This is one of those topics that generates 2,000-word rebuttals from thoughtful readers. For example: Can’t a book be objectively wicked or dangerous? What about Mein Kampf or the Communist Manifesto?

This is tricky territory, over which many inconclusive battles have been fought. What, for example, does one say about texts which have inspired both great good and great evil, which I think could fairly be said of the scriptures of any long-established religion? (A point that is at the front of my mind right now because I am in the middle of reading Robert Spencer’s new book.) What does one say about a dedicated Communist, inspired by the Communist Manifesto, who gave his life fighting against Nazism . . . or for that matter about a dedicated Nazi, inspired by Mein Kampf, who sacrificed himself fighting against Communism? Are we quite sure that there are any texts at all by which nothing but wickedness was ever inspired? If not, we need a set of storekeeper’s scales to weigh inspired good against inspired evil. But where’s the point of balance? Who gets to decide? It may be the case that some books truly are intrinsically, objectively, exclusively dangerous, but . . . who gets to decide?

I’m going to leave you to discuss all that among yourselves and just re-affirm my original point. The thing that got stuck in my gullet was Peter’s saying that once you’ve been told about Osama bin Laden’s having endorsed the Carter/Walt-Mearsheimer books, “nothing more really needs to be said,” as if Osama bin Laden’s opinion of a book was dispositive. I don’t take it to be dispositive, and I don’t think anyone else should.

No doubt Jonah will have something to say, though, when he’s had time to tagliatelle the subject.