Friday, February 11, 2005

Having It Both Ways

Chrenkoff makes an interesting point in dealing with the Guantanamo Bay prisoners' lawsuits. Quoting from a Washington Post article, he says:

:::::::: "Detainee lawyers likened the tactics to Nazis shaving the beards of orthodox Jews or artists dunking a crucifix in urine to shock Christians. 'They're exploiting religious beliefs to break them down, to destroy them,' said Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents several dozen detainees. 'What they're doing, it reminds me of a pornographic Web site -- it's like the fantasy of all these S&M clubs'."

Which begs the question - do "detainee lawyers" and the Centre for Constitutional Rights think that artists dunking a crucifix in urine constitutes an unacceptable torture for Christians. And if so, who can the Christians sue?

Excellent point. I seem to recall a huge amount of outrage from groups such as these that Christians were denouncing the so-called "art" at the time it was shown. Maplethorp, wasn't it? The whole attitude was that anyone who thought the art wasn't art was just too stupid to understand such things. Get over it, Christian. So, now that it's convenient, the argument is being used to denounce activity that groups along the political lines of the Centre don't approve of, and we're all supposed to just snap to attention. Sorry, they don't get to have it both ways.

I also note the continuation of the standard operating procedure of the left these days in that they can't seem to comment at all about the administration's procedures without dragging up a Nazi reference. Weak, folks, and tiresome, to boot. Anyone who seriously studies the Nazis can only find reasonable comparisons between America and that totalitarian government if they choose to ignore the facts and stretch their metaphors. Seems like this is going to remain the tenor of conversation for the next 4 years and I'm sure anyone right of center is going to be blamed for it.