The Finch Formerly Known As Gold

10 November 2004

As endorsed by dhimmicrats

Once upon a time, Christopher Hitchens asserted that he's an atheist, and then some:

I'm not neutral about religion, I'm hostile to it. I think it is a positively bad idea, not just a false one. And I mean not just organized religion, but religious belief itself.

He hasn't changed his mind on the subject, but he's persuaded that some of those beliefs are worse than others:

[A]ll faiths are not always equally demented in the same way, or at the same time. Islam, which was once a civilizing and creative force in many societies, is now undergoing a civil war. One faction in this civil war is explicitly totalitarian and wedded to a cult of death. We have seen it at work on the streets of our own cities, and most recently on the streets of Amsterdam. We know that the obscene butchery of filmmaker Theo van Gogh was only a warning of what is coming in Madrid, London, Rome, and Paris, let alone Baghdad and Basra.

So here is what I want to say on the absolutely crucial matter of secularism. Only one faction in American politics has found itself able to make excuses for the kind of religious fanaticism that immediately menaces us in the here and now. And that faction, I am sorry and furious to say, is the left. From the first day of the immolation of the World Trade Center, right down to the present moment, a gallery of pseudointellectuals has been willing to represent the worst face of Islam as the voice of the oppressed. How can these people bear to reread their own propaganda? Suicide murderers in Palestine — disowned and denounced by the new leader of the PLO — described as the victims of "despair." The forces of al-Qaida and the Taliban represented as misguided spokespeople for antiglobalization. The blood-maddened thugs in Iraq, who would rather bring down the roof on a suffering people than allow them to vote, pictured prettily as "insurgents" or even, by Michael Moore, as the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers. If this is liberal secularism, I'll take a modest, God-fearing, deer-hunting Baptist from Kentucky every time, as long as he didn't want to impose his principles on me (which our Constitution forbids him to do).

Score one for Jesusland. The American left will support damned near anything so long as it sounds sufficiently anti-American.

(Via Common Sense and Wonder.)

(Aside: This piece was completed long before it got a title, and when I finally came up with one, I reasoned, "Surely someone has used this term before." So I sent "dhimmicrats" to Google, and back comes this: "Did you mean: democrats"? Case closed, and thanks to Aaron.)

Posted at 11:49 AM to Immaterial Witness


Jeez, I've been seeing "dhimmicrats" all over the place over the last couple of years.

Posted by: McGehee at 1:02 PM on 10 November 2004

Well, I knew I wasn't going to take credit for it, but I figured the least I could do was check its papers, so to speak.

Posted by: CGHill at 1:27 PM on 10 November 2004

This is the first time I've ever read the word dhimmi. Where have I been? So -- it's arablic equivalent goy, but without human rights, right?

Posted by: Dan at 1:55 PM on 10 November 2004

Well, I knew I wasn't going to take credit for it...

I was just surprised you hadn't seen it too. Or am I just venturing into less respectable (i.e., more hip) corners of cyberspace?

Posted by: McGehee at 3:04 PM on 10 November 2004

This here site being neither respectable nor hip, I object to the question as given. :)

Actually, I'm pretty sure I'd seen it at some point, else it wouldn't have made so much sense when I saw it in MT's title box. I just couldn't place it without search-engine help. (Don't get old. It's bad for your brain cells.)

Posted by: CGHill at 3:35 PM on 10 November 2004