Since 9/11, cows have consistently killed about twenty Americans per year, while jihadists have managed to only kill six Americans in America. In fact, dogs kill about twenty-eight Americans per year, non-venomous bugs like ants about nine, and spiders about seven. Jihadists are about as dangerous as rattlesnakes, which also kill about six Americans per year. That comparison may have a lot to teach us about our presumed enemies -- encroach on their territory, and they will lash out, but leave them alone and you’ll be fine.
In fact, if you cut out the horrifying attack on Orlando in 2016, the number of Americans killed in America by jihadists drops to just three per year, making radical Islam just about 14 percent as dangerous as cows.
Do you see anyone planning on banning all cows from America? Maybe we can just create a registry to watch their movements? Of course, we need to hold all cows responsible if one cow runs over a real person. Do you hear their moos in condemnation of these heinous crimes? I bet our President is a cow. Born “Barack?” More like “Bessy.”
I do not mean to say that we should do nothing about the threat of extremists using their religion to justify terrorism. The threat is real. But we have to take a step back and realize that the measures we have already taken are going to keep us about as safe as we are going to get. It will not help us to ban all Muslims any more than it would help us to ban all cows.
A little while ago, there was this debate over whether radical Islamic or right-wing terrorists killed more people in America. Before Orlando, the right-wingers had 18 attacks and 48 deaths, while radical Islamic terrorists had nine attacks and 45 deaths. From 2001 to 2015, you were twice as likely to be attacked by a right-winger in America than a radical Islamic terrorist, but we barely discussed the issue of right-wing extremism in this country. Since Orlando, the odds are slightly less than twice, but the sheer number of deaths at that shooting put radical Islamic terrorists at 10 attacks and 94 deaths.
There are a few really major issues with this weird sort of debate. First, it makes it sound as if since Republicans have to defend or disavow extremist right-wingers, Democrats have to defend or disavow radical Islamic terrorists. But that makes no sense. All radical Islamic terror is right-wing terror. It is not that Republicans somehow created the Taliban (although Reagan certainly helped) by convincing the American people that bad guys were coming for their guns or taking away their freedom. They do not have to include terrorists in their definition of conservative. But the same ideology that Trump and the RNC spouted last week in Cleveland does give rise to American right-wing terror that in turn makes their message self-fulfilling. Radical Islamic terror is perpetrated by their own extremist right-wingers. The hippie liberals in America are just pointing out that there are far more Muslims than there are Muslim extremists, and just as not all Republicans are dangerous, not all Muslims are dangerous.
Second, it is not a competition, where the winner gets to decide to persecute the loser. We need to do more to prevent both kinds of tragedy. We need to have a conversation about changing the way we do politics from one of fear-mongering, like last week in Cleveland, to one of cooperation. We need to have a conversation on gun control. We need to have a conversation about Middle East policy and the refugee crisis. But we cannot have those conversations while banning an entire group of people.
The old Baptist (and secular) defense of the freedom of religion has always gone, “What if the situation was reversed?” Would we want to be judged for the actions of a few? “But their entire ideology spurs them on to violence! I have read the Koran.” And I have heard the Donald, who also spurs right-wingers on to violence. Does that mean the entire ideology of conservatism, regardless of country, is one of violence and fear?
On behalf of my conservative friends, no. But the case for my rejection of that idea becomes weaker and weaker the less you are willing to stand up and disavow the hatred of your candidate, and courageously declare your intention to vote for a candidate who will protect our First Amendment rights by standing beside the Muslim community.
So, which should we ban: cows, conservatives, or Muslims? Or, maybe a better idea: Let’s learn once more how to work alongside one another, so that one day that courageous conservative, that peaceful Muslim, and this dirty liberal can all get together to fry up some burgers.
