Consistency
According to San Antonio Express-News columnist Jonathan Gurwitz, "Christian humanitarian groups are reporting a major crackdown on members of their faith in Saudi Arabia."
Which naturally leads people like me to wonder why the American commentators who have made Macauley Culkin "Home Alone" faces over the kicked Qurans of Gitmo will have nothing to say about this. Perhaps there's some emotional investment in the cult of victimhood. Do you think? And the whole power structure only works if only certain types can be victims (non-Americans, non-whites, non-Christians), while the others never attain that exalted status. I'm no Christian, but I have to say, it's starting to look to me like allowing devout Christians as victims is just a bit too complicating for some folks.
It can't be a matter of correcting media imbalance -- being loud only about what the newspapers and networks keep silent over. The Guantanamo story was all over the front pages, while I can only find this one in two places online.
But on reflection, the phenomenon of selective outrage is not limited to any one faction or side. Those who profess deep concern over the lives of the unborn when the issue is U.S. abortion clinics often have less to say about infant-killing diseases and famines in Africa. Those who support the spread of democracy and the fall of tyrants in the Middle East are less interested in sending U.S. troops to evict the repugnant Mugabe from his throne. Those who decry Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. often will make elaborate excuses for far worse behaviors along the same lines by Islamists elsewhere.
So what is the reason for selective outrage? Is what's done closer to home more important? Especially, does what America does matter most? Yet if you're a U.S. citizen, that seems to be just old-fashioned nationalism, which the internationalists eschew. And if you're a European, focusing on America's sins and faults to the exclusion of others pays tribute to American "exceptionalism," which you claim to scorn.
If you're an American, protesting American mistreatment of ethnic minorities might seem more effective than protesting Iranian mistreatment of religious minorities. But the people who do that too often don't seem to have any interest in reforming the system they detest. They mostly want to dump on it and yell about it.
According to International Christian Concern, the Saudi religious police have arrested scores of Christians in recent weeks, ransacking their homes and destroying Bibles found in their possession.
This follows the arrest on April 23 of 40 Pakistani nationals for celebrating Mass at a private residence in Riyadh. All forms of non-Muslim religious practice are banned in Saudi Arabia.
In the latest round of prosecutions, the kingdom's religious enforcers arrested eight Indian nationals for attending Christian fellowship meetings. ICC reports one of the prisoners, Samkutty Varghese, received a sentence of 10 months in prison along with "numerous lashes."
Which naturally leads people like me to wonder why the American commentators who have made Macauley Culkin "Home Alone" faces over the kicked Qurans of Gitmo will have nothing to say about this. Perhaps there's some emotional investment in the cult of victimhood. Do you think? And the whole power structure only works if only certain types can be victims (non-Americans, non-whites, non-Christians), while the others never attain that exalted status. I'm no Christian, but I have to say, it's starting to look to me like allowing devout Christians as victims is just a bit too complicating for some folks.
It can't be a matter of correcting media imbalance -- being loud only about what the newspapers and networks keep silent over. The Guantanamo story was all over the front pages, while I can only find this one in two places online.
But on reflection, the phenomenon of selective outrage is not limited to any one faction or side. Those who profess deep concern over the lives of the unborn when the issue is U.S. abortion clinics often have less to say about infant-killing diseases and famines in Africa. Those who support the spread of democracy and the fall of tyrants in the Middle East are less interested in sending U.S. troops to evict the repugnant Mugabe from his throne. Those who decry Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. often will make elaborate excuses for far worse behaviors along the same lines by Islamists elsewhere.
So what is the reason for selective outrage? Is what's done closer to home more important? Especially, does what America does matter most? Yet if you're a U.S. citizen, that seems to be just old-fashioned nationalism, which the internationalists eschew. And if you're a European, focusing on America's sins and faults to the exclusion of others pays tribute to American "exceptionalism," which you claim to scorn.
If you're an American, protesting American mistreatment of ethnic minorities might seem more effective than protesting Iranian mistreatment of religious minorities. But the people who do that too often don't seem to have any interest in reforming the system they detest. They mostly want to dump on it and yell about it.
