Testing Moral Equivalence

In a comment to a June 4 post, Perspective on Desecration, a reader who calls himself profmarcus left a comment which said, in full,

just as a thought problem, every time you see "koran," replace it with "bible..." every time you see "muslim," replace it with "christian..."

The post profmarcus commented on pointed out that Muslims make a habit of desecrating their own holy book and the Bible, in addition to murdering large numbers of innocent people. It concluded,

I don't think there's any moral equivalence between the desecration of a very few holy books by Americans and the wholesale desecration of holy books (including the Qur'an and the Bible) by Muslims. The former is atypical and unacceptable behavior in the civilized world, and the latter is routine and widely approved in the Muslim world. I wonder why the media can't bring themselves to put it in perspective?

Based on the comment quoted above plus other things he's written, profmarcus seems to be a liberal of the sort who believes everything is morally equivalent to everything else. No idea or person is superior to another, and none is inferior. No culture is advanced, while another is primitive. There is no good or evil. Everything just is. This kind of mayonnaise-level thinking also carries with it the implication that if you disagree, then you're obviously cursed with an inferior intellect, and never mind the logical inconsistency.

Nevertheless, just to be fair I thought I would put profmarcus to the test. I'll think about a few things and switch the words "Qur'an" and "Bible" and the words "Muslim" and "Christian." Here goes:

The videotape widely broadcast on a Christian cable network showed a young Muslim man screaming in unspeakable pain and horror as masked Christians, brandishing assault rifles and holding Bibles, sawed his head off with a knife. Commentators, clergymen, and school teachers throughout the Christian world rejoiced and praised the crusaders, and large crowds of Christians took to the streets chanting "death to the Great Satan" and "death to the unbelievers." Hmm. OK, I'll try one more.

The huge jetliner streaked low over the city through the clear morning sky, startling Muslims on the streets below. Five young Christian men barricaded inside the cockpit stared ahead at the giant building looming before them, clutching their Bibles to their chests and singing "Onward, Christian Soldiers." Bare minutes behind them, more young Christian men in another cockpit willed their giant craft into the twin building beside the one already smoking, waving their Bibles over their heads and chanting the Paternoster as they relished the thought of the evil Muslim non-believers they would soon kill. Meanwhile, another jetliner was headed toward a crash in a rural area, the Christian crusaders in the cockpit about to be overcome by heroic Muslim men who would refuse to die without a fight. And finally, the last contingent of Christian men, emboldened by the perfect truths in their Bibles, flew their jet into a military building serving as the headquarters of the Muslim armies, killing many unsuspecting soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and civilians.

There was rejoicing in the Christian world over this ultimate deed of sacrifice by the brave Christians who brought justice to the unbelieving Muslims in the heart of the Great Satan. There were also a few pro-forma condemnations by a few Christian leaders, but everyone in the Christian world knew they didn't mean it. And the brave Christian crusaders that day reposed in heaven, blessed of God, each serviced by 72 virgins for eternity.

Look, profmarcus, I tried. It just doesn't seem to work. I guess they only thing left is to conclude that your idea of substituting "Christian" and "Muslim" on an equal basis, like your extremist political philosophy, sucks.