My Newz 'n Ideas Plus!
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Jack Lewis finds the best articles. Here is another one with Jack's analysis.

SUMMARY: The Dutch, who had no problem egging on violent Moslems with offensive cartoons, are outraged that their Hitleresque eugenics programs are being called...well, Hitleresque. (Oh dear, did I offend them?)


From Weekly Standard...
Killing Babies, Compassionately The Netherlands follows in Germany's footsteps.
by Wesley J. Smith
03/27/2006 12:00:00 AM

AT LAST A HIGH GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL in Europe got up the nerve to chastise the Dutch government for preparing to legalize infant euthanasia. Italy's Parliamentary Affairs minister, Carlo Giovanardi, said during a radio debate: "Nazi legislation and Hitler's ideas are reemerging in Europe via Dutch euthanasia laws and the debate on how to kill ill children."

Unsurprisingly, the Dutch, ever prickly about international criticism of their peculiar institution, were outraged. Giovanardi's critique cut so deeply that even Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende felt the need to respond, sniffing, "This [Giovanardi's assertion] is scandalous and unacceptable. This is not the way to get along in Europe."

As is often the case in the New Europe, what is said matters more than what is done. Thus, the prime minister of the Netherlands thinks that killing babies because they are born with terminal or seriously disabling conditions is not a scandal, but daring to point out accurately that German doctors did the same during World War II, is.
So let me get this straight, we defend the Netherlands for publishing cartoons anyone with one eye and half sense would know would offend Moslems, on the grounds that it's "free speech" to offend people you don't like. But when it comes to pointing out the truth that the Dutch are progressively adopting Nazi policies of eugenics, why that's out of bounds, and shouldn't be said?!? Please point out this to those blogs who continue to sport banners in support of the Netherlands.

I watched The Chronicles of Narnia with my kids last week. Of the many things in the book that were missing in the movie was the stern judgmental attitude of Aslan. No, it's not a bad thing. In the movie when Aslan asks about Edward, Peter simply remarks that he's with the White Witch, and then looks sad. In the book though the scene is a bit different...
“But where is the fourth?” asked Aslan.
“He has tried to betray them and joined the White Witch, O Aslan,” said Mrs. Beaver. And then something made Peter say: “That was partly my fault, Aslan. I was angry with him and I think that helped him to go wrong.”
And Aslan said nothing either to excuse Peter or to blame him but merely stood looking at him with his great golden eyes. And it seemed to all of them that there was nothing to be said.
The characteristic of being able to force people to shed the rationalizations they hide behind is a re-occurring theme throughout the Narnia books, and I was sad to see them ignore it in the first movie, but not all that surprised. Look at the way we treat the Dutch press as well as other media outlets over the cartoon idiocy. We seem to think that A. there always has to be just one bad guy and B. "freedom of the press" is an absolute right, regardless of motivation. Both are nonsense. The Dutch cartoonist were intentionally trying to provoke a group they darn well knew were easy to provoke. Does that excuse the Moslems? Of course not, but neither does the subsequent stupidity by the Moslems excuse the anti-religious press. Sometimes there are two bad guys, and pointing that out doesn't mean you are excusing either. As in the example from the book version of The Chronicles of Narnia, Peter's part in egging Edward on to bad behavior was confessed and acknowledged and not excused. But then Edwards bad behavior wasn't either. That the movie version omitted that part is symptomatic of the way modern thinking has been polluted with irrationalizations of morality. The idea that "as long as I can come up with a plausible excuse for doing something, I'm okay," is pandemic to our culture, and very disturbing.

Even the author of the piece I quoted above from the Weekly Standard takes exception with the use of another Hitler comparison, yet the culling on "unwanted" people can really be described in no other way without lessoning the true severity of it. Why shade the truth to protect the feelings of those who have no problem exaggerating the truth to offend others?

The URL for this post is

<< Home