|
An Effective and Reasonable Next Step in the War on Terrorism by John Norman, January 27, 2002 |
||
|
After I wrote my predictions for the
aftermath of September 11, a demand has arisen for me to outline how I
think the war on terrorism should be developed. I therefore outline a
first step as follows: Bush has said that you cannot differentiate between
terrorists, and also that anyone providing financial support to terrorists
should be regarded as a terrorist as well. My first step in the war is
based on this, and draws on information regarding the nature and history
of terrorism as outlined below. Terrorism can be defined as the deliberate targeting of
innocent civilians in order to coerce a given society and their leaders to
change their political stand on given issues. The earliest record
historical incidence of terrorism is found in sacred texts, and regards a
certain Middle Eastern society who had been kept as slaves for various
generations in a neighboring country. The leader of that other country was
asked to let those people go, but he was stubborn and wouldn’t do it.
So, in order to coerce his decision a supernatural being by the name of
Jehovah unleashed a series of calamities on that leader’s nation. There
were ten of these calamities, and the first nine cannot be characterized
as outright terrorism, since they involve what might be called natural
disasters. The tenth of these calamities, however, is different: “And
the LORD said unto Moses, Yet will I bring one plague more upon Pharaoh,
and upon Egypt; afterwards he will let you go hence: when he shall let you
go, he shall surely thrust you out hence altogether… About midnight will
I go out into the midst of Egypt: And all the firstborn in the land of
Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his
throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the
mill; and all the firstborn of beasts… For I will pass through the land
of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of
Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will
execute judgment: I am the LORD.” Now it has
been argued that these were not innocent people, since all Egyptians
shared in the guilt of this enslavement. But if we accept that, then we
are bound to give credence to the extreme view that there are no innocent
Israelis, Americans, etc., thus making them fair targets. Certainly this
is not true, and, besides, we are told “…And Pharaoh rose up in the
night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a
great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one
dead.” Since it is specifically stated that no Egyptian house was
spared, all mentally retarded first-born Egyptians were purportedly killed
that night, all first-born babies and children as well. Poor and ignorant
people, people who couldn’t tell you the name of their country nor of
their pharaoh, even those who had befriended the slaves and lived
alongside of them were not spared. Not a single house was spared. So we
cannot accept that innocent people were not targeted here. Another
argument is that Jehovah had supernatural powers to “make it up” to
these victims in the afterlife – but nothing could compensate for the
grief of the living who lost loved ones, and besides, there is no mention
of any compensation of this sort given in the record. We are told that
they were killed, period. The act itself is characterized as terrorism
regardless of what anyone wishes to surmise concerning about what happened
in the afterlife. Another
argument is that Jehovah is such an important and great being that he is
beyond any guilt. However, the question of whether such a being is in any
sense above guilt has nothing to do with the fact that this was the
deliberate targeting of innocent civilians in order to obtain a political
result. Therefore, by any definition of the word it is still a terrorist
act. We are
also told that we should overlook this fact, and others like it, because
Jehovah is otherwise so good. But, whatever good has been ascribed to him,
there still remains this fact that he committed this atrocity. If we
accept this type of reasoning we would be obliged to consider that except
for exploding the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Timothy McVeigh was a
responsible citizen and should therefore be exonerated. The point is, you
can’t get any terrorist off the hook by referring to how nice of a
person he is outside of his terrorist activities. Besides
these attempts at justification, there is another; people will tell you
that these slaves were suffering severe oppression from their captors,
even to the point where to keep down their population their babies were
being killed. Certainly we all sympathize with them, but the fact remains
that this was a terrorist act, and the US leader Bush has said, “You
cannot pick and choose among terrorists.” If you were to excuse this
terrorist act, or any other, on the basis of the oppressive circumstances
that gave rise with it, then you would be bound to listen to the
justification of each and every terrorist, to decide on the merits of each
case. You would be told, for example, “They are burning our olive
groves, stealing our water, bulldozing our houses, assassinating our
leaders, confiscating our land and shooting our children.” And, if you
excuse this one act on the basis of oppressive circumstances, you would be
obligated to listen to these complaints and perhaps say, “Well, yes, I
guess you have some reason…” Other
attempts at escaping from the blatant truth of this event comprise a long
list: “Who are you to question God?… God is their creator, he can do
whatever he likes to them… I feel so sorry for your soul as you are
separated from God’s infinite love… I feel so sorry for your soul
because you are going to burn forever with the Devil and his demons in
Hell’s Lake of Fire…” The list goes on and on, but unfortunately it
does not include a single item that detracts one iota from the fact that
this was the deliberate targeting of civilians for purposes of political
coercion, practically a dictionary definition of the word terrorism. Not only
is there nothing to mitigate this fact, but there are several factors that
make it particularly heinous. Number one is the fact that we are told that
Jehovah is infinitely capable of doing anything at all, by whatever means
he might choose. Any number of peaceful means were at his disposal, had he
wished to carry out this liberation in another way. This compounds the
essential depravity of the act, since even a character as ruthless as bin
Laden might very well use less atrocious means were they at his disposal.
If bin Laden had tremendous arsenals and total air superiority, might he
not fly over the US, dropping ordinance on infrastructure, political sites
and military targets, only hitting civilians inasmuch as they happened to
be living near these targets, or were victims of “stray” bombs? That
way he could achieve the defeat of the US while avoiding any association,
however remote, of being a “terrorist”. We don’t know, perhaps he
would still resort to terrorism… but in Jehovah’s case there can be no
doubt – he had plenty of other means open to him, but he chose this one. The other
factor that enhances the enormity of Jehovah’s act is his double
dealing: most terrorists work wholeheartedly in favor of their stated
purpose, they do not push from both sides in order to create justification
for otherwise unnecessary acts. The Palestinians bomb Israeli citizens to
coerce them to stop settling their land, but they do not then disguise
themselves as Jews to infiltrate as spies and say, “Come, let us go and
settle land on the West Bank.” The story is different, however, with
Jehovah. We read, “And the LORD said unto Moses, Pharaoh shall not
hearken unto you; that my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt.
And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and the LORD
hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel
go out of his land.” While
bringing the first nine plagues against Egypt (destroying the food supply,
spreading disease, etc.) Jehovah is meanwhile using his resources to
assure that the pharaoh does not have a change of mind and relent before
the tenth plague is delivered in all its horror. Here is a terrorist who
is actually afraid that his demands will be met “prematurely”, so he
uses surreptitious means to work counter to his own program of coercion in
order to make sure that his “wonders may be multiplied.” In
conclusion, not only is there nothing to excuse this act, there are
factors that make it the lowest possible example of terrorism
imaginable… a terrorist who kills civilians when he is certain that he
has peaceful means to achieve his political purpose, and even goes so far
as to also work against himself, to assure that his purposes are not
achieved before he has inflicted his “wonderful” terrorist program to
the fullest. And it was
not only a threat, we are told that it was carried out: “And it came to
pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of
Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the
firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of
cattle.” And can anyone doubt these claims? We are told that that all
these sacred texts were written by Jehovah himself, through his scribes.
The truth of these texts is so well established that Americans place their
hand on them when they are sworn in as a witness in a court of law, or as
the holder of the highest executive office in their land. We must assume
that these accounts are true, and we must regard this as a self
confession. Not that the perpetrator has shown any remorse – he relates
these things in the sense of something wonderful, to demonstrate what he
considers to be his infinite power and justice. Even so, these scriptures
describe the action, they describe the motive, and their author, Jehovah,
is clearly stating, “I did it.” Now, since
you cannot differentiate among terrorists, and since anyone who knowingly
gives financial support to a terrorist should be considered as a
terrorist, then the first step I propose is for Bush to order Ashcroft to
close down every church in the United States where people worship this
god, and, since the members support this god through their donations, to
declare them to be supporters of a terrorist. In case
anyone scoffs, saying that this is an academic question as it happened
long ago, I remind you that believers, among whom can be counted many at
the highest levels of American political leadership, say this god still
lives and is present everywhere at all levels of our existence.
Furthermore, time has not changed matters. In the case of other
terrorists, for example a bin Laden or a Timothy McVeigh (if he were
alive), we might ask 20 years after a monstrous act if perhaps time has
changed him, if he has been rehabilitated to any extent. But in
Jehovah’s case we are told that a thousand years to him is as a day, and
that he is unchangeable – the same yesterday, today, and forever. A further
objection is based on legal principle, and holds that closing down these
churches would go against the Constitution of the US, the first amendment
of which stipulates, “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
And here I differ from many of our political leaders today, as I am not in
favor of putting any section of the US Constitution at risk under any
pretense, not even in the effort to roll back terrorism. But there are
plenty of ways around this legal obstacle, and the present administration
has shown itself very keen in this matter of properly defining things to
put them in the best light. Applying their obvious talent of definition
will certainly allow them to close the churches while maintaining that the
Constitution is being respected. I might offer a few suggestions: Number
one, do not order people not to go to church, rather, tell them in no
uncertain terms that they should volunteer to abstain, of their own free
will. And those who insist on going could then be subjected to
“profiling” and detained for questioning, which is now a legal means
of getting people locked up in the US. This profiling is reasonable since,
even if they use a constitutional privilege to escape from outright
prosecution, the fact that they insist on worshipping and funding a
terrorist means that they are not with Bush’s program, and if you are
not with it you are against it. As they are against the program it is only
reasonable that they be detained and questioned at length. Since support
of terrorists is now a national security question, and since evidence in
these matters is reasonably withheld as secret, all defense or debate
concerning these detainess will be effectively stifled: secret evidence
cannot be refuted, nor even brought into question. This will allow these
people to be held at the discretion of the authorities for however long is
deemed necessary. Another
way would be to declare that these churches do not pertain to any religion
at all, but are rather “cults” Certainly no valid religion would have
a self-confessed terrorist as its figurehead, therefore the First
Amendment does not apply. Some semantic maneuvering like we saw at Guantanamo
Bay could be useful here; if these churchgoers were called “unlawful
contributants,” that could effectively isolate them from any first
amendment status. After all, the first amendment protects the
establishment and practice of religion, but contributing money to
self-confessed terrorists is a separate matter altogether. Yet
another approach would be to grant continued rights to “free exercise”
of one’s religion but to specifically outlaw the financial aspect of
churches, for the reason that the money is accepted as a gift to Jehovah,
already on the State Department’s official list of terrorists. In other
words, you can practice the religion if you like, but this right does not
supercede the prohibition against funding terrorists. Once the money is
taken out of the picture the religious leaders would be forced to find
another means of earning their living. A further option is to attack the
question in a way analogous to how many states treat marijuana use –
only go after the religious leaders, that is, anyone accepting donations
of money in Jehovah’s name, while basically ignoring the “little
fish” that is, the ordinary churchgoer. On the
other hand, perhaps this entire question of First Amendment rights is
totally unfounded. If the organization of this confirmed terrorist is
accorded special protection under the first amendment because it is a
religion, then wouldn’t any terrorist have the same opportunity? After
all, groups like al-Qaeda already have quasireligious status, so if
Jehovah gets exempt from the war on terrorism because of his religious
status, then couldn’t these other groups be declared religious and gain
equal protection? The more you think about it, the more it becomes clear
that we have to treat all terrorists equally across the board – not
picking and choosing among them, not offering special protection to this
one or that one, not allowing any to hide under a cloak of religiosity. When Bush
carries out this first step, closing down all churches presently
channeling funds into the current operations of Jehovah, he will be
showing that he is against terrorism, no matter what the source. True, it
will be an extremely unpopular and difficult political decision for him to
take in his country, but this will work in his favor inasmuch as he is
expecting absolute performance from other political leaders who are
against a rock and a hard place in this war on terrorism. He will be
showing that he too is willing and able to make political concessions in
the new global spirit of combating terrorists of every stripe. This first
step will bring him the trust needed for a long-term coalition, which is
essential for the ultimate success of the worldwide antiterrorism effort. Now,
people have told me that this idea of mine is not realistic, since it will
be impossible to close these churches as they are frequented by so many
people, but I have to disagree for two reasons. Number one, the President
may very well be surprised by how readily the American people will fall
into line on this proposal; they abhor terrorism and terrorists like never
before, and certainly there can be no doubt as to Jehovah’s status as a
terrorist since practically every American has at home a copy of the
Christian Bible, and may easily read the passages that served as the
source of the quotations given in this article, all of which can be found
in the book of Exodus, chapters 10, 11 and 12. Just as the War in
Afghanistan was won so easily against all predictions, Mr. Bush may find
that this campaign against a purportedly living, self-confessed and
unrepentant terrorist will receive the welcome support of the majority of
Americans. Number two, I
believe it is possible because it is the correct thing to do, and the
correct thing is always realistic. America can hardly fight a worldwide
campaign against terrorism if most of its citizens are worshipping a
terrorist, especially one whose attributes have made him, for the reasons
pointed out above, the absolute lowest example of all his kind. Against
the one remaining objection, that I have written this not as a sincere
suggestion for how to proceed with the war on terrorism, but only to voice
religious or political criticism, I would suggest taking a step back, and
giving a moment’s concentrated thought on the situation. Will military and
police action be of any use over the long run if our perspective is so
muddled that we are worshipping one terrorist while bombing and arresting
others? Consistency will be necessary, coupled with clear and objective
thinking. As Bush himself has said, this war could take 50 years or more.
In this case it is as much an intellectual challenge as a military one,
even more so, since the intellectual underlies all perception, planning
and action. In this light the importance of our thinking is apparent, and
the closing of the churches is offered as the concrete, tangible event
marking the beginning of a new outlook; an event that will start us down
the road to a long-lasting global coalition against terrorism, in favor of
humanity, and, most importantly, for peace. I hereby I
conclude this essay outlining the first step to combating terrorism on a
world. Frankly, after writing my predictions I never expected any demand
to do this. Similarly I do not expect any demand that I write my ideas for
further steps in this war, or in regard to other issues, but, who knows… (For
anyone curious about where the quotations, they are quoted verbatim from
the King James Version of the Book of Exodus, chapters 10, 11 and 12 of
the Christian Bible. As with my Predictions
page, I will sign and date this article, so that when Ashcroft starts
closing down the churches that worship Jehovah it will be remembered where
the idea originated from.) John
Norman, January 27, 2002 |