Feelers vs. Thinkers

There's this economics professor named James Miller at Smith College that writes for Tech Central Station from time to time. His perspective is in the minority as he is a conservative professor at an extremely liberal all women's school. He wrote an article on Monday titled "Feelers v. Thinkers" in which he tried to connect thinkers with conservative thought and feelers with liberal thought. I agreed with much of what he had to say, however there was one paragraph that absolutely dumbfounded me:

Bill Maher, the former host of Politically Incorrect, got in trouble with feelers when he said that the 9/11 hijackers were not cowards. A thinker would have to concede that those who deliberately give their lives for a cause, regardless of how horrid the cause, don't fit the conventional definition of cowards. A feeler, however, would violently reject associating any positive qualities, including bravery, with the 9/11 hijackers. A feeler would believe that Maher would have done this only if he sympathized with the terrorists.

I finished the article and continued what I was doing, but that paragraph continued to grate on my nerves, so I decided I would write him a letter and explain to him why I thought he was wrong:

Prof. Miller
I enjoy reading and agree with much of what you write--especially your thoughts regarding lefty bias on campus. Your recent Feelers v. Thinkers is mostly spot on, but I would like to add something to your conclusion regarding Bill Maher's comments about the 9/11 hijackers. You say, "A thinker would have to concede that those who deliberately give their lives for a cause, regardless of how horrid the cause, don't fit the conventional definition of cowards." I believe that is a true statement, however it cannot be applied to the hijackers. Since they believed that their rich reward for their atrocious actions lay waiting for them in the after world, I believe what they did was the ultimate form of cowardice. There's nothing inherently brave about embracing that which has been guaranteed to be yours, no matter what you must do in order to realize it. I believe that point was lost on you, Mr. Maher and anybody else who would believe that the hijackers were anything but cowards.Al Qaeda must know this too, which I would speculate is one of the reasons why not all of the hijackers were aware they were about to become martyrs.
Signed,
J

I felt better after writing that and I did not expect to hear back from him. It's been my experience that people you disagree with seldom write back to defend their position. I was wrong this time. The next morning I had the following message in my in box; short and to the point:

Hi,
Good point, but many of the fire fighters who ran into the burning towers on9/11 believed they were going to heaven after they died. Surely these men and women should still be considered brave.
Jim

OK, now I was confused. Here was a self-described conservative professor sounding like any number of leftist apologists for terrorism. Here is my reply:

Jim,

Unless you can say with a straight face that the entire police and fire response team was made up of unambivalent Christian fanatics, you would have to concede that their motivation for rushing into the WTC was not because they wished to find a shortcut to heaven. Their reason for rushing into the WTC was because they were protecting the public they took an oath to serve. If you ask me that is among the bravest and most noble things one can do--putting strangers before oneself. I suppose you could counter that Mr. Atta and company's sole motivation for mass murder was not to gain early admission to the Land of Virgins and Wine--that they felt they were serving Allah to whom they took an oath to protect and serve, but if you made that argument I might have to conclude that you were trying to draw moral equivalency between the premeditated actions of mass murderers and civil servants doing their job.
I'll leave you with this by Leon Wieseltier writing for TNR. He puts it much more succinctly than I ever could: "A hero is somebody who risks everything for what he believes. A martyr is somebody who risks nothing for what he believes, because he believes that his reward is certain, and that his life really begins with his death. Martyrdom, unlike heroism, is an extreme and repugnantly rigid _expression of certainty. Martyrs make dogmas, heroes make wagers."

Martyr = Atta &.Co = Cowards
Hero = police & fire = Courageous

signed,
J

I have not heard back from him yet but I hope I do. I would love to hear him defend his position from a conservative, or any point of view for that matter. I don't think my thoughts on the matter are specifically conservative, but when contrasted with the crowd that thinks that Islamic terrorism is simply a symptom of the West's failure to understand their grievances, I can see how it could be labeled as such. Most people don't like to have their ideas and assumptions challenged; especially college professors.