Heaven Will Direct It
“Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”
These famous words from the most famous play in the English language warn of impending evil as Hamlet heeds the call of his father’s ghost. They are spoken by Marcellus to Horatio as Hamlet ignores their warnings not to follow the spirit alone.
There are more than a few things rotten in Denmark lately. Daniel Pipes pointed this out long before the current furor over some Danish cartoons satirizing the Islamic propensity for violence. Given what Pipes wrote about happening in Denmark — the exhortations to kill Jews, the threats to kill Muslim converts to Christianity, and the forced marriages upon pain of death — perhaps, it is no wonder that Denmark is the place where a paper decided that some cartoons satirizing the “Religion of Peace” might be in order. Good for them. Anything less is capitulation.
In yesterday’s Washington Times, Diana West teaches us valuable lessons about the dangers of dhimmitude:
Dhimmitude is the coinage of a brilliant historian, Bat Ye’or, whose pioneering studies of the dhimmi, populations of Jews and Christians vanquished by Islamic jihad, have led her to conclude that a common culture has existed through the centuries among the varied dhimmi populations. From Egypt and Palestine to Iraq and Syria, from Morocco and Algeria to Spain, Sicily and Greece, from Armenia and the Balkans to the Caucasus: Wherever Islam conquered, surrendering dhimmi, known to Muslims as “people of the book [the Bible],” were tolerated, allowed to practice their religion, but at a dehumanizing cost.
* * *
The extremely distressing but highly significant fact is, dhimmitude doesn’t only exist in lands where Islamic law rules.
This is the lesson of Cartoon Rage 2006, a cultural nuke set off by an Islamic chain reaction to those 12 cartoons of Muhammad appearing in a Danish newspaper. We have watched the Muslim meltdown with shocked attention, but there is little recognition that its poisonous fallout is fear.
Fear in the State Department, which, like Islam, called the cartoons unacceptable. Fear in Whitehall, which did the same. Fear in the Vatican, which did the same. And fear in the media, which have failed, with few, few exceptions, to reprint or show the images. With only a small roll of brave journals, mainly in Europe, to salute, we have seen the proud Western tradition of a free press bow its head and submit to an Islamic law against depictions of Muhammad. That’s dhimmitude.
* * *
The cartoons ran to establish — or re-establish — Denmark as bastion of Western-style liberty. But in trying to set up a force field against encroaching sharia, Jyllands-Posten and the Danes have showed us that no single bastion of Western liberty can stand alone.
So, how do you say solidarity in Danish? If we don’t find out now, our future is more dhimmitude.
Judging from the comments on the previous post and from the refusal of the press and even some bloggers I know to post links to the cartoons, it appears that some of us are ready and willing to be dhimis. I don’t think Christ calls us to dhimmitude, even if it goes by the name of tolerance or multi-culturalism. So, I salute Denmark. Freedom is not rotten there yet.
Horatio’s less famous reply to the famous line from Marcellus is “Heaven will direct it.” In other words, we need not follow Hamlet because we may trust that God will ultimately control that rotten something. Marcellus doesn’t buy that as an excuse to do nothing and says, “Nay, let’s follow him.”
I’m with Marcellus. Yes, heaven will direct it, but don’t be a dhimi and do nothing. Don’t leave Hamlet/Denmark alone with the evil spirit. Diana West is right: no single bastion of liberty can stand alone.
Submit to one another in love? Yes. Submit to bullying and falsehood in the name of Islam? Never. Bill Gnade pointed out effectively that “hard language” is sometimes necessary. He is right.
Solidariteit!
RELATED: Faith Freedom
related articles
- The War Within (July 1st, 2007)
- Five Years Later: Americans Trapped in Saudi Arabia (June 27th, 2007)
- Anti-immigrant Immigrant? (June 13th, 2007)
- WorldNetDaily: Elrod v. Thompson (June 11th, 2007)
- The Price of GOP Control (October 27th, 2006)
February 11th, 2006 at 11:51 am
So the end justifies the means? In the name of not tolerating the sins of others, it becomes justified to say and write things which will surely offend the other person?
Oh yes, I remember… they started it… so two wrongs do make right?
February 11th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
No Rex. Where did I say the ends justify the means?
Offending someone is not a sin. It would be impossible to preach the Gospel if that were true.
I remember when I was on the debate team at Harding, one of the resolutions that we had to both defend and attack in competition was, “violence is a justified response to political oppression.” You and I have discussed that issue many times, but this is not about that.
Here the issue is more accurately put, “Resolved: offensive speech is a justified response to violence.”
I will take the affirmative side on that one any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
The cartoon I posted above is just funny. You can’t tell me it didn’t make you laugh, or at least smile. Maybe a chuckle? In Afghanistan, laughter was outlawed by the Taliban, but humor is a valid and effective rhetorical device against the forces of oppression and fascism within Islam. Let’s not enforce a similar ban here through self-censorship in the name of tolerance.
I agree with Mark Steyn’s advice :
February 11th, 2006 at 10:25 pm
I am not condemning anything that is offensive. What I am condemning is actions, speech, etc… which is unecessarily offensive. Just because someone is actling as a jerk does not mean it is aoutomatically necessary or wise to call them a jerk.
When cartoons, pictures, editorials, blogs, etc… which are offensive to certain people, those who create the material that will be offensive MUST take the responsibility of asking whether such material will help bring resolution to the larger picture of conflict. And if offensive rhetoric and pictures will not help resolve the bigger picture, then it can hardly be justified (and even if it does, there sill is a question of appropriateness).
The Denmark cartoons, most of the rhetoric used by people like Anne Coulter and James Carlville offend certain people but rarely, if ever, offer a real substantial aide in bring resolution to the larger issues.
As far as the Gospel goes… it is offensive, but its intention is not to be purposely offensive. Further its intention is to bring resolution to the larger problem of a fallen world. When Jesus was asked about paying taxes to Ceaser (Matt. 22), what the Pharisees were really hoping to to was to trick Jesus into saying something against Ceaser. But Jesus did no such thing. Why? I am conviced it was because Jesus knew that bringing an accusation against Ceaser, even though it would be warranted, served no redeptive purpose towards the larger picture. So Jesus refused to speak about Ceaser in such a way that would be accusatory or offensive.
Do you really believe these pictures that depict the Prophet Mohamad are going to help bring peace and restoration? If not, then why would someone publish them? And why would others, especially Christians, support the pictures?
February 11th, 2006 at 11:17 pm
Mohammad is no prophet of mine. And I support the publishing of the cartoons because I support the freedom to express that view without fear of bullying and intimidation.
February 12th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
I was not immplying Mohamad is a prophet or yours or mine.
Freedom of expression, speech, etc… While I love the freedom, as it is understood and used in our democratic sense is not necessarily biblical. When that freedom is used without responsibility and especially used in a way that does not treat our neighbor or enemy in a loving way, it is unbiblical.
You have missed my point. I do not care one bit whether you or I have the right to publish and say anything. Just because we have a right to do anything does not make it moral/ethical from a Christian viewpoint (hence I am arguing on grounds of Christianity not democracy or American polotics). And I find it hard to see the justification in publishing items that one knows is certain to cause unnecessary offense, especially when that which is being published is of little, if any, redemptive value to bringing resolution to a much bigger problem.
February 14th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
Rex, please. Offending someone, willingly or accidentally, is not a sin. You obviously do not know the story behind the cartoons or you would not be arguing as you are so here it is.
A Danish writer wrote a book on the life of Mohammed and put out a call to Danish cartoonists to illustrate it for him. Every response he received was a rejection for fear of retaliation from Muslims. The newspaper published the cartoons as part of that story.
Second, if sha’aria law forbids making an image of Mohammed, fine, but why does it apply to non-Muslims? Is that not like a Jew saying that non-Jews should not eat pork because it offends Jews or Mormons saying that non-Mormons should not drink coffee becaus that offends Mormons? Religious laws apply to the adherents of the religion, not others.
It’s as simple as that and it is only the pc indoctrination we have been getting in this country that blinds some of us to that fact.
February 14th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Furthermore, the media does not shy from publishing items offensive to Christians, gun owners, smokers, pro-lifers, or other groups not favored by the left. Why? Because insulting THEM won’t get them shot or their buildings blown up.
February 14th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
You are missing the point as well. I do not care what other do. I do not care what is politically acceptable or not. I am arguing from a Christian stand point. Something may be true as truth can be (which may be offensive), but when it is spoken with bad timing, with the wrong motives, with the wrong context, etc… then it is not appropriate and is therefore wrong.
The sage in the collection of Proverbs says, “Whoever blesses a neighbor with a loud voice, rising early in the morning, will be counted as a curse” (Prov. 27.14, NRSV). How can a statement of blessing be a statement of curse? First, because it is done in bad timing, bad context, and possibly for bad motives. Secondly, because it is done without any discernment as to whether it is appropriate or not.
If you want to convince me that these cartoons were appropriate to publish, show some reason why you believe Jesus or Paul would have published them. As I stated in an earlier post, I believe Jesus had the opportunity to criticize Ceaser but refused to do so because he saw no necessary purpose for doing so (Matt. 22).
February 14th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
I do not know every person who publishes a post on here. Some may not be Christians and if so, I certainly do not expect them to discern what is right and wrong based on a Christian ethic. But for those of us who are Christians, it is to our shame if we try to justify our actions based on what is politically or socially ethical rather than what is ethical from a Christian basis.
February 14th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
One more thing. I am not claiming to have everthing all figured out. I may be wrong and i may be right. But I am trying to determine what is right and wrong based on a Christian ethical basis as best as I understand how to.
February 15th, 2006 at 8:23 am
[…] BACKGROUND: Heaven Will Direct It […]