Positive Liberty

I’m with Sandefur on this (as I am on so many things, even if it doesn’t always show):

I knew after hearing of the raid in El Dorado that it was only a matter of time before the Doughfaces at Lew Rockwell.com stood up for the sacred right to rape children without the interference of government. Butler Shaffer has done them proud, in a post which hems and haws a little bit but comes to the expected conclusion.

His logic goes like this: because the United States federal government sends troops to foreign lands to fight wars, and because these troops engage in violence and sometimes to terrible things to innocent people, therefore the police officers of Texas have no right to point fingers at religious wackos who think God wants them to rape little girls. Indeed, although “there is no moral defense one could possibly make” of raping children, nevertheless, it is “difficult to tolerate” the “self-righteousness” of the state police or prosecutors who would insist on intervening to protect children from rape, given that federal officials sometimes endorse violent warfare. After all, the U.S. has “killed over one million” people in Iraq (we’ll put aside asking where that number comes from) and is now threatening “innocent” Iran*—and “such practices appear to be occurring, once again, on the plains of Texas.” Shaffer, of course, isn’t defending child rapists, no no. He’s just calling them “innocent” victims of unfair government aggression.

Very strange reasoning indeed.

Other highlights: No, Iran is not innocent. If I were Victor Hugo, I’d write a novel about this guy, whose picture says everything you need to know about the “Islamic Republic” of Iran. And no, being reflexively anti-anti-anti-military doesn’t make you “pro” anything, particularly not pro-liberty. Oh yeah, and Butler writes:

As I observed media coverage of the government’s assault on the Mormon sect’s property at El Dorado, Texas, I was struck by the fact that the description being offered of the church’s facilities and activities paralleled those of military installations.

For starters, the activities of the religious group were described as “secretive” in nature, ignoring the fact that the military routinely puts the stamp of “secret” on virtually everything it does - short of participating in a holiday parade. Nor does the church permit non-members access to its property. In the words of the state prosecutor who seems to be directing this assault, “their place of worship is very special to them. It appears to be of great concern to them if a person from outside their congregation even attempts to step inside their place of worship.” But have you ever tried getting onto a military base? If so, haven’t you met with the same “great concern” from armed guards desirous of keeping those “from outside their congregation” from entering?

It has also been reported that this church provides a great deal of on-site housing, as well as provision for the daily needs of its members, so as to make the facility as self-sufficient as possible. Again, if you have been able to get onto military bases, did you fail to notice all of the on-base housing (barracks) as well as churches, schools, recreational facilities, gas stations, movie theaters, medical offices, PX stores, and other means of accommodating the needs of their members?

One cable news report informed us that church officials wore insignias indicating the level of their authority within the organization. Need I point out the obvious?

Weird. Among other organizations that include secret rituals and militaryesque rankings are the Boy Scouts. But you know, they actually have policies against child abuse, rather than for it. Maybe that counts for something, rather than all the other stuff?

…or how about the dreaded Salvation Army?

Trackback URI |