A guest post by Asombra:
Imagine this hypothetical scenario:
A certain dictatorship endorses and enforces formal slavery of blacks. It does not allow them to practice religion except for Catholicism, and persecutes and punishes slaves who engage in any other religious activity. Eventually, faced with mounting foreign disapproval, the dictator’s daughter figures the slaves can be allowed freedom of religion as long as they do not engage in political dissent or opposition. However, the regime makes it explicit that it has no intention of abolishing slavery, which it declares to be “irreversible” national policy, and the dictator’s daughter fully concurs. Foreign religious and civil rights entities proceed to treat her as a heroine and reformer, pet and stroke her every time she goes abroad, and even give her human rights awards. She is never treated as an integral part of her country’s repressive dictatorship, even though she is not only the dictator’s daughter but formally part of the government apparatus. Frequent foreign speaking tours and photo ops ensue. Everybody smiles and talks about tolerance, change, and letting bygones be bygones.
Does this make ANY sense? Would this ever happen? Would anybody at all “correct” fall for such a crock? Absolutely not! Of course, any resemblance to the actual situation involving Cuba, gays and Mariela Castro is purely coincidental. Or not.
Lord have mercy, for they do know what they do.