Playing Catchup On The Debate

29 December, 2006. 636 words.

I’ll admit I’m playing catch-up on this Virgil Goode story. Sorry, I haven’t really been paying attention to the blogosphere much, well, most of this month. :)

So I started going back to the roots of the argument, and I read I’m Not Emeril’s initial comments on it. There, I was able to review an original copy of Goode’s letter. It’s worth looking at if you’re tuning into the scandal late, because you can always count on the media and bloggers to mis-characterize a Congressman’s words. Mr. Not Emeril actually makes some good points in his post, and it’s hard to refute them.

So let me take a step back. Before I got to I’m Not Emeril, I read The Red Stater’s thoughts on Virgil Goode. By the time of this post, Waldo had shut down General Grevious’ Dog, and Mr. Not Emeril (and many others) implied that anyone supporting that move was collectively trying to “avoid debate” on the subject of Islamic extremism. Burying their heads in the sand, as it were.

Well, let’s debate.

Mr. Not Emeril was not alone in mentioning that jihadists took credit for Democrats winning in Novemeber. Perhaps the silence you heard from non-conservatives was because: Who cares? Are jihadists now trustworthy? Are jihadists now reliable news sources? Are jihadists now controlling political discourse in this country? Are jihadists worthy of “responses?” I guess conservative bloggers think they are.

I see the real problem here, though. Conservatives have succumbed to that pesky logical fallacy, “if not A, then B.” In this case, “if message not Denounced, then message must be Supported.” So if it will really make conservatives feel better, let me state for the record that no jihadist influenced my vote, and I believe jihadists should not take credit for the Democratic wins. There. I accept your apology for questioning my loyalty.

On the issue of whether or not Islamic extremists want to kill us: Freakin’ duh. I don’t need to see terrorist propaganda to know that. In truth, Islamic extremists are not very specific about who they want to kill. They actually just like killing — regardless of citizenship, race, gender, or ethnicity. It’s what lawless thugs and murderers do, last I checked. They’ll even kill themselves. Now what has that got to do with Keith Ellison and Virgil Goode? Do conservatives seriously think Keith Ellison is an Islamic extremist trying to infiltrate Congress?

The underlying issue with Virgil Goode and Keith Ellison is whether or not Muslims should have a voice in American politics, and according to the framers of the Constitution the overwhelmingly correct answer is Yes. (Even Virgil Goode himself didn’t appear to dispute that in his letter.) Whether or not the answer is still Yes in today’s partisan America is an entirely different matter. I personally think America has been evolving slowly away from its roots since the Civil War, so I can easily imagine the voting public being persuaded to adopt Christianity as a national religion.

For myself, I would still answer Yes, because I don’t feel the slightest bit threatened by a single Muslim in Congress, or by the Muslim faith in general. Even if Rep. Ellison turned out to be Osama Bin Laden’s long-lost cousin, he couldn’t possibly do any more damage to American society than a single season of Deal Or No Deal.

Besides, to reject Keith Ellison as the elected representative of Minnesota’s 5th District is to reject the Minnesota people’s right to elect their representative, and that seems like a bad road to start down. I’d rather deal with an occasional terrorist attack. I’ve said this many times before, but terrorism is hardly the biggest threat to the average American’s everyday well-being.

Thomas Krehbiel writes The Krehbiel Strikes Back, a moderate commentary on news, media, politics, and culture.

Related