Religion is not iodine, it does not automatically stain

Power Line highlights a Krauthammer column on Iran, and also points out that Krauthammer takes an unnecessary swipe at former Secretary of the Interior James Watt.

Krauthammer's column is meant to point out how religious extremism is a motivating factor in Iran, and how it might induce in Iran a willingness to precipitate even something as horrible as nuclear war. However, Krauthammer goes to paint extremism in other religions, as he sees it, with too broad a brush.

Indeed, as much as I like Krauthammer, he does have a bit of an anti-religious right streak in him.

It leads him to make, uh, missteps like the one Power Line mentioned.

After just having finished talking about a "madman" who would be willing to start a nuclear war out of religious convictions, and the number of dead being of no concern apparently, Krauthammer used the term "messianically inclined leader" in the same sentence he introduces Watt. As my other favorite WaPo conservative, George Will, would say: Well. Krauthammer says:

The closest we've come to a messianically inclined leader in America was a secretary of the interior who 24 years ago, when asked about his stewardship of the environment, told Congress, "I don't know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns; whatever it is we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generations."

I see. Take the Bible seriously, believe in a living Lord, and you're the equivalent of a madman who would happily nuke millions.

There are a couple of other ones though.

Krauthammer says:

And as in some versions of fundamentalist Christianity, the second coming will be accompanied by the usual trials and tribulations, death and destruction.

You can just hear the condescension in that word "usual". It's hardly meant to validate the belief millions of Christians have, a belief they derive, the silly misguided fools, from reading the Bible. Perhaps the learned Charles would devote a column to pointing out why their interpretation of the Book of Revelation is so patently absurd. Maybe his reading of Revelation is different, but I hope he would bring more to the debate than just "I think Revelation is silly because it just is."

(And y'all realize that it is Revelation, singular. One is enough when it comes from God.)

Also, Krauthammer says this:

To be sure, there are such madmen among the other monotheisms. The Temple Mount Faithful in Israel would like the al-Aqsa Mosque on Jerusalem's Temple Mount destroyed to make way for the third Jewish Temple and the messianic era.

He says monotheisms, plural, but only mentions Judaism. Is he trying to implicate Christianity through the back door? Yes, there are Jews, and Christians, who believe the Temple will be rebuilt where the Dome is now. Some even would be willing to hasten the Dome's removal.

But is Krauthammer saying such folks would be willing to start a nuclear war to remove the Dome? He sure seems to imply it.

Usually Krauthammer doesn't dabble in eschatology. His anti-religious right streak usually comes out when he talks about abortion. (He's pro-choice.)

I still think he is one the Right's keenest thinkers. Which is why it is even more dismaying that he sounds like the secular Left at times.