Nonviolence and the Strategy Against Terrorism

by David Cortwright

In the months after 9/11, Jim Wallis challenged peace advocates to address the threat of terrorism. “If nonviolence is to have any credibility,” he wrote, “it must answer the questions violence purports to answer, but in a better way.” Gandhian principles of nonviolence provide a solid foundation for crafting an effective strategy against terrorism. Nonviolence is fundamentally a means of achieving justice and combating oppression. Gandhi demonstrated its effectiveness in resisting racial injustice in South Africa and winning independence for India. People-power movements have since spread throughout the world, helping to bring down communism in Eastern Europe and advancing democracy in Serbia, Ukraine, and beyond. The same principles - fighting injustice while avoiding harm - can be applied in the struggle against violent extremism.

Bush administration officials and many political leaders in Washington view terrorism primarily through the prism of war. Kill enough militants, they believe, and the threat will go away. The opposite approach is more effective and less costly in lives. Some limited use of force to apprehend militants and destroy training camps is legitimate, but unilateral war is not. In the three years since the invasion of Iraq, the number of major terrorist incidents in the world has increased sharply. War itself is a form of terrorism. Using military force to counter terrorism is like pouring gasoline on a fire. It ignites hatred and vengeance and creates a cycle of violence that can spin out of control. A better strategy is to take away the fuel that sustains the fire. Only nonviolent methods can do that, by attempting to resolve the underlying political and social factors that give rise to armed violence.

The most urgent priority for countering terrorism, experts agree, is multilateral law enforcement to apprehend perpetrators and prevent future attacks. Cooperative law enforcement and intelligence sharing among governments have proven effective in reducing the operational capacity of terrorist networks. Governments are also cooperating to block financing for terrorist networks and deny safe haven, travel, and arms for terrorist militants. These efforts are fully compatible with the principles of nonviolence.

Terrorism is fundamentally a political phenomenon, concluded the U.N. Working Group on Terrorism in 2002. To overcome the scourge, “it is necessary to understand its political nature as well as its basic criminality and psychology.” This means addressing legitimate political grievances that terrorist groups exploit - such as the Israel-Palestine dispute, repressive policies by Arab governments, and the continuing U.S. military occupation in Iraq. These deeply-held grievances generate widespread political frustration and bitterness in many Arab and Muslim countries, including among people who condemn terrorism and al Qaeda’s brutal methods. As these conditions fester and worsen, support rises for the groups that resist them. Finding solutions to these dilemmas can help to undercut support for jihadism. The strategy against terrorism requires undermining the social base of extremism by driving a wedge between militants and their potential sympathizers. The goal should be to separate militants from their support base by resolving the political injustices that terrorists exploit.

A nonviolent approach should not be confused with appeasement or a defeatist justification of terrorist crimes. The point is not to excuse criminal acts but to learn why they occur and use this knowledge to prevent future attacks. A nonviolent strategy seeks to reduce the appeal of militants’ extremist methods by addressing legitimate grievances and providing channels of political engagement for those who sympathize with the declared political aims. A two-step response is essential: determined law enforcement pressure against terrorist criminals, and active engagement with affected communities to resolve underlying injustices. Ethicist Michael Walzer wrote, counterterrorism “must be aimed systematically at the terrorists themselves, never at the people for whom the terrorists claim to be acting.” Military attacks against potential sympathizers are counterproductive and tend to drive third parties toward militancy. Lawful police action is by its nature more discriminating and is more effective politically because it minimizes predictable backlash effects.

Gandhi’s political genius was in understanding the power of third party opinion. He did not try to challenge the British militarily but instead organized mass resistance to weaken the political legitimacy of the Raj. The nonviolent method, Reinhold Niebuhr wrote, undermines the authority and “moral unction” of the adversary. Gandhi realized that political struggles are ultimately a battle for hearts and minds. In all his campaigns, he assiduously cultivated the support of third parties by avoiding harm to the innocent and addressing legitimate grievances. These are essential insights for the struggle against terrorism. The fight will not be won on the battlefield. The more it is waged on that front, the less likely it can be won. The goal of U.S. strategy, said the 9/11 Commission, must be “prevailing over the ideology that contributes to Islamic terrorism.” Nonviolent resistance is the opposite of and a necessary antidote to the ideology of extreme violence. Gandhi often said, “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.” Better to keep our eyes open as we search for more effective means of eroding support for extremism, while protecting the innocent and bringing violent perpetrators to justice.

Prayer for the Journey

by Robert D. Young

O God,
We thank you for the power of your light
and that the darkness cannot overcome it,
For all who bear witness to your light
we give you thanks;
Help us
To speak the truth,
To show acts of love,
To have understanding as we relate to others,
To be kind and gracious in our homes and
To be seekers for justice in our society;
Make us more like Jesus Christ, our Lord, and
may his light illumine our own darkness.
Amen.

A Living Oxymoron

by Tony Campolo

A few months ago I was a guest on Steven Colbert's popular television show, "The Colbert Report." He introduced me as an evangelical who is liberal on social issues. Then he added, "He's a living oxymoron!"

Sadly, his words reflect the way evangelicals are regularly perceived. Here in the United States, evangelical Christians have become so married to the Right wing of the Republican Party that it is hard for those outside our faith community to imagine that a significant minority of evangelicals have socially liberal politics. Yet over its history, evangelical Christianity has championed some of our country's most progressive social movements. Charles Finney, the dominant evangelist of the 19th century, was a major player in the anti-slavery movement, and his revivals provided much of the impetus for the women's suffrage movement of that era. Back in those days, evangelicals pulled their churches out of mainline denominations not because the denominations were too socially liberal on the race issue, but because they were not liberal enough. William Jennings Bryan of Scopes Trial fame, the darling of early 20th century evangelicals, was a pacifist who opposed America's involvement in war. I gladly take my place in his train.

The word "liberal" has become a political label of ill-repute among many evangelicals. But if by social liberal you mean someone who believes America should guarantee medical coverage for all of its citizens; fund the public schools in poor urban and rural communities at the same level as those in rich suburban neighborhoods; be committed to progressive environmental policies; give more than four-tenths of one percent of its federal budget to help the poor of other countries; and give up its militaristic adventurism - then I embrace the label with enthusiasm.

I'm one of those pro-life Christians who is convinced that the outrageous number of abortions each year is more due to right-wing economic policies than to Roe v. Wade. In a society where many poor women must work outside the home at a ridiculously low minimum wage just to survive, yet have no access to daycare for their children, we should not be surprised if they seek abortion when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. Yet many of the Religious Right Christians who share my pro-life sentiments tend to oppose enacting legislation that would enable poor women to give birth and keep their children. No wonder one of our critics says, "Evangelicals are people who believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth." Too often it seems as if we care about protecting the unborn, but we're not willing to provide for the born.

Recently, an African-American preacher in Philadelphia joined forces with the Religious Right and the White House when he spoke out against the nomination of "activist" judges to the Supreme Court who would interpret the law beyond what the framers of the Constitution intended. I wondered if this preacher thought about all the advances for minority peoples that were the fruit of activist judges. Liberal judges are the ones who integrated public schools with their 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. Activist judges are the ones who obliterated policies that had allowed for racial discrimination in real estate sales, employment, and education. In reality, almost all of the progressive rulings that decimated Jim Crow went well beyond the intensions of the framers of the Constitution, many of whom owned slaves. Oh, how quickly people forget!

There are those on the Religious Right who argue that caring for the poor and needy is solely the responsibility of the church, and should not be funded with taxpayers' money. Yet it is clear in Scripture that God holds governments responsible for playing a significant role in providing such care. Consider the words of the prophet Isaiah who warned: "Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless" (Isa. 10:1-2).

Also, Jesus declared that the day would come when nations would be judged by how they cared for the poor: "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. (Matthew 25:31-32).

Allow me to add to my advocacy for certain liberal social policies a commitment to fiscal conservatism. This present government, so supported by most evangelicals, has mortgaged the future of our children and our children's children. This is a consequence of funding the war in Iraq and giving gigantic tax breaks to the richest people in our country, as well as to huge corporations such as price-gouging oil companies. Our national debt increases by close to $2 billion each week, with the People's Republic of China being the major party picking up our loans. The communists will not have to bury us, as Khrushchev had hoped: Soon they will own us.

It has been said that the difference between a politician and a statesman is that the politician looks to the next election while the statesman looks to the next generation. Given that assessment, when it comes to the national debt we have an absence of statesmen down there in Washington.

The Bible speaks more about justice than it does about anything else - except for love. But in the end, justice is nothing more than love turned into social policies. It is my own commitment to justice, inadequate though it might be, that makes me the kind of person I am. To that end this evangelical is more than willing to be labeled a social liberal, even if it does make me a living oxymoron.

Radical Revolution of Values

Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world... Yet it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered. America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities. If we do not act we shall surely be dragged down the long dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight. This is the calling of the sons of God, and our brothers around the world wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? That the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message, of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours.

--Martin Luther King, Jr.

Violence is Immoral

Violence as a way of achieving justice is both impractical and immoral. It is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate rather than to convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends by defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers.

--Martin Luther King, Jr.

Question the Church

I love my church, and I'm a Catholic who was raised by intellectuals who were very devout. I was raised to believe that you could question the church and still be a Catholic. What is worthy of satire is the misuse of religion for destructive or political gains. That's totally different from the Word, the blood, the body, and the Christ. His kingdom is not of this earth.

--Stephen Colbert

Go Back to Heaven

Big news on the international front this morning. A cease-fire went into effect between Israel and Hezbollah. Total disaster. We are no longer on the road to World War III. Jesus was half way here. Now he has to turn his cloud of glory and go back to heaven--and it does not get good gas mileage.

--Stephen Colbert

Thirst

Both water and oil come from the earth. And though they are similar in many ways, they are opposites in their nature and their purpose. One extinguishes fire, the other gives fuel to the fire. Similarly, the world and its treasures are creations of God along with the soul and its thirst for spiritual truth. But if we try to quench the thirst of our soul with the wealth and pride and honors of this world, then it is like trying to extinguish fire with oil.

--Sadhu Sundar Singh

Get in the Arena

It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man tumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust, sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.

--Theodore Roosevelt

Wrestle With Despair

The country is in deep trouble. We've forgotten that a rich life consists fundamentally of serving others, trying to leave the world a little better than you found it. We need the courage to question the powers that be, the courage to be impatient with evil and patient with people, the courage to fight for social justice. In many instances we will be stepping out on nothing, and just hoping to land on something. But that's the struggle. To live is to wrestle with despair, yet never to allow despair to have the last word.

--Cornel West

Humble Love

At some thoughts one stands perplexed—especially at the sight of men’s sin—and wonders whether one should use force or humble love. Always decide to use humble love. If you resolve on that, once and for all, you may subdue the whole world. Loving humility is marvelously strong, the strongest of all things, and there is nothing else like it. Every day and every hour, every minute, walk around yourself and watch yourself, and see that your image is a seemly one. If you pass by a little child, and pass by spitefully, with ugly words or wrathful heart, you may not notice the child, but he will see you, and your image, unseemly and ignoble, may remain in his defenseless heart. You may not know it, but you may have sown an evil seed in him, and it may grow, all because you were not careful before the child, because you did not foster in yourself an active, benevolent love. Brothers, love is a teacher, but one must know how to acquire it, for it is hard to acquire; it is dearly bought; it is won by slow, long labor. We must love not only occasionally, or for a moment, but for ever. Everyone, even the wicked can love occasionally...

--Fyodor Dostoevsky

Radical Conversion

Some Christians think they are able to do without constant spiritual effort because they do not heed the urgency of confronting themselves with the truth of the Gospel. So as not to disturb their way of living, they attempt to empty, and make innocuous, words such as: “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you” (Luke 6:27). For these persons such words are difficult to accept and translate into a coherent conduct of life. In fact, they are words that, if taken seriously, demand a radical conversion. Instead, when one is offended or hurt, one is tempted to give in to the psychological mechanisms of self-pity and revenge, ignoring the invitation of Jesus to love one’s enemy. Nevertheless, daily human events clearly evidence how much forgiveness and reconciliation are undeniably needed for bringing about a real personal and social renewal. This is valid in interpersonal relations but also among communities as well as nations.

--Pope John Paul II

Norm of Greatness

"Jesus gave us a new norm of greatness. If you want to be important, wonderful. If you want to be recognized, wonderful. If you want to be great, wonderful. But recognize that he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. That's your new definition of greatness. And this morning, the thing that I like about it, by giving that definition of greatness, it means that everybody can be great. Because everybody can serve. You don't have to have a college degree to serve. You don't have to make your subject and your verb agree to serve. You don't have to know about Plato and Aristotle to serve. You don't have to know Einstein's theory of relativity to serve. You don't have to know the second theory of thermo-dynamics in physics to serve. You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love. And you can be that servant."

--Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Deterioration of Community

Community has been deteriorating of late in the Western world, and it is being challenged today on several fronts. We have witnessed a growing bias toward individualism in the pursuit of autonomy and self-determination. Our culture has been marked by a quest for independence, self-preservation, control, privatization, avoidance of accountability, superficial relationships, and alienation. It appears that people are busier than ever and lonelier than ever (this is illustrated in The Saturated Self by Kenneth J. Gergen and Bowling Alone by Robert Putnam). Technology, mobility, media, entertainment, distractions, travel, information overload, and transience all contribute to the growing plight of social instability and interpersonal tension. "Time-saving" inventions have only made our lives more hyperactive and stress-filled, and our addictions to urgency and performance make us externally driven rather than internally called.

--Ken Boa

Confessing Christ in a World of Violence

Over 200 Christian theologians and ethicists have joined in writing a statement "Confessing Christ in a World of Violence," making five strong affirmations about Christ and his meaning for us today, and rejecting five false teachings that oppose his message. The document warns against use of religious rhetoric in the U.S.-led war on terror, including the language of "righteous empire" and America's mission to "rid the world of evil." Spearheading the effort were Glenn Stassen, a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary; Richard Pierard of Gordon College; Richard Hays at Duke; George Hunzinger at Princeton and Sojourners Editor Jim Wallis.

Here it is:

Our world is wracked with violence and war. But Jesus said: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God" (Matt. 5:9). Innocent people, at home and abroad, are increasingly threatened by terrorist attacks. But Jesus said: "Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:44). These words, which have never been easy, seem all the more difficult today.

Nevertheless, a time comes when silence is betrayal. How many churches have heard sermons on these texts since the terrorist atrocities of September 11? Where is the serious debate about what it means to confess Christ in a world of violence? Does Christian "realism" mean resigning ourselves to an endless future of "pre-emptive wars"? Does it mean turning a blind eye to torture and massive civilian casualties? Does it mean acting out of fear and resentment rather than intelligence and restraint?

Faithfully confessing Christ is the church's task, and never more so than when its confession is co-opted by militarism and nationalism.

- A "theology of war," emanating from the highest circles of American government, is seeping into our churches as well.

- The language of "righteous empire" is employed with growing frequency.

- The roles of God, church, and nation are confused by talk of an American "mission" and "divine appointment" to "rid the world of evil."

The security issues before our nation allow no easy solutions. No one has a monopoly on the truth. But a policy that rejects the wisdom of international consultation should not be baptized by religiosity. The danger today is political idolatry exacerbated by the politics of fear.

In this time of crisis, we need a new confession of Christ.

1. Jesus Christ, as attested in Holy Scripture, knows no national boundaries. Those who confess his name are found throughout the earth. Our allegiance to Christ takes priority over national identity. Whenever Christianity compromises with empire, the gospel of Christ is discredited.

We reject the false teaching that any nation-state can ever be described with the words, "the light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it." These words, used in scripture, apply only to Christ. No political or religious leader has the right to twist them in the service of war.

2. Christ commits Christians to a strong presumption against war. The wanton destructiveness of modern warfare strengthens this obligation. Standing in the shadow of the Cross, Christians have a responsibility to count the cost, speak out for the victims, and explore every alternative before a nation goes to war. We are committed to international cooperation rather than unilateral policies.

We reject the false teaching that a war on terrorism takes precedence over ethical and legal norms. Some things ought never be done - torture, the deliberate bombing of civilians, the use of indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction - regardless of the consequences.

3. Christ commands us to see not only the splinter in our adversary's eye, but also the beam in our own. The distinction between good and evil does not run between one nation and another, or one group and another. It runs straight through every human heart.

We reject the false teaching that America is a "Christian nation," representing only virtue, while its adversaries are nothing but vicious. We reject the belief that America has nothing to repent of, even as we reject that it represents most of the world's evil. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23).

4. Christ shows us that enemy-love is the heart of the gospel. While we were yet enemies, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8, 10). We are to show love to our enemies even as we believe God in Christ has shown love to us and the whole world. Enemy-love does not mean capitulating to hostile agendas or domination. It does mean refusing to demonize any human being created in God's image.

We reject the false teaching that any human being can be defined as outside the law's protection. We reject the demonization of perceived enemies, which only paves the way to abuse; and we reject the mistreatment of prisoners, regardless of supposed benefits to their captors.

5. Christ teaches us that humility is the virtue befitting forgiven sinners. It tempers all political disagreements, and it allows that our own political perceptions, in a complex world, may be wrong.

We reject the false teaching that those who are not for the United States politically are against it or that those who fundamentally question American policies must be with the "evil-doers." Such crude distinctions, especially when used by Christians, are expressions of the Manichaean heresy, in which the world is divided into forces of absolute good and absolute evil.

The Lord Jesus Christ is either authoritative for Christians, or he is not. His Lordship cannot be set aside by any earthly power. His words may not be distorted for propagandistic purposes. No nation-state may usurp the place of God.

We believe that acknowledging these truths is indispensable for followers of Christ. We urge them to remember these principles in making their decisions as citizens. Peacemaking is central to our vocation in a troubled world where Christ is Lord.

Jesus and the American System

That is why, just as the Indian Christians had to renounce the British Empire, I as a black Christian have to renounce Americanism. I have to renounce any attempt to wed Jesus Christ off to the American system. I disassociate myself from any argument that says a vote for America is a vote for God. I disassociate myself from any argument that says God is on our side. I disassociate myself from any argument, which says that God sends troops to Asia, that God is a capitalist, that God is a militarist, that God is the worker behind our system.

The thing you must recognize is that Jesus Christ is no more a capitalist than he is a socialist or a communist. He is no more a Democrat than he is a Republican. He is no more the president of the New York Stock Exchange than he is the head of the Socialist Party. He is neither of that. He is the Lord of heaven and earth. And if you are going to respond to Jesus Christ, you must respond to him as Lord.

--Tom Skinner

Conspiracy of Cordiality

What we call "church" is too often a gathering of strangers who see the church as yet another "helping institution" to gratify further their individual desires. One of the reasons some church members are so mean-spirited with their pastor, particularly when the pastor urges them to look at God, is that they feel deceived by such pastoral invitations to look beyond themselves. They have come to church for "strokes," to have their personal needs met. What we call church is often a conspiracy of cordiality. Pastors learn to pacify rather than preach to their Ananiases and Sapphiras. We say we do it out of "love." Usually, we do it as a means of keeping everyone as distant from everyone else as possible. You don't get into my life and I will not get into yours.

--Stanley Hauerwas

Now We Have Three Swamps

by Timothy F. Simpson

Five years ago, after September 11th, President Bush announced that the US invasion of Afghanistan was intended to "drain the swamp" of the terrorists who had proliferated under the Taliban regime after the Soviets had withdrawn. The sad fact is that where there once was only one such swamp, now there are three.

Swamp # 1

Afghanistan has largely dropped off the radar of the American public due to the debacle in Iraq and because the Western press has closed down their bureaus in that country and now only occasionally send someone there for an update. But what has been trickling out is extremely disheartening, given the fanfare with which we pledged just a couple of years ago to transform Afghan society and create a democracy which would chart a new course for that war-torn nation. For once the cameras were turned off, the soldiers started being redeployed to Iraq and the reconstruction funds disappeared. Now the Taliban are once again in control of sections of the countryside, the opium trade is expecting a record yield from this summer's harvest, and President Karzai's authority has bottomed out.

Swamp # 2

Iraq has become the "mother of all swamps" to borrow a phrase from its erstwhile dictator. No one but the delusional believes that the country is any better than when Saddam was in power, as the sectarian violence in combination with the anti-American insurgency have turned the entire country upside down. The unfortunate fact is that the delusional souls who believe Iraq is better are running our country and are thus pouring more money and troops into the ever-widening abyss.

Swamp # 3

The most recent tragedy is in Lebanon, where the US has urged on the Israelis in their counter-productive efforts to smash Hezbollah. There is no question that Hezbollah's assaults on Israel, both their indiscriminate rocket attacks and the cross border killing and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, are immoral and that the Israelis were within their rights under international law to respond with force. However, as Michael Walzer, the widely-acknowledged authority on Just War wrote in The New Republic last week, one may be justified in rooting out launching sites for rockets or taking down the guerillas who pose a threat for more raids into Israeli territory, but it is quite another matter to destroy the entire Lebanese infrastructure--power plants, water treatment facilities, airports, roads and bridges, banks and other such public facilities. This goes far beyond the kind of proportionate response that any understanding of Just War would allow and instead becomes simple revenge and retribution that while apparently making the Israelis feel better, in the end will not make them any safer.

Ostensibly the Israelis want the Lebanese government to rein in Hezbollah and control its southern border, rather than leaving that area under Hezbollah influence. That is a perfectly reasonable demand, but their actions have made this outcome a virtual impossibility for many years to come. The already weak Lebanese government has been crippled further by the destruction of the national infrastructure, by the flight of the business class out of the country, and by its failure to protect the Lebanese people and their property from three weeks of unrelenting attack. Whatever hope that there is that the Lebanese government will be both a stabilizing and restraining force within its own borders is fading fast.

Instead of trying to head off this impending disaster, the Bush administration, which seems never to have met a war it didn't like, have done nothing to stop the Israeli advance. The US support for Israel's actions has become so lopsided that the Lebanese President actually refused to meet with Secretary of State Rice this past weekend, since he can no longer afford even to be seen with her while his nation is under attack with American blessing.

The Israelis and the US have made a colossal blunder. Hezbollah's stock is soaring in the Middle East as I write this, with nearly 90% support according to an international poll taken this weekend. A month ago regimes all across the region wanted little to do with the group, whose Islamic fundamentalism is at odds with and even a threat to places like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Now, however, with images of dead children, flattened buildings and a nation of refugees on the run, the Muslim street has turned even more against both the Israelis and Americans. Worse, the chaos in Lebanon has once again created the seedbed of terrorism, which we know from experience around the world will be the next stage of what develops there. Sadly, our leadership seems to be asleep at the wheel with no coherent policy other than that force is good, which has made our already shaky diplomatic reputation around the world even less respected. As New York Times columnist Tom Friedman said today, the Bush Administration has lots of moral clarity, but no moral authority. We cannot afford the peace and stability of both the nation and the world to be endangered by the poor decisions and declining influence of our leaders. Something has to be done immediately.

Why the War on Terrorism Ain't

by Mumia Abu-Jamal

Every government is run by liars and nothing they say should be believed.
--I.F. Stone

When presidents and their flacks announce their various wars on this, or wars on that, one should look deeply into such proclamations, for the real underlying reasons for their actions.

Usually, it has very little to do with the announced reasons for the latest so-called "war." That is not to suggest that they aren't really wars, and that like all wars, there are serious casualties, but one must examine the reasons made in their defense.

Many Americans will proclaim, with cold-eyed certainty, that the U.S. is engaged in a "War Against Terrorism." They are sure of this, and point to the newspapers and TV news shows to buttress their claim. But, as with the other various "wars" during the last century, the wars against communism, against poverty, and against drugs, things are seldom what they seem.

Let's try a simple test. Please name a country that is involved in terrorism. Go ahead; do it now.

Unless I miss my guess, many have listed nations that are familiar to us if we read, or listen to, the corporate news. Iraq. Perhaps Afghanistan. Syria might be added. Perhaps Cuba.

Few would add the names of nations that are far more familiar to us as U.S. allies: Turkey. Israel. Russia. (And for our world-wide readers or listeners, the United States!). If we define terrorism as the use of violence for political aims and ends, then the last set of nations are big players in the terrorism game. They either directly engage in, or arm and support, states which wage wars on occupied or minority populations. Indeed, to scholars and global activists, this isn't even subject to questioning.

Antiwar activist and linguist, Noam Chomsky has written about this subject for decades, and one of his latest works, Power and Terror: Post 9/11 Talks and Interviews, makes the case cleanly. On Turkey, Chomsky explains:

They [Turkey] carried out some of the worst atrocities in the 1990s, I mean, far beyond anything that Slobodan Milosevic was accused of in Kosovo, surely before the NATO bombing. They were carried out at about the same time in southeast Turkey against maybe a quarter of the population, Kurds, who are horribly repressed. And millions of them were driven out of their homes, thousands of villages destroyed, maybe tens of thousands killed, every imaginable kind of barbaric torture. ...Turkey became the leading arms recipient in the world outside of Israel and Egypt, which are in a different category. And they're very grateful that the United States was so willing to help them in carrying out massive state terror. And in reward, they are now fighting the "War on Terror" (pp. 18-19).

This demonstrates that the proffered reason for the Iraq War, now to stop human rights abuses, was a political shadow dance. The common argument that Hussein was a tyrant who used gas "against his own people", Chomsky explains, is only part of the story:

He did use gas against "his own people" (actually, Kurds are hardly his own people), with our support. He carried off the Anfal operation, maybe killing one hundred thousand Kurds, with our support. He was developing weapons of mass destruction at a time when he was really dangerous and we provided him the aid and support to do it, perfectly consciously. He was a friend and ally, and he remained so (pp. 37-38).

The Americans didn't care about the Kurds under Iraqi control, and don't care about the Kurds under the boots of Turkey today. They don't give a rat's ass about the Iraqi people either. Chomsky uses a wonderful quote by the German philosopher Hegel which captures American thoughts exactly: They are "mere Things--whose lives have no value." (Incidentally, Hegel was writing about Africans).

The other nations I mentioned? Study. Read Chomsky's Power and Terror. Draw your own conclusions. Chomsky quotes two Western figures, Churchill, and the British statesman, Lloyd George, to show how the British defended using poison gas against what Churchill called "recalcitrant Arabs." Lloyd George, who began his career as a great Liberal, is quoted as saying, "[W]e insisted on reserving the right to bomb niggers" (p. 121).

Terrorism isn't grown merely in foreign deserts: it's as present as our own back yards.

Show Him

It is better to allow our lives to speak for us than our words. God did not bear the cross only 2,000 years ago. He bears it today, and he dies and is resurrected from day to day. It would be a poor comfort to the world if it had to depend on a historical God who died 2,000 years ago. Do not then preach the God of history, but show him as he lives today through you.

--Mohandas K. Gandhi

Who Wants Good Children?

Being a misfit is never easy. Children are far more sensitive to criticism than one might guess, and far more easily crushed. Their self-confidence can be shriveled by an unjust accusation, a cutting remark, or a hasty miscalculation.

Whenever we pass judgment on a child, we fail to see him as a whole person. True, he may be nervous, shy, stubborn, moody, or violent; we may know his siblings or his background, or think we recognize family traits. But to focus on any one aspect of a child, especially a negative one, is to put him in a box whose sides may not really be determined by reality, but only by our own expectations.

Obviously, every child is different. Some seem to get all the lucky breaks, while others have a rough time simply coping with life. One child consistently brings home perfect scores, while the next is always at the bottom of the class. Another is gifted and popular, while still another, no matter how hard he tries, is always in trouble and often gets forgotten. We must refrain from showing favoritism, and from comparing children with others. Above all, we must refrain from pushing them to become something that their unique personal makeup may never allow them to be.

Raising a "good" child is a dubious goal in the first place. Getting into trouble can be a vital part of building a child's character. As Janusz Korczak once said: "The good child cries very little, he sleeps through the night, he is confident and good-natured. He is well-behaved, convenient, obedient, and good. Yet no consideration is given to the fact that he may grow up to be indolent and stagnant."

If anything, parents of difficult children ought to be envied, because it is they, more than any others, who are forced to learn the most wonderful secret of true parenthood: the meaning of unconditional love. It is a secret that remains hidden from those whose love is never tested.

When we keep this in mind, we will begin to see our frustrations as moments that can awaken our best qualities. And instead of envying the ease with which our neighbors seem to raise perfect offspring, we will remember that rule-breakers and children who show their horns often make the most self-reliant and independent adults. By helping us to discover the limitations of "goodness" and the boredom of conformity, they can teach us the necessity of genuineness, the wisdom of humility, and the reality that nothing good is won without struggle.

--Author Unknown

Bread For My Neighbor

Christian piety has all too often meant withdrawal from the world and from men. It has led to a sort of transcendent egoism and an unwillingness to share suffering. It has lacked human warmth. But the world has risen in protest against this form of piety, this arrogance, this indifference to the world's sorrow. And only the living faith of the reborn can withstand this protest. Care for the needs of another human being, even bodily care: that is the essence of true piety. Bread for myself is a material question; but bread for my neighbor is a spiritual one.

-- Jacques Maritain

Brian McLaren on The Da Vinci Code (Part 5)

Lisa Ann Cockrel: In light of The Da Vinci Code, how do you hope churches will engage this story?

McLaren: I would like to see churches teach their people how to have intelligent dialogue that doesn't degenerate into argument. We have to teach people that the Holy Spirit works in the middle of conversation. We see it time and time again - Jesus enters into dialogue with people; Paul and Peter and the apostles enter into dialogue with people. We tend to think that the Holy Spirit can only work in the middle of a monologue where we are doing the speaking.

So if our churches can encourage people to, if you see someone reading the book or you know someone who's gone to the movie, say, "What do you think about Jesus and what do you think about this or that," and to ask questions instead of getting into arguments, that would be wonderful. The more we can keep conversations open and going the more chances we give the Holy Spirit to work. But too often people want to get into an argument right away. And, you know, Jesus has handled 2,000 years of questions, skepticism, and attacks, and he's gonna come through just fine. So we don't have to be worried.

Ultimately, The Da Vinci Code is telling us important things about the image of Jesus that is being portrayed by the dominant Christian voices. [Readers] don't find that satisfactory, genuine, or authentic, so they're looking for something that seems more real and authentic.

Brian McLaren on The Da Vinci Code (Part 4)

Lisa Ann Cockrel: Many Christians are also reading this book and it's rocking their preconceived notions - or lack of preconceived notions - about Christ's life and the early years of the church. So many people don't know how we got the canon, for example. Should this book be a clarion call to the church to say, "Hey, we need to have a body of believers who are much more literate in church history." Is that something the church needs to be thinking about more strategically?

McLaren: Yes! You're exactly right. One of the problems is that the average Christian in the average church who listens to the average Christian broadcasting has such an oversimplified understanding of both the Bible and of church history - it would be deeply disturbing for them to really learn about church history. I think the disturbing would do them good. But a lot of times education is disturbing for people. And so if The Da Vinci Code causes people to ask questions and Christians have to dig deeper, that's a great thing, a great opportunity for growth. And it does show a weakness in the church giving either no understanding of church history or a very stilted, one-sided, sugarcoated version.

On the other hand, it's important for me to say I don't think anyone can learn good church history from Brown. There's been a lot of debunking of what he calls facts. But again, the guy's writing fiction so nobody should be surprised about that. The sad thing is there's an awful lot of us who claim to be telling objective truth and we actually have our own propaganda and our own versions of history as well.

Let me mention one other thing about Brown's book that I think is appealing to people. The church goes through a pendulum swing at times from overemphasizing the deity of Christ to overemphasizing the humanity of Christ. So a book like Brown's that overemphasizes the humanity of Christ can be a mirror to us saying that we might be underemphasizing the humanity of Christ.

Brian McLaren on The Da Vinci Code (Part 3)

Lisa Ann Cockrel: Do you think the book contains any significantly detrimental distortions of the Christian faith?

McLaren: The book is fiction and it's filled with a lot of fiction about a lot of things that a lot of people have already debunked. But frankly, I don't think it has more harmful ideas in it than the Left Behind novels. And in a certain way, what the Left Behind novels do, the way they twist scripture toward a certain theological and political end, I think Brown is twisting scripture, just to other political ends. But at the end of the day, the difference is I don't think Brown really cares that much about theology. He just wanted to write a page-turner and he was very successful at that.