Define and Conquer

I refuse to be a definition victim, which is why I criticize "definitionitis" every chance I get. But that does not make this evil form of black magic stop.

Of course, I love it when other people do my homework for me, because I am lazy by nature, and would rather sit back and comment upon something than have to come up with something original myself (the latter is always a risky thing -- and a good way to find myself defined again, as a kook!).

I found a real nugget today, though. According to Chris Hitchens:

"George Wallace somehow wasn't a WASP, though somehow William F. Buckley is one."

A common argument is over the definition of "Christian." Eric Rudolph is described as a "Christian" by Andrew Sullivan, but certain conservative Christians have taken umbrage, saying that merely calling him a Christian is anti-Christian. Isn't this what certain Muslims have been doing, demanding that we stop calling Muslims who commit terrorist acts Muslims? Remember when that young guy crashed a Cessna airplane into that building in Florida? It took quite a while to ascertain that he was of Mideastern descent. Ditto for the long delays in admitting that the terrorist who opened fire at LAX was, in fact, a terrorist.

How about this story? Is accurate crime reporting to be prohibited if certain races feel that a bad act of one tarnishes them all?

Are we to be told now that if a Christian does a bad thing under a religious delusion, then he is no longer a Christian? If so, then are the 9-11 terrorists not Muslims? Many Muslims say they are not. If there can be a Muslim terrorist, is it logical to claim that there can be no such thing as a Christian terrorist? I think there can be both Christian and Muslim terrorists, and that there have been, for years. Wasn't the Inquisition Christian terrorism? Granted, these days the Muslim terrorists kill far more people than any kooky Christian terrorists, and the worst thing they've managed to pull off in the territory of the United States in the name of religion have been the Salem Witch Hunts. Those flames don't even light a candle to, say, the Ayatollah Khomeini.

But the principle is the same. We are talking quality, not quantity. Terrorism in the name of any religion is religious terrorism.

Religious terrorism is, simply, wrong. Why make it complicated?

The lesson is that definitions have great power. People want to:

-define other people

-define themselves

-limit access to the definition itself to their guys

-reserve the right to exclude other people from the category they claim, while relegating others to categories they oppose (usually those of the enemies they've chosen to define)

-disallow discussion by others of all of the above!

If that sounds crazy, it is.

Is this how cover-ups get started? Someone wants his turf preserved by any means necessary?