Quick Roundup 96

Benedict Denounces Secularism

There is a story in the Houston Chronicle about a recent lecture by Pope Benedict XVI that does a better job of showing what's wrong with today's intellectual climate than the pope's lecture did -- or its author would be able to realize.

In the first paragraph, multiculturalism leads reporter Tracy Wilkinson to focus on a relatively unimportant part of the lecture, and for a reason that scarcely constitutes news.

Pope Benedict XVI stepped into the volatile realm of religious violence Tuesday, warning that fanaticism is "contrary to God's nature" and quoting a criticism of historical Islam likely to inflame tensions in the Muslim world.

"Likely to inflame tensions in the Muslim world"? As if anything we do that isn't on their orders wouldn't. But bully for the Pope, anyway, for at least citing a Byzantine emperor who said you'd find evil things in Islam. At least somebody in a position of authority in the West is beginning to broach the subject that this man-hating faith is -- um, you know -- evil.

Buried in the article is the real news -- that this is a papacy staunchly against secularism and, the Pope's
lip-service to reason (which I'm sure he'd capitalize) to the contrary rationality.

Ultimately, Benedict's long exposition was not about Islam but about the dangers of secularism in the Christian West and the need to better know God.

This secularist would have been far more interested in the main subject of this "exposition", especially given recent antics (and admonitions to Western governments) by the Vatican, as should the reporter himself. I think we're seeing a fundamental shift, further away from respect for reason, by the Roman Catholic Church.

But instead, we have a multiculturalist's sensitivity to the Islamic "Other" giving its "feelings" first billing and a pragmatist's failure to think in terms of principles blinding him to the real story. This is clearly a laying of groundwork to make the war into a religious conflict rather than a fight for the freedom of the secular West. Secularism was the primary target of this attack.

End States Who Sponsor Terrorism

Via Martin Lindeskog and Diana Hsieh, I have learned that Leonard Peikoff's seminal "End States that Sponsor Terrorism" has gained the attention of Islamofascists and their sympathizers. From the Hassan Nafaa piece (linked at "attention"):

Peikoff believes that the appeasement policies pursued by successive US administrations towards the Islamic world are responsible for the latter's belligerence, which climaxed on 9/11. Fifty years ago, Truman and Eisenhower's abandonment of oil rights tempted the Muslim world to take its first stabs at freedom. The second stab came from Khomeini's Iran, where US diplomats were held hostage. President Carter, Peikoff goes on, wavered in his response, which encouraged the Muslim world to shed American blood. The first killers were Palestinians who hijacked planes in the late-1960s, before being joined by others eager to get in on the game, Peikoff argues.

Not quite. For one thing, I am sure that Peikoff would agree that the failures of our past several administrations have only encouraged the belligerence already present in the primitive Arabic culture (and stoked by the violent dictates of Islam) and that since all men have free will, the residents of the Islamic world are ultimately responsible for what they do.

Both articles are worth reading as a measure of the level of "thinking" going on among Moslems in the aftermath of the atrocities committed in the name of their religion on September 11, 2001.

Quotes of the Day

(1) Diana Hsieh, from the above, commenting on the Nafaa piece:

The comment that Dr. Peikoff makes President Bush look like Mother Theresa is more accurate than the author realizes....

(2) Craig Biddle, commenting on a hare-brained proposal to let Iran develop nuclear weapons:

[D]ead Islamists can't make bombs.

Governator as "Girlie Man"

This article at RealClear Politics examines the recent foolhardy passage of emissions legislation by Arnold Schwartzenegger.

It's a virtual certainty that California will fail to meet its goal as well. That's why the measure signed into law last week contains an escape hatch in the measure which allows a governor to suspend the program if it imposes "significant economic harm." In an election year, significant economic harm likely will mean the loss of a single job. About the only thing the CO2 cap is likely to achieve is to empower the politicians to meddle ever more deeply in the state's economy - which itself would cost lots of jobs as businesses move elsewhere or fail to be formed in the first place. [bold added]

Before you heave a sigh of relief that the measure has an "escape clause", consider what this means: All parties involved knew going in that this measure is a body-blow to California's economy. Rather than spare their state even the possibility of such a blow -- by simply not passing the bill -- they have decided to place more arbitrary power in the hands of an executive, who will then use that power to buy votes at election time.

In other words, they have also delivered a body blow to the rule of objective, predictable law in California, and so to the freedom of her citizens above and beyond the economic regulations.

-- CAV