Posted by
Patrick Henry on Tuesday, May 11, 2010 2:25:26 PM
Ours is a society dominated by the "scientific method," a presumably reliable way of
getting at truth. But even the lowliest of researchers will tell you that one can't get the
right answer when one asks the wrong questions. Scientific experiments, opinion polls,
court proceedings and marketing schemes all have experienced this truism when, over
time, it turns out that they were asking questions not designed to accurately discern the
facts they were seeking.
So it is with the current debate over which is worse (or better), to mock Islam's
prophet Muhammad, or to mock Jesus Christ. The depiction of the two figures, each
revered by millions, in humiliating caricatures, poses or costumes has lately become
a worldwide fad among so-called artists. From a Danish cartoonist, to a miscreant who
painted a picture of Christ being urinated on, to Comedy Central, it is open season on
religious figures.
But on the way to mockery central, a funny thing happened. Irate Muslims, outraged
at the sacrilege aimed at their holy prophet, started threatening to blow up businesses
and kill artists. The response which no doubt seems barbaric to some, has thrown a
distinct chill over Muhammad-trashing, with Hollywood and New York alike declaring
the prophet off-limits because "we don't want to put our artists and employees in any
danger."
Now, the trashmeisters are free to vent their spleens on Jesus alone. Indeed Comedy
Central is preparing a series of sacrilegious parodies and cartoons mocking one whom
many hail as the Son of God. They do it because they believe Christians will not bomb
their studios and assasinate their employees. They do it because in a permissive society
where one CAN do it, someone inevitably WILL, notwithstanding the hurt and outrage
it causes to others. The new political correctness counsels that Muslims are off limits,
but Christians are fair game.
The problem with this is that the debate has boiled down to the establishment of a
double standard. Which is worse, pundits ask, to ridicule Muhammad, or to ridicule
Jesus? That is decisively the wrong question, posing a false choice and, inevitably
yielding the wrong answer.
What the debate should hinge around is whether it is fundamentallyindecent to
ridicule ANY person, religion or belief that millions devoutlyworship and treasure.
The phenomenon of bullying has become so tragic in our schools that children have
died because of it, and now state laws are being drawn in some places that make
bullying a crime. Bullying is abuse perpetrated on those who are weaker by those
who are stronger. Bullies do it because they can. The same is true of those who seek
to prey on the faith of others. Faith is the ultimate sanctuary of the human spirit, and
is held by the constitution to be inviolable. Those who would denigrate the religious
have chosen to violate that sanctuary through the back door, under the thin disguises
of "art" and "humor."
What speaks loudest in the matter is the hasty retreat they have beaten when
confronted with the truth that Muslims, at least, are prepared to kill for the sanctity
of their faith and, by extension, to die for it. While I'm not much of a Muslim
sympathizer, I understand how they feel. How do you suppose the sewer dwellers
in Hollywood and the profit-motivated scum peddlers in New York would react if
a bunch of Christians showed up with Molotiv cocktails and AK-47s? It would
seem that, in the last analysis, the "artists" don't believe in their "freedom" as much
when they fear for their lives. Like most bullies they are cowards to the last.
But here's the bottom line, and it is that the artists and publishers have crossed
the line. Those who have to get their laughs by denigrating and humiliating others
are thinly closeted sociopaths, bullies hiding behind the first amendment. Perhaps
it is symptomatic of a societal sickness, or a phase we will outgrow. But in a society
where nothing and no one is held sacred, bullying thrives, and what goes around
eventually comes around.