McVeigh, Moslems, and the Infatuated Left

Some leftists in their present infatuation with Islam continually point to Timothy McVeigh - saying that since he was a Christian terrorist, this somehow proves that there is no particular connection between Islam and terrorism and that those seeing such a connection are simply bigots. Such claims are not made as logical arguments, since whatever McVeigh may have been is quite clearly irrelevant to the other question (claiming such connections in no way asserts that only Moslems can be terrorists), but more in the manner of talking points. Even there they come up short even if we ignore the fact that there is some ambiguity about what McVeigh’s actual religious opinions were and accept that he was the Catholic he sometimes professed to be. There is no evidence or suggestion that he committed his crime because of or in support of his Catholicism. Neither is there a record of his shouting a Catholic prayer or slogan as his bomb went off. He did not belong to an international organization of Catholics dedicated to committing similar acts against heathens and heretics on behalf of their church. His act did not set off wild celebratory riots in Catholic countries. No Catholic government funded or shielded his co-conspirators. There were no influential Catholic clergymen announcing that his crime was justified and his deed glorious martyrdom. The parallels just aren’t there.

This silly business is symptomatic of something that can have serious consequences. Many on the left and in the administration defend Islam with a false dichotomy asserting in effect that one must either believe Islam and terrorism are not connected or join the bigots in deciding all Moslems are terrorists. They then point to the existence of nonviolent Moslems to show that the bigots are wrong and claim that they must be right, ignoring that their two alternatives are far from exhaustive. One can see that there are moderate Moslems, secular, humane Moslems, indifferent Moslems, pacifist Moslems, Moslems who just want to tend their gardens, and various sorts of other nonviolent Moslems, and still also see that on average followers of Islam are far more likely to commit, support or celebrate acts of violence against nonbelievers on behalf of their faith than are followers of any other major religion. No one should deny that there are moderate Moslems. There are also nice-guy Marxists and very intelligent people who believe in astrology. This does not change the fact that Marxism is an inhumane doctrine or that astrology is nonsense. Neither does the fact that millions of Moslems are not interested in jihad change the fact that at the present time Islam is much more a religion of the sword than is Christianity or any other major religion. This does not mean one should hate Moslems, but it is a relevant datum in dealing with the world situation, and denying or ignoring it is dangerous.

Korans and Craziness

Sensible people get used to absurdity in the world and come to expect it, particularly from the politicians and the so-called pop culture. Sometimes, however, something comes along that is so utterly goofy that even the jaded have to shake their heads. The present flap about some crackpot preacher in Florida planning to burn a Koran is one of those things.

That someone is planning to burn a Koran on September 11th is not surprising. In a country of three hundred million people, it was fairly likely that someone would hit on that as a way, albeit a vulgar and inappropriate way, of remembering the attacks and defying those who committed them. In fact it is a fairly sure bet that, whatever happens with this particular preacher, there will be a few Korans burned in protest on that day somewhere by somebody, and anyone who stops to think knows that.

No, what makes the whole thing so bizarre is the reactions to the preacher’s plans. First Eric Holder or someone literally makes a federal case out it by siccing the FBI on the preacher. Then President Obama weighs in as the President of the United States against a legal protest by a private citizen as though the poor guy were planning to blow up Miami - with the predictable effect of helping make a trivial bit of late summer nonsense national news. Various political and media characters around the country join in, and pretty soon it is big national news. Even General Petreaus, who should have more sense, forgets that part of his training about active duty officers not taking part in domestic political controversies, and pipes up that this is bad juju.

Meanwhile, assorted fanatics in the Moslem world start rioting and threatening dire vengeance against the entire United States if this insult goes down. This leads to the State department warning Americans to be careful abroad and Interpol going on alert. It also leads our president and his administration to quake in their boots and get all atwitter over possible reprisals by the Moslems, whom they simultaneously praise as exemplars of peacefulness.

No, you literally could not make this stuff up. Unfortunately it has its serious side. Its treatment in the press illustrates once again a part of the American left’s dangerous infatuation with Islam, an infatuation that, given Islam’s positions on a number things these same lefties claim to care about, seems best explained by the hypothesis that some leftists will go gaga over just anybody who claims to be an enemy of the United States. It also makes the Obama administration look even weaker and more timid to America's enemies in Moslem countries. Finally the whole mess offers yet more evidence that our president needs to acquire both a sense of proportion and a better understanding of the rights of our citizens.

Dinner Party

People sometimes play a game of asking each other what five or so people throughout history they would invite to a dinner party if they could. It’s an interesting and thought provoking amusement and one that can of course be played solo. As with any game, to play it well one needs to pay attention to the rules. The question is not which five people throughout history one would most like to meet (though that is an interesting one too), but what five one would most like to meet in the setting of a dinner party. That qualifier matters. There are people such as Beethoven or Ayn Rand whom one might like to have met but who probably would not be the very best choices for the sort of genial and convivial conversation and yarn spinning one would like at a dinner party.
Having thought the matter over in only a cursory way, here are my choices:

Mark Twain - obvious and probably would show up on lots of lists;
Benjamin Franklin - wit, story teller, scientist, thinker, Enlightenment renaissance man, fun guy;
William Shakespeare – not only the world’s greatest writer but also, by the evidence of the plays, a lively, wide ranging , fun loving conversationalist;
J. W. Goethe - a sophisticated gentleman of broad knowledge and interests, a great writer, and a fine and amusing talker;
Robert Heinlein – another great writer and gentleman with broad interests, also a fun guy who enjoyed a good yarn.