An Effective and Reasonable Next Step
in the War on
Terrorism
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 recorded 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
to 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
Feedback
View, or add your comments to this guestbook that also serves for the Predictions page:
