Guess Who Defended Yellow Badeges For Religious Minorities?

I mean, besides Hitler.

None other than Yale's super-star-freshman, the Yale Taliban.

He says it was necessary to make Hindus wear the badges, so that they wouldn't be harrassed by theopolice beating people for not being at prayers at the required time.

Which makes a kind of sense... if you accept the premise that VirtueCops ought to be beating people for not being at mosque in the first place.

But make no mistake-- Karl Rove is the real enemy. After all, he courts the Christianist vote.

Related: Clinton Taylor also tips to this Townhall column about moral relativism, cultural nonjudgmentalism, and the liberal fetishization of the savage and barbaric:

"Although the film invests time among the tribesmen, it never really explores the idea that one man's missionary work is another's ideological aggression."

It’s been months since I first read it, but this line from the Washington Post’s review of End of the Spear still leaves me flabbergasted. Only one sentence prior, the author had noted that the Christian missionaries had "prevailed upon the natives to stop their deadly infighting, which threatened the very survival of the Waodani people." Which is worse, cultural and ethnic suicide or a bit of "intellectual aggression" by Christians? For the Washington Post and its ilk, that’s a tough call.

In a current context, this means plenty of bloviating about the genocide in Darfur, but no serious attempts to end it. In a withering editorial that scourged all who have allowed genocide to happen once again, The New Republic had this to say about the general liberal response: "All these proposals for ending the genocide in Darfur are really proposals to prevent the United States from ending it. It appears that there is something even more terrible than genocide in this very terrible world, and it is the further use of American military power abroad."

posted by Ace at 04:43 PM

| Access Comments