And What Was Their Point?

[Meta Blog]

Originally from Gus Van Horn,

Victor Davis Hanson and a group of nihilistic atheists proposing a Bible-for-porn swap could both rightly be asked the question: "And what is your point?"

VDH

I have a great deal of respect for Victor Davis Hanson, but I won't for long if he keeps churning out columns like this one, where he methodically picks apart the rationale -- but still voices support -- for John McCain's anti-torture amendment.

So we might as well admit that by foreswearing the use of torture, we will probably be at a disadvantage in obtaining key information

and perhaps endanger American lives here at home

. (And, ironically, those who now allege that we are too rough will no doubt decry "faulty intelligence" and "incompetence" should there be another terrorist attack on an American city.) Our restraint will not ensure any better treatment for our own captured soldiers. Nor will our allies or the United Nations appreciate American forbearance. The terrorists themselves will probably treat our magnanimity with disdain, as if we were weak rather than good.

But all

that is precisely the risk we must take

in supporting the McCain amendment -- because it is a public reaffirmation of our country's ideals. The United States can win this global war without employing torture. That we will not resort to what comes so naturally to Islamic terrorists also defines the nobility of our cause, reminding us that we need not and will not become anything like our enemies. [All bold added.]

This is exactly the kind of argument I expected someone from the religious right to come up with. What threw me for a loop here is how brazenly someone would admit the problems inherent in passing such an amendment and yet still support it. I disagree with Victor Davis Hanson that human sacrifice, and specifically of Americans for the sake of the welfare of savages, is one of our nation's ideals. Nor does barbarity (in self-defense) reflect any more negatively upon our nation than taking the lives of our enemies for the same purpose. On what grounds does Hanson condemn the former, but condone the latter?

Yes. Here we have an example of someone's moral intrinsicism trumping the lives of his countrymen in a time of war. Appalling.

Nihilists

Reader Adrian Hester sent me this link, to a story about a group of atheists on a college campus who offered to provide pornographic magazines to students in exchange for their Bibles.

"We consider The Bible to be a very negative force in the history of the world," student Ryan Walker said. He is part of a student group calling itself the "Atheist Agenda."

Club members were on campus asking students to exchange religious materials for pornographic magazines like

Black Label

and

Playboy

.

If these students really think the Bible is a "negative force in the history of the world", their actions indicate that they want to help it along. Consider the following. (1) They are targeting Christians whom they can expect will not be receptive to their arguments. (2) Oh, wait, but they offer no arguments. (3) They present these Christians, who regard the Bible as a good thing, with pornography, which they (the Christians) regard as bad.

These moonbats are offering nothing of value to anyone. They are not merely setting themselves up for failure, they are making sure that their cause will be regarded as dimly as possible. They are, in short, being precisely the kind of enemies that Christians would want.

And now, for the $ 64,000 rhetorical question: Why would they want to do a thing like that?

Edited December 9, 2005 by softwareNerd