Not a religion, just a collection of annoyed persons

Alan Roebuck writes:

For what it’s worth, John Derbyshire is at it again. A few days ago, he dismissed the role of Islam in the worldwide jihad by saying:

A lot of Arabs, and a few Muslims elsewhere, are mad as hell at the failure of their civilization, and have taken to religion as a way to vent their anger. It’s the failure that’s the issue, not the religion.

Now he denies that there’s anything to be worried about:

The grosser means of earlier wars—carpet-bombing, ethnic internment, mass exclusion, government requisition of entire industries—are not appropriate. We all feel that instinctively. Why do we feel it? Because we know that the end—the suppression of a worldwide nuisance—is not really that important, except in the president’s flights of gassy rhetoric.

But at least he’s consistent. If it’s just people venting their anger then there is no comprehensive threat, just a momentary nuisance.

I’m watching someone I once admired losing his mind.

LA replies:

The same reductionism that drives him to say that the only truth of life and man is random genetic mutations, also drives him to say that worldwide Islamic jihad is just a bunch of people feeling angry about something.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 17, 2007 04:19 PM | Send