Horizon

Is it likely that people who were "preteens" at the time of the Serrano thing were influenced to become "liberals, professives and anti-war types", and then went on to join the military?

I don't know what political tendency you might find among the people running Guantanamo (though my guess is it isn't especially liberal), but in any case you can make almost the same argument against the religious right.

[Y]ou can make almost the same argument against the religious right

I'm sorry, but I really don't see the parallel. It's not like the guards were demanding the detainees pray at graduation ceremonies or study Intelligent Design theory.

Here is an administration that, I think it's safe to say, has definite "religious right" tendencies. There is no doubt where they would come down on the Serrano thing if it happened today, yet they are responsible for similarly sacrilegious activity at Guantanamo.

And then, irony of ironies, someone like this fellow tries to score a debating point by turning it around on liberals. This all seems very familiar somehow.

Maybe. I find it difficult to lay the blame for sacreligious activity on the administration's religious right tendencies, rather than its corporatist or neo-conservative tendencies.

The thing about the editorial that rang true to me was the characterization of "desecrating a holy symbol is a positive act that not only celebrates but actually safeguards our constitutional freedoms." I do see the connection between an avowed cultural lack of reverence and willingness to use desecration. Unlike Cole, however, I don't think that's reason to return to the sort of watered-down blasphemy laws he seems to want.

Didn't it also give you the creeps when Condaleeza Rice said: "Disrespect for the holy Koran is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, tolerated by the United States"? It's either disingenuous or scary.

Maybe. I find it difficult to lay the blame for sacreligious activity on the administration's religious right tendencies, rather than its corporatist or neo-conservative tendencies.

One might wonder why the religious right is not distancing itself from the administration at this point, now that it has violated what is apparently one of its core values. But I agree that the argument is weak either way. What's more, it's sort of irrelevant.

Unlike Cole, however, I don't think that's reason to return to the sort of watered-down blasphemy laws he seems to want.

It seems to me you can go at it two ways. Either everyone is protected from potential offense (and of course the standard can only be each offended person's feelings), or it can be okay to offend everyone. But I suppose neither will ever happen in the real world.

The other day my friend asked someone to leave her shop because the person was being extremely rude. The woman accused her of descriminating against her. I have to admit when I heard this a chill went down my back. But I'm probably overreacting.

It's either disingenuous or scary.

I vote for disingenuous.

The thing about the editorial that rang true to me was the characterization of "desecrating a holy symbol is a positive act that not only celebrates but actually safeguards our constitutional freedoms." I do see the connection between an avowed cultural lack of reverence and willingness to use desecration.

Desecrating a holy symbol is not a positive act, but supporting artistic freedom is. We celebrate free speech and that is what safeguards our constitutional freedoms.

I don’t know my history well enough, but I’m pretty sure the desecration of religious symbols has been around longer than the NEA. Something about the Puritans in the 17th Century sticks in my mind.

Finding a link between Serrano/Fleck and prisoner abuse at Guantanamo is nutty, just a way to let the military off the hook for its incompetence. The guards are military personnel – they take orders. So there was a problem with the orders.

One might wonder why the religious right is not distancing itself from the administration at this point

Why, because it's being pandered to relentelessly, as you have no doubt noticed. It's also being dealt with very carefully, with discontent channeled into directions that the administration finds acceptable. I wish I could find that analysis of Sekulow's radio program...

On one level this argument Ben has quoted is part of the up-is-down, black-is-white reversal rhetoric that's so popular in the less scrupulous parts of the U.S. right. It's carefully ignoring the most obvious fact in the story, which is the power relationship: the person being taunted is not an all-powerful mullah but a wretched chained prisoner.

On another level it does point out that it's never a good idea to back the right position for the wrong reasons. The reason the torture and mockery of the defenseless are wrong is that the torture and mockery of the defenseless are always wrong. Someone in one of the human rights organizations probably decided it would be more persuasive to Americans to say that the problem was the desecration of the holy. But the actual problem, of bleeding obviously course, is that this flushing or whatever was inflicted on wretched chained prisoners detained without trial, with the express intention of making them feel less than fully human.

Of course that's why. I'm sad that I even have to explain things like this. I grew up in a country that at least enjoyed the comforting self-reassurance that it did not torture people. I miss that place. Deeply. Doesn't everyone else? If not, why not?

I grew up in a country that at least enjoyed the comforting self-reassurance that it did not torture people. I miss that place. Deeply. Doesn't everyone else? If not, why not?

Whether or not I'm supposed to, I'm going to take that question seriously. And my answer would be that, on balance, the world that I live in today is, for all its flaws, a much happier place than the world I was born into (1970). I switched countries inbetween those dates, but I think the point holds up nonetheless.