Columnist’s logic adds up
to extremism
I was surprised at the highly unreasoned opinion piece by Aaron Rorick in Monday’s Emerald (“the Greater evil,” ODE, 10/01). From the statements of one caller to a radio talk show, he infers that the entire “working class” is uniformly consumed by murderous hate toward Islamic extremists. He then takes an extremist position by saying that some forms of murderous hate — like that of the “most venomous, hateful anti-Islamic American” — are morally better than other forms. But then he goes even farther afield by saying that the form of murderous hate that he supports does not at all make him, or anyone who holds it, a “bad guy.” And finally, he wants all of us who support human rights to “rejoice” in the prospect of a coming war in Afghanistan.
This left me wondering who exactly Rorick wants to kill (does he really want to kill all Islamic extremists, no matter what they’ve done?), what evidence he has against these people to justify killing them (does he need any?), and why he expects me to rejoice at the current humanitarian crisis caused by U.S. military posturing, and at the prospect of thousands of civilians who will die if the United States pursues a dedicated air war. It seems to me that sacrificing thousands of innocent civilians to achieve political aims — even U.S. political aims — is the logic of terrorism. So I can’t rejoice with Rorick, or take part in his own brand of extremism.
Rev. Michael L. Spezio
University Institute of Neuroscience
