The first (photo) shows a hooded victim on a pedestal who, with his arms outstretched like the crucified Christ, symbolizes the world?s sufferings. ? The second photo shows a pile of naked men that reminds us of pictures from the concentration camps. ?
Well, the first thing we’re going to do is ignore the irony of a German woman making this kind of concentration camp analogy. Instead, I’m going to pontificate on an issue which shows this kind of idiocy as being symptomatic of a larger problem.
The problem is context. The problem is degree. The problem is a lack of proportion. It is this lack of a sense of proportion that allows one to make Bush=Hitler comparisons, jokes about “regime change” in America, and lots of other left-liberal idiocies that we’re subjected to on a daily basis. I think I understand the reasons why.
One of the by-products of the post-modern world that many politicos and self-styled intellectuals have been trying to foist upon us since the 50′s is the notion of moral relativism. If everything’s relative, if there is no objective moral standard to which you adhere, then it becomes very easy to use terms like “good” and “evil” almost interchangeably, because for you they have no intrinsic meaning. A perfect example of this kind of thinking is expressed in the oft-heard canard, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” To a moral relativist, all struggles have equal value. A moral relativist, upon learning that militant Islamists have murdered 3,000 American civilians, asks, “Why do they hate us?” because to him, there must be some kind of justification for such an act. Moral relativists are against going to war, because there is simply no reason to do so; no cause that is worth fighting and killing for. Saddam Hussein may have murdered thousands upon thousands of his own people, he may have tried to kill a former President of the United States, he may fund terrorist organizations that plan the deaths of other civilians: it doesn’t matter to a moral relativist. It could simply be a cultural difference that we as Westerners don’t understand. We don’t have a right to act on a moral imperative, because there really are none.
If you don’t believe that evil exists, then all bad acts can be lumped together; there are no shades of wrong, and putting millions of people to death because of their ethnicity is in the same moral ballpark as putting a pair of women’s undergarments on a suspected terrorist’s head. There is no right to self-defense, let alone preemptive action. What is important is…um…actually, I don’t know what’s important to a moral relativist, except perhaps adhering to the notion that all things are equal.
The only other reason I can think of why someone would make the Bush=Hitler/Abu Ghraib=Auschwitz comparison is because he or she hates President Bush/the U.S. so much that there is nothing he wouldn’t do to drag the object of that loathing down. This is a willful and deliberate smear attempt, and someone who engages in it shows himself to be as vile and opportunistic a slug that has ever crawled on the face of the earth. At least the moral relativist has an excuse: he just doesn’t know better.
I think I might rather be a moral relativist.