The Islamic Republic of North America
Next week the musical version of “The Jerry Springer Show” premieres at Carnegie Hall. Of course, no one expects to find an artistic masterpiece in the show, but, I would imagine, most Americans expect some sort of decorum from even the most absurd artistic endeavors. But au contraire, this musical tour de force embraces no such etiquette. In fact, some facets of the show are utterly offensive to almost every sect of Christendom.
According to early reviews, the questionable content of the show includes an obese, effeminate portrayal of Jesus Christ, and Mary Magdelene and Mary, Mother of Jesus depicted in sexually explicit situations—even with Jesus. As a Christian, I am not surprised, but I am offended on several levels. But the level on which I am most offended is the media reaction to the show. Even more specifically and even more odious is the media coverage of the musical in context of the media’s decisions concerning the Islamic religion in this country. My thesis for this column: the American media favors protecting practitioners of Islam while being indifferent to overt attacks on America’s traditional religiosity.
Consider, first, a parity. In 2006, as you likely remember, a Danish newspaper published pictures of Mohammed, the Holy Prophet of Islam. Consequently, a large contingent of the Islamic community in Eastern Europe started riots, killing tens of people—including an elderly nun, and damaged tens of thousands of dollars worth of merchandise. As that story trickled through the American media—the same media calling the “Springer” musical an exercise in freedom of speech—no news organization had the gumption or gaul—whatever you want to call it—to show the pictures.
In his book America Alone, Mark Steyn further explores this institutional anti-Christian and pro-Muslim bias with a specific illustration:
“During the cartoon jihad, the New York Times gave a routinely pompous explanation of why it would not be showing us the representations of the Prophet: sensitive news organizations, the editors explained, had the duty to “refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols.” The very next day the Times illustrated a story on the Danish controversy with a piece of New York “art” from a couple seasons earlier showing the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung.”
Observing how the elites in the media and art operate, I conjecture a question: If the play portrayed Muhammed as an obese, effeminate man, would outrage finally ensue? I think so. I believe the American media, and most of the American people for that matter, would condemn such an offensive representation of a world religion. In fact, judging from how one European country dealt with such an event, I’m almost sure of it.
In early 2006, another musical was set to premiere; this one in Berlin, Germany. In this work of genius, all major religious figures would be mocked: Jesus, Mohammed, Confucious, the Virgin Mary, Buddha and even Ghondi. But unlike the “Springer” show upcoming in New York, this one never hit the stage. The German government decreed specifically that such a provocative rendering of Mohammed would not be acceptable. The German media cried out for the theater to embrace “multiculturalism.”, and abandon the show. And abandon the show they did.
But back here in America, if Phil Donahue or Richard Land were to speak out against the “Springer” musical they would be affronted as “intolerant” and “bigoted.” Under no circumstances would the producers pull the show due to Christian objections to the content. I suspect, however, that if the names of those lodging the complaints were Ali and Ayman instead of Phil and Richard, the response would be decidedly more amenable. Just a hunch.
By way of review, the following is the opinion of the elites in entertainment and news: Publishing a cartoon of Mohammed? Bad.
Promoting a musical wherein at least three central Biblical characters are mocked? Good.
Furthermore, the favoritism toward Islam does not stop in the ivory towers of Manhattan’s “artists” or the media. Consider the California school system.
Several California school districts have instituted “Islamic Week.” During this week, the students wear traditional Islamic garb, learn the tenets of the Islamic religion, and are even encouraged to write a fictional account of their “pilgrimage to Mecca.” Now realize that it was out of California that the 2003 case Newdow vs. U.S. Congress emanated. That was the decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because it contained the words “under God.”
Once again, just try and grasp the parity: Teaching Islam to school children? Good
Saying the Pledge of Allegiance? Bad because it invokes God.
So much for the separation of Mosque and State.
In the end, I don’t write this as a call to action. It is simply to document further what I believe to be a clear case of anti-Christian bias in society: entertainment, news media and education. Do remember, however, that we do have some limited capability in this matter. As ineffectual as boycotts typically are, the traditionalist lobby has made significant progress in the entertainment world. Such evidence as The Passion of the Christ and The Chronicles of Narnia comes to mind. Therefore, be not weary in the well-doing of eschewing these anti-Christian forms of entertainment. Moreover, you may consider respectfully dissuading your friends and family from supporting these impertinent programs.
In any event, I hope that if you garnered nothing else from this column, you are even more convinced of the anti-Christian, and often pro-Islamic, prejudice in our country. Technorati Tags: Islam, Christian, Christianity, Bias, Liberal Bias, News, Conservative, Conservatism, Republicans, Politics, News, Jerry Springer Cory Truax @ January 28, 2008
