A Response to Ann Coulter’s call to War

I love Barbara Olson and I love Ann. In Ann's last column (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ba0ba347497.htm) Ann expressed concisely how we all feeling about the lost of Barbara. This is a great evil that has come upon our land…but it is also possible to bring greater evil into the world if caution and patience is not exercised in redressing this diabolical threat. There is no doubt that we are at war, but we don’t have to wage the war that bin Laden wants. He wants a crusade against him…and he may get it…but I would argue for some initial responses which would actually be more harmful to him and his cause. I’m a graduate student of Middle East history who spent last year on a fellowship to Israel. I’m not claiming this makes me an expert on what has gone on, but I do think I can offer some legitimate arguments for exercising some patience. Below are some of Ann’s statements from the later part of her essay. I agree with her goals, but as I will out line in my essay which follows, I believe there are some better options than the “kill them all” response:

Apart from hearing that this beautiful light has been extinguished from the world, only one other news flash broke beyond the numbingly omnipresent horror of the entire day. That evening, CNN reported that bombs were dropping in Afghanistan (news - web sites) -- and then updated the report to say they weren't our bombs.

They should have been ours. I want them to be ours. This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals directly involved in this particular terrorist attack. Those responsible include anyone anywhere in the world who smiled in response to the annihilation of patriots like Barbara Olson.

We don't need long investigations of the forensic evidence to determine with scientific accuracy the person or persons who ordered this specific attack. We don't need an "international coalition." We don't need a study on "terrorism." We certainly didn't need a congressional resolution condemning the attack this week.

…We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.

Again, I would argue for patience, I believe the most important immediate response that the US can give to this challenge will be diplomatic not military (though I think the military response will and should be powerful). Bin Laden wants a crusade (in the Middle Ages model) against him (because he knows how the last crusade turned out). We don't want to give it to him...yet (history doesn't always repeat itself). I think we need to give the Islamic world the chance to decide if this is what they want. If it is, then we will indeed have a new World War on our hands.

I have been impressed with the patience and steps that both Powell and Bush have taken so far towards building a consensus against what has happen internationally, but especially in the Middle East. Bush has said that he wants those who are with us to make their declaration clear…if not it is a signal that they are against us. For myself in the Middle East context the clearest voice will not come from the political leaders, but rather from the religious. This is where bin Laden gets his support. If the religious leaders of al-Ahzar (the main religious university in Egypt) don't pronounce a fatwa (a formal legal sentence (made infamous in their use against Salman Rushdie) against bin Laden, then I would say that the country of Egypt is against us. The same for the Mufti in Jerusalem and so on.

The week before this happened I was reading a book called "People of the Lie: The Hope For Healing Human Evil" (by Dr. M Scott Peck, author of "The Road Less Traveled" (I highly recommend both these books (There of the "self help" type). . In this essay, I've found myself referring quite frequently to this book. I think a lot of what Peck had to say about human evil is applicable to what happened last week.

I do pray the careful, diplomatic solution is the one pursued to the end of this crisis (Though I believe the military will play an important (hopefully, secondary role). Those who prefer their fare simple (or simplistic) will likely become impatient, but for a lasting solution to this crisis. Patience is what is required. Human evil of the type on display this week is too complicated for a one-sided understanding. And it is too large a reality to be grasped within a single frame of reference. This cancer has to be removed with as much precision as possible so as not to kill mankind's body and "soul," and it is an advanced cancer that will require a multifaceted treatment.

What are the specific advantages of a patient response? Why take any extra time to understand the minds of the perpetrators? Why try to build a consensus of action? Why not just….kill them all?

One reason to avoid the effort to understand such acts is that the attempt would seem to involve actually speaking in the language of nihilism, since time immemorial a diabolic voice. Yet, why do or learn anything unpleasant? The answer is, as Tolkien notes below, that it is our duty to try. And in the current situation, it is simply a far better response – both in terms of determining an effective initial response and in laying the ground work for constructing a peaceful world, with the U.S. at its head – to have some glimmer of understanding of what we are to do than to flounder:

It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule.(J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King (Ballantine Books), 1965, p. 190).

There is not a universal definition of evil, but a simple one that has been suggested is that evil is opposition to life (evil is ‘live' spelled backwards). It is that which opposes the life force. It has, in short, to do with killing. Specifically, it has to do with murder-namely, unnecessary killing, killing that is not required for biological survival. (M. Scott Peck "The People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil," p. 42)

In what way, shape or form could the attack on Tuesday have any relevance to the survival of to bin Laden and his followers or any fundamentalist group?

Dr. Peck notes that evil is most often committed in order to scapegoat, and the people he labeled as evil are chronic scapegoaters. In the "Road Less Traveled" he defined evil "as the exercise of political power – that is, the imposition of one's will upon others by overt or covert coercion-in order to avoid ….spiritual growth" (p. 279). In other words, the evil attack others instead of facing their own failures. Spiritual growth requires the acknowledgment of one's need to grow. If we cannot make that acknowledgement, we have no option except to attempt to eradicate the evidence of our imperfection. (p. 74)

I think this is a very apt description of the fundamentalist milieu that bin Laden and his cohorts swim in. They are aware of their short comings, but instead of choosing spiritual growth they choose the evil attack in an effort to put out a light that shines on their short comings.

What is the cause of this failure of self-hatred, this failure to be displeasing to oneself, which seems to be the central sin at the root of the scapegoating behavior of those Dr. Peck calls evil? The cause that Peck suggests in not an absent conscience. There are people, both in and out of jail who seem utterly lacking in conscience or superego. Psychiatrists call them psychopaths or sociopaths. Guiltless, they not only commit crimes but may often do so with a kind of reckless abandon. There is little pattern or meaning to their criminality; it is not particularly characterized by scapegoating. Conscienceless, psychopaths appear to be bothered or worried by very little-including their own criminality. They seem to be about as happy inside jail as out. They do attempt to hide their crimes, but their efforts to do so are often feeble and careless and poorly planned. They have sometimes been referred to as "moral imbeciles," and there is almost a quality of innocence to their lack of worry and concern. (p. 75)

Bin Laden is neither a psychopath or sociopath. He is rather a sane very, very evil man.

One of the most disturbing facts that came out in the Eichmann trial was that a psychiatrist examined him and pronounced him perfectly sane. We equate sanity with a sense of justice, with humaneness, with prudence, with the capacity to love and understand other people. We rely on the sane people of the world to preserve it from barbarism, madness, destruction. And now it begins to dawn on us that it is precisely the sane ones who are the most dangerous. It is the sane ones, the well-adapted ones who can without qualms and without nausea aim the missiles and press the buttons that will initiate the great festival of destruction that they, the sane ones, have prepared (Thomas Merton Raids on the Unspeakable (New Directions Publishing Corp., 1964, paperback edition, pp. 45-46).

Unfortunately, Bin Laden is sane. He presents a "sane" message to a significant minority in the Islamic world. Because the message is "sane" and a religious message, it must be denounced by sane religious voices within the religious communities of our Muslim allies. They must issue formal fatwas. Lesser condemnations or statements by political leaders will still allow Bin Laden to maintain his "saintity" among this significant minority. As long as this is the case their will continue to be a large pool of "martyrs" for his cause.

The American Islamic community needs to recognize that it was an attack directed at them. The real game for Osama bin Laden is how he is perceived within the Islamic community in American and the Middle East. Other public opinion is irrelevant to him. Physical destruction must be rained down upon the terrorist networks that currently exist, but if we are to permanently root out this evil, the U.S. will need to support those within all of the Islamic communities of the world who are willing to end their tolerance for this interpretation of the Islamic tradition. This is a case where tolerance is not a virtue. Osama bin Laden is a cancer that must be cut out.

The truly evil are dedicated to preserving their self-image of perfection, they are unceasingly engaged in the effort to maintain the appearance of moral purity. They worry about this a great deal. They are acutely sensitive to social norms and what others might think of them. (p. 75) This is particularly true of bin Laden and his ilk. I think the central motivation was to draw dramatic attention to their movement throughout the Islamic world. Right now on that account bin Laden has been successful. Even if we kill him tomorrow he will still have been successful in this central goal.

The West, and the United States in particular has shown as a bright beacon of democracy, freedom and individuality on the dreary world of fundamentalism, which in many ways resembles a form of communism which aims at restricting the minds of its followers. Communism is dreary in all its forms – light and opportunity are beacons that threaten it.

Most of the Muslims in America that I have seen interviewed on Television have condemned the act and then gone on to say that this has nothing to do with real Islam. I applaud the condemnation, but I question the assertion about the relation of terrorism to Islam. The rewards of martyrs are explicitly stated in the Qu`ran. Almost universally the Crusades are seen as a great evil that the West played upon Islam. The work of the notorious Assassins was one way that the Crusaders were responded to. Instead of asking if the act is condemned, I wish an interviewer would ask a Muslim believer where he believed the terrorist was now, in Hell or al-Jannah (paradise). In sum I think there is an unhealthy "dualism" about how many Muslims feel about Tuesdays events. I think it is possible for the same individual for feel terrible about it and call it a great evil and at the same time believe that the hand of Allah is behind it and bin Laden and his followers will receive their reward in Paradise.

This a puzzling dualism and I don't think I am the only one puzzled by it. I think many Muslims are. A clear religious fatwa condemning bin Laden and his followers to hell would add a significant degree of clarity.

The Qur'an (3:169) says "count not those who are slain in the way of God as dead; nay, they are living, with the lord they have provision."

…So God has guarded them from the evil of that day, and has procured radiancy and gladness, and recompensed them for their patience with a Garden, and silk; therein they shall recline upon couches, therein they shall see neither sun nor bitter cold; near them shall be its shades, and its clusters hung meekly down, and there shall be passed around them vessels of silver, and goblets of crystal, crystal of silver that they have measured very exactly. And therein they shall be given to drink a cup whose mixture is ginger, therein a fountain whose name is called Salsabil. Immortal youths shall go about them; when thou seest them, thou supposest them scattered pearls, when thou seest them then thou seest bliss and great kingdom. Upon them shall be green garments of silk and brocade; they are adorned with bracelets of silver, and their Lord shall give them to drink a pure draught. Behold, this is a recompense for you, and your striving is thanked (Qu'ran 76:5-22).

…and wide-eyed houris as the likeness of hidden pearls a recompense for that they laboured. (Qu'ran 56: 22-24).

Perfectly We formed them, perfect, and We made them spotless virgins, chastely amorous, like of age for the Companions of the Right. (Qur'an 56: 35-38)

By the leaders of Muslims leaders in America issuing fatwas against bin Laden I think it would send a clear message to their followers that they believe that bin Laden's place will be in hell not paradise.

One station that I think has done a good service- publicizing some of the unfortunate backlash that some Arab/Muslim Americans have experienced is surprisingly MTV. Their main station is in New York and I think they have done some pretty good reporting. Religious freedom and respect for others religion is a bedrock of American society. I do believe that one of the main goals of this terrorist attack was to attempt to reveal the "illusion" of this religious freedom to the world. I hope that in the long run he is disappointed. I think many of the American Muslims interviewed were more "cultural" Muslims than intellectually grounded followers (like most American Christians are "cultural" Christians, rarely taking the time to examine the details of their beliefs until times of crisis). This is a time a crisis and it is a time to examine beliefs. Their communities' leaders issuing clear fatwas against bin Laden could be an important aspect of the self appraisal.

Finally, by seeking allies within the Islamic community and making this the emphasis of our war against terrorism instead of the "kill them all approach" we are in reality saving ourselves. Dr. Peck notes that the effects which follow too constant and intense a concentration upon evil are always disastrous. Those who crusade not for God in themselves, but against the devil in others, never succeed in making the world better, but leave it either as it was, or sometimes even perceptibly worse than it was, before the crusade began. By thinking primarily of evil we tend, however excellent our intentions, to create occasions for evil to manifest itself. (Huxley p. 192).

I think this describes much of the nature of the failure of the Christian Crusades in the Middle Ages. I pray that our passion does not lead us into a similar error in a new crusade. This is why co-opting, those Muslims who have completely ended any and all tolerance for any acceptance of the legitimacy of the type of martyr acts promoted by Bin Laden – is so important. This should included clerics, from the religious centers of the allies who have sided with us, issuing fatwas condemning Bin Laden. In the case of Egypt – the ulema of al-Azhar, in Palestine – the Grand Mufti, etc. If the fatwas are not delivered, then in the phrase of Pres. Bush we should assume they are against us.

Those who are with us should be nurtured economically, militarily and culturally as are most important allies in the new war against terrorism.

We have passed into the New Testament. Christians live by the 10 commandments and by 2 laws which Jesus taught, which are: "Love God, with all of your heart", and "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Again, there is no quote in the Bible that gloryfies murder of innocents.

I can put your quotes into context if you wish, but I don't think they are relevant to Islam gloryfing suicide bombers.

I want you to go back and re-read.

What I said was - if such quotes as the ones I showed from the Bible are taken out of context by someone outside the religion who doesn't know anything about the new covenant, it might appear to them the Bible preaches violence.

Just as a quote taken from the Qu'ran out of context and without a basic understanding of Muslim theology, it would APPEAR to you to support the notion Islam favors killing innocents. Even though the Qu'ran does nothing of the sort.

Do you understand?

I think it's fair to say that Islam is, ideologically, the most war-like of the world religions. However, the world religions got to be world religions by being flexible, by having many parts and by willing to tune their message to meet local psychological and political needs. The constellation of world religions we see today is the result of a centuries-long, Darwinian battle for mindshare among the world's sheeple. The winners--Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., were the most protean, multi-faceted and, when necessary, accomodating religions. Think how the Catholic Church assimilated local pagan dieties, transmogrifying them into saints, as the West extended its military and political hegemony. The same is true of Bhuddism, which does not, in its purest form, involve a personal God at all, but which nevertheless invented a slew of bhoddisatvas to provide a needed security blanket for the superstitious and ignorant people it subsumed in the mindshare war. Again, the central point is that world religions are world religions because they adapt ideology to circumstance.

I don't think there is necessarily much correlation between the belligerency of the core ideology of a religion and the belligerency of those who espouse it. Christianity's core ideology is self-abnegation and self-abasement before God, but that didn't prevent the Catholic Church from facilitating aggressive programs of imperial conquest and subjugation of non-Christians. An even more dramatic counter-example would be seen in Imperial Japan. The core ideologies of all the major religio-philosophico traditions there&#8212Buddhism, Daoism, Shinto and Confucianism&#8212are all about as peace-loving as you can get, and yet those traditions were adapted to support perhaps the most bellicose, aggresive, militaristic state of modern times. By the same token, there are plenty of peace-loving Muslims in the world, in fact they make up the vast majority. It's only the whackos that we need to stamp out.

I do understand. But how do you explain them dancing in the streets celebrating in Paleststine over this despicable act? I know you saw the pictures, and I know you are aware that they elevate these suicide bombers to "saint" status once the've murdered innocents.

That'll be the day. =)

I've been transcribing some addresses, actually, by an archeologist who's both Boston Catholic and -- thanks to a chance encounter once when he had a couple weeks to kill in Israel en route home from a dig -- a practicing Jew in that he goes to temple just as a regularly as he goes to Mass.

I've found what he has to say quite fascinating and while it's pointed up some decided differences in our faiths for me, it's also been a great source of information on those things we have in common ... like cousins more than different generations of the same family.

An understanding and love for Judaism is so essential to a real love of one's Christian faith, I think the swordpoint image is somewhat absurd.

TOTALLY different story -- and one that's a thousand years old -- where Islam is concerned.

The constellation of world religions we see today is the result of a centuries-long, Darwinian battle for mindshare among the world's sheeple.

Are you calling me a sheep? Do you honestly believe I don't think for myself? How would you know anything about how I came to the belief system I hold?

You have so many things I diagree with in your post I don't know where to start. If I don't answer everything it is not because I am ducking what you say, but simply because I don't have time [right now] to rebutt point by point.

Think how the Catholic Church assimilated local pagan dieties, transmogrifying them into saints, as the West extended its military and political hegemony.

We took over the ceremonies and replaced them with Christian Holy Days to show that our God has triumphed over falsehood.

Christianity's core ideology is self-abnegation and self-abasement before God, but that didn't prevent the Catholic Church from facilitating aggressive programs of imperial conquest and subjugation of non-Christians

There are always going to be people who do bad things. Subjigation of people is not the doctrine of the Catholic church. Usually we go into these countries torn by civil war and religious oppression and try to show them there is a better way, a loving God who values all life. Often we are slaughtered for our efforts. I submit that Judeo Christianity has brought about the best possible societies with the most humane treatment of people in History.

I can't think of anything in the New Testament that can even be taken out of context as advocating violence. "Sell your cloak and buy a sword?" That verse advocates buying a sword not using it. And if one kept to context the conclusion one would reach is that there is not much point in having a sword

I can't think of one Muslim nation which protects unfashionable speech, treats religious minorities as equal or is even a real democracy

I have known Muslims, whom I have liked, but have been generally ignorant of the theology and history behind Islam. Since this attack has occurred, I've been reading up on it somewhat. I have yet to determine as to how much of the claims of Mohammed personnally approving of rape and murder are true, and how much is propaganda.

But how do you explain them dancing in the streets celebrating in Paleststine over this despicable act?

America hating Muslim extremist.

That does not indict Islam.

I know you saw the pictures, and I know you are aware that they elevate these suicide bombers to "saint" status once the've murdered innocents.

Anti-abortion Christian extremists in the Army of God applaud the bombing of abortion clinics.

This is not an indictment of all Christians, or Christianity.

Er, I think Ann was just being a little hyperbolic.

Yes, I'm certain she was and I made basically the same the same comment on another thread shortly after the column appeared. It received little response, other than the usual hysteria from a few atheists and a lot of misunderstanding that eventually devolved into a circular religious debate.

Anyway, glad to see some sanity regarding Ann Coulter's last column and others who recognize irony and hyperbole. I hope she comments on it soon, I would like to hear her take on the response the column received.

I can't think of anything in the New Testament that can even be taken out of context as advocating violence.

The following, taken out of context from the NT, could appear to paint Christianity a violent religion, if one didn't know better.

Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. Lk.10:10-15

Families will be torn apart because of Jesus. "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. Mt.10:21

Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. Mt.5:17

Whoever denies "that Jesus is the Christ" is a liar and an antichrist. If so, then there are about three billion antichrists now living. 1 Jn.2:22

Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. Lk.10:10-15

Maybe there is something to the connection between our tribulations and the fact we've so diligently advocated abortifacient contraception and protected legal abortion. Surely among the 40 million+ abortions were some of His disciples.

America hating Muslim extremist.

> There sure are a lot of those "extremists."

Do you really think Christians would celebrate that way if we had done this to the palestinians? What I want to know ask these moslems is, "Did these people go to Allah..or not?"

Anti-abortion Christian extremists in the Army of God applaud the bombing of abortion clinics.

Give me an honest answer to the number of times you saw anti-abortion Christians dancing in the streets of the murders of people at abortion clinics.

The following, taken out of context from the NT, could appear to paint Christianity a violent religion, if one didn't know better. Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. Lk.10:10-15 Families will be torn apart because of Jesus. "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. Mt.10:21 Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. Mt.5:17 Whoever denies "that Jesus is the Christ" is a liar and an antichrist. If so, then there are about three billion antichrists now living. 1 Jn.2:22

Even if one sets these verses by themselves -- out of context -- one could only find an advocacy of violence if one changed the meanings of the words. Most the verses cited are warnings. It's like saying that someone who says don't drive drunk and describes a horrific accident is actually advocating drunk driving.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.