Here's some thought for one and all: I've always agreed how the Political Right could thunder against the likes of a Polanski, but was always confused when they somehow couldn't thunder against pederasts more broadly, whether they have a white little collar on; or for conservative Muslims, whether they sing into a megaphone 5-times/day or not.
The closing zinger paragraph of the article: In Iran—where the Islamic revolution originally lowered the age of marriage to 9—the minimum age is currently 13, though this is not among the laws that the Revolutionary Guards are especially zealous in enforcing. You may, if you wish, try to make a case for cultural relativism—different standards for different societies and traditions—but the plain fact is that the Prophet Mohammed was betrothed to his favorite wife Aisha when she was 6 and took her as his wife when she was 9, and this gives an "empowering" effect to those who like things to be this way and to keep it legal. Meanwhile, a leading prince of the American Roman church sits in the Vatican as a cardinal, having for decades facilitated and covered up the institutionalized sodomizing of the underage. I would rather live in a country where children are protected and their predators prosecuted, and even (which in Hollywood is evidently not always
the same thing) disapproved of.
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I thought Hitchens was a Brit.
He suffers from the Thomas Paine Syndrome, (aka, Brit-turned-American). He's for rum, but against sodomy and the lash -- this is likely why he left the isles for America.
That's called a cafeteria Christian, but he's not a Christian.
My guess, forgive me if I am in error, is that Hitchens is so vehemently anti-religion that he will make errors on that account.
Just like Applebaum, who has made the Holocaust and its modern approximants her bread and butter, now finds herself in the wrong because she excuses Holocaust survivor Polansky, soon, Hitchens will write an apologeia for an inexcusable anti-co-religionist.
I detest Hitchens though he can turn a phrase, or perhaps he can turn a phrase so well. His diction and his writing are formidable weapons but his opinions are reasonable only when they meet by chance with good sense.
He's an Ann Coulter for a class tat reads a bit more and feigns disdain for extremism.
I prefer Ann. She's a lot funnier. For example, from this article,
Following the moral precepts of liberals, I believe the correct position is: If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, then don't shoot one.
This is much stronger than anything Hitchens has said, funnier, and Ann is less likely to be wrong on an issue. Why less likely? Because she doesn't seem to have some overriding principle to which she always has to adhere, like some anti-religion believer.
I think it is dangerous to too frequently compare a situation to a precept that's too narrow, and Hitchens does that.
At the end, he's a bore, and frequently wrong.
Post a Comment