain-you/trackback/ 16 Responses to ““Will and Grace”, Muslim cartoons and free speech” |
February 2nd, 2006 at 10:37 am
Good post, as usual.
In fact, for those who find the ‘post modern, post Christian’ society unrepresentative, we do have other options in how we respond- we can change the channel, boycott sponsors and make our voices heard, as you note.
“That Augustinian moment when grace has stuck you, and you are desiring to cling to your old ways even as you realize you no longer can. Ouch. It smarts, but only for a little while” is a point well made.
Progress, even for believers, comes at a cost- to the believer and to the world around him.
February 2nd, 2006 at 11:01 am
Brilliant post.
‘
Frankly, I cannot get too upset about the Will and Grace thing - but I do think your point, that mocking Christians is an easy, cheap, and ultimately cowardly thing to do, in the guise of being “edgy.”
‘
what bothers me more are the strongly anti-Christian individuals who think they are somehow party to some “enlightenment” we do not have - I encountered a man a few weeks ago (and wound up being a captive audience; we were seated together while traveling) who had nothing but venom to spew about Christianity (this being after he found out I was a Christian) and how he, as a Buddhist, had a “much better” path, and how all Christians were “angry” and didn’t have the “peace” he had…I meekly protested, and pointed out that he may have had some bad experiences, but there are many out there who do not fit his stereotype…and after the conversation, which frankly left me sad and shaken, I found myself thinking “the peace he claims to have gained, seems to have left him for that evening.” I found myself praying for him, that he could release the anger he obviously felt towards a large segment of the population. I cannot help but think he had a bad experience once with someone who called themselves a Christian but were not truly following Christ’s lead…
‘
it is more frightening to encounter a Christian-hater in person than it is to have a silly television show try to mock the religion.
February 2nd, 2006 at 11:27 am
European Media Displays Courage
The European press deserves credit for not only running some controversial cartoons ridiculing the prophet Muhammad but for rerunning them all across Europe. In this article titled Offending Cartoons Reprinted Molly Moore of the Washington Post Foreig…
February 2nd, 2006 at 11:56 am
Excellent post! You highlight the inner struggle that’s going on in countless minds and hearts as a result of these increasingly ‘edgy’ (read: disGRACEful) pieces of popular culture. I think of it as a kind of divine sorting or forcing function. People are being driven into one camp or the other. We often think of that as bad (i.e., “polarization” is a word that’s taken on an overly negative meaning), but in the end - or rather THE END - this cosmic sorting is important and necessary. This self-selection (how much sacrilege will I put up with before I see God?) is God’s purpose. Who are we to stop it?
February 2nd, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Anchoress,
You said,
“Thomas Lifson points out that we do not have the whole story on the cartoons, that they are part of a bigger package including some highly offensive pieces - one has Mohammed with a pig face.”
This is not true. The original publication had about 12 drawings that most of us have seen, none of which included a cartoon with a pig’s face. There have been fakes spread around among muslims that are more outrageous in a deliberate attempt to inflame passions (much like the koran in a toilet story) What Thomas Lifson actually says is that some imam tried to pass off a fake pig face picture as one of the orginal cartoons.
I dont think it is a matter of question that the original publication did not publish with the intent to provoke and insult muslims but with the intent to assert their freedom of speech. They said as much in their apology.
February 2nd, 2006 at 12:22 pm
A Little Caution? A Fine Idea
Yesterday, I asked, rhetorically, referring to the Muslim cartoon controversy: freedom of speech or deliberate offensiveness? Of course, freedom of speech covers even the deliberately offensive, as Fred and Clint both noted in the comments. However,…
February 2nd, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Re: John Saffran
I love it
I was debating some folks online about homosexuality trying to clarify the position of Christians regarding it. I am always careful to make it clear that gay people are most welcome in church and that they are no greater sinners than anyone else for their particular temptation. However, like all sinners they are expected to resist the temptation to sin. They are expected to be repentent of all their sins not just some of them and for gays that means a life of celibacy. One person, a gay man, came back with how unfair that was to ask of them. He asked how could it be fair to allow hetero couples the joy of sex while gays, particularly males with their more powerful sex drives, would be expected to live out their whole lives in misery as celibates. That’s when I had an inspiration. I asked him if the Dalai Lama, that darling of the “tolerant’ set, who is a celibate, was considered a miserable person. I pointed out that the Dalai Lama was one of the happiest and most serene people in the world by all accounts. I hate to brag but I got silence in return. It was the exact same phenomena. People are just shocked to find that their darlings dont always quite fit into the neat little boxes made for them by others. It can be such a great instructive tool to point out where someone like the Dalai Lama differs from liberal orthodoxy. And it can be a whole lot of fun too! 
February 2nd, 2006 at 12:25 pm
[...] The Anchoress has her usual uncommonly sensible points to make about the brouhaha going on in Denmark and France over the “Mohammed cartoons”, which I still have not seen. She also offers up a spot on suggestion of how Christians should react to a similar situation, an upcoming Will ‘n Grace episode ( a show I have never seen ) that will be aired on Holy Thursday. It features Britney Spears as a conservative Christian TV host of the cooking show “Cruci-fixin’s”. Again, this will air on the eve of Good Friday… the day of the Crucifixion. [...]
February 2nd, 2006 at 12:29 pm
PS I think one of the canons of liberal orthodoxy is that resisting any sexual urge automatically results in misery. There is hardly a better counter- argument to that cannard than the thousands upon thousands of contented and happy monks/priests and nuns of both the Christian and Buddhist faiths.
February 2nd, 2006 at 2:02 pm
[...] Other bloggers covering this; well there are SO many, but I’ll try to list the ones whose posts I found useful: Michelle Malkin, In The Bullpen, Positive Liberty, Hit and Run, Dispatches from the Culture Wars, The Anchoress (great post), The Brussels Journal, and Slinging Ink. [...]
February 2nd, 2006 at 2:39 pm
There is nothing wrong with using free speech to counter another’s free speech. If Will and Grace, or cartoon’s of Mohammad, offend someone they can (and should) say so. Other’s of course are also free to say that they are being overly sensitive or foolish or whatever.
.
The problem occurs when either governments (with their inherent monopolies on legal violence) or individuals acting outside the law try to use violence to censor thoughts or ideas. The story of Christ is perhaps the most famous example of that being done.
.
I have no problem with Muslim’s saying these cartoon are bad. I would be very open to persuasion that out of respect for their belief in the sacredness of Mohammad’s image such representations should not be made. When they instead go to, don’t do this or we will kill you, is when we part company, and that simply makes me want to engage in the behavior they find offensive myself.
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Dave,
There are two reasons why they threaten death to anyone who offends their prophet. 1) mohammed himself killed those who ridiculed him and 2) they mistake going postal for really caring about their religion. It helps to understand that a muslim must earn their salvation and are constantly performing for allah to prove to him that they are worthy of eternal life. They have no assurance, no promise like we do, that we cannot earn or lose our salvation based on any behavior short of having a lack of repentence for our sins and/or renouncing our faith in Christ. So they engage in “who is more devoted to allah and their prophet” demonstrations such as this one. What else is there to do but go to an extreme? Most people are aware of their sinfulness. For those who are told that they must earn their ticket to heaven, the temptation to do something extreme for the “cause” in order to erase or balance out sin must be overwhelming. Just imagine, if it were true, how extreme we would need to be to earn enough of God’s good will to get to heaven! I would act a bit crazy too if I felt it would be a sin to allow others to insult my religion. Its very sad.
February 2nd, 2006 at 8:07 pm
Well you’re bound to surprise some hopeful Buddhists…
/
We would be less surprised than you might think. Actually, what Benedict needs to do is to write all sorts of books on how to be happy and get interviewed occasionally by Larry King. Then people wouldn’t think him such an old grouch.
/
Seriously, though, what is missing from that whole dialog is the reasoning behind the Dalai Lama’s views. Buddhist morality is purely consequential: the fixated and excess pursuit of any kind of pleasure is harmful action in the long term: it leads to bad consequences in future lives.
/
Exactly the same reasoning stands behind the classic Buddhist moral view that involvement in any kind of killing is harmful action in the long term. It also leads to very bad consequences in future lives.
/
If John Safran were to ask the Dalai Lama for a straight answer about the future of a tuna fisherman who is unfailingly faithful to his wife and always uses the Missionary Position, I think it is Safran who would be astonished and, most probably, dismayed.
/
Take the matter out of the realm of sex [on which so many in "Christian" cultures are so fixated] and it is perfectly plain that Christian and Buddhist moral views are not exactly symmetrical.
/
The reasons why you believe something really do make a difference.
February 3rd, 2006 at 10:32 pm
Staying off this bandwagon
The ’sphere is abuzz over the Muslim cartoon fracas with many of those I usually agree with deciding that they too would like to do what they can to incite the Islamists. If you’re not sure what I’m talking about,
February 5th, 2006 at 3:14 am
Who read this thing?
Although this is a “personal blog”, I still get about 300 people hitting my website every day. I never realized that I was so popular. I have received emails from people asking permission to use my photos from combat training…
February 11th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
[...] ANCHORESS– “Will and Grace”, Muslim cartoons and free speech …. (theanchoressonline) [...]