S: Appears to be a pop psychology analysis of our fellow Christians based on Freudian concepts.
G: From a distance?
S: indeed.
G: Like the Soviets did?
S: Indeed. At least these do not have the authority to commit the putative offenders to an asylum, which they clearly would do in an instant if they could.
G: What should we do? If we do not reply, we will have failed our brothers. But if we do, we will merely be ignored, dismissed as prudes and uptights.
S: And that is to be feared?
G: Is not their favorable opinion important?
S: Only for those of true substance.
G: Pray tell, elucidate.
S: With pleasure. Note the reductionism of the motives of complex individuals and positions to merely that of desiring sexual repression when certain aspects of the Abu Ghraib scandal are pointed out to them. Do you not see the irony?
G: You mean, the highly charged sexual nature of the abuses, coupled with an argument based on sexual repression to avoid the accusation of sexual obsession?
S: Indeed. There is no denial of that. The evidence is conclusive, and only a fool or knave would deny otherwise. In fact, the writer hopes that the sexual connection is made by the public in hopes that such behavior would be seen as acceptable.
G: How so?
S: Who would you rather be confronted by, your mugger or your murderer?
G: The mugger, without doubt!
S: So you approve of the next mugger who assaults you?
G: I see! False dilemma. By demanding that a choice be made between the lesser of the two evils, actual torture and sexually based humiliation, the author hopes to obscure the fact that the American people have the choice of choosing to support neither.
S: Very good, but another irony remains.
G: How so?
S: The motive imputed to our brothers is sexual repression, with the implied threat of violence, while the author's motives is disinterested freedom and liberty.
G: But the accusation is not true. If anything, the evidence of honor slayings, the imposition of the veil, and of female circumcision (or I should say, clitoral mutilation), upon the part of the Islamists, with a corresponding lack of such acts on the part of Christians, should prove that a difference should be made between the two.
S: Not entirely. There may not be honor slayings, but the concept of dishonoring the family via sexual indescretions still exists. Christians do not impose the veil, but insist on modesty in dress and behavior. Female circumcision is imposed to physically destroy the supposed mainspring of infidelity. What did the Crusaders use to ensure fidelity while they were gone?
G: Chastity belts. A barbaric, ignorant time, since those who wore them incurred infections that either killed them or rendered them infertile. Not much different in effect than clitoral mutilation, and much more deadly, because the belt prevented medical intervention.
S: Correct. However, the goal was to preserve the woman's capacity for pleasure as well as her chastity. It's use miserably failed due to incompetence, like everything else about the Crusades. The intent of the alternative was to destroy the possiblity of pleasure alltogether, by design and full intent, not by accident. Today, we insist on the will and devotion of both partners to discharge the task of defending the honor of the marriage bed while they are absent from each other.
G: So there is no difference between us Christians and the Islamists?
S: Only in implementation, and only marginally in motive and degree. And therein lies the irony.
G: How so?
S: Because the author pleads that the differences between what happened at Abu Ghraib and what happened there while Saddam ran it are also those of motive, degree, and implementation.
G: I see! He implies that such differences are relevant for his argument, but not for ours! Indeed, he deliberately counfounds and conceals the differences between Islamists and Christians, and hoping that nobody notices.
S: Indeed, hoping to transfer the just wrath one feels at the foul deeds of the Islamists unjustly upon Christians who insist on modesty, discretion, and moderation.
G: So he is a hypocrite?
S: Yes, but see that you do not mention it while we are there. We would be guests there, and should not be insulting, no matter how true it is or how deserving he is of it.
G: My thanks for sparing me that indescretion! However, what does that have to do with the question of substance and their good opinion?
S: Do you covet the good opinion of a hypocrite? Theoretically speaking, of course.
G: No, because he may be hypocritical about it. Theoretically speaking, of course.
S: And what harm would come of his bad opinion?
G: Unless we fell to blows, naught whatsoever.
S: So, do you fear anything now?
G: No. Let us proceed to defend our brothers in the faith, then!
S: We already have.
G: We have? Oh! We have, haven't we?
S: Indeed.
G: I have a question, though.
S: What?
G: Have we not damaged our Christian witness by attacking our enemies?
S: Firstly, they did not attack us, but our brothers. Christ gave no leave for personal vengeance, but gave no command against pursuing justice on behalf of another. Personal vengeance is rarely just. Just as he told us to let another praise us, we let others defend us.
G: Is not vengeance God's?
S: Yes. But consider how much God uses human agencies, including the Church and willing Christians, to carry out what we would call "His Will", in much of everything else. Why exclude the pursuit of justice?
G: Reminds me of the story of the Baptist.
S: I would like to hear it.
G: A good Baptist was caught in a torrential flood from a hurricane. He sat on the stoop of his house, and a neighbor in a rowboat came by and offered to row him away. "I trust in God to save me!" the Baptist replied.
S: A pious man!
G: Indeed. Well, the waters continued to rise, so he retreated into his house and sat in a second floor window. A Coast Guard Cruiser came by, and the good captain offered to rescue the Baptist. "I Trust in God to save me!" the Baptist replied.
S: Such faith! He must have been a formidable prayer warrior!
G: He was. The waters rose so much that he was forced to sit upon his Chimney. A Rescue Helicoper came by, and they offered to airlift him off to safety, but he confidently replied, "I trust in God to Save me!"
S: Verily, I am on pins and needles! What happened next?
G: The waters continued to rise, and he drowned.
S: Drowned! Oh well, he remained a good Baptist to the end, both in faith and in being immersed.
G: I did not think of that. But being a Baptist of such faith, he was conducted immediately to paradise to stand before God himself.
S: The benefit, doubtless, of prudent preparation beforehand as to the matter of his soul's ultimate destination.
G: Before the throne, the Baptist asked of God, "Where were you, my Father? Why did you forsake me, your trusting, faithful child, to the cruel, cold waters of that flood?"
S: Good question. What was the divine reply?
G: "My son, I sent you a rowboat, a cruiser, and a helicopter! What were you expecting?"
S: A good tale to remember. I should hope to tell it as well as you.
G: Another question.
S: Ask away.
G: What of our witness?
S: Pleasing the ears or mores of those in the world, and who appear hostile to the things of God, is not the way of giving our witness. The Christ did not say that the world would know we are his disciples by being nice and deferential to those hostile to him and his ways. Or being generous and charitable to the unfortunate. They would know us by the way we loved one another, those who know and love him.
G: In that, I fear, we Christians are not as good as the Islamists, who rise up in response to the pains and sufferings of their bretheren more readily than we rise up in response to the sufferings of our own.
S: Quite Right.
(link via Dissecting Leftism's link to the latest Carnival of the Vanities.)
Posted by ptah at May 24, 2004 08:05 PM