February 20, 2006

As we continue to fight the “Cartoon War” against those Muslims who (1) believe that it is evil to have a picture of Mohammed and (2) believe that they are commanded and allowed to impose shari’a (Islamic law) on the entire world (see footnote 1 for discussion of how many Muslims this may be), we are hearing more and more that the West is “hypocritical.”

This is, of course, because we (the West) do not allow free speech on some things, such as the Holocaust. Christians (fundamentalists and evangelicals in particular) are branded as even more hypocritical and intolerant because they “force” networks to remove programs from broadcast which attack their religious bigotry.

The “Book of Daniel” is the current poster child for that effort. The program featured “Jesus” as a recurring character, together with the very dysfunctional family of an Episcopal priest, and lasted all of three episodes before NBC yanked it, although six episodes were filmed. A number of religious groups, including the American Family Association, launched attacks, including boycotts, on the show; national sponsors (advertisers) withdrew, and several local affiliates either refused to carry it or stopped after one or two episodes were broadcast.

This sequence of events is just as bad, we are told, as the protests and threats and attacks by various Muslims responding to the publication of cartoons “defaming” Mohammed by Danish and other newspapers (including TPOL!), and we of the West are hypocritical if we do not bow down to the Islamic demands just as we “forced” NBC to do with “Book of Daniel.” If we really believed in free speech, “Book of Daniel” would still continue to be broadcast, because no one would have attacked it. It is the West, therefore, that is the real enemy of free speech.

A similar tactic is used to attack the West through the announcement of a state-sponsored “Holocaust Cartoon” contest in Iran – the situation here being that a number of western countries have made “Holocaust denial” a crime – and that the West finds it perfectly acceptable to make fun of Mohammed but does not allow free speech attacking its governments, religions, or other “ sacred cows.”

And seemingly, many Western journos and diversity activists agree. A large majority of newspapers (and websites) have refused to run the cartoons, or have quickly removed them, supposedly from a concern for “sensitivity ” (although one does have to wonder if fear of attack might be a factor). Both of these attacks are disingenuous, and NOT just because there is a far cry between calling for a boycott and calling for the deaths of those responsible, or between refusing to air a program and burning down an embassy of the newspaper’s nation. There were no calls for the writers, actors, producers, or employees or owners of the broadcasting stations to be put to death, no arson attacks on California businesses (it doesn’t have embassies), and not even “mass protests” even in England (home of the Church of England, flagship of the Episcopal denomination).

Most Moslems, at least, are honest about their opinion: they believe that “free speech” is a creation of the West and incompatible with Islam, and therefore must be made subservient to Islamic law. Sadly, those supporting them and attacking the response to “Book of Daniel ” and other similar issues, here in the West, are neither honest nor open – they pretend to be supporting free speech while in reality wishing to deny free speech for anything they find unacceptable, using their cries of censorship as cover for their war on liberty.

Therefore, I present the following article, with permission, in its entirety. Warning: it is written from a very Biblical point of view and pulls no punches towards any other religions (or un-religions). But the points it makes are important for lovers of liberty.

Scripturally Speaking Christian Morality Is...UnChristian?
by Dave Miller, Ph.D. Apologetics Press

In their ongoing attempt to withstand the massive assault on traditional moral values, Christians recently experienced a momentary victory when NBC d ecided to cancel one of its programs after airing only three episodes. The program featured a troubled, pill-popping Episcopal priest as its main character, a wife who relied on midday martinis, a 16-year-old daughter who was a drug dealer, a 16-year-old adopted son who was sexually active with the bishop’s daughter, and the priest’s lesbian secretary who was sleeping with his sister-in-law (“NBC Pulls Plug...,” 2006).

The fact that the program ever saw the light of day speaks volumes concerning the degeneracy of the entertainment industry. The pious post-whimpering by the show’s supporters further demonstrates the audacious, militant gall possessed by those who wish to inundate American society with obscenity and moral filth. The show’s creator is quoted as having condemned the opposition to the program as “censorship, pure and simple— and that is both un-Christian and un-American” (Brown and Jackson, 2006, emp. added).

It is one thing to be honest and straightforward about one’s moral bankruptcy. If the Hollywood crowd does not believe in God, they ought to have enough gumption to say so. If they believe that “morality” and “right and wrong” are relative, fluid, and determined solely on the basis of subjective, personal preference, they ought to have the courage to admit it. If they believe their “barnyard morality” lifestyles and their sick preoccupation with illicit sex is superior, let them openly declare it. But, no, they seem to feel the need to disguise their thoroughgoing hedonism with pious, high-sounding claims of moral superiority—even to the point of chiding American Christians with being “un-Christian and un-American”! And, of course, to really bolster one’ s righteous airs, one must throw in a frenzied appeal to “censorship!”—a term that now conjures up images of medieval torture chambers inflicted on the persecuted, oppressed, deprived population of Hollywood.

As usual, social liberals are self-contradictory, hypocritical, and guilty of the very thing of which they accuse others. If liberals have a right to set forth their perverted machinations via the media, does it not logically follow that those who disagree have the same right to express their disagreement? If liberals have the right to say: “We are for homosexuality, abortion, and pornography,” then, on the same basis, Christians have the right to say: “ We are against homosexuality, abortion, and pornography.” If opposing sexual immorality on television is “censorship,” what shall we call the conspiratorial success in banning Christianity from the classroom, the government, the community, and, yes, the entertainment industry? Indeed, in their incessant drive to celebrate and normalize use of drugs and alcohol, pre-marital sex, and homosexuality, the Hollywood crowd is skilled at launching an intolerant, abusive tirade against their opponents by denouncing them as demonic censors. Yet, even they have their limits. They have not yet stepped forward and publicly endorsed television programming that celebrates bestiality, pedophilia, incest, and necrophilia. Will they endorse scenes in which the actors actually kill each other (as long as the acts are consensual)? No, since they, too, “ draw lines”—and thereby are guilty of the very “censorship” as they, themselves, have defined the term.

Further, the claim that opposing obscene television programming is “ un-Christian” is laughable, not only because the Hollywood crowd is hardly qualified to define what constitutes Christian behavior, but because they have demonstrated a longstanding hostility, even hatred, toward Christianity and Christian morality. Their definition of “compassion” is as warped and distorted as it can possibly be. Likewise, to label opposition to obscenity as “un-American” flies directly in the face of historical fact. From the Founders and Framers down through American history (until the last 50 years), the vast majority of Americans recognized immorality when they saw it. They knew the difference between right and wrong based on the moral framework of the Bible—and the courts upheld that value system (e.g., People v. Ruggles [1811]; The Commonwealth against Sharpless [1815]; Updegraph v. The Commonwealth [1824]; City Council of Charleston v. Benjamin [1848]. Indeed, in 1848, the Supreme Court of South Carolina articulated the standard that characterized America for the first 185 years:

What constitutes the standard of good morals? Is it not Christianity? There certainly is none other. Say that cannot be appealed to and...what would be good morals? The day of moral virtue in which we live would, in an instant, if that standard were abolished, lapse into the dark and murky night of pagan immorality (City Council of Charleston... emp. added).

The court’s words were prophetic. We are literally witnessing American civilization in the throes of pagan immorality—spearheaded by, among others, a sizable segment of the entertainment industry.

In reality, this entire issue comes down quite simply to whether a Supreme Being exists Who has the right to legislate the moral behavior of His creatures. If so, then He has already given humans a moral framework—a standard of behavior to which all humans are accountable. In that case, “censorship” occurs only when a person attempts to oppose or stifle that which God does not want stifled (an apt description of precisely what the Hollywood crowd endeavors to do). Consequently, suppressing evil and immorality is not “censorship”! Rather, it is righteous, heroic, spiritually courageous, American, and very Christian!

REFERENCES Brown, Jody and Fred Jackson (2006), “NBC Closes the Book on Daniel,” AgapePress, January 24, [On-line], URL: http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/242006a.asp. City Council of Charleston v. Benjamin (1848), 2 Strob. L. 508 (S. C. 1848). The Commonwealth v. Sharpless (1815), 2 Serg. & Rawle 91; 1815 Pa. LEXIS 81. “NBC Pulls the Plug on ‘Book of Daniel’” (2006), World Net Daily, January 23, [On-line], URL: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48476. The People v. Ruggles (1811), 8 Johns 290 (Sup. Ct. NY.), N.Y. Lexis 124. Updegraph v. The Commonwealth (1824), Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, [On-line], URL: http://80-web.lexis-nexis.com.library.fhu.edu:2048/universe/document? _m=083294452aab2484abf17cb283bb244a&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkVb&_md5 Copyright © 2006 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Nathan continues:

Actually, I go one step beyond what Dr. Miller states: “censorship” is only possible with an initiation of force – it is an aggressive action. While I suppose that censorship can be, under some circumstances, a defensive action, I find it hard to visualize those circumstances. Christian individuals and churches, even Christian-owned and/or –operated businesses cannot engage in “ censorship” because we have no way to initiate such action without violating our own moral standards. No Christian enjoys seeing God (whether we are speaking of the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit), or even a preacher or another Christian, mocked, but we have NO AUTHORITY to do anything about it, and every indication that we are to accept the right of another person to do so. It does NOT mean that we have to agree to support such mockery, either directly or indirectly, by purchase, or by tax money. Refusing to support a business (or government) which pays for such rubbish is NOT the same as passing laws against it, or threatening violence, or suppressing free speech: it is NOT censorship. Even God does not censor speech - how can anyone who claims to be His child do so?

Footnote:
1: There are, apparently, some Muslims who do NOT believe that it is sinful to portray Mohammed in pictures – but no one has, to my knowledge, attempted to quantify that number. There are also, apparently, some Muslims who do NOT believe that they have the right to force all of us to obey Islamic law, and according to an Islamic scholar, that is a “minuscule minority” in the Ummah (World Islamic Community).

It appears, however, that those Muslims who DO believe it is a sin to draw a picture of Mohammed, consider those who do NOT to be heretics and therefore subject to the death penalty when convenient. Also, reading the Quran (in English, not in Arabic), I see what supports the claim that it is moral (by Islamic definition) to force Islamic law on everyone else, and capital punishment IS very clearly not just allowed but required. In contrast, while there certainly are “Christians” who believe that they have a right to force adherence to both the Old and New Testament on everyone else, they are NOT supported by the Bible, and are usually the ones considered heretics.

Archives

Churches and Concealed Carry

Why one libertarian doesn’t support Cindy Sheehan

Looters: The Low-down on the Low-down

Bakers Dozen ™: Hot-Wash Lessons Learned From Katrina, Week 1

Baker’s Dozen ™ Hints to Prepare for Disaster

What is a "person" In modern America?

Presidential Power

Libertarian Proposals For The Constitution (Part One)

Libertarian Proposals For The Constitution (Part Two)

Complete Archives for Nathan Barton