|
CounterPunch
December
14, 2002
License to Kill:
The
Problem with Religious Definitions of Evil
by DIANE CHRISTIAN
The recently released tape of Osama Bin Laden
played on the Arab Al-Jezeera network has been identified by
the U.S. government as authentic. It has also been branded inauthentic
by some Swiss tape experts and by some Islamic scholars who say
the citations are wrong for bin Laden's orthodox style. People
suspicious of U.S. government manipulation think the tape appeared
when it did to prod passage of the Homeland Security Act.
I'd like to consider it as authentic
for purposes of moral analysis. It is consistent with earlier
statements by bin Laden and voices his same religious justifications.
What is said? Osama bin Laden, or the
person pretending to be him, speaks as 'the slave of God' to
the peoples allied with the unjust government of the United States.
He argues that Arab peoples have been brutalized and mistreated
by the Americans, who deserve to die for this cruelty. The speaker
prays piously to his god to support and defend him and all good
Muslims in their war against the infidels. The Islamic society
will, he says, with God's help, "fight you with its children,
who have promised God to continue to fight hard to reach justice
and stop injustice as long as they live." This war, he says,
is spreading and increasingly successful. The attacks on New
York and Washington have been followed by attacks in Tunis, Karachi,
Yemen, Failaka, Bali and Moscow by the sons of Islam who are
fulfilling the orders of their god and their prophet.
This is the same logic and rhetoric of
the Crusades. There God protected his Christian people as they
sought to wrest the holy lands from the perfidious hands of the
Muslim infidel.
The problem with a religious license
to kill is that it's unarguable. If people are inspired and believe
their cause righteous they will be martyrs among the believers,
even if branded fanatics or malefactors by the enemy. Bin Laden's
religious appeal is as real as Joan of Arc's.
And bin Laden's second appeal is also
familiar--his people have suffered. Leaders of many stripes appeal
to national humiliation, persecution or disgrace as justification
for acts of revenge or reprisal. Hitler constantly intoned Germany's
humiliation in World War I. Milosevic spoke of Serbian defeats
centuries past as rationale for Serbian retaliation. The Israeli
cry of 'never again' summons the Holocaust as justification of
self-defense warfare and aggression.
Those who believe themselves embattled,
aggrieved or entitled to conquer error, easily assume the mantle
of just war. Bin Laden calls Bush the pharaoh of today (some
experts say he would never mix religious metaphor In this way)
and says Bush and Israel, the ally of America, kill children
and the elderly and destroy houses. He warns other nations to
avoid this criminal gang. But mostly he says that they and those
who aid them shall be righteously killed in retribution for the
killing they have done. "As you kill, you will be killed.
As you bomb you will be bombed and wait for the bad." He
presents himself not as a terrorist but as a righteous avenger
following god's will.
We citizens of the United States embrace
tolerance as a national value and separate church and state;
we constitutionally refuse to establish religion. But many American
Christian leaders preach openly against Muslims, and many Christian
leaders who preach for strong military support of Israel do so
in anticipation of a time when Israel is destroyed or converted
and the Christian Messiah comes to Jerusalem in glory. If bin
Laden says we are decadent and corrupt and should be destroyed,
and we say he is evil and fanatical and should be destroyed,
what do the utterances mean except that we're justified in killing
each other? For us, our gods become the ratifiers of our goodness;
for our opponents, they are the rationalization of our evil.
The version of Christianity that I like
refuses violence. I'm for the Christ who won't smite his oppressors,
who says if someone strikes you turn the other cheek, who says
to love your enemy and do good to them that hate you. Some might
quarrel that the same Christ comes finally in Christian judgment
to separate the good and the evil--inviting the former to eternal
glory and banishing the latter to eternal perdition. Eternal
violence, some might say, makes up for temporal pacifism.
Maybe so, but we should note that we're
in time and we're not god. The principle of being good or bad
for the Christ I like is doing good to your fellow human being-feeding
the hungry, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless, visiting
the imprisoned. To do this to the least is to do it to God says
Christ.
But can I impose this belief on you,
can I kill you if you don't accept it or convert? Christianity
sometimes did. It also murdered in revenge. The root of Christian
anti-Semitism and persecution is blaming the Jews for killing
Christ--a position officially disowned only recently.
I think the only acceptable moral position
is to give everybody the liberty to choose their god and good,
or their non-god good and insist that all be allowed and none
licensed.
Most Americans feel comfortably superior
to nations which issue death sentences for blasphemy and stone
adulterous women. As the world becomes smaller, we need to think
about values we can honestly stand for and support. The value
of human life is primary and supercedes all others. We should
act for that good and not imitate the evil we seek to abolish.
The real religious truth is that we are
the evil we hate if we mirror it. There is a difference between
good and evil, between life and death, between killing or not.
Those who murdered and fomented murder on September 11, 2001
are murderers, as are those who murder in revenge.
To piously proclaim worship and submission
to god's will does not make anyone god or his prophet. There
are no legitimate religious licenses to kill.
Diane Christian
is SUNY Distinguished Teaching Professor at University at Buffalo.
She can be reached at: engdc@acsu.buffalo.edu
Yesterday's
Features
Harold Pinter
The Vocabulary
of Bombs
Tom Gorman
The Hypocrisy
of Trent Lott's Critics
Wayne Madsen
Chef Cheney
and His Dinner Guests
Roger Burbach
Brazil's
Lula Checks Bush
Anthony Gancarski
Rebranding
the Catholic Church
Jordy Cummings
Screw
the Liberal Bombers
Kathleen and Bill Christison
Bush's
Dual Loyalties
Philip Farruggio
Don't
Need a Weatherman
CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- CounterPunch Special:
The Persecution of Gershon Legman by Susan Davis: Smut, the Post Office, Commies
and the FBI;
- Reeling Democrats: Is Pelosi the Answer?
- Gandhi v. Hitler: the Secret Race for the Nobel
Prize;
- Sullying Mario Savio's
Memory;
- Lynching Then and Now;
- Earn While You Learn: Chris Whittle and Child Labor;
The Case of the Pompous
Professor;
- The Class Struggle in
Boston: All that
Effort, But What Did They Get?
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|