Posted on 12/27/2001 1:35:48 AM PST by Ada Coddington
The Things That Are Caesar's
by Joseph Sobran
Nutty boy, John Walker Lindh. But why is everyone so furious at him?
By now you've heard all about him. Born a Catholic, he lived in the Maryland suburbs of Washington until he was ten. His family moved to crazy Marin County, Calif. His mother dabbled in Buddhism.
A bright, likable boy and a superior student, with a good sense of humor, John became a Muslim in his teens and went off to Yemen, changing his name to Suleyman al-Faris. He found the Muslims there disappointingly lax in their observance of Islam, so he migrated to Afghanistan and joined the Taliban, fighting in a local war under the name Abdul Hamid.
His parents, who eventually divorced, lost track of him until he turned up as a prisoner of war in early December. He was wounded in the leg during the prisoner uprising that killed one American CIA agent who had interrogated him.
His parents were shocked, both by his role and by his strange appearance – Islamic costume, beard, dirty face, long matted hair – but they defended him as well as they could. That is to say, awkwardly. How do you explain "my son, the Taliban"?
Newsweek reports that his parents "tried to be nonjudgmental, even supportive, about his conversion"; last week, in interviews, his father still "steadfastly refused to be judgmental."
Meanwhile, everyone else called John a "traitor." Many are demanding that he receive the death penalty. The US government wants to throw the book at him. But there are also doubts as to whether he is legally a traitor; though technically still a US citizen, Congress hasn't declared war as prescribed by the Constitution. And there may not be the two required witnesses to confirm that he actually made war against the United States.
I guess I understand the indignation, but I don't share it. What is all the uproar about a single eccentric? Is it amazing, or shocking, that a country this big should produce such a freak, or even a few more like him? Letting him off is hardly likely to encourage hordes of young Americans to follow his bizarre example. There is no need to make an example of a unique case.
No, Lindh's significance is purely symbolic. He affronts prevailing notions of American patriotism. But he effectively renounced his citizenship, even if he didn't do the paperwork, and he transferred his allegiance to another country. How was he supposed to know it would be attacked by US forces? If Cassius Clay could become Muhammad Ali, why can't John Walker Lindh become Suleyman al-Faris? "In the U.S. I feel alone," he once said. "Here I feel comfortable and at home."
Of course, he has also said outrageous things, defending, for example, the 9/11 attacks and general terrorism against the United States. But to me the most interesting fact is the dog that hasn't barked. Nobody seems to mind that Lindh renounced Jesus Christ.
You can repudiate your Savior, but not your nation-state. Your religion is a private affair, which nobody else can judge, not even your family; but political loyalties are indissoluble.
If Lindh had stayed here, become an abortion provider, and attached a little American flag to his Mercedes, he would still qualify as a good American.
Even his parents don't mind his change of religion. Why should they? They abandoned the faith themselves. It evidently wasn't a serious commitment for them; neither was their marriage. They were typical modern Americans – indeed, Californians – and they believed in doing your own thing.
John's thing just happened to be Islam. He is reported to have complained that Americans were so busy pursuing their personal goals that they had no time for their families or communities. He seems to have been generalizing from his own parents. And he had a point.
It looks as if what he was really trying to escape was the soulless relativism that was his real religious heritage. Did he ever receive a true Catholic education, or did he, as we say, just "happen to be" a Catholic? Did he encounter the faith in its fullness, or did it appear to him just one more feel-good, nonjudgmental denomination in the great American smorgasbord?
Maybe he felt closer to God in Islam than in liberal Catholicism. And maybe he was right. The Taliban is pretty far from God, but perhaps not as far as lukewarm Christianity.
In his odd way, Lindh was looking for stable truths that were not to be found in Marin County, and he didn't care if his search led him to conclusions that seemed insane to the apostles of pluralism.
Given time, he might even have come back to the true Catholicism he probably never knew. It's not impossible even now. I'd be more surprised if his parents came back to it.
But in the media, Lindh the Traitor has upstaged Lindh the Apostate. Politics matters, religion is incidental. If the logic of Lindh's adoptive religion leads him to political heresy, he is condemned for following his religion – just as pro-lifers are blamed for refusing to subordinate their religion to a court decision.
So the strangest story to emerge from the War on Terrorism throws a revealing light on what America has become. The message of the press and public reaction is clear. We have the secularist culture's full permission to rebel against God, but not against Caesar.
Nobody seems to see sin, or pathos, in John Lindh's estrangement from Christ.
But at least Lindh realized that he had a soul. This explains just about everything the media and the public find baffling about him.
Reprinted from the December 20, 2001, issue of The Wanderer.
Joe Sobran is a nationally syndicated columnist. He also edits SOBRAN'S, a monthly newsletter of his essays and columns.
He invites you to try his new collection of aphorisms, "Anything Called a 'Program' Is Unconstitutional: Confessions of a Reactionary Utopian." You can get a free copy by subscribing or renewing your subscription to Sobran's. Just call 800-513-5053, or see his website, www.sobran.com. (He's still available for speaking engagements too.)
Copyright (c) 2001 by Griffin Internet Syndicate. All rights reserved.
The obvious is painful, hence the "judgemental" question, this young man committed an act of treason by taking up arms against the country of his birth. The death penalty is appropriate in this case.
Perhaps he also needs better research help , as well. There HAVE been articles, and talking heads , who have been just as hard on Johnny Jihad, and his parents, about his converting to Islam. It is also ridicculous, that Sobran doesn't know that American born citizens are proscribed from going overseas, and fightig in other nation's Civil Wars.
Only those with VERY little knowledge, can read this drivel and applaud it.
No war, no treason.
Not true--what they are proscribed from doing is taking up arms against the U.S. or giving aid/comfort/assistance to enemies of the US. If the "civil war" is one in which the US is not involved, they can go fight in it any time they want (see Jewish US citizens fighting in the Israeli army, or the leftist "Lincoln Brigade" in the Spanish Civil War to pick just two examples).
How do we know if it was not Johnnie Boy's Terrorist Taliban Bullets that Killed...Murdered our CIA Agent Mike Spann???
When found Guilty..."NUTTY" Johnnie Boy should either be HANGED BY HIS DISGUSTING TRAITOROUS NECK ~ OR ~ Sent To Sit On Old SPARKY To FRY..HIS "NUTTY" Behind!
AND...SHAME ON HIS PARENTS For allowing their "NUTTY" Little Johnnie Boy to run off and become what he is TODAY:
A TRAITOROUS MURDERER WITH INNOCENT BLOOD ON HIS HANDS AND HEAD!
I wonder if these two have gone to New York City to "SEE" for themselves what: THEIR..."NUTTY" Little Johnnie Boy HELPED to do to INNOCENT AMERICANS AND OTHERS.
THE PARENTS OUGHT TO BE JAILED FOR THEIR FAILURE TO BE PARENTS...Self Serving Socialistic, New Age Humanists!
AND...They ought to take X 42 and HillzeBeast along with them!
WHAT A LEGACY THAT THEY ALL LEAVE IN THEIR WAKE.
GOD'S JUDGMENT DAY IS COMMING!
She said, "No war, no treason" and she may very well be correct. The United States of America has not officially declared war upon anyone. That is a very important technical sticking point in regards to trying him or anyone else for treason in this circumstance.
Meanwhile, everyone else called John a "traitor." Many are demanding that he receive the death penalty. The US government wants to throw the book at him. But there are also doubts as to whether he is legally a traitor; though technically still a US citizen, Congress hasn't declared war as prescribed by the Constitution. And there may not be the two required witnesses to confirm that he actually made war against the United States.
Contained in this paragraph are the keys to this entire event.
I was always of the belief that a formal declaration of war by congress was required for the United states to be technically "at war", but another Freeper recently put his good historical scholarship to task and presented numerous examples from the very birth of our Republic which support the argument that a formal declaration of war by congress is not needed when we are attacked, but rather, only when we proactively wage war (strike first).
I'll look for the thread and a link.
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Ada Coddington wrote No war, no treason.
And riley1992 wrote She said, "No war, no treason" and she may very well be correct. The United States of America has not officially declared war upon anyone.
By this logic, if Johnny Bin Walker was one of the hijackers on the aircraft and piloted one of the planes into the WTC towers, and the US then declared war, he would not have been a traitor because the US had not declared war at the time the events occurred. Are we saying only actions after the US declares war would be traitorous or could actions that involve levying war against the US be traitorous?
I am a little perplexed that we assume that since a state of war doesn't exist that treason is impossible. The constitution does not require a state of war to exist only that the accused levyed war against us. Comments?
No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
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.